Semantic heterogeneity is when database schema or datasets for the same domain are developed by independent parties, resulting in differences in meaning and interpretation of data values. Beyond structured data, the problem of semantic heterogeneity is compounded due to the flexibility of semi-structured data and various tagging methods applied to documents or unstructured data. Semantic heterogeneity is one of the more important sources of differences in heterogeneous datasets. Yet, for multiple data sources to interoperate with one another, it is essential to reconcile these semantic differences. Decomposing the various sources of semantic heterogeneities provides a basis for understanding how to map and transform data to overcome these differences. == Classification == One of the first known classification schemes applied to data semantics is from William Kent in the late 80s. Kent's approach dealt more with structural mapping issues than differences in meaning, which he pointed to data dictionaries as potentially solving. One of the most comprehensive classifications is from Pluempitiwiriyawej and Hammer, "Classification Scheme for Semantic and Schematic Heterogeneities in XML Data Sources". They classify heterogeneities into three broad classes: Structural conflicts arise when the schema of the sources representing related or overlapping data exhibit discrepancies. Structural conflicts can be detected when comparing the underlying schema. The class of structural conflicts includes generalization conflicts, aggregation conflicts, internal path discrepancy, missing items, element ordering, constraint and type mismatch, and naming conflicts between the element types and attribute names. Domain conflicts arise when the semantics of the data sources that will be integrated exhibit discrepancies. Domain conflicts can be detected by looking at the information contained in the schema and using knowledge about the underlying data domains. The class of domain conflicts includes schematic discrepancy, scale or unit, precision, and data representation conflicts. Data conflicts refer to discrepancies among similar or related data values across multiple sources. Data conflicts can only be detected by comparing the underlying sources. The class of data conflicts includes ID-value, missing data, incorrect spelling, and naming conflicts between the element contents and the attribute values. Moreover, mismatches or conflicts can occur between set elements (a "population" mismatch) or attributes (a "description" mismatch). Michael Bergman expanded upon this schema by adding a fourth major explicit category of language, and also added some examples of each kind of semantic heterogeneity, resulting in about 40 distinct potential categories . This table shows the combined 40 possible sources of semantic heterogeneities across sources: A different approach toward classifying semantics and integration approaches is taken by Sheth et al. Under their concept, they split semantics into three forms: implicit, formal and powerful. Implicit semantics are what is either largely present or can easily be extracted; formal languages, though relatively scarce, occur in the form of ontologies or other description logics; and powerful (soft) semantics are fuzzy and not limited to rigid set-based assignments. Sheth et al.'s main point is that first-order logic (FOL) or description logic is inadequate alone to properly capture the needed semantics. == Relevant applications == Besides data interoperability, relevant areas in information technology that depend on reconciling semantic heterogeneities include data mapping, semantic integration, and enterprise information integration, among many others. From the conceptual to actual data, there are differences in perspective, vocabularies, measures and conventions once any two data sources are brought together. Explicit attention to these semantic heterogeneities is one means to get the information to integrate or interoperate. A mere twenty years ago, information technology systems expressed and stored data in a multitude of formats and systems. The Internet and Web protocols have done much to overcome these sources of differences. While there is a large number of categories of semantic heterogeneity, these categories are also patterned and can be anticipated and corrected. These patterned sources inform what kind of work must be done to overcome semantic differences where they still reside.
