In telecommunications, Long Term Evolution (LTE) is a standard for wireless broadband communication for cellular mobile devices and data terminals. It is considered to be a "transitional" 4G technology, and is therefore also referred to as 3.95G as a step above 3G. LTE is based on the 2G GSM/EDGE and 3G UMTS/HSPA standards. It improves on those standards' capacity and speed by using a different radio interface and core network improvements. LTE is the upgrade path for carriers with both GSM/UMTS networks and CDMA2000 networks. LTE has been succeeded by LTE Advanced, which is officially defined as a "true" 4G technology and also named "LTE+". == Terminology == The standard is developed by the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) and is specified in its Release 8 document series, with minor enhancements described in Release 9. LTE is also called 3.95G and has been marketed as 4G LTE and Advanced 4G; but the original version did not meet the technical criteria of a 4G wireless service, as specified in the 3GPP Release 8 and 9 document series for LTE Advanced. The requirements were set forth by the ITU-R organisation in the IMT Advanced specification; but, because of market pressure and the significant advances that WiMAX, Evolved High Speed Packet Access, and LTE bring to the original 3G technologies, ITU-R later decided that LTE and the aforementioned technologies can be called 4G technologies. The LTE Advanced standard formally satisfies the ITU-R requirements for being considered IMT-Advanced. To differentiate LTE Advanced and WiMAX-Advanced from current 4G technologies, ITU has defined the latter as "True 4G". == Overview == LTE stands for Long Term Evolution and is a registered trademark owned by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) for the wireless data communications technology and development of the GSM/UMTS standards. However, other nations and companies do play an active role in the LTE project. The goal of LTE was to increase the capacity and speed of wireless data networks using new DSP (digital signal processing) techniques and modulations that were developed around the turn of the millennium. A further goal was the redesign and simplification of the network architecture to an IP-based system with significantly reduced transfer latency compared with the 3G architecture. The LTE wireless interface is incompatible with 2G and 3G networks, so it must be operated on a separate radio spectrum. The idea of LTE was first proposed in 1998, with the use of the COFDM radio access technique to replace the CDMA and studying its Terrestrial use in the L band at 1428 MHz (TE) In 2004 by Japan's NTT Docomo, with studies on the standard officially commenced in 2005. In May 2007, the LTE/SAE Trial Initiative (LSTI) alliance was founded as a global collaboration between vendors and operators with the goal of verifying and promoting the new standard to ensure the global introduction of the technology as quickly as possible. The LTE standard was finalized in December 2008, and the first publicly available LTE service was launched by TeliaSonera in Oslo and Stockholm on December 14, 2009, as a data connection with a USB modem. The LTE services were launched by major North American carriers as well, with the Samsung SCH-r900 being the world's first LTE Mobile phone starting on September 21, 2010, and Samsung Galaxy Indulge being the world's first LTE smartphone starting on February 10, 2011, both offered by MetroPCS, and the HTC ThunderBolt offered by Verizon starting on March 17 being the second LTE smartphone to be sold commercially. In Canada, Rogers Wireless was the first to launch LTE network on July 7, 2011, offering the Sierra Wireless AirCard 313U USB mobile broadband modem, known as the "LTE Rocket stick" then followed closely by mobile devices from both HTC and Samsung. Initially, CDMA operators planned to upgrade to rival standards called UMB and WiMAX, but major CDMA operators (such as Verizon, Sprint and MetroPCS in the United States, Bell and Telus in Canada, au by KDDI in Japan, SK Telecom in South Korea and China Telecom/China Unicom in China) have announced instead they intend to migrate to LTE. The next version of LTE is LTE Advanced, which was standardized in March 2011. Services commenced in 2013. Additional evolution known as LTE Advanced Pro was approved in 2015. The LTE specification provides downlink peak rates of 300 Mbit/s, uplink peak rates of 75 Mbit/s, and QoS provisions permitting a transfer latency of less than 5 ms in the radio access network. LTE has the ability to manage fast-moving mobiles and supports multicast and broadcast streams. LTE supports scalable carrier bandwidths, from 1.4 MHz to 20 MHz and supports both frequency division duplexing (FDD) and time-division duplexing (TDD). The IP-based network architecture, called the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) designed to replace the GPRS Core Network, supports seamless handovers for both voice and data to cell towers with older network technology such as GSM, UMTS and CDMA2000. The simpler architecture results in lower operating costs (for example, each E-UTRA cell will support up to four times the data and voice capacity supported by HSPA). Because LTE frequencies and bands differ from country to country, only multi-band phones can use LTE in all countries where it is supported. == History == === 3GPP standard development timeline === In 2004, NTT Docomo of Japan proposes