iWARP is a computer networking protocol that implements remote direct memory access (RDMA) for efficient data transfer over Internet Protocol networks. Contrary to some accounts, iWARP is not an acronym. Because iWARP is layered on Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)-standard congestion-aware protocols such as Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), it makes few requirements on the network, and can be successfully deployed in a broad range of environments. == History == In 2007, the IETF published five Request for Comments (RFCs) that define iWARP: RFC 5040 A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol Specification is layered over Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP). It defines how RDMA Send, Read, and Write operations are encoded using DDP into headers on the network. RFC 5041 Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports is layered over MPA/TCP or SCTP. It defines how received data can be directly placed into an upper layer protocols receive buffer without intermediate buffers. RFC 5042 Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP) / Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMAP) Security analyzes security issues related to iWARP DDP and RDMAP protocol layers. RFC 5043 Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Direct Data Placement (DDP) Adaptation defines an adaptation layer that enables DDP over SCTP. RFC 5044 Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification defines an adaptation layer that enables preservation of DDP-level protocol record boundaries layered over the TCP reliable connected byte stream. These RFCs are based on the RDMA Consortium's specifications for RDMA over TCP. The RDMA Consortium's specifications are influenced by earlier RDMA standards, including Virtual Interface Architecture (VIA) and InfiniBand (IB). Since 2007, the IETF has published three additional RFCs that maintain and extend iWARP: RFC 6580 IANA Registries for the Remote Direct Data Placement (RDDP) Protocols published in 2012 defines IANA registries for Remote Direct Data Placement (RDDP) error codes, operation codes, and function codes. RFC 6581 Enhanced Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Connection Establishment published in 2011 fixes shortcomings with iWARP connection setup. RFC 7306 Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Protocol Extensions published in 2014 extends RFC 5040 with atomic operations and RDMA Write with Immediate Data. == Protocol == The main component in the iWARP protocol is the Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP), which permits the actual zero-copy transmission. DDP itself does not perform the transmission; the underlying protocol (TCP or SCTP) does. However, TCP does not respect message boundaries; it sends data as a sequence of bytes without regard to protocol data units (PDU). In this regard, DDP itself may be better suited for SCTP, and indeed the IETF proposed a standard RDMA over SCTP. To run DDP over TCP requires a tweak known as marker PDU aligned (MPA) framing to guarantee boundaries of messages. Furthermore, DDP is not intended to be accessed directly. Instead, a separate RDMA protocol (RDMAP) provides the services to read and write data. Therefore, the entire RDMA over TCP specification is really RDMAP over DDP over either MPA/TCP or SCTP. All of these protocols can be implemented in hardware. Unlike IB, iWARP only has reliable connected communication, as this is the only service that TCP and SCTP provide. The iWARP specification omits other features of IB, such as Send with Immediate Data operations. With RFC 7306, the IETF is working to reduce these omissions. == Implementation == Because a kernel implementation of the TCP stack can be seen as a bottleneck, the protocol is typically implemented in hardware RDMA network interface controllers (rNICs). As simple data losses are rare in tightly coupled network environments, the error-correction mechanisms of TCP may be performed by software while the more frequently performed communications are handled strictly by logic embedded on the rNIC. Similarly, connections are often established entirely by software and then handed off to the hardware. Furthermore, the handling of iWARP specific protocol details is typically isolated from the TCP implementation, allowing rNICs to be used for both as RDMA offload and TCP offload (in support of traditional sockets based TCP/IP applications). The portion of the hardware implementation used for implementing the TCP protocol is known as the TCP Offload Engine (TOE). TOE itself does not prevent copying on the reception side, and must be combined with RDMA hardware for zero-copy results. The RDMA / TCP specification is a set of different wire protocols intended to be implemented in hardware (though it seems feasible to emulate it in software for compatibility but without the performance benefits). == Interfaces == iWARP is a protocol, not an implementation, but defines protocol behavior in terms of the operations that are legal for the protocol, known as Verbs. As such, iWARP does not have any single standard programming interface. However, programming interfaces tend to very closely correspond to the Verbs. Several programmatic interfaces have been proposed, including OpenFabrics Verbs, Network Direct, uDAPL, kDAPL, IT-API, and RNICPI. Implementations of some of these interfaces are available for different platforms, including Windows and Linux. == Services available == Networking services implemented over iWARP include those offered in the OpenFabrics Enterprise Distribution (OFED) by the OpenFabrics Alliance for Linux operating systems, and by Microsoft Windows via Network Direct. NVMe over Fabrics (NVMEoF) iSCSI Extensions for RDMA (iSER) Server Message Block Direct (SMB Direct) Sockets Direct Protocol (SDP) SCSI RDMA Protocol (SRP) Network File System over RDMA (NFS over RDMA) GPUDirect
Airfair
AirFair was a mobile travel application that checks flights, and shows whether a traveler is owed compensation. == History == AirFair was developed in 2016 by Allay Logic Ltd; a Newcastle-based tech-company. == Services == AirFair offered a free flight check to see if compensation is owed. The app could indicate how much the person is owed within minutes whether the flight was delayed, cancelled or the traveler is refused boarding.