Serverless computing
Serverless computing is "a cloud service category where the customer can use different cloud capability types without the customer having to provision, deploy and manage either hardware or software resources, other than providing customer application code or providing customer data. Serverless computing represents a form of virtualized computing", according to ISO/IEC 22123-2. Serverless computing is a broad ecosystem that includes the cloud provider, function as a service (FaaS), managed services, tools, frameworks, engineers, stakeholders, and other interconnected elements. == Overview == Serverless is a misnomer in the sense that servers are still used by cloud service providers to execute code for developers. The definition of serverless computing has evolved over time, leading to varied interpretations. According to Ben Kehoe, serverless represents a spectrum rather than a rigid definition. Emphasis should shift from strict definitions and specific technologies to adopting a serverless mindset, focusing on leveraging serverless solutions to address business challenges. Serverless computing does not eliminate complexity but shifts much of it from the operations team to the development team. However, this shift is not absolute, as operations teams continue to manage aspects such as identity and access management (IAM), networking, security policies, and cost optimization. Additionally, while breaking down applications into finer-grained components can increase management complexity, the relationship between granularity and management difficulty is not strictly linear. There is often an optimal level of modularization where the benefits outweigh the added management overhead. According to Yan Cui, serverless techniques should be adopted only when they help to deliver customer value faster. And while adopting, organizations should take small steps and de-risk along the way. == Challenges == Serverless applications are prone to fallacies of distributed computing. In addition, they are prone to the following fallacies: Versioning is simple Compensating transactions always work Observability is optional === Monitoring and debugging === Monitoring and debugging serverless applications can present unique challenges due to their distributed, event-driven nature and proprietary environments. Traditional tools may fall short, making it difficult to track execution flows across services. However, modern solutions such as distributed tracing tools (e.g., AWS X-Ray, Datadog), centralized logging, and cloud-agnostic observability platforms are mitigating these challenges. Emerging technologies like OpenTelemetry, AI-powered anomaly detection, and serverless-specific frameworks are further improving visibility and root cause analysis. While challenges persist, advancements in monitoring and debugging tools are steadily addressing these limitations. === Security === According to OWASP, serverless applications are vulnerable to variations of traditional attacks, insecure code, and some serverless-specific attacks (like denial of wallet). So, the risks have changed and attack prevention requires a shift in mindset. === Vendor lock-in === Serverless computing is provided as a third-party service. Applications and software that run in the serverless environment are by default locked to a specific cloud vendor. This issue is exacerbated in serverless computing, as with its increased level of abstraction, public vendors only allow customers to upload code to a FaaS platform without the authority to configure underlying environments. More importantly, when considering a more complex workflow that includes backend-as-a-service (BaaS), a BaaS offering can typically only natively trigger a FaaS offering from the same provider. This makes the workload migration in serverless computing virtually impossible. Therefore, considering how to design and deploy serverless workflows from a multi-cloud perspective could mitigate this. == High-performance computing == Serverless computing may not be ideal for certain high-performance computing (HPC) workloads due to resource limits often imposed by cloud providers, including maximum memory, CPU, and runtime restrictions. For workloads requiring sustained or predictable resource usage, bulk-provisioned servers can sometimes be more cost-effective than the pay-per-use model typical of serverless platforms. However, serverless computing is increasingly capable of supporting specific HPC workloads, particularly those that are highly parallelizable and event-driven, by leveraging its scalability and elasticity. The suitability of serverless computing for HPC continues to evolve with advancements in cloud technologies. == Anti-patterns == The grain of sand anti-pattern refers to the creation of excessively small components (e.g., functions) within a system, often resulting in increased complexity, operational overhead, and performance inefficiencies. Lambda pinball is a related anti-pattern that can occur in serverless architectures when functions (e.g., AWS Lambda, Azure functions) excessively invoke each other in fragmented chains, leading to latency, debugging and testing challenges, and reduced observability. These anti-patterns are associated with the formation of a distributed monolith. These anti-patterns are often addressed through the application of clear domain boundaries, which distinguish between public and published interfaces. Public interfaces are technically accessible interfaces, such as methods, classes, API endpoints, or triggers, but they do not come with formal stability guarantees. In contrast, published interfaces involve an explicit stability contract, including formal versioning, thorough documentation, a defined deprecation policy, and often support for backward compatibility. Published interfaces may also require maintaining multiple versions simultaneously and adhering to formal deprecation processes when breaking changes are introduced. Fragmented chains of function calls are often observed in systems where serverless components (functions) interact with other resources in complex patterns, sometimes described as spaghetti architecture or a distributed monolith. In contrast, systems exhibiting clearer boundaries typically organize serverless components into cohesive groups, where internal public interfaces manage inter-component communication, and published interfaces define communication across group boundaries. This distinction highlights differences in stability guarantees and maintenance commitments, contributing to reduced dependency complexity. Additionally, patterns associated with excessive serverless function chaining are sometimes addressed through architectural strategies that emphasize native service integrations instead of individual functions, a concept referred to as the functionless mindset. However, this approach is noted to involve a steeper learning curve, and integration limitations may vary even within the same cloud vendor ecosystem. Reporting on serverless databases presents challenges, as retrieving data for a reporting service can either break the bounded contexts, reduce the timeliness of the data, or do both. This applies regardless of whether data is pulled directly from databases, retrieved via HTTP, or collected in batches. Mark Richards refers to this as the reach-in reporting anti-pattern. A possible alternative to this approach is for databases to asynchronously push the necessary data to the reporting service instead of the reporting service pulling it. While this method requires a separate contract between services and the reporting service and can be complex to implement, it helps preserve bounded contexts while maintaining a high level of data timeliness. == Principles == Adopting DevSecOps practices can help improve the use and security of serverless technologies. In serverless applications, the distinction between infrastructure and business logic is often blurred, with applications typically distributed across multiple services. To maximize the effectiveness of testing, integration testing is emphasized for serverless applications. Additionally, to facilitate debugging and implementation, orchestration is used within the bounded context, while choreography is employed between different bounded contexts. Ephemeral resources are typically kept together to maintain high cohesion. However, shared resources with long spin-up times, such as AWS RDS clusters and landing zones, are often managed in separate repositories, deployment pipeline, and stacks.