LTE as the international standard. In September 2006, Siemens Networks (today Nokia Networks) showed in collaboration with Nomor Research the first live emulation of an LTE network to the media and investors. As live applications, two users streaming an HDTV video in the downlink and playing an interactive game in the uplink have been demonstrated. In February 2007, Ericsson demonstrated for the first time in the world, LTE with bit rates up to 144 Mbit/s In September 2007, NTT Docomo demonstrated LTE data rates of 200 Mbit/s with power level below 100 mW during the test. In November 2007, Infineon presented the world's first RF transceiver named SMARTi LTE, supporting LTE functionality in a single-chip RF silicon processed in CMOS In early 2008, LTE test equipment began shipping from several vendors and at the Mobile World Congress 2008 in Barcelona, Ericsson demonstrated the world's first end-to-end mobile call enabled by LTE on a small handheld device. Motorola demonstrated an LTE RAN (Radio Access Network) standard compliant eNodeB and LTE chipset at the same event. At the February 2008 Mobile World Congress: Motorola demonstrated how LTE can accelerate the delivery of personal media experience with HD video demo streaming, HD video blogging, online gaming, and VoIP over LTE running a RAN standard-compliant LTE network & LTE chipset. Ericsson EMP (later ST-Ericsson) demonstrated the world's first end-to-end LTE call on handheld Ericsson demonstrated LTE FDD and TDD mode on the same base station platform. Freescale Semiconductor demonstrated streaming HD video with peak data rates of 96 Mbit/s downlink and 86 Mbit/s uplink. NXP Semiconductors (later part of ST-Ericsson) demonstrated a multi-mode LTE modem as the basis for a software-defined radio system for use in cellphones. picoChip and Mimoon demonstrated a base station reference design. This runs on a common hardware platform (multi-mode / software-defined radio) with their WiMAX architecture. In April 2008, Motorola demonstrated the first EV-DO to LTE hand-off handling over streaming a video from LTE to a commercial EV-DO network and back to LTE. In April 2008, LG Electronics and Nortel demonstrated LTE data rates of 50 Mbit/s while travelling at 110 km/h (68 mph). In November 2008, Motorola demonstrated industry first over-the-air LTE session in 700 MHz spectrum. Researchers at Nokia Siemens Networks and Heinrich Hertz Institut have demonstrated LTE with 100 Mbit/s Uplink transfer speeds. At the February 2009 Mobile World Congress: Infineon demonstrated a single-chip 65 nm CMOS RF transceiver providing 2G/3G/LTE functionality Launch of ng Connect program, a multi-industry consortium founded by Alcatel-Lucent to identify and develop wireless broadband applications. Motorola provided LTE drive tour on the streets of Barcelona to demonstrate LTE system performance in a real-life metropolitan RF environment In July 2009, Nujira demonstrated efficiencies of more than 60% for an 880 MHz LTE Power Amplifier In August 2009, Nortel and LG Electronics demonstrated the first successful handoff between CDMA and LTE networks in a standards-compliant manner In August 2009, Alcatel-Lucent receives FCC certification for LTE base stations for the 700 MHz spectrum band. In September 2009, Nokia Siemens Networks demonstrated the world's first LTE call on standards-compliant commercial software. In October 2009, Ericsson and Samsung demonstrated interoperability between the first ever commercial LTE device and the live network in
Electronic sell-through
Electronic sell-through (EST) is a method of media distribution whereby consumers pay a one-time fee to download a media file for storage on a hard drive. Although EST is often described as a transaction that grants content "ownership" to the consumer, the content may become unusable after a certain period and may not be viewable using competing platforms. EST is used by a wide array of digital media products, including movies, television, music, games, and mobile applications. The term is sometimes used interchangeably with download to own (DTO). == Film and television == The film and television industry's $18.8 billion home entertainment market consists of rental and sell-through segments, the latter of which includes the electronic sell-through of digital content. In 2010, EST generated $683 million of total home entertainment revenues, putting it behind the more lucrative revenue streams of cable video-on-demand (VOD) and internet video-on-demand (iVOD), which brought in a combined $1.8 billion in the same period. In 2010, Apple's iTunes Store accounted for three quarters of the U.S. EST business. The rest of the EST market was captured by Microsoft (via its Zune Video platform), Sony, Amazon VOD (now Amazon Video), and Walmart (via its VUDU service). A number of industry trends indicate the future expansion of EST's share of digital distribution revenues. David Bishop, worldwide president of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, describes the following outlook: "With the launch of UltraViolet (the cloud-based digital copy locker system) establishing a common digital distribution platform later this year, prices potentially coming down on digital sales, more marketing devoted to digital sellthrough, and studios adding more value to the sellthrough product by making HD available and building in smarter extra features, we see the balance tilting even more toward owning and collecting digital movies."
