The Application Lifecycle Framework (ALF) was a project by the Eclipse Foundation that aimed to create a standardized, open-source system to allow different application lifecycle management (ALM) tools to work together more easily. The goal was to provide common protocols and integration services that would let software development tools from different vendors communicate and share data. However, the project failed to gain sufficient support from major industry players and was terminated in 2008.
Artificial intelligence in spirituality
Some users of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, especially chatbots, may develop beliefs that AI has or can attain supernatural or spiritual powers. AI models such as ChatGPT are turned to for fortune telling, mysticism and remote viewing. Recent and sudden advances in large language models have led to folk myths about their origin or capabilities, as well as their deification or worship by some users. Tucker Carlson has made similar claims, including directly to Sam Altman. Pope Leo XIV advised priests against using LLM models when it came to the creation of sermons.
Tute Genomics
Tute Genomics was an American genomics startup that provided a cloud-based web application for rapid and accurate annotation of human genomic data. It was built on the expertise of ANNOVAR. Tute Genomics assisted researchers in identifying disease genes and biomarkers, and assisted clinicians/labs in performing genetic diagnosis. Based in Provo, Utah, Tute was co-founded by Dr. Kai Wang, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California (USC); and Dr. Reid J. Robison, a board-certified psychiatrist with fellowship training in both neurodevelopmental genetics and bioinformatics. Tute Genomics was acquired by PierianDX in 2016. == History == The word "tute" means "personal" in the Na’vi language created for the 2009 film Avatar by Paul Frommer, a linguist and communications professor at the USC Marshall School of Business. === Timeline === 2013 Tute Genomics launched in 2013 and entered the accelerator, BoomStartup. By "demo day" of BoomStartup, Tute had raised their seed round of funding and expanded the round to include angel investors from SLC Angels, Park City Angels, Life Science Angels. Tute was the tenth ever online syndicate for AngelList and in all raised a seed round of $1.5 million. 2014 In March 2014, the company announced that Affiliated Genetics, a Utah-based CLIA-certified laboratory, selected Tute Genomics for its next-generation sequencing (NGS) analytics pipeline. In May 2014, the company announced joining the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. In June 2014, Advanced Biological Laboratories (ABL), S.A., announced a licensing and collaboration agreement with Tute Genomics and the commercial launch of OncoChek for managing and analysing genomics data in the field of oncology. In July 2014, the company announced an agreement with Lineagen, Inc., to provide next-generation sequencing analytics for Lineagen’s NextStepDx Plus assay. Also, Brigham Young University selected the Tute Genomics genome annotation and discovery platform for analysis and interpretation of 1,000 exomes and genomes. In November 2014, the company announced addition of the Tute platform to Illumina’s BaseSpace. The company announced a Series A1 funding round of $2.3 million in December 2014. The round was led by UK-based Eurovestech. Peak Ventures and a number of angel investors also participated in this round. 2015 Tute recruits David Mittelman, founder of Arpeggi, Inc. and former CSO at FamilyTreeDNA, to Tute Genomics as Chief Scientific Officer. Tute acquires Knome and integrates the KnoSys platform into its software product. 2016 Reid Robison, Tute CEO, launches a Kickstarter campaign to sell Tute interpreted whole genome and whole exome sequencing directly to consumers. The campaign was suspended within the same month after receiving a letter from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Tute is acquired by PierianDX.
Social software engineering
Social software engineering (SSE) is a branch of software engineering that is concerned with the social aspects of software development and the developed software. SSE focuses on the socialness of both software engineering and developed software. On the one hand, the consideration of social factors in software engineering activities, processes and CASE tools is deemed to be useful to improve the quality of both development process and produced software. Examples include the role of situational awareness and multi-cultural factors in collaborative software development. On the other hand, the dynamicity of the social contexts in which software could operate (e.g., in a cloud environment) calls for engineering social adaptability as a runtime iterative activity. Examples include approaches which enable software to gather users' quality feedback and use it to adapt autonomously or semi-autonomously. SSE studies and builds socially-oriented tools to support collaboration and knowledge sharing in software engineering. SSE also investigates the adaptability of software to the dynamic social contexts in which it could operate and the involvement of clients and end-users in shaping software adaptation decisions at runtime. Social context includes norms, culture, roles and responsibilities, stakeholder's goals and interdependencies, end-users perception of the quality and appropriateness of each software behaviour, etc. The participants of the 1st International Workshop on Social Software Engineering and Applications (SoSEA 2008) proposed the following characterization: Community-centered: Software is produced and consumed by and/or for a community rather than focusing on individuals Collaboration/collectiveness: Exploiting the collaborative and collective capacity of human beings Companionship/relationship: Making explicit the various associations among people Human/social activities: Software is designed consciously to support human activities and to address social problems Social inclusion: Software should enable social inclusion enforcing links and trust in communities Thus, SSE can be defined as "the application of processes, methods, and tools to enable community-driven creation, management, deployment, and use of software in online environments". One of the main observations in the field of SSE is that the concepts, principles, and technologies made for social software applications are applicable to software development itself as software engineering is inherently a social activity. SSE is not limited to specific activities of software development. Accordingly, tools have been proposed supporting different parts of SSE, for instance, social system design or social requirements engineering. Consequently vertical market software, such as software development tools, engineering tools, marketing tools or software that helps users in a decision-making process can profit from social components. Such vertical social software differentiates strongly in its user-base from traditional social software such as Yammer.