Algorithm engineering
Algorithm engineering focuses on the design, analysis, implementation, optimization, profiling and experimental evaluation of computer algorithms, bridging the gap between algorithmics theory and practical applications of algorithms in software engineering. It is a general methodology for algorithmic research. == Origins == In 1995, a report from an NSF-sponsored workshop "with the purpose of assessing the current goals and directions of the Theory of Computing (TOC) community" identified the slow speed of adoption of theoretical insights by practitioners as an important issue and suggested measures to reduce the uncertainty by practitioners whether a certain theoretical breakthrough will translate into practical gains in their field of work, and tackle the lack of ready-to-use algorithm libraries, which provide stable, bug-free and well-tested implementations for algorithmic problems and expose an easy-to-use interface for library consumers. But also, promising algorithmic approaches have been neglected due to difficulties in mathematical analysis. The term "algorithm engineering" was first used with specificity in 1997, with the first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE97), organized by Giuseppe F. Italiano. == Difference from algorithm theory == Algorithm engineering does not intend to replace or compete with algorithm theory, but tries to enrich, refine and reinforce its formal approaches with experimental algorithmics (also called empirical algorithmics). This way it can provide new insights into the efficiency and performance of algorithms in cases where the algorithm at hand is less amenable to algorithm theoretic analysis, formal analysis pessimistically suggests bounds which are unlikely to appear on inputs of practical interest, the algorithm relies on the intricacies of modern hardware architectures like data locality, branch prediction, instruction stalls, instruction latencies which the machine model used in Algorithm Theory is unable to capture in the required detail, the crossover between competing algorithms with different constant costs and asymptotic behaviors needs to be determined. == Methodology == Some researchers describe algorithm engineering's methodology as a cycle consisting of algorithm design, analysis, implementation and experimental evaluation, joined by further aspects like machine models or realistic inputs. They argue that equating algorithm engineering with experimental algorithmics is too limited, because viewing design and analysis, implementation and experimentation as separate activities ignores the crucial feedback loop between those elements of algorithm engineering. === Realistic models and real inputs === While specific applications are outside the methodology of algorithm engineering, they play an important role in shaping realistic models of the problem and the underlying machine, and supply real inputs and other design parameters for experiments. === Design === Compared to algorithm theory, which usually focuses on the asymptotic behavior of algorithms, algorithm engineers need to keep further requirements in mind: Simplicity of the algorithm, implementability in programming languages on real hardware, and allowing code reuse. Additionally, constant factors of algorithms have such a considerable impact on real-world inputs that sometimes an algorithm with worse asymptotic behavior performs better in practice due to lower constant factors. === Analysis === Some problems can be solved with heuristics and randomized algorithms in a simpler and more efficient fashion than with deterministic algorithms. Unfortunately, this makes even simple randomized algorithms difficult to analyze because there are subtle dependencies to be taken into account. === Implementation === Huge semantic gaps between theoretical insights, formulated algorithms, programming languages and hardware pose a challenge to efficient implementations of even simple algorithms, because small implementation details can have rippling effects on execution behavior. The only reliable way to compare several implementations of an algorithm is to spend an considerable amount of time on tuning and profiling, running those algorithms on multiple architectures, and looking at the generated machine code. === Experiments === See: Experimental algorithmics === Application engineering === Implementations of algorithms used for experiments differ in significant ways from code usable in applications. While the former prioritizes fast prototyping, performance and instrumentation for measurements during experiments, the latter requires thorough testing, maintainability, simplicity, and tuning for particular classes of inputs. === Algorithm libraries === Stable, well-tested algorithm libraries like LEDA play an important role in technology transfer by speeding up the adoption of new algorithms in applications. Such libraries reduce the required investment and risk for practitioners, because it removes the burden of understanding and implementing the results of academic research. == Conferences == Two main conferences on Algorithm Engineering are organized annually, namely: Symposium on Experimental Algorithms (SEA), established in 1997 (formerly known as WEA). SIAM Meeting on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), established in 1999. The 1997 Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'97) was held in Venice (Italy) on September 11–13, 1997. The Third International Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'99) was held in London, UK in July 1999. The first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experimentation (ALENEX99) was held in Baltimore, Maryland on January 15–16, 1999. It was sponsored by DIMACS, the Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (at Rutgers University), with additional support from SIGACT, the ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory, and SIAM, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Knuth–Plass line-breaking algorithm