NCSA Brown Dog
NCSA Brown Dog is a research project to develop a method for easily accessing historic research data stored in order to maintain the long-term viability of large bodies of scientific research. It is supported by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) that is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). == History == Brown Dog is part of the DataNet partners program funded by NSF in 2008. DataNet was conceived to address the increasingly digital and data-intensive nature of science, engineering and education. Brown Dog is part of a follow-on effort called Data Infrastructure Building Blocks (DIBBs), focused on building software to support DataNet. The project was proposed by researchers at NCSA and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign as well as researchers from Boston University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. == Unstructured, uncurated, long tail data == Much scientific data is smaller, unstructured and uncurated and thus not easily shared. Such data is sometimes referred to as "long tail" data. This borrows a term from statistics and refers to the tail of the distribution of project sizes. The majority of smaller projects lack the resources to properly steward the data they produce. This so-called "long tail" data, both past and present, has the potential to inform future research in many study areas. Much of this data has become inaccessible due to obsolete software and file formats. The resulting impossibility of reviewing data from older research disrupts the overall scientific research project. == Approach == Brown Dog describes itself as the "super mutt" of software (thus the name "Brown Dog"), serving as a low-level data infrastructure to interface digital data content across the internet. Its approach is to use every possible source of automated help (i.e., software) in existence in a robust and provenance-preserving manner to create a service that can deal with as much of this data as possible. The project sees the broader impact of its work in its potential to serve the general public as a sort of "DNS for data", with the goal of making all data and all file formats as accessible as webpages are today. == Technology == Brown Dog seeks to address problems involving the use of uncurated and unstructured data collections through the development of two services: the Data Access Proxy (DAP) to aid in the conversion of file formats and the Data Tilling Services (DTS) for the automatic extraction of metadata from file contents. Once developed, researchers and general public users will be able to download browser plugins and other tools from the Brown Dog tool catalog. === Data Tilling Service === Data Tilling Service (DTS) will allow users to search data collections using an existing file to discover other similar files in a collection. A DTS search field will be appended to configured browsers where example files can be dropped. This tells DTS to search all the files under a given URL for files similar to the dropped file. For example, while browsing an online image collection, a user could drop an image of three people into the search field, and the DTS would return all images in the collection that also contain three people. If DTS encounters a foreign file format, it will utilize DAP to make the file accessible. DTS also indexes the data and extract and appends metadata to files and collections enabling users to gain some sense of the type of data they are encountering. This service runs on port 9443. === Data Access Proxy === Data Access Proxy (DAP) allows users to access data files that would otherwise be unreadable. Similar to an internet gateway or Domain Name Service, the DAP configuration would be entered into a user's machine and browser settings. Data requests over HTTP would first be examined by DAP to determine if the native file format is readable on the client device. If not, DAP converts the file into the best available format readable by the client machine. Alternatively, the user could specify the desired format themselves. This service runs on port 8184. == Use cases == Brown Dog targets three use cases proposed by groups within the EarthCube research communities. Developers and researchers from these communities will work together on use cases that span geoscience, engineering, biology and social science. === Long tail vegetation data in ecology and global change biology === This use case is led by Michael Dietze, Boston University Data on the abundance, species composition, and size structure of vegetation is critically important for a wide array of sub-disciplines in ecology, conservation, natural resource management, and global change biology. However, addressing many of the pressing questions in these disciplines will require that terrestrial biosphere and hydrologic models are able to assimilate the large amount of long-tail data that exists but is largely inaccessible. The Brown Dog team in cooperation with researches from Dietze's lab will facilitate the capture of a huge body of smaller research-oriented vegetation data sets collected over many decades and historical vegetation data embedded in Public Land Survey data dating back to 1785. This data will be used as initial conditions for models, to make sense of other large data sets and for model calibration and validation. === Designing green infrastructure considering storm water and human requirements === This use case is led by Barbara Minsker], University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]; William Sullivan, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Arthur Schmidt, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This case study involves developing novel green infrastructure design criteria and models that integrate requirements for storm water management and ecosystem and human health and well being. To address the scientific and social problems associated with the design of green spaces, data accessibility and availability is a major challenge. This study will focus on identified areas of the Green Healthy Neighborhood Planning region within the City of Chicago where existing local sewer performance is most deficient and where changes in impervious area through green infrastructure would be beneficial to under served neighborhoods. Brown Dog will be used to extract long-tail experimental data on human landscape preferences and health impacts. This data will be used to develop a human health impacts model that will then be linked together with a terrestrial biosphere model and a storm water model using Brown Dog technology. === Development and application for critical zone studies === This use case is led by Praveen Kumar, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Critical Zone (CZ) is the "skin" of the earth that extends from the treetops to the bedrock that is created by life processes working at scales from microbes to biomes. The Critical Zone supports all terrestrial living systems. Its upper part is the bio-mantle. This is where terrestrial biota live, reproduce, use and expend energy, and where their wastes and remains accumulate and decompose. It encompasses the soil, which acts as a geomembrane through which water and solutes, energy, gases, solids, and organisms interact with