FedRAMP

The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) is a United States federal government-wide compliance program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. The US government describes FedRAMP as FISMA for the cloud. == Overview == The FedRAMP PMO mission is to promote the adoption of secure cloud services across the federal government by providing a standardized approach to security and risk assessment. Per the OMB memorandum, any cloud services that hold federal data must be FedRAMP authorized. FedRAMP prescribes the security requirements and processes that cloud service providers must follow in order for the government to use their service. There are two ways to authorize a cloud service through FedRAMP: a Joint Authorization Board (JAB) provisional authorization (P-ATO), and through individual agencies. FedRAMP provides accreditation for cloud services for the various cloud offering models which are Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service, (SaaS). == History == In 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a memorandum establishing FedRAMP "to provide a cost-effective, risk-based approach for the adoption and use of cloud services to Executive departments and agencies." The General Services Administration (GSA) established the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) in June 2012. Before the introduction of FedRAMP, individual federal agencies managed their own assessment methodologies following guidance set by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. == Governance and applicable laws == FedRAMP is governed by different Executive Branch entities that collaborate to develop, manage, and operate the program. These entities include: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB): The governing body that issued the FedRAMP policy memo, which defines the key requirements and capabilities of the program The Joint Authorization Board (JAB): The primary governance and decision-making body for FedRAMP comprises the chief information officers (CIOs) from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), General Services Administration (GSA), and Department of Defense (DOD) The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Advises FedRAMP on FISMA compliance requirements and assists in developing the standards for the accreditation of independent 3PAOs The Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Manages the FedRAMP continuous monitoring strategy including data feed criteria, reporting structure, threat notification coordination, and incident response The Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council: Disseminates FedRAMP information to Federal CIOs and other representatives through cross-agency communications and events The FedRAMP PMO: Established within GSA and responsible for the development of the FedRAMP program, including the management of day-to-day operations There are several laws, mandates, and policies that are foundational to FedRAMP. FISMA–the Federal Information Security Modernization Act–requires that agencies authorize the information systems that they use. The US government describes FedRAMP as FISMA for the cloud. The FedRAMP Policy Memo requires federal agencies to use FedRAMP when assessing, authorizing, and continuously monitoring cloud services in order to aid agencies in the authorization process as well as save government resources and eliminate duplicative efforts. FedRAMP's security baselines are derived from NIST SP 800-53 (as revised) with a set of control enhancements that pertain to the unique security requirements of cloud computing. == Third-party assessment organizations == Third-party assessment organizations (3PAOs) play a critical role in the FedRAMP security assessment process, as they are the independent assessment organizations that verify cloud providers' security implementations and provide the overall risk posture of a cloud environment for a security authorization decision. Accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), these assessment organizations must demonstrate independence and the technical competence required to test security implementations and collect representative evidence. == FedRAMP Marketplace == The FedRAMP Marketplace provides a searchable, sortable database of Cloud Service Offerings (CSOs) that have achieved a FedRAMP designation. 3PAOs, accredited auditors that can perform the FedRAMP assessment, are listed within the Marketplace. The FedRAMP Marketplace is maintained by the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO). == Security and authorization concerns == A 2026 ProPublica investigation found that FedRAMP entered into a partnership with Microsoft despite considerable concerns about the security of its cloud technology.

Google Vids

Google Vids (not to be confused with Google Video) is an online timeline-based video editing application included as part of the Google Workspace suite. It is designed to help users create informational videos for work-related purposes. The app uses Google's Gemini technology to enable users to create video storyboards manually or with AI assistance using simple prompts. Features include uploading media, choosing stock videos, images, background music, and a voiceover feature with script generation using AI. The app is currently in testing with select Google Workspace Labs users. Like Kapwing and Capcut, Google Vids is primarily for creating work-related content like sales training, onboarding videos, vendor outreach, and project updates. It offers various styles and templates, collaborative features, and is not limited to videos without the short integration at the moment. Google Vids was announced on April 9, 2024. In September 2025, Google began to roll out a basic version of the application to Google Workspace users.

