Actionstep is a cloud-based legal practice management software for law firms and compliance-focused businesses. Actionstep is built to be a comprehensive practice management software with features for workflow automation as well as automatic document generation == History == Actionstep was created by Ted Jordan, CEO of Actionstep, in 2004. It was first used commercially in 2005 by a New Zealand construction franchise as well as a law firm. Actionstep soon expanded into central government and a wider range of small business users (mainly in New Zealand and Australia). After a few years the expanse of their legal client base prompted the company to add key legal specific features to the product with the aim of further expanding their legal market. Through Actionstep's tenure as a practice management software they have gradually expanded from their headquarters in New Zealand and offices located in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. In October 2020, private equity firm Serent Capital Partners purchased 84.25% stake in Actionstep. In April 2022, the company announced unlimited annual leave to its staff == Product == The premise of Actionstep is that it saves companies from having to purchase software tailored to their work flow and instead allows companies to modify the program without additional coding.{{Citation needed}} The founder and CEO Ted Jordan used cloud technology to allow the software to be continuously updated without the need to purchase or redesign new software. This theoretically allows businesses to remain current all the time and cut external I.T. costs.{{Citation needed}} Actionstep also integrates with software from other companies, such as Xero accounting, Microsoft Office & Office 365, Gmail, Google Drive, Dropbox, NetDocuments, QuickBooks, LawPay, BundleDocs, Box, HotDocs, Infotrack, GlobalX, PEXA, JOSEF and Zapier. Actionstep contains workflow automation features aimed at increasing office efficiency. These automated processes include automatic task assignment, information collection, document generation & automation, cataloguing, and matter generation. == Awards == Actionstep was named First International Best of SaaS Showplace Award Winner in 2009. Actionstep has also been a finalist in the ComputerWorld Excellence Awards (2007), and the Vero Excellence in Business Support (2010).
ConEmu
ConEmu (short for Console emulator) is a free and open-source tabbed terminal emulator for Windows. ConEmu presents multiple consoles and simple GUI applications as one customizable GUI window with tabs and a status bar. It also provides emulation for ANSI escape codes for color, bypassing the capabilities of the standard Windows Console Host to provide 256 and 24-bit color in Windows. The program has a large range of customization, including custom color palettes for the standard 16 colors, hotkeys, transparency, an auto-hideable mode (similar to the way Quake originally displayed its developer console). Initially, the program was created as a companion to Far Manager, bringing some features common for graphical file managers to this console application (thumbnails and tiles, drag and drop with other windows, true color interface, and others). As of 2012, ConEmu could be used with any other Win32 console application or simple GUI tool (such as Notepad, PuTTY or DOSBox). ConEmu doesn't provide any shell itself, but rather allows using any other shell. It does provide a limited macro language, to control the hosted applications startup.
Arabic Ontology
Arabic Ontology is a website offering linguistic ontology services for the Arabic language which can be used like the online site WordNet. Users can use Arabic Ontology to classify or clarify the concepts and meanings of Arabic terms. == Ontology Structure == The ontology structure (i.e., data model) is similar to WordNet's structure. Each concept in the database is given a unique concept identifier (URI), informally described by a gloss, and lexicalized by one or more synonymous lemma terms. Each term-concept pair is called a sense, and is given a SenseID. A set of senses is called synset. Concepts and senses are described by further attributes such as era and area — to specify example usage and ontological analysis. Semantic relations are defined between concepts. Some important entities are included in the ontology, such as individual countries and bodies of water. These individuals are given separate IndividualIDs and linked with their concepts through the InstanceOf relation. == Mappings to other resources == Concepts in the Arabic Ontology are mapped to synsets in WordNet, as well as to BFO and DOLCE. Terms used in the Arabic Ontology are mapped to lemmas in the LDC's SAMA database. == Applications == Arabic Ontology can be used in many application domains, such as: Information retrieval, to enrich queries (e.g., in search engines) and improve the quality of the results, i.e. meaningful search rather than string-matching search; Machine translation and word-sense disambiguation, by finding the exact mapping of concepts across languages, especially that the Arabic ontology is also mapped to the WordNet; Data Integration and interoperability in which the Arabic ontology can be used as a semantic reference to link databases and information systems; Semantic Web and Web 3.0, by using the Arabic ontology as a semantic reference to disambiguate the meanings used in websites; among many other applications. == URLs Design == The URLs in the Arabic Ontology are designed according to the W3C's Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data, as described in the following URL schemes. This allows one to also explore the whole database like exploring a graph: Ontology Concept: Each concept in the Arabic Ontology has a ConceptID and can be accessed using: https://{domain}/concept/{ConceptID | Term}. In case of a term, the set of concepts that this term lexicalizes are all retrieved. In case of a ConceptID, the concept and its direct subtypes are retrieved, e.g. https://ontology.birzeit.edu/concept/293198 Semantic relations: Relationships between concepts can be accessed using these schemes: (i) the URL: https:// {domain}/concept/{RelationName}/{ConceptID} allows retrieval of relationships among ontology concepts. (ii) the URL: https://{domain}/lexicalconcept/{RelationName}/{lexicalConceptID} allows retrieval of relations between lexical concepts. For example, https://ontology.birzeit.edu/concept/instances/293121 retrieves the instances of the concept 293121. The relations that are currently used in our database are: {subtypes, type, instances, parts, related, similar, equivalent}.