Diagnostically acceptable irreversible compression
Diagnostically acceptable irreversible compression (DAIC) is the amount of lossy compression which can be used on a medical image to produce a result that does not prevent the reader from using the image to make a medical diagnosis. The term was first introduced at a workshop on irreversible compression convened by the European Society of Radiology (ESR) in Palma de Mallorca October 13, 2010, the results of which were reported in a subsequent position paper. == Determination == The "amount of compression" in irreversible compression used to be determined by the compression ratio, where the acceptable minimum is determined by the algorithm (typically JPEG or J2K) and the data type (body part and imaging method). Such a definition is easy to follow, and has been used by medical bodies in 2010 around the world. However, its downside is obvious: the compression ratio tells nothing about the real quality of the image, as different compressors can produce vastly different qualities under the same file size. For example, the JPEG format of 1992 can perform as well as many modern formats given newer techniques exploited in mozjpeg and ISO libjpeg, yet they would be lumped together with the legacy encoders in such a scheme. The image compression community has long used objective quality metrics like SSIM to measure the effects of compression. In the absence of good data regarding SSIM, the ESR review of 2010 concluded that it is still difficult to establish a criterion for whether a particular irreversible compression scheme applied with particular parameters to a particular individual image, or category of images, avoids the introduction of some quantifiable risk of a diagnostic error for any particular diagnostic task. A 2017 study showed that a SSIM variant called 4-G-r (4-component, gradient, structural component of SSIM) best reflects changes in images that affect the decision of radiologists out of 16 SSIM variants. A 2020 study shows that visual information fidelity (VIF), feature similarity index (FSIM), and noise quality metric (NQM) best reflect radiologist preferences out of ten metrics. It also mentions that the original version of SSIM works as poorly as a basic root-mean-square distance (RMSD) for this purpose, a result echoed by the 2017 study. The 4-G-r modification is not tested in the study.
Knowledge as a service
Knowledge as a service (KaaS) is a computing service that delivers information to users, backed by a knowledge model, which might be drawn from a number of possible models based on decision trees, association rules, or neural networks. A knowledge as a service provider responds to knowledge requests from users through a centralised knowledge server, and provides an interface between users and data owners. KaaS is one of several cloud computing-dependent business models in which computer resources are sold on an on-demand and pay-as-you-use basis. == Overview == At the International Semantic Web Conference 2019, it was described how knowledge can be made live and evolve on the web allowing users to learn directly from elaborated knowledge, now appearing in the form of knowledge graphs. KaaS appear when knowledge graphs are accessed via services This is opposed to DaaS which might "compute large volumes of data; integrate and analyzes that data; and publish it in real-time, using Web service APIs" (from Data as a Service) where the KaaS is able to exploit context - both the context of the user in relation to their information requests of the KaaS (where and when they make the request) and also the context of the information in relation to some objective or purpose of the users either understood by the KaaS automatically or indicated to it by the user. == Differentiating knowledge from data == Conceptual models that make such a differentiation such as the so-called DIKW pyramid have existed for perhaps more than 40 years (see a 1974 journal article about this) however definitions are not stable and universally accepted (see the discussion about the conceptualizations of DIKW within the DIKW Wikipedia article that question value of wisdom). The knowledge component of DIKW is generally agreed to be an elusive concept which is difficult to define, however Rowley 2007, in a well known student textbook differentiated knowledge from data by stating that knowledge is "defined with reference to information" and that it contains more than just facts but also "beliefs and expectations". In relation to knowledge graphs, knowledge may be additional content they provide over and above pure data which is the definition of the categories, properties and relations between the concepts, data and entities that substantiate one, many or all domains of discourse (see the definition of Ontology). The ability to represent "beliefs and expectations", or other forms of not so straightforwardly explicit knowledge is an on-going area of improvement in information sciences (see Tacit knowledge) and, with relation to KaaS, the establishment of recent informatics mechanics to do so it critical to the legitimacy of KaaS as it is differentiated from just value-added DaaS. Knowledge graphs' ability to represent context via the definition of the categories, properties and relations between the concepts, data and entities that substantiate one, many or all domains of discourse that they provide (see the definition of Ontology) has led to the idea that supplying access to KNs might be a required competency of a KaaS. == Delivery of knowledge == Much service-delivered content is dependent on a session to provide much of the context that the user (client) needs to understand answers to questions. For example, using current HTTP internet protocols, a GET request to retrieve information identified by a URI, such as a web page, a client (a human or a machine) may have access information supplied automatically to enable that client to bypass paywalls or other content access controls. Such context, in this case about the client's information access allowances, can alter the information provided. In a logical extension to this internet protocols example, a server would receive from the client, either manually or automatically, a full context which would be information about the situation the client is in and this would allow the server to best interpret the client's request. Current internet protocols allow for formats, languages and related preferences to be expressed by clients but make no mention of what a client already knows and what they may understand. The recent Content Negotiation by Profile proposes additions to both the HTTP internet protocols and related services that allow clients to also request information - a response from the server - that accords with an identified information model. This then allows clients to indicate not just formats and languages that they understand (technically that they prefer) but also domains of discourse that that do, which is a step towards comprehensive client context provision.