Exploratory search

Exploratory search is a specialization of information exploration which represents the activities carried out by searchers who are: unfamiliar with the domain of their goal (i.e. need to learn about the topic in order to understand how to achieve their goal) or unsure about the ways to achieve their goals (either the technology or the process) or unsure about their goals in the first place. Exploratory search is distinguished from known-item search, for which the searcher has a particular target in mind. Consequently, exploratory search covers a broader class of activities than typical information retrieval, such as investigating, evaluating, comparing, and synthesizing, where new information is sought in a defined conceptual area; exploratory data analysis is another example of an information exploration activity. Typically, therefore, such users generally combine querying and browsing strategies to foster learning and investigation. == History == Exploratory search is a topic that has grown from the fields of information retrieval and information seeking but has become more concerned with alternatives to the kind of search that has received the majority of focus (returning the most relevant documents to a Google-like keyword search). The research is motivated by questions like "What if the user doesn't know which keywords to use?" or "What if the user isn't looking for a single answer?" Consequently, research has begun to focus on defining the broader set of information behaviors in order to learn about the situations when a user is, or feels, limited by only having the ability to perform a keyword search. In the last few years, a series of workshops has been held at various related and key events. In 2005, the Exploratory Search Interfaces workshop focused on beginning to define some of the key challenges in the field. Since then a series of other workshops has been held at related conferences: Evaluating Exploratory Search at SIGIR06 and Exploratory Search and HCI at CHI07 (in order to meet with the experts in human–computer interaction). In March 2008, an Information Processing and Management special issue focused particularly on the challenges of evaluating exploratory search, given the reduced assumptions that can be made about scenarios of use. In June 2008, the National Science Foundation sponsored an invitational workshop to identify a research agenda for exploratory search and similar fields for the coming years. == Research challenges == === Important scenarios === With the majority of research in the information retrieval community focusing on typical keyword search scenarios, one challenge for exploratory search is to further understand the scenarios of use for when keyword search is not sufficient. An example scenario, often used to motivate the research by mSpace, states: if a user does not know much about classical music, how should they even begin to find a piece that they might like. Similarly, for patients or their carers, if they don't know the right keywords for their health problems, how can they effectively find useful health information for themselves? === Designing new interfaces === With one of the motivations being to support users when keyword search is not enough, some research has focused on identifying alternative user interfaces and interaction models that support the user in different ways. An example is faceted search which presents diverse category-style options to the users, so that they can choose from a list instead of guess a possible keyword query. Many of the interactive forms of search, including faceted browsers, are being considered for their support of exploratory search conditions. Computational cognitive models of exploratory search have been developed to capture the cognitive complexities involved in exploratory search. Model-based dynamic presentation of information cues are proposed to facilitate exploratory search performance. === Evaluating interfaces === As the tasks and goals involved with exploratory search are largely undefined or unpredictable, it is very hard to evaluate systems with the measures often used in information retrieval. Accuracy was typically used to show that a user had found a correct answer, but when the user is trying to summarize a domain of information, the correct answer is near impossible to identify, if not entirely subjective (for example: possible hotels to stay in Paris). In exploration, it is also arguable that spending more time (where time efficiency is typically desirable) researching a topic shows that a system provides increased support for investigation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, giving study participants a well specified task could immediately prevent them from exhibiting exploratory behavior. === Models of exploratory search behavior === There have been recent attempts to develop a process model of exploratory search behavior, especially in social information system (e.g., see models of collaborative tagging. The process model assumes that user-generated information cues, such as social tags, can act as navigational cues that facilitate exploration of information that others have found and shared with other users on a social information system (such as social bookmarking system). These models provided extension to existing process model of information search that characterizes information-seeking behavior in traditional fact-retrievals using search engines. Recent development in exploratory search is often concentrated in predicting users' search intents in interaction with the user. Such predictive user modeling, also referred as intent modeling, can help users to get accustomed to a body of domain knowledge and help users to make sense of the potential directions to be explored around their initial, often vague, expression of information needs. == Major figures == Key figures, including experts from both information seeking and human–computer interaction, are: Marcia Bates Nicholas Belkin Gary Marchionini m.c. schraefel Ryen W. White