The Knuth–Plass algorithm is a line-breaking algorithm designed for use in Donald Knuth's typesetting program TeX. It integrates the problems of text justification and hyphenation into a single algorithm by using a discrete dynamic programming method to minimize a loss function that attempts to quantify the aesthetic qualities desired in the finished output. The algorithm works by dividing the text into a stream of three kinds of objects: boxes, which are non-resizable chunks of content, glue, which are flexible, resizeable elements, and penalties, which represent places where breaking is undesirable (or, if negative, desirable). The loss function, known as "badness", is defined in terms of the deformation of the glue elements, and any extra penalties incurred through line breaking. Making hyphenation decisions follows naturally from the algorithm, but the choice of possible hyphenation points within words, and optionally their preference weighting, must be performed first, and that information inserted into the text stream in advance. Knuth and Plass' original algorithm does not include page breaking, but may be modified to interface with a pagination algorithm, such as the algorithm designed by Plass in his PhD thesis. Typically, the cost function for this technique should be modified so that it does not count the space left on the final line of a paragraph; this modification allows a paragraph to end in the middle of a line without penalty. The same technique can also be extended to take into account other factors such as the number of lines or costs for hyphenating long words. == Computational complexity == A naive brute-force exhaustive search for the minimum badness by trying every possible combination of breakpoints would take an impractical O ( 2 n ) {\displaystyle O(2^{n})} time. The classic Knuth-Plass dynamic programming approach to solving the minimization problem is a worst-case O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} algorithm but usually runs much faster, in close to linear time. Solving for the Knuth-Plass optimum can be shown to be a special case of the convex least-weight subsequence problem, which can be solved in O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} time. Methods to do this include the SMAWK algorithm. == Simple example of minimum raggedness metric == For the input text AAA BB CC DDDDD with line width 6, a greedy algorithm that puts as many words on a line as possible while preserving order before moving to the next line, would produce: ------ Line width: 6 AAA BB Remaining space: 0 CC Remaining space: 4 DDDDD Remaining space: 1 The sum of squared space left over by this method is 0 2 + 4 2 + 1 2 = 17 {\displaystyle 0^{2}+4^{2}+1^{2}=17} . However, the optimal solution achieves the smaller sum 3 2 + 1 2 + 1 2 = 11 {\displaystyle 3^{2}+1^{2}+1^{2}=11} : ------ Line width: 6 AAA Remaining space: 3 BB CC Remaining space: 1 DDDDD Remaining space: 1 The difference here is that the first line is broken before BB instead of after it, yielding a better right margin and a lower cost 11.
Algorism
Algorism is the technique of performing basic arithmetic by writing numbers in place value form and applying a set of memorized rules and facts to the digits. One who practices algorism is known as an algorist. This positional notation system has largely superseded earlier calculation systems that used a different set of symbols for each numerical magnitude, such as Roman numerals, and in some cases required a device such as an abacus. == Etymology == The word algorism comes from the name Al-Khwārizmī (c. 780–850), a Persian mathematician, astronomer, geographer and scholar in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, whose name means "the native of Khwarezm", which is now in modern-day Uzbekistan. He wrote a treatise in Arabic language in the 9th century, which was translated into Latin in the 12th century under the title Algoritmi de numero Indorum. This title means "Algoritmi on the numbers of the Indians", where "Algoritmi" was the translator's Latinization of Al-Khwarizmi's name. Al-Khwarizmi was the most widely read mathematician in Europe in the late Middle Ages, primarily through his other book, the Algebra. In late medieval Latin, algorismus, the corruption of his name, simply meant the "decimal number system" that is still the meaning of modern English algorism. During the 17th century, the French form for the word – but not its meaning – was changed to algorithm, following the model of the word logarithm, this form alluding to the ancient Greek arithmos = number. English adopted the French very soon afterwards, but it wasn't until the late 19th century that "algorithm" took on the meaning that it has in modern English. In English, it was first used about 1230 and then by Chaucer in 1391. Another early use of the word is from 1240, in a manual titled Carmen de Algorismo composed by Alexandre de Villedieu. It begins thus: Haec algorismus ars praesens dicitur, in qua / Talibus Indorum fruimur bis quinque figuris. which translates as: This present art, in which we use those twice five Indian figures, is called algorismus. The word algorithm also derives from algorism, a generalization of the meaning to any set of rules specifying a computational procedure. Occasionally algorism is also used in this generalized meaning, especially in older texts. == History == Starting with the integer arithmetic developed in India using base 10 notation, Al-Khwārizmī along with other mathematicians in medieval Islam, documented new arithmetic methods and made many other contributions to decimal arithmetic (see the articles linked below). These included the concept of the decimal fractions as an extension of the notation, which in turn led to the notion of the decimal point. This system was popularized in Europe by Leonardo of Pisa, now known as Fibonacci.