the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. A variety of drivers affect this bio-dynamic zone, ranging from climate and deforestation to agriculture, grazing and human development. Understanding and predicting these effects is central to managing and sustaining vital ecosystem services such as soil fertility, water purification, and production of food resources, and, at larger scales, global carbon cycling and carbon sequestration. The CZ provides a unifying framework for integrating terrestrial surface and near-surface environments, and reflects an intricate web of biological and chemical processes and human impacts occurring at vastly different temporal and spatial scales. The nature of these data create significant challenges for inter-disciplinary studies of the CZ because integration of the variety and number of data products and models has been a barrier. On the other hand, CZ data provides an excellent opportunity for defining, testing and implementing Brown Dog technologies. In this context "unstructured" data is viewed broadly as consisting of a collection of heterogeneous data with formats that reflect temporal and disciplinary legacies, data from emerging low cost open hardware based sensors and embedded sensor networks that lack well defined metadata and sensor characteristics, as well as data that are available as maps, images and text. == NSF Award == CIF21 DIBBs: Brown Dog was awarded in the winter of 2013 with a start date of October 1, 2013. Estimated expiration date is September 30, 2018. The award amount was $10,519,716.00, the largest DIBB award. The principal investigator is Kenton McHenry of NCSA at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Coleaders are Jong Lee NCSA/UIU
Pseudonymization
Pseudonymization is a data management and de-identification procedure by which personally identifiable information fields within a data record are replaced by one or more artificial identifiers, or pseudonyms. A single pseudonym for each replaced field or collection of replaced fields makes the data record less identifiable while remaining suitable for data analysis and data processing. Pseudonymization (or pseudonymisation, the spelling under European guidelines) is one way to comply with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) demands for secure data storage of personal information. Pseudonymized data can be restored to its original state with the addition of information which allows individuals to be re-identified. In contrast, anonymization is intended to prevent re-identification of individuals within the dataset. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decisions (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone ... and that this process is irreversible." == Impact of Schrems II ruling == The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on 9 December 2021 highlighted pseudonymization as the top technical supplementary measure for Schrems II compliance. Less than two weeks later, the EU Commission highlighted pseudonymization as an essential element of the equivalency decision for South Korea, which is the status that was lost by the United States under the Schrems II ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The importance of GDPR-compliant pseudonymization increased dramatically in June 2021 when the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission highlighted GDPR-compliant pseudonymization as the state-of-the-art technical supplementary measure for the ongoing lawful use of EU personal data when using third country (i.e., non-EU) cloud processors or remote service providers under the "Schrems II" ruling by the CJEU. Under the GDPR and final EDPB Schrems II Guidance, the term pseudonymization requires a new protected "state" of data, producing a protected outcome that: Protects direct, indirect, and quasi-identifiers, together with characteristics and behaviors; Protects at the record and data set level versus only the field level so that the protection travels wherever the data goes, including when it is in use; and Protects against unauthorized re-identification via the mosaic effect by generating high entropy (uncertainty) levels by dynamically assigning different tokens at different times for various purposes. The combination of these protections is necessary to prevent the re-identification of data subjects without the use of additional information kept separately, as required under GDPR Article 4(5) and as further underscored by paragraph 85(4) of the final EDPB Schrems II guidance: Article 4(5) "Definitions" of the GDPR defines pseudonymization as "the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person." "Use Case 2: Transfer of pseudonymised Data Paragraph 85(4)" of the final EDPB Schrems II Guidance requires that “the controller has established by means of a thorough analysis of the data in question – taking into account any information that the public authorities of the recipient country may be expected to possess and use – that the pseudonymised personal data cannot be attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person even if cross-referenced with such information." GDPR-compliant pseudonymization requires that data is "anonymous" in the strictest EU sense of the word – globally anonymous – but for the additional information held separately and made available under controlled conditions as authorized by the data controller for permitted re-identification of individual data subjects. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone, in line with recital 26 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and that this process is irreversible." Before the Schrems II ruling, pseudonymization was a technique used by security experts or government officials to hide personally identifiable information to maintain data structure and privacy of information. Some common examples of sensitive information include postal code, location of individuals, names of individuals, race and gender, etc. After the Schrems II ruling, GDPR-compliant pseudonymization must satisfy the above-noted elements as an "outcome" versus merely a technique. == Data fields == The choice of which data fields are to be pseudonymized is partly subjective. Less selective fields, such as birth date or postal code are often also included because they are usually available from other sources and therefore make a record easier to identify. Pseudonymizing these less identifying fields removes most of their analytic value and is therefore normally accompanied by the introduction of new derived and less identifying forms, such as year of birth or a larger postal code region. Data fields that are less identifying, such as date of attendance, are usually not pseudonymized. This is because too much statistical utility is lost in doing so, not because the data cannot be identified. For example, given prior knowledge of a few attendance dates it is easy to identify someone's data in a pseudonymized dataset by selecting only those people with that pattern of dates. This is an example of an inference attack. The weakness of pre-GDPR pseudonymized data to inference attacks is commonly overlooked. A famous example is the AOL search data scandal. The AOL example of unauthorized re-identification did not require access to separately