Documentation science

Documentation science is the study of the recording and retrieval of information. It includes methods for storing, retrieving, and sharing of information captured on physical as well as digital documents. This field is closely linked to the fields of library science and information science but has its own theories and practices. The term documentation science was coined by Belgian lawyer and peace activist Paul Otlet. He is considered to be the forefather of information science. He along with Henri La Fontaine laid the foundations of documentation science as a field of study. Professionals in this field are called documentalists. Over the years, documentation science has grown to become a large and important field of study. Evolving from traditional practices like archiving and retrieval to modern theories about the nature of documents, novel methods for organizing digital information, and applications in libraries, research, healthcare, business, and technology and more. This field continues to evolve in the digital age. == Developments in documentation science == 1895: The International Institute of Bibliography (originally Institut International de Bibliographie, IIB) was established on 12 September 1895, in Brussels, Belgium by Paul Otlet and Henri La Fontaine. It aimed to catalog all recorded knowledge using a universal classification system now known as the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). 1931: International Institute of Bibliography (originally Institut International de Bibliographie, IIB) was renamed The International Institute for Documentation, (Institut International de Documentation, IID). 1934: Paul Otlet envisioned a “radiated library,” a global network of interconnected documents accessible from anywhere via telecommunication. This early idea is now seen as a forerunner of the internet. 1937: American Documentation Institute was founded (1968 nameshift to American Society for Information Science). 1951: Suzanne Briet published Qu'est-ce que la documentation? where she proposed that “a document is evidence in support of a fact,” expanding the definition to include objects such as animals in zoos when they are part of a scientific study. This was a significant theoretical shift in defining documents. 1965-1990: Documentation departments were established, for example, large research libraries, online computer retrieval systems and more. The persons doing the searches were called documentalists. But with the appearance of first CD-ROM databases in the mid-1980s and later the internet in 1990s, these intermediary searches decreased and most such departments closed or merged with other departments. 1996: "Dokvit", Documentation Studies, was established in 1996 at the University of Tromsø in Norway. 2001: The Document Academy was established. It is an international network that celebrates documentation. It was conducted by The Program of Documentation Studies, University of Tromsø, Norway and The School of Information Management and Systems, UC Berkeley. 2003: The first Document Research Conference (DOCAM), a series of conferences made by the Document Academy. DOCAM '03 (2003) was held 13–15 August 2003 at The School of Information Management and Systems (SIMS) at the University of California, Berkeley. 2007: Michael Buckland, Ronald Day, and Birger Hjørland expanded the theoretical foundations of documentation science. They researched and explored documents to be social artifacts, the role of ideology in classification, and how documents influenced knowledge systems. 2010s: The concept of post-documentation or “documentality” began in the 2010s, which focused on how digital traces (e.g., tweets, logs) function as documents without traditional physical form. This led to new thinking in document theory. 2016–present: The Document Academy's DOCAM conferences have continued, offering ongoing developments in the theory and practice of documentation. Themes include affect, memory, activism, and born-digital records. 2017: The journal Information Research published special issues addressing “document theory,” including views on documentation in virtual environments and digital archives. 2020–present: The growth of research data management (RDM) and open science has made documentation practices central to data sharing, metadata standards, and reproducibility in scientific work. == Theoretical foundations == Documentation science has some deep theories that explain what a document is, how people use documents, and how they are organized. These concepts were introduced by scholars who have not only studied libraries, but also philosophy, language, and social sciences. Suzanne Briet described a document as “any material form of evidence” that is made to be used as proof or to share information. An antelope in a zoo, for example, can be a document because it is being studied, classified, and described. Documents are not just things or materials but are also shaped by society. Michael Buckland noted that documents have meaning only when people agree they are useful or valid as information. He explained a document becomes a document when someone decides to use it as evidence. Ronald Day wrote about how documentation is not neutral, it can be influenced by power, ideology, and politics. He claimed that classification systems, like how libraries organize books, are not just technical tools. They also show what kinds of knowledge are seen as more important than others. In recent years, new theories have been introduced, like “documentality” by Maurizio Ferraris. He proposed that a document does not have to be a paper or file, it can also be something digital like a tweet, a database entry, or a log file, as long as it leaves a trace that can be looked at later. This theory helps explain modern digital documents. == Methodologies and practice == Documentation science includes many methods that help people collect, organize, store, and find information. These practices are used in libraries, archives, research labs, companies, and now also in online systems. === Collecting and creating documents === In the past, documentation work included gathering books, articles, reports, and other printed materials. People created records of these materials manually, using catalog cards, indexes, or bibliographies. Paul Otlet’s work with the Universal Bibliographic Repertory is one example. He created millions of card entries to organize knowledge from around the world. Today, documents are not only created by humans. Computers and machines also generate documents, like log files, metadata, and sensor data. These need new tools and methods for collection and management. === Organizing information === Organizing documents has always been a foundational element of documentation science. Methods like classification (dividing things into groups) and indexing (making lists of topics or keywords) help individuals find what they need. A widely used system is the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) developed by Otlet and La Fontaine. Another is the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) used in the majority of U.S. libraries. Indexing can be performed by humans or by software programs that read the text and add tags to documents. Metadata is also used to describe documents. Metadata is “data about data” like the title, author, date, and subject of a document. Standards like Dublin Core are used in digital libraries to keep metadata consistent. === Retrieval and access === One of the main objectives of documentation is helping users find the right document. This is called information retrieval. In the past, this meant using catalog drawers or printed indexes. Today, people use search engines, databases, and digital libraries. Modern retrieval tools use Boolean logic, ranking algorithms, and sometimes machine learning to show the most useful results first. This is part of what is studied in both documentation science and information retrieval. === Preservation and archiving === Documents require long-term storage. This is called preservation of documents. Printed documents can be damaged by light, pests, or even time on the other hand digital documents can be deemed worthless if formats become outdated or storage facilities fail. Archivists use methods like migration, which includes moving files to new formats, and emulation, which replicates obsolete systems, to preserve materials. These methods and tools are ever changing as new technologies develop. But the main objective of documentation has remained the same, which is to keep information safe, organized, and easy to find. == Documentation in the digital age == With the expansion of the internet, computers, and cloud storage, documents are no longer just books, papers, or reports. They can now be emails, tweets, videos, websites, databases, or even log files created by machines. === Born-digital documents === Many documents today are created directly in digital form. These are called born-digit