Cross-language information retrieval
Cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) is a subfield of information retrieval dealing with retrieving information written in a language different from the language of the user's query. The term "cross-language information retrieval" has many synonyms, of which the following are perhaps the most frequent: cross-lingual information retrieval, translingual information retrieval, multilingual information retrieval. The term "multilingual information retrieval" refers more generally both to technology for retrieval of multilingual collections and to technology which has been moved to handle material in one language to another. The term Multilingual Information Retrieval (MLIR) involves the study of systems that accept queries for information in various languages and return objects (text, and other media) of various languages, translated into the user's language. Cross-language information retrieval refers more specifically to the use case where users formulate their information need in one language and the system retrieves relevant documents in another. To do so, most CLIR systems use various translation techniques. CLIR techniques can be classified into different categories based on different translation resources: Dictionary-based CLIR techniques Parallel corpora based CLIR techniques Comparable corpora based CLIR techniques Machine translator based CLIR techniques CLIR systems have improved so much that the most accurate multi-lingual and cross-lingual adhoc information retrieval systems today are nearly as effective as monolingual systems. Other related information access tasks, such as media monitoring, information filtering and routing, sentiment analysis, and information extraction require more sophisticated models and typically more processing and analysis of the information items of interest. Much of that processing needs to be aware of the specifics of the target languages it is deployed in. Mostly, the various mechanisms of variation in human language pose coverage challenges for information retrieval systems: texts in a collection may treat a topic of interest but use terms or expressions which do not match the expression of information need given by the user. This can be true even in a mono-lingual case, but this is especially true in cross-lingual information retrieval, where users may know the target language only to some extent. The benefits of CLIR technology for users with poor to moderate competence in the target language has been found to be greater than for those who are fluent. Specific technologies in place for CLIR services include morphological analysis to handle inflection, decompounding or compound splitting to handle compound terms, and translations mechanisms to translate a query from one language to another. The first workshop on CLIR was held in Zürich during the SIGIR-96 conference. Workshops have been held yearly since 2000 at the meetings of the Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). Researchers also convene at the annual Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) to discuss their findings regarding different systems and methods of information retrieval, and the conference has served as a point of reference for the CLIR subfield. Early CLIR experiments were conducted at TREC-6, held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on November 19–21, 1997. Google Search had a cross-language search feature that was removed in 2013.
Grammar checker
A grammar checker, in computing terms, is a program, or part of a program, that attempts to verify written text for grammatical correctness. Grammar checkers are most often implemented as a feature of a larger program, such as a word processor, but are also available as a stand-alone application that can be activated from within programs that work with editable text. The implementation of a grammar checker makes use of natural language processing. == History == The earliest "grammar checkers" were programs that checked for punctuation and style inconsistencies, rather than a complete range of possible grammatical errors. The first system was called Writer's Workbench, and was a set of writing tools included with Unix systems as far back as the 1970s. The whole Writer's Workbench package included several separate tools to check for various writing problems. The "diction" tool checked for wordy, trite, clichéd or misused phrases in a text. The tool would output a list of questionable phrases and provide suggestions for improving the writing. The "style" tool analyzed the writing style of a given text. It performed a number of readability tests on the text and output the results, and gave some statistical information about the sentences of the text. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, New Mexico released the earliest version of a diction and style checker for personal computers, Grammatik, in 1981. Grammatik was first available for a Radio Shack - TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Other early diction and style checking programs included Punctuation & Style, Correct Grammar, RightWriter and PowerEdit. While all the earliest programs started as simple diction and style checkers, all eventually added various levels of language processing, and developed some level of true grammar checking capability. Until 1992, grammar checkers were sold as add-on programs. There were a large number of different word processing programs available at that time, with WordPerfect and Microsoft Word the top two in market share. In 1992, Microsoft decided to add grammar checking as a feature of Word, and licensed CorrecText, a grammar checker from Houghton Mifflin that had not yet been marketed as a standalone product. WordPerfect answered Microsoft's move by acquiring Reference Software, and the direct descendant of Grammatik is still included with WordPerfect. As of 2019, grammar checkers are built into systems like Google Docs, browser extensions like Grammarly and Qordoba, desktop applications like Ginger, free and open-source software like LanguageTool, and text editor plugins like those available from WebSpellChecker Software. == Technical issues == The earliest writing style programs checked for wordy, trite, clichéd, or misused phrases in a text. This process was based on simple pattern matching. The heart of the program was a list of many hundreds or thousands