kept "additional information" that was under the control of the data controller as is now required for GDPR-compliant pseudonymization, outlined below under the section "New Definition for Pseudonymization Under GDPR". Protecting statistically useful pseudonymized data from re-identification requires: a sound information security base controlling the risk that the analysts, researchers or other data workers cause a privacy breach The pseudonym allows tracking back of data to its origins, which distinguishes pseudonymization from anonymization, where all person-related data that could allow backtracking has been purged. Pseudonymization is an issue in, for example, patient-related data that has to be passed on securely between clinical centers. The application of pseudonymization to e-health intends to preserve the patient's privacy and data confidentiality. It allows primary use of medical records by authorized health care providers and privacy preserving secondary use by researchers. In the US, HIPAA provides guidelines on how health care data must be handled and data de-identification or pseudonymization is one way to simplify HIPAA compliance. However, plain pseudonymization for privacy preservation often reaches its limits when genetic data are involved (see also genetic privacy). Due to the identifying nature of genetic data, depersonalization is often not sufficient to hide the corresponding person. Potential solutions are the combination of pseudonymization with fragmentation and encryption. An example of application of pseudonymization procedure is creation of datasets for de-identification research by replacing identifying words with words from the same category (e.g. replacing a name with a random name from the names dictionary), however, in this case it is in general not possible to track data back to its origins. == New definition under GDPR == Effective as of May 25, 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) defines pseudonymization for the very first time at the EU level in Article 4(5). Under Article 4(5) definitional requirements, data is pseudonymized if it cannot be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of separately kept "additional information". Pseudonymized data embodies the state of the art in Data Protection by Design and by Default because it requires protection of both direct and indirect identifiers (not just direct). GDPR Data Protection by Design and by Default principles as embodied in pseudonymization require protection of both direct and indirect identifiers so that personal data is not cross-referenceable (or re-identifiable) via the "mosaic effect" without access to "additional information" that is kept separately by the controller. Because access to separately kept "additional information" is required
Technical data management system
A technical data management system (TDMS) is a document management system (DMS) pertaining to the management of technical and engineering drawings and documents. Often the data are contained in 'records' of various forms, such as on paper, microfilms or digital media. Hence technical data management is also concerned with record management involving technical data. Technical document management systems are used within large organisations with large scale projects involving engineering. For example, a TDMS can be used for integrated steel plants (ISP), automobile factories, aero-space facilities, infrastructure companies, city corporations, research organisations, etc. In such organisations, technical archives or technical documentation centres are created as central facilities for effective management of technical data and records. TDMS functions are similar to that of conventional archive functions in concepts, except that the archived materials in this case are essentially engineering drawings, survey maps, technical specifications, plant and equipment data sheets, feasibility reports, project reports, operation and maintenance manuals, standards, etc. Document registration, indexing, repository management, reprography, etc. are parts of TDMS. Various kinds of sophisticated technologies such as document scanners, microfilming and digitization camera units, wide format printers, digital plotters, software, etc. are available, making TDMS functions an easier process than previous times. == Constituents of a technical data management system == Technical data refers to both scientific and technical information recorded and presented in any form or manner (excluding financial and management information). A Technical Data Management System is created within an organisation for archiving and sharing information such as technical specifications, datasheets and drawings. Similar to other types of data management system, a Technical Data Management System consists of the 4 crucial constituents mentioned below. === Data planning === Data plans (long-term or short-term) are constructed as the first essential step of a proper and complete TDMS. It is created to ultimately help with the 3 other constituents, data acquisition, data management and data sharing. A proper data plan should not exceed 2 pages and should address the following basics: Types of data (samples, experiment results, reports, drawings, etc.) and metadata (data that summarizes and describes other data. In this case, it refers to details such as sample sizes, experiment conditions and procedures, dates of reports, explanations of drawings, etc.) Means of researches and collections of data (field works, experiments in production lines, etc.) Costs of researches Policies for access, sharing (re-use within the organisation and re-distribution to the public) Proposals for archiving data and maintaining access to it === Data acquisition === Raw data is collected from primary sites of the organisations through the use of modern technologies. Please reference the table below for examples. The data collected is then transferred to technical data centres for data management. === Data management === After data acquisition, data is sorted out, whilst useful data is archived, unwanted data is disposed. When managing and archiving data, the features below of the data are considered. Names, labels, values and descriptions for variables and records. (In the case of TDMS, one example is names of equipments on an equipment datasheet) Derived data from the original data, with code, algorithm or command file used to create them. (In the case of TDMS, one example is an expectation report derived from the analysis of an equipment datasheet) Metadata associates with the data being archived === Data sharing === Archived and managed data are accessible to rightful entities. A proper and complete TDMS should share data to a suitable extent, under suitable security, in order to achieve optimal usage of data within the organisation. It aims for easy access when reused by other researchers and hence it enhances other research processes. Data is often referred in other tests and technical specifications, where new analysis is generated, managed and archived again. As a result, data is flowing within the organisation under effective management through the use of TDMS. == Advantages and disadvantages of usage of technical data management systems == There are strengths and weakness when