Dominant resource fairness
Dominant resource fairness (DRF) is a rule for fair division. It is particularly useful for dividing computing resources in among users in cloud computing environments, where each user may require a different combination of resources. DRF was presented by Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker and Ion Stoica in 2011. == Motivation == In an environment with a single resource, a widely used criterion is max-min fairness, which aims to maximize the minimum amount of resource given to a user. But in cloud computing, it is required to share different types of resource, such as: memory, CPU, bandwidth and disk-space. Previous fair schedulers, such as in Apache Hadoop, reduced the multi-resource setting to a single-resource setting by defining nodes with a fixed amount of each resource (e.g. 4 CPU, 32 MB memory, etc.), and dividing slots which are fractions of nodes. But this method is inefficient, since not all users need the same ratio of resources. For example, some users need more CPU whereas other users need more memory. As a result, most tasks either under-utilize or over-utilize their resources. DRF solves the problem by maximizing the minimum amount of the dominant resource given to a user (then the second-minimum etc., in a leximin order). The dominant resource may be different for different users. For example, if user A runs CPU-heavy tasks and user B runs memory-heavy tasks, DRF will try to equalize the CPU share given to user A and the memory share given to user B. == Definition == There are m resources. The total capacities of the resources are r1,...,rm. There are n users. Each users runs individual tasks. Each task has a demand-vector (d1,..,dm), representing the amount it needs of each resource. It is implicitly assumed that the utility of a user equals the number of tasks he can perform. For example, if user A runs tasks with demand-vector [1 CPU, 4 GB RAM], and receives 3 CPU and 8 GB RAM, then his utility is 2, since he can perform only 2 tasks. More generally, the utility of a user receiving x1,...,xm resources is minj(xj/dj), that is, the users have Leontief utilities. The demand-vectors are normalized to fractions of the capacities. For example, if the system has 9 CPUs and 18 GB RAM, then the above demand-vector is normalized to [1/9 CPU, 2/9 GB]. For each user, the resource with the highest demand-fraction is called the dominant resource. In the above example, the dominant resource is memory, as 2/9 is the largest fraction. If user B runs a task with demand-vector [3 CPU, 1 GB], which is normalized to [1/3 CPU, 1/18 GB], then his dominant resource is CPU. DRF aims to find the maximum x such that all agents can receive at least x of their dominant resource. In the above example, this maximum x is 2/3: User A gets 3 tasks, which require 3/9 CPU and 2/3 GB. User B gets 2 tasks, which require 2/3 CPU and 1/9 GB. The maximum x can be found by solving a linear program; see Lexicographic max-min optimization. Alternatively, the DRF can be computed sequentially. The algorithm tracks the amount of dominant resource used by each user. At each round, it finds a user with the smallest allocated dominant resource so far, and allocates the next task of this user. Note that this procedure allows the same user to run tasks with different demand vectors. == Properties == DRF has several advantages over other policies for resource allocation. Proportionality: each user receives at least as much resources as they could get in a system in which all resources are partitioned equally among users (the authors call this condition "sharing incentive"). Strategyproofness: a user cannot get a larger allocation by lying about his needs. Strategyproofness is important, as evidence from cloud operators show that users try to manipulate the servers in order to get better allocations. Envy-freeness: no user would prefer the allocation of another user. Pareto efficiency: no other allocation is better for some users and not worse for anyone. Population monotonicity: when a user leaves the system, the allocations of remaining users do not decrease. When there is a single resource that is a bottleneck resource (highly demanded by all users), DRF reduces to max-min fairness. However, DRF violates resource monotonicity: when resources are added to the system, some allocations might decrease. == Extensions == Weighted DRF is an extension of DRF to settings in which different users have different weights (representing their different entitlements). Parkes, Procaccia and Shah formally extend weighted DRF to a setting in which some users do not need all resources (that is, they may have demand 0 to some resource). They prove that the extended version still satisfies proportionality, Pareto-efficiency, envy-freeness, strategyproofness, and even Group strategyproofness. On the other hand, they show that DRF may yield poor utilitarian social welfare, that is, the sum of utilities may be only 1/m of the optimum. However, they prove that any mechanism satisfying one of proportionality, envy-freeness or strategyproofness may suffers from the same low utilitarian welfare. They also extend DRF to the setting in which the users' demands are indivisible (as in fair item allocation). For the indivisible setting, they relax envy-freeness to EF1. They show that strategyproofness is incompatible with PO+EF1 or with PO+proportionality. However, a mechanism called SequentialMinMax satisfies efficiency, proportionality and EF1. Wang, Li and Liang present DRFH - an extension of DRF to a system with several heterogeneous servers. == Implementation == DRF was first implemented in Apache Mesos - a cluster resource manager, and it led to better throughput and fairness than previously used fair-sharing schemes.