Knowledge graph

In knowledge representation and reasoning, a knowledge graph is a knowledge base that uses a graph-structured data model or topology to represent and operate on data. Knowledge graphs are often used to store interlinked descriptions of entities – objects, events, situations or abstract concepts – while also encoding the free-form semantics or relationships underlying these entities. Since the development of the Semantic Web, knowledge graphs have often been associated with linked open data projects, focusing on the connections between concepts and entities. They are also historically associated with and used by search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo; knowledge engines and question-answering services such as WolframAlpha, Apple's Siri, and Amazon Alexa; and social networks such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Recent developments in data science and machine learning, particularly in graph neural networks, representation learning, and machine learning, have broadened the scope of knowledge graphs beyond their traditional use in search engines and recommender systems. They are increasingly used in scientific research, with notable applications in fields such as genomics, proteomics, and systems biology. == History == The term was coined as early as 1972 by the Austrian linguist Edgar W. Schneider, in a discussion of how to build modular instructional systems for courses. In the late 1980s, the University of Groningen and University of Twente jointly began a project called Knowledge Graphs, focusing on the design of semantic networks with edges restricted to a limited set of relations, to facilitate algebras on the graph. In subsequent decades, the distinction between semantic networks and knowledge graphs was blurred. Some early knowledge graphs were topic-specific. In 1985, Wordnet was founded, capturing semantic relationships between words and meanings – an application of this idea to language itself. In 2005, Marc Wirk founded Geonames to capture relationships between different geographic names and locales and associated entities. In 1998, Andrew Edmonds of Science in Finance Ltd in the UK created a system called ThinkBase that offered fuzzy-logic based reasoning in a graphical context. In 2007, both DBpedia and Freebase were founded as graph-based knowledge repositories for general-purpose knowledge. DBpedia focused exclusively on data extracted from Wikipedia, while Freebase also included a range of public datasets. Neither described themselves as a 'knowledge graph' but developed and described related concepts. In 2012, Google introduced their Knowledge Graph, building on DBpedia and Freebase among other sources. They later incorporated RDFa, Microdata, JSON-LD content extracted from indexed web pages, including the CIA World Factbook, Wikidata, and Wikipedia. Entity and relationship types associated with this knowledge graph have been further organized using terms from the schema.org vocabulary. The Google Knowledge Graph became a complement to string-based search within Google, and its popularity online brought the term into more common use. Since then, several large multinationals have advertised their use of knowledge graphs, further popularising the term. These include Facebook, LinkedIn, Airbnb, Microsoft, Amazon, Uber and eBay. In 2019, IEEE combined its annual international conferences on "Big Knowledge" and "Data Mining and Intelligent Computing" into the International Conference on Knowledge Graph. The development of large language models expanded interest in knowledge graphs as a way to structure information from unstructured text, with advances in language processing enabling their automatic or semi-automatic generation and expansion. The term knowledge graph has since broadened to include the dynamically constructed and adaptive graph structures, which support retrieval, reasoning, and summarization in generative systems. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG (2024) exemplified this development by integrating LLM-generated graphs into retrieval-augmented generation. == Definitions == There is no single commonly accepted definition of a knowledge graph. Most definitions view the topic through a Semantic Web lens and include these features: Flexible relations among knowledge in topical domains: A knowledge graph (i) defines abstract classes and relations of entities in a schema, (ii) mainly describes real world entities and their interrelations, organized in a graph, (iii) allows for potentially interrelating arbitrary entities with each other, and (iv) covers various topical domains. General structure: A network of entities, their semantic types, properties, and relationships. To represent properties, categorical or numerical values are often used. Supporting reasoning over inferred ontologies: A knowledge graph acquires and integrates information into an ontology and applies a reasoner to derive new knowledge. There are, however, many knowledge graph representations for which some of these features are not relevant. For those knowledge graphs, this simpler definition may be more useful: A digital structure that represents knowledge as concepts and the relationships between them (facts). A knowledge graph can include an ontology that allows both humans and machines to understand and reason about its contents. === Implementations === In addition to the above examples, the term has been used to describe open knowledge projects such as YAGO and Wikidata; federations like the Linked Open Data cloud; a range of commercial search tools, including Yahoo's semantic search assistant Spark, Google's Knowledge Graph, and Microsoft's Satori; and the LinkedIn and Facebook entity graphs. The term is also used in the context of note-taking software applications that allow a user to build a personal knowledge graph. The popularization of knowledge graphs and their accompanying methods have led to the development of graph databases such as Neo4j, GraphDB and AgensGraph. These graph databases allow users to easily store data as entities and their interrelationships, and facilitate operations such as data reasoning, node embedding, and ontology development on knowledge bases. In contrast, virtual knowledge graphs do not store information in specialized databases. They rely on an underlying relational database or data lake to answer queries on the graph. Such a virtual knowledge graph system must be properly configured in order to answer the queries correctly. This specific configuration is done through a set of mappings that define the relationship between the elements of the data source and the structure and ontology of the virtual knowledge graph. == Using a knowledge graph for reasoning over data == A knowledge graph formally represents semantics by describing entities and their relationships. Knowledge graphs may make use of ontologies as a schema layer. By doing this, they allow logical inference for retrieving implicit knowledge rather than only allowing queries requesting explicit knowledge. In order to allow the use of knowledge graphs in various machine learning tasks, several methods for deriving latent feature representations of entities and relations have been devised. These knowledge graph embeddings allow them to be connected to machine learning methods that require feature vectors like word embeddings. This can complement other estimates of conceptual similarity. Models for generating useful knowledge graph embeddings are commonly the domain of graph neural networks (GNNs). GNNs are deep learning architectures that comprise edges and nodes, which correspond well to the entities and relationships of knowledge graphs. The topology and data structures afforded by GNNs provide a convenient domain for semi-supervised learning, wherein the network is trained to predict the value of a node embedding (provided a group of adjacent nodes and their edges) or edge (provided a pair of nodes). These tasks serve as fundamental abstractions for more complex tasks such as knowledge graph reasoning and alignment. === Entity alignment === As new knowledge graphs are produced across a variety of fields and contexts, the same entity will inevitably be represented in multiple graphs. However, because no single standard for the construction or representation of knowledge graph exists, resolving which entities from disparate graphs correspond to the same real world subject is a non-trivial task. This task is known as knowledge graph entity alignment, and is an active area of research. Strategies for entity alignment generally seek to identify similar substructures, semantic relationships, shared attributes, or combinations of all three between two distinct knowledge graphs. Entity alignment methods use these structural similarities between generally non-isomorphic graphs to predict which nodes correspond to the same entity. In 2023, researchers found success in using large language models (LLMs) in the task of entity alignment. This was in particul