using technical data management systems (TDMS) to archive data. Some of the advantages and disadvantages are listed below. === Advantages === ==== 1. Faster and easier data management ==== Since TDMS is integrated into the organisation's systems, whenever workers develop data files (SolidWorks, AutoCAD, Microsoft Word, etc.), they can also archive and manage data, linking what they need to their current work, at the same time they can also update the archives with useful data. This speeds up working processes and makes them more efficient. ==== 2. Increased security ==== All data files are centralized, hence internal and external data leakages are less likely to happen, and the data flow is more closely monitored. As a result, data in the organisation is more secured. ==== 3. Increased collaboration within the organisation ==== Since the data files are centralized and the data flow within the organisation increases, researchers and workers within the organisation are able to work on joint projects. More complex tasks can be performed for higher yields. ==== 4. Compatible to various formats of data ==== TDMS is compatible to many formats of data, from basic data like Microsoft Words to complex data like voice data. This enhances the quality of the management of data archived. === Disadvantages === ==== 1. Higher financial costs ==== Implementing TDMS into the organisation's systems involves monetary costs. Maintenance costs certain amount of human resources and money as well. These resources involve opportunity costs as they can be utilized in other aspects. ==== 2. Lower stability ==== Since TDMS manages and centralizes all the data the organisation processes, it links the working processes within the whole organisation together. It also increases the vulnerability of the organisation data network. If TDMS is not stable enough or when it is exposed to hacker and virus attacks, the organisation's data flow might shut down completely, affecting the work in an organisation-wide scale and leading to a lower stability as results. == Comparison between traditional data management approaches and technical data management systems == Test engineers and researchers are facing great challenges in turning complex test results and simulation data into usable information for higher yields of firms. These challenges are listed below. Increase in complication of designs Reduced in time and budgets available Higher quality is demanded === Traditional data management approaches === Many organisations are still applying the conventional file management systems, due to the difficulty in building a proper and complete archives for data management. The first approach is the simple file-folder system. This costs the problem of ineffectiveness as workers and researchers have to manually go through numerous layers of systems and files for the target data. Moreover, the target data may contain files with different formats and these files may not be stored in the same machine. These files are also easily lost if renamed or moved to another location. The second approach is conventional databases such as Oracle. These databases are capable of enabling easy search and access of data. However, a great drawback is that huge effort for preparing and modeling the data is required. For large-scale projects, huge monetary costs are induced, and extra IT human resources must be employed for constant handling, expanding and maintaining the inflexible system, which is custom for specific tasks, instead of all tasks. In the long-term, it is not cost-effective. === Technical data management systems (TDMS) === TDMS is developed based on 3 principles, flexible and organized file storage, self-scaling hybrid data index, and an interactive post-processing environment. The system in practical, mainly consists of 3 components, data files with essential and relevant Metadata, data finders for organizing and managing data regardless of files formats, and, a software of searching, analyzing and reporting. With metadata attached to original data files, the data finder can identify different related data files during searches, even if they are in different file formats. TDMS hence allows researchers to search for data like browsing the Internet. Last but not least, it can adapt to changes and update itself according to the changes, unlike databases. == Comparison between strong information systems and weak information systems == Complex organizations may need large amounts
Grammar induction
Grammar induction (or grammatical inference) is the process in machine learning of learning a formal grammar (usually as a collection of re-write rules or productions or alternatively as a finite-state machine or automaton of some kind) from a set of observations, thus constructing a model which accounts for the characteristics of the observed objects. More generally, grammatical inference is that branch of machine learning where the instance space consists of discrete combinatorial objects such as strings, trees and graphs. == Grammar classes == Grammatical inference has often been very focused on the problem of learning finite-state machines of various types (see the article Induction of regular languages for details on these approaches), since there have been efficient algorithms for this problem since the 1980s. Since the beginning of the century, these approaches have been extended to the problem of inference of context-free grammars and richer formalisms, such as multiple context-free grammars and parallel multiple context-free grammars. Other classes of grammars for which grammatical inference has been studied are combinatory categorial grammars, stochastic context-free grammars, contextual grammars and pattern languages. == Learning models == The simplest form of learning is where the learning algorithm merely receives a set of examples drawn from the language in question: the aim is to learn the language from examples of it (and, rarely, from counter-examples, that is, example that do not belong to the language). However, other learning models have been studied. One frequently studied alternative is the case where the learner can ask membership queries as in the exact query learning model or minimally adequate teacher model introduced by Angluin. == Methodologies == There is a wide variety of methods for grammatical inference. Two of the classic sources are Fu (1977) and Fu (1982). Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) also devote a brief section to the problem, and cite a number of references. The basic trial-and-error method they present is discussed below. For approaches to infer subclasses of regular languages in particular, see Induction of regular languages. A more recent textbook is de la Higuera (2010), which covers the theory of grammatical inference of regular languages and finite state automata. D'Ulizia, Ferri and Grifoni provide a survey that explores grammatical inference methods for natural languages. === Induction of probabilistic grammars === There are several methods for induction of probabilistic context-free grammars. === Grammatical inference by trial-and-error === The method proposed in Section 8.7 of Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) suggests successively guessing grammar rules (productions) and testing them against positive and negative observations. The rule set is expanded so as to be able to generate each positive example, but if a given rule set also generates a negative example, it must be discarded. This particular approach can be characterized as "hypothesis testing" and bears some similarity to Mitchel's version space algorithm. The Duda, Hart & Stork (2001) text provide a simple example which nicely illustrates the process, but the feasibility of such an unguided trial-and-error approach for more substantial problems is dubious. === Grammatical inference by genetic algorithms === Grammatical induction using evolutionary algorithms is the process of evolving a representation of the grammar of a target language through some evolutionary process. Formal grammars can easily be represented as tree structures of production rules that can be subjected to evolutionary operators. Algorithms of this sort stem from the genetic programming paradigm pioneered by John Koza. Other early work on simple formal languages used the binary string representation of genetic algorithms, but the inherently hierarchical structure of grammars couched in the EBNF language made trees a more flexible approach. Koza represented Lisp programs as trees. He was able to find analogues to the genetic operators within the standard set of tree operators. For example, swapping sub-trees is equivalent to the corresponding process of genetic crossover, where sub-strings of a genetic code are transplanted into an individual of the next generation. Fitness is measured by scoring the output from the functions of the Lisp code. Similar analogues between the tree structured lisp representation and the representation of grammars as trees, made the application of genetic programming techniques possible for grammar induction. In the case of grammar induction, the transplantation of sub-trees corresponds to the swapping of production rules that enable the parsing of phrases from some language. The fitness operator for the grammar is based upon some measure of how well it performed in parsing some group of sentences from the target language. In a tree representation of a grammar, a terminal symbol of a production rule corresponds to a leaf node of the tree. Its parent nodes corresponds to a non-terminal symbol (e.g. a noun phrase or a verb phrase) in the rule set. Ultimately, the root node might correspond to a sentence non-terminal. === Grammatical inference by greedy algorithms === Like all greedy algorithms, greedy grammar inference algorithms make, in iterative manner, decisions that seem to be the best at that stage. The decisions made usually deal with things like the creation of new rules, the removal of existing rules, the choice of a rule to be applied or the merging of some existing rules. Because there are several ways to define 'the stage' and 'the best', there are also several greedy grammar inference algorithms. These context-free grammar generating algorithms make the decision after every read symbol: Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm creates a context-free grammar in a deterministic way such that it is necessary to store only the start rule of the generated grammar. Sequitur and its modifications. These context-free grammar generating algorithms first read the whole given symbol-sequence and then start to make decisions: Byte pair encoding and its optimizations. === Distributional learning === A more recent approach is based on distributional learning. Algorithms using these approaches have been applied to learning context-free grammars and mildly context-sensitive languages and have been proven to be correct and efficient for large subclasses of these grammars. === Learning of pattern languages === Angluin defines a pattern to be "a string of constant symbols from Σ and variable symbols from a disjoint set". The language of such a pattern is the set of all its nonempty ground instances i.e. all strings resulting from consistent replacement of its variable symbols by nonempty strings of constant symbols. A pattern is called descriptive for a finite input set of strings if its language is minimal (with respect to set inclusion) among all pattern languages subsuming the input set. Angluin gives a polynomial algorithm to compute, for a given input string set, all descriptive patterns in one variable x. To this end, she builds an automaton representing all possibly relevant patterns; using sophisticated arguments about word lengths, which rely on x being the only variable, the state count can be drastically reduced. Erlebach et al. give a more efficient version of Angluin's pattern learning algorithm, as well as a parallelized version. Arimura et al. show that a language class obtained from limited unions of patterns can be learned in polynomial time. === Pattern theory === Pattern theory, formulated by Ulf Grenander, is a mathematical formalism to describe knowledge of the world as patterns. It differs from other approaches to artificial intelligence in that it does not begin by prescribing algorithms and machinery to recognize and classify patterns; rather, it prescribes a vocabulary to articulate and recast the pattern concepts in precise language. In addition to the new algebraic vocabulary, its statistical approach was novel in its aim to: Identify the hidden variables of a data set using real world data rather than artificial stimuli, which was commonplace at the time. Formulate prior distributions for hidden variables and models for the observed variables that form the vertices of a Gibbs-like graph. Study the randomness and variability of these graphs. Create the basic classes of stochastic models applied by listing the deformations of the patterns. Synthesize (sample) from the models, not just analyze signals with it. Broad in its mathematical coverage, pattern theory spans algebra and statistics, as well as local topological and global entropic properties. == Applications == The principle of grammar induction has been applied to other aspects of natural language processing, and has been applied (among many other problems) to semantic parsing, natural language understanding, example-based translation, language acquisition, grammar-based compre
Pseudonymization