Dynamic epistemic logic
Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov
Knowledge organization system
Knowledge organization system (KOS), concept system, or concept scheme is the generic term used in knowledge organization (KO) for the selection of concepts with an indication of selected semantic relations. Despite their differences in type, coverage, and application, all KOS aim to support the organization of knowledge and information to facilitate their management and retrieval. KOS vary in complexity from simple sorted lists to complex relational networks. They represent both structural and functional features, and serve to eliminate ambiguity, control synonyms, establish relationships, and present properties. From their origins in library and information science (LIS), KOS have been applied to other domains and disciplines within science and industry, although scholarly research and debate remain primarily within the KO field. Challenges of KOS include ambiguity of terminology, repercussions of biased systems, and potential obsolescence. KOS can be expressed in RDF and RDFS as per the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) recommendation by W3C, which aims to enable the sharing and linking of KOS via the Web. One of the largest collections of KOS is the BARTOC registry. == Types == While different schema of KOS have been proposed, most are generally arranged in terms of the complexity of their construction and maintenance. Some scholars argue that organizing KOS on a spectrum oversimplifies the shared characteristics among them, and may even result in a non-ideal structure being chosen. The following types are not exhaustive, and are often not mutually-exclusive in practice. === Term lists === Term lists are the least structured form of KOS. They include lists, glossaries, dictionaries, and synonym rings. Authority files and gazetteers may also be considered term lists, however other scholars categorize them and directories as "metadata-like models". Examples include the Union List of Artist Names name authority file and the GeoNames gazetteer. === Categorization and classification === KOS that emphasize specific (and often hierarchical) structures include subject headings, taxonomies, categorization schema, and classification schema & systems. Despite inconsistent use of the terms "categorization" and "classification" in some literature, categorization is generally loosely-assembled grouping schema and may include attributes that are not mutually exclusive (or having fuzzy boundaries), while classification is related to the arrangement of non-overlapping and mutually-exclusive classes. Classification schema may be universal (such as Dewey Decimal Classification and Information Coding Classification) or domain-specific (such as the National Library of Medicine Classification). === Relationship models === The types of KOS with greatest complexity and which utilize connections between concepts include thesauri, semantic networks, and ontologies. One of the most prominent examples of a semantic network is WordNet. === Others === Certain structures proposed to be considered types of KOS—but are not consistently included in schema—include folksonomies, topic maps, web directory structures, publication organization systems, and bibliometric maps. Some KOS organize other KOS themselves—for instance, PeriodO is a gazetteer of periodization categories. == Applications == Some early KOS were developed as a support system for abstracting and indexing services to be used by specially-trained searchers. With the growth of information digitization, usability became increasingly accessible, and more complex structures were developed. Prominent examples of KOS outside of LIS include organism taxonomy in biology, the periodic table of elements in chemistry, SIC and NAICS classification systems for industry & business, and AGROVOC agricultural controlled vocabulary. == Challenges == The study and design of KOS is an ongoing topic of discussion among KO scholars. === Terminology === [There is] a serious lack of vocabulary control in the literature on controlled vocabulary. Inconsistency of terminology within the study of KOS is a common issue. For instance, "ontology" is used for both a specific type of KOS as well as a generic term for any KOS. The terms "taxonomy", "classification", and "categorization" are also sometimes used interchangeably. === Bias === As knowledge can be historically and culturally biased, scholars have also discussed how KOS themselves can perpetuate harmful practices or stereotypes. For example, a number of concerns and criticisms about the classification of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders have been raised, contributing to ongoing revisions. Ethical and intentional design approaches have been proposed for multi-perspective KOS in efforts to mitigate bias and other harmful practices. === Obsolescence === The possible obsolescence of the thesaurus and other simpler KOS has been the topic of debate, especially in the face of increasingly complex ontologies, the growing usage of "Google-like retrieval systems", and the move of KO theory and research away from LIS and toward computer science. Supporters of thesauri argue its continued usefulness for metadata enrichment, vocabulary mapping, and web services, as well as its usage in specific domains such as corporate intranets and digital image libraries.