WaveNet

WaveNet is a deep neural network for generating raw audio. It was created by researchers at London-based AI firm DeepMind. The technique, outlined in a paper in September 2016, is able to generate relatively realistic-sounding human-like voices by directly modelling waveforms using a neural network method trained with recordings of real speech. Tests with US English and Mandarin reportedly showed that the system outperforms Google's best existing text-to-speech (TTS) systems, although as of 2016 its text-to-speech synthesis still was less convincing than actual human speech. WaveNet's ability to generate raw waveforms means that it can model any kind of audio, including music. == History == Generating speech from text is an increasingly common task thanks to the popularity of software such as Apple's Siri, Microsoft's Cortana, Amazon Alexa and the Google Assistant. Most such systems use a variation of a technique that involves concatenated sound fragments together to form recognisable sounds and words. The most common of these is called concatenative TTS. It consists of large library of speech fragments, recorded from a single speaker that are then concatenated to produce complete words and sounds. The result sounds unnatural, with an odd cadence and tone. The reliance on a recorded library also makes it difficult to modify or change the voice. Another technique, known as parametric TTS, uses mathematical models to recreate sounds that are then assembled into words and sentences. The information required to generate the sounds is stored in the parameters of the model. The characteristics of the output speech are controlled via the inputs to the model, while the speech is typically created using a voice synthesiser known as a vocoder. This can also result in unnatural sounding audio. == Design and ongoing research == === Background === WaveNet is a type of feedforward neural network known as a deep convolutional neural network (CNN). In WaveNet, the CNN takes a raw signal as an input and synthesises an output one sample at a time. It does so by sampling from a softmax (i.e. categorical) distribution of a signal value that is encoded using μ-law companding transformation and quantized to 256 possible values. === Initial concept and results === According to the original September 2016 DeepMind research paper WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio, the network was fed real waveforms of speech in English and Mandarin. As these pass through the network, it learns a set of rules to describe how the audio waveform evolves over time. The trained network can then be used to create new speech-like waveforms at 16,000 samples per second. These waveforms include realistic breaths and lip smacks – but do not conform to any language. WaveNet is able to accurately model different voices, with the accent and tone of the input correlating with the output. For example, if it is trained with German, it produces German speech. The capability also means that if the WaveNet is fed other inputs – such as music – its output will be musical. At the time of its release, DeepMind showed that WaveNet could produce waveforms that sound like classical music. === Content (voice) swapping === According to the June 2018 paper Disentangled Sequential Autoencoder, DeepMind has successfully used WaveNet for audio and voice "content swapping": the network can swap the voice on an audio recording for another, pre-existing voice while maintaining the text and other features from the original recording. "We also experiment on audio sequence data. Our disentangled representation allows us to convert speaker identities into each other while conditioning on the content of the speech." (p. 5) "For audio, this allows us to convert a male speaker into a female speaker and vice versa [...]." (p. 1) According to the paper, a two-digit minimum amount of hours (c. 50 hours) of pre-existing speech recordings of both source and target voice are required to be fed into WaveNet for the program to learn their individual features before it is able to perform the conversion from one voice to another at a satisfying quality. The authors stress that "[a]n advantage of the model is that it separates dynamical from static features [...]." (p. 8), i. e. WaveNet is capable of distinguishing between the spoken text and modes of delivery (modulation, speed, pitch, mood, etc.) to maintain during the conversion from one voice to another on the one hand, and the basic features of both source and target voices that it is required to swap on the other. The January 2019 follow-up paper Unsupervised speech representation learning using WaveNet autoencoders details a method to successfully enhance the proper automatic recognition and discrimination between dynamical and static features for "content swapping", notably including swapping voices on existing audio recordings, in order to make it more reliable. Another follow-up paper, Sample Efficient Adaptive Text-to-Speech, dated September 2018 (latest revision January 2019), states that DeepMind has successfully reduced the minimum amount of real-life recordings required to sample an existing voice via WaveNet to "merely a few minutes of audio data" while maintaining high-quality results. Its ability to clone voices has raised ethical concerns about WaveNet's ability to mimic the voices of living and dead persons. According to a 2016 BBC article, companies working on similar voice-cloning technologies (such as Adobe Voco) intend to insert watermarking inaudible to humans to prevent counterfeiting, while maintaining that voice cloning satisfying, for instance, the needs of entertainment-industry purposes would be of a far lower complexity and use different methods than required to fool forensic evidencing methods and electronic ID devices, so that natural voices and voices cloned for entertainment-industry purposes could still be easily told apart by technological analysis. == Applications == At the time of its release, DeepMind said that WaveNet required too much computational processing power to be used in real world applications. As of October 2017, Google announced a 1,000-fold performance improvement along with better voice quality. WaveNet was then used to generate Google Assistant voices for US English and Japanese across all Google platforms. In November 2017, DeepMind researchers released a research paper detailing a proposed method of "generating high-fidelity speech samples at more than 20 times faster than real-time", called "Probability Density Distillation". At the annual I/O developer conference in May 2018, it was announced that new Google Assistant voices were available and made possible by WaveNet; WaveNet greatly reduced the number of audio recordings that were required to create a voice model by modeling the raw audio of the voice actor samples.