Pseudonymization is a data management and de-identification procedure by which personally identifiable information fields within a data record are replaced by one or more artificial identifiers, or pseudonyms. A single pseudonym for each replaced field or collection of replaced fields makes the data record less identifiable while remaining suitable for data analysis and data processing. Pseudonymization (or pseudonymisation, the spelling under European guidelines) is one way to comply with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) demands for secure data storage of personal information. Pseudonymized data can be restored to its original state with the addition of information which allows individuals to be re-identified. In contrast, anonymization is intended to prevent re-identification of individuals within the dataset. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decisions (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone ... and that this process is irreversible." == Impact of Schrems II ruling == The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on 9 December 2021 highlighted pseudonymization as the top technical supplementary measure for Schrems II compliance. Less than two weeks later, the EU Commission highlighted pseudonymization as an essential element of the equivalency decision for South Korea, which is the status that was lost by the United States under the Schrems II ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The importance of GDPR-compliant pseudonymization increased dramatically in June 2021 when the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission highlighted GDPR-compliant pseudonymization as the state-of-the-art technical supplementary measure for the ongoing lawful use of EU personal data when using third country (i.e., non-EU) cloud processors or remote service providers under the "Schrems II" ruling by the CJEU. Under the GDPR and final EDPB Schrems II Guidance, the term pseudonymization requires a new protected "state" of data, producing a protected outcome that: Protects direct, indirect, and quasi-identifiers, together with characteristics and behaviors; Protects at the record and data set level versus only the field level so that the protection travels wherever the data goes, including when it is in use; and Protects against unauthorized re-identification via the mosaic effect by generating high entropy (uncertainty) levels by dynamically assigning different tokens at different times for various purposes. The combination of these protections is necessary to prevent the re-identification of data subjects without the use of additional information kept separately, as required under GDPR Article 4(5) and as further underscored by paragraph 85(4) of the final EDPB Schrems II guidance: Article 4(5) "Definitions" of the GDPR defines pseudonymization as "the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person." "Use Case 2: Transfer of pseudonymised Data Paragraph 85(4)" of the final EDPB Schrems II Guidance requires that “the controller has established by means of a thorough analysis of the data in question – taking into account any information that the public authorities of the recipient country may be expected to possess and use – that the pseudonymised personal data cannot be attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person even if cross-referenced with such information." GDPR-compliant pseudonymization requires that data is "anonymous" in the strictest EU sense of the word – globally anonymous – but for the additional information held separately and made available under controlled conditions as authorized by the data controller for permitted re-identification of individual data subjects. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone, in line with recital 26 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and that this process is irreversible." Before the Schrems II ruling, pseudonymization was a technique used by security experts or government officials to hide personally identifiable information to maintain data structure and privacy of information. Some common examples of sensitive information include postal code, location of individuals, names of individuals, race and gender, etc. After the Schrems II ruling, GDPR-compliant pseudonymization must satisfy the above-noted elements as an "outcome" versus merely a technique. == Data fields == The choice of which data fields are to be pseudonymized is partly subjective. Less selective fields, such as birth date or postal code are often also included because they are usually available from other sources and therefore make a record easier to identify. Pseudonymizing these less identifying fields removes most of their analytic value and is therefore normally accompanied by the introduction of new derived and less identifying forms, such as year of birth or a larger postal code region. Data fields that are less identifying, such as date of attendance, are usually not pseudonymized. This is because too much statistical utility is lost in doing so, not because the data cannot be identified. For example, given prior knowledge of a few attendance dates it is easy to identify someone's data in a pseudonymized dataset by selecting only those people with that pattern of dates. This is an example of an inference attack. The weakness of pre-GDPR pseudonymized data to inference attacks is commonly overlooked. A famous example is the AOL search data scandal. The AOL example of unauthorized re-identification did not require access to separately kept "additional information" that was under the control of the data controller as is now required for GDPR-compliant pseudonymization, outlined below under the section "New Definition for Pseudonymization Under GDPR". Protecting statistically useful pseudonymized data from re-identification requires: a sound information security base controlling the risk that the analysts, researchers or other data workers cause a privacy breach The pseudonym allows tracking back of data to its origins, which distinguishes pseudonymization from anonymization, where all person-related data that could allow backtracking has been purged. Pseudonymization is an issue in, for example, patient-related data that has to be passed on securely between clinical centers. The application of pseudonymization to e-health intends to preserve the patient's privacy and data confidentiality. It allows primary use of medical records by authorized health care providers and privacy preserving secondary use by researchers. In the US, HIPAA provides guidelines on how health care data must be handled and data de-identification or pseudonymization is one way to simplify HIPAA compliance. However, plain pseudonymization for privacy preservation often reaches its limits when genetic data are involved (see also genetic privacy). Due to the identifying nature of genetic data, depersonalization is often not sufficient to hide the corresponding person. Potential solutions are the combination of pseudonymization with fragmentation and encryption. An example of application of pseudonymization procedure is creation of datasets for de-identification research by replacing identifying words with words from the same category (e.g. replacing a name with a random name from the names dictionary), however, in this case it is in general not possible to track data back to its origins. == New definition under GDPR == Effective as of May 25, 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) defines pseudonymization for the very first time at the EU level in Article 4(5). Under Article 4(5) definitional requirements, data is pseudonymized if it cannot be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of separately kept "additional information". Pseudonymized data embodies the state of the art in Data Protection by Design and by Default because it requires protection of both direct and indirect identifiers (not just direct). GDPR Data Protection by Design and by Default principles as embodied in pseudonymization require protection of both direct and indirect identifiers so that personal data is not cross-referenceable (or re-identifiable) via the "mosaic effect" without access to "additional information" that is kept separately by the controller. Because access to separately kept "additional information" is required