of phrases that are considered poor writing by many experts. The list of questionable phrases included alternative wording for each phrase. The checking program would simply break text into sentences, check for any matches in the phrase dictionary, flag suspect phrases and show an alternative. These programs could also perform some mechanical checks. For example, they would typically flag doubled words, doubled punctuation, some capitalization errors, and other simple mechanical mistakes. True grammar checking is more complex. While a programming language has a very specific syntax and grammar, this is not so for natural languages. One can write a somewhat complete formal grammar for a natural language, but there are usually so many exceptions in real usage that a formal grammar is of minimal help in writing a grammar checker. One of the most important parts of a natural language grammar checker is a dictionary of all the words in the language, along with the part of speech of each word. The fact that a natural word may be used as any one of several parts of speech (such as "free" being used as an adjective, adverb, noun, or verb) greatly increases the complexity of any grammar checker. A grammar checker will find each sentence in a text, look up each word in the dictionary, and then attempt to parse the sentence into a form that matches a grammar. Using various rules, the program can then detect various errors, such as agreement in tense, number, word order, and so on. It is also possible to detect some stylistic problems with the text. For example, some popular style guides such as The Elements of Style deprecate excessive use of the passive voice. Grammar checkers may attempt to identify passive sentences and suggest an active-voice alternative. The software elements required for grammar checking are closely related to some of the development issues that need to be addressed for speech recognition software. In voice recognition, parsing can be used to help predict which word is most likely intended, based on part of speech and position in the sentence. In grammar checking, the parsing is used to detect words that fail to follow accepted grammar usage. Recently, research has focused on developing algorithms which can recognize grammar errors based on the context of the surrounding words. == Criticism == Grammar checkers are considered a type of foreign language writing aid which non-native speakers can use to proofread their writings as such programs endeavor to identify syntactical errors. However, as with other computerized writing aids such as spell checkers, popular grammar checkers are often criticized when they fail to spot errors and incorrectly flag correct text as erroneous. The linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum argued in 2007 that they were generally so inaccurate as to do more harm than good: "for the most part, accepting the advice of a computer grammar checker on your prose will make it much worse, sometimes hilariously incoherent."
Neural computation
Neural computation is the information processing performed by networks of neurons. Neural computation is affiliated with the philosophical tradition of computationalism, which advances the thesis that neural computation explains cognition. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts were the first to propose an account of neural activity as being computational in their seminal 1943 paper "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity." There are three general branches of computationalism, including classicism, connectionism, and computational neuroscience. All three branches agree that cognition is computation, however, they disagree on what sorts of computations constitute cognition. The classicism tradition believes that computation in the brain is digital, analogous to digital computing. Both connectionism and computational neuroscience do not require that the computations that realize cognition are necessarily digital computations. However, the two branches greatly disagree upon which sorts of experimental data should be used to construct explanatory models of cognitive phenomena. Connectionists rely upon behavioral evidence to construct models to explain cognitive phenomena, whereas computational neuroscience leverages neuroanatomical and neurophysiological information to construct mathematical models that explain cognition. When comparing the three main traditions of the computational theory of mind, as well as the different possible forms of computation in the brain, it is helpful to define what we mean by computation in a general sense. Computation is the processing of information, otherwise known as variables or entities, according to a set of rules. A rule in this sense is simply an instruction for executing a manipulation on the current state of the variable, in order to produce a specified output. In other words, a rule dictates which output to produce given a certain input to the computing system. A computing system is a mechanism whose components must be functionally organized to process the information in accordance with the established set of rules. The types of information processed by a computing system determine which type of computations it performs. Traditionally in cognitive science, there have been two proposed types of computation related to neural activity, digital and analog, with the vast majority of theoretical work incorporating a digital understanding of cognition. Computing systems that perform digital computation are functionally organized to execute operations on strings of digits with respect to the type and location of the digit on the string. It has been argued that neural spike train signaling implements some form of digital computation, since neural spikes may be considered as discrete units or digits, like 0 or 1—the neuron either fires an action potential or it does not. Accordingly, neural spike trains could be seen as strings of digits. Alternatively, analog computing systems perform manipulations on non-discrete, irreducibly continuous variables, that is, entities that vary continuously as a function of time. These sorts of operations are characterized by systems of differential equations. Neural computation can be studied by, for example, building models of neural computation. Work on artificial neural networks has been somewhat inspired by knowledge of neural computation.
Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm
The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm (TF algorithm), is an efficient algorithm for generating the background image of a given video sequence. By assuming that the background image is shown in the majority of the video, the algorithm is able to generate a good background image of a video in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time using only a small number of binary operations and Boolean bit operations, which require a small amount of memory and has built-in operators found in many programming languages such as C, C++, and Java. == History == People tracking from videos usually involves some form of background subtraction to segment foreground from background. Once foreground images are extracted, then desired algorithms (such as those for motion tracking, object tracking, and facial recognition) may be executed using these images. However, background subtraction requires that the background image is already available and unfortunately, this is not always the case. Traditionally, the background image is searched for manually or automatically from the video images when there are no objects. More recently, automatic background generation through object detection, medial filtering, medoid filtering, approximated median filtering, linear predictive filter, non-parametric model, Kalman filter, and adaptive smoothening have been suggested; however, most of these methods have high computational complexity and are resource-intensive. The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is also an automatic background generation algorithm. Its advantage, however, is its computational speed of only O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of an image and its accuracy gained within a manageable number of frames. Only at least three frames from a video is needed to produce the background image assuming that for every pixel position, the background occurs in the majority of the videos. Furthermore, it can be performed for both grayscale and colored videos. == Assumptions == The camera is stationary. The light of the environment changes only slowly relative to the motions of the people in the scene. The number of people does not occupy the scene for most of the time at the same place. Generally, however, the algorithm will certainly work whenever the following single important assumption holds: For each pixel position, the majority of the pixel values in the entire video contain the pixel value of the actual background image (at that position).As long as each part of the background is shown in the majority of the video, the entire background image needs not to appear in any of its frames. The algorithm is expected to work accurately. == Background image generation == === Equations === For three frames of image sequence x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} , x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} , and x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} , the background image B {\displaystyle B} is obtained using B = x 3 ( x 1 ⊕ x 2 ) + x 1 x 2 {\displaystyle B=x_{3}(x_{1}\oplus x_{2})+x_{1}x_{2}} where ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } denotes the exclusive disjunctive bit operator. The Boolean mode function S {\displaystyle S} of the table occurs when the number of 1 entries is larger than half of the number of images such that S = { 1 , if ∑ i = 1 n x i ≥ ⌈ n 2 + 1 ⌉ , and n ≥ 3 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle S={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if }}\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}\geq \left\lceil {\frac {n}{2}}+1\right\rceil ,{\text{ and }}n\geq 3\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} For three images, the background image B {\displaystyle B} can be taken as the value x ¯ 1 x 2 x 3 + x 1 x ¯ 2 x 3 + x 1 x 2 x ¯ 3 + x 1 x 2 x 3 {\displaystyle {\bar {x}}_{1}x_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}{\bar {x}}_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}{\bar {x}}_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}} === Background generation algorithm === At the first level, three frames are selected at random from the image sequence to produce a background image by combining them using the first equation. This yields a better background image at the second level. The procedure is repeated until desired level L {\displaystyle L} . == Theoretical accuracy == At level ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } , the probability p ℓ {\displaystyle p_{\ell }} that the modal bit predicted is the actual modal bit is represented by the equation p ℓ = ( p ℓ − 1 ) 3 + 3 ( p ℓ − 1 ) 2 ( 1 − p ℓ − 1 ) {\displaystyle p_{\ell }=(p_{\ell -1})^{3}+3(p_{\ell -1})^{2}(1-p_{\ell -1})} . The table below gives the computed probability values across several levels using some specific initial probabilities. It can be observed that even if the modal bit at the considered position is at a low 60% of the frames, the probability of accurate modal bit determination is already more than 99% at 6 levels. == Space complexity == The space requirement of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is given by the function O ( R F + R 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(RF+R3^{L})} , depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of the image, the number F {\displaystyle F} of frames in the video, and the desired number L {\displaystyle L} of levels. However, the fact that L {\displaystyle L} will probably not exceed 6 reduces the space complexity to O ( R F ) {\displaystyle O(RF)} . == Time complexity == The entire algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, only depending on the resolution of the image. Computing the modal bit for each bit can be done in O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} -time while the computation of the resulting image from the three given images can be done in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time. The number of the images to be processed in L {\displaystyle L} levels is O ( 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(3^{L})} . However, since L ≤ 6 {\displaystyle L\leq 6} , then this is actually O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} , thus the algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} . == Variants == A variant of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm that incorporates the Monte-Carlo method named CRF has been developed. Two different configurations of CRF were implemented: CRF9,2 and CRF81,1. Experiments on some colored video sequences showed that the CRF configurations outperform the TF algorithm in terms of accuracy. However, the TF algorithm remains more efficient in terms of processing time. == Applications == Object detection Face detection Face recognition Pedestrian detection Video surveillance Motion capture Human-computer interaction Content-based video coding Traffic monitoring Real-time gesture recognition