Enterprise information integration

Enterprise information integration (EII) is the ability to support a unified view of data and information for an entire organization. The goal of EII is to get a large set of heterogeneous data sources to appear to a user or system as a single, homogeneous data source. In a data virtualization application of EII, there is a process of information integration, using data abstraction to provide a unified interface (known as uniform data access) for viewing all the data within an organization, and a single set of structures and naming conventions (known as uniform information representation) to represent this data. == Overview == Data within an enterprise can be stored in heterogeneous formats, including relational databases (which themselves come in a large number of varieties), text files, XML files, spreadsheets and a variety of proprietary storage methods, each with their own indexing and data access methods. Standardized data access APIs have emerged that offer a specific set of commands to retrieve and modify data from a generic data source. Many applications exist that implement these APIs' commands across various data sources, most notably relational databases. Such APIs include ODBC, JDBC, XQJ, OLE DB, and more recently ADO.NET. There are also standard formats for representing data within a file that are very important to information integration. The best-known of these is XML, which has emerged as a standard universal representation format. There are also more specific XML "grammars" defined for specific types of data such as Geography Markup Language for expressing geographical features and Directory Service Markup Language for holding directory-style information. In addition, non-XML standard formats exist such as iCalendar for representing calendar information and vCard for business card information. Enterprise Information Integration (EII) applies data integration commercially. Despite the theoretical problems described above, the private sector shows more concern with the problems of data integration as a viable product. EII emphasizes neither correctness nor tractability, but speed and simplicity. === Uniform data access === Uniform data access means connectivity and controllability across numerous target data sources. Necessary to fields such as EII and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), it is most often used regarding analysis of disparate data types and data sources, which must be rendered into a uniform information representation, and generally must appear homogenous to the analysis tools—when the data being analyzed is typically heterogeneous and widely varying in size, type, and original representation. === Uniform information representation === Uniform information representation allows information from several realms or disciplines to be displayed and worked with as if it came from the same realm or discipline. It takes information from a number of sources, which may have used different methodologies and metrics in their data collection, and builds a single large collection of information, where some records may be more complete than others across all fields of data Uniform information representation is particularly important in EII and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), where different departments of a large organization may have collected information for different purposes, with different labels and units, until one department realized that data already collected by those other departments could be re-purposed for their own needs—saving the enterprise the effort and cost of re-collecting the same information. === Combining disparate data sets === Each data source is disparate and as such is not designed to support EII. Therefore, data virtualization as well as data federation depends upon accidental data commonality to support combining data and information from disparate data sets. Because of this lack of data value commonality across data sources, the return set may be inaccurate, incomplete, and impossible to validate. One solution is to recast disparate databases to integrate these databases without the need for ETL. The recast databases support commonality constraints where referential integrity may be enforced between databases. The recast databases provide designed data access paths with data value commonality across databases. === Simplicity of deployment === Even if recognized as a solution to a problem, EII as of 2009 currently takes time to apply and offers complexities in deployment. Proposed schema-less solutions include "Lean Middleware". === Handling higher-order information === Analysts experience difficulty—even with a functioning information integration system—in determining whether the sources in the database will satisfy a given application. Answering these kinds of questions about a set of repositories requires semantic information like metadata and/or ontologies. == Applications == EII products enable loose coupling between homogeneous-data consuming client applications and services and heterogeneous-data stores. Such client applications and services include Desktop Productivity Tools (spreadsheets, word processors, presentation software, etc.), development environments and frameworks (Java EE, .NET, Mono, SOAP or RESTful Web services, etc.), business intelligence (BI), business activity monitoring (BAM) software, enterprise resource planning (ERP), Customer relationship management (CRM), business process management (BPM and/or BPEL) Software, and web content management (CMS). == Data access technologies == Service Data Objects (SDO) for Java, C++ and .Net clients and any type of data source XQuery and XQuery API for Java