Symmetric Boolean function
In mathematics, a symmetric Boolean function is a Boolean function whose value does not depend on the order of its input bits, i.e., it depends only on the number of ones (or zeros) in the input. For this reason they are also known as Boolean counting functions. There are 2n+1 symmetric n-ary Boolean functions. Instead of the truth table, traditionally used to represent Boolean functions, one may use a more compact representation for an n-variable symmetric Boolean function: the (n + 1)-vector, whose i-th entry (i = 0, ..., n) is the value of the function on an input vector with i ones. Mathematically, the symmetric Boolean functions correspond one-to-one with the functions that map n+1 elements to two elements, f : { 0 , 1 , . . . , n } → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1,...,n\}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} . Symmetric Boolean functions are used to classify Boolean satisfiability problems. == Special cases == A number of special cases are recognized: Majority function: their value is 1 on input vectors with more than n/2 ones Threshold functions: their value is 1 on input vectors with k or more ones for a fixed k All-equal and not-all-equal function: their values is 1 when the inputs do (not) all have the same value Exact-count functions: their value is 1 on input vectors with k ones for a fixed k One-hot or 1-in-n function: their value is 1 on input vectors with exactly one one One-cold function: their value is 1 on input vectors with exactly one zero Congruence functions: their value is 1 on input vectors with the number of ones congruent to k mod m for fixed k, m Parity function: their value is 1 if the input vector has odd number of ones The n-ary versions of AND, OR, XOR, NAND, NOR and XNOR are also symmetric Boolean functions. == Properties == In the following, f k {\displaystyle f_{k}} denotes the value of the function f : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} when applied to an input vector of weight k {\displaystyle k} . === Weight === The weight of the function can be calculated from its value vector: | f | = ∑ k = 0 n ( n k ) f k {\displaystyle |f|=\sum _{k=0}^{n}{\binom {n}{k}}f_{k}} === Algebraic normal form === The algebraic normal form either contains all monomials of certain order m {\displaystyle m} , or none of them; i.e. the Möbius transform f ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}} of the function is also a symmetric function. It can thus also be described by a simple (n+1) bit vector, the ANF vector f ^ m {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{m}} . The ANF and value vectors are related by a Möbius relation: f ^ m = ⨁ k 2 ⊆ m 2 f k {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{m}=\bigoplus _{k_{2}\subseteq m_{2}}f_{k}} where k 2 ⊆ m 2 {\displaystyle k_{2}\subseteq m_{2}} denotes all the weights k whose base-2 representation is covered by the base-2 representation of m (a consequence of Lucas’ theorem). Effectively, an n-variable symmetric Boolean function corresponds to a log(n)-variable ordinary Boolean function acting on the base-2 representation of the input weight. For example, for three-variable functions: f ^ 0 = f 0 f ^ 1 = f 0 ⊕ f 1 f ^ 2 = f 0 ⊕ f 2 f ^ 3 = f 0 ⊕ f 1 ⊕ f 2 ⊕ f 3 {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lcl}{\hat {f}}_{0}&=&f_{0}\\{\hat {f}}_{1}&=&f_{0}\oplus f_{1}\\{\hat {f}}_{2}&=&f_{0}\oplus f_{2}\\{\hat {f}}_{3}&=&f_{0}\oplus f_{1}\oplus f_{2}\oplus f_{3}\end{array}}} So the three variable majority function with value vector (0, 0, 1, 1) has ANF vector (0, 0, 1, 0), i.e.: Maj ( x , y , z ) = x y ⊕ x z ⊕ y z {\displaystyle {\text{Maj}}(x,y,z)=xy\oplus xz\oplus yz} === Unit hypercube polynomial === The coefficients of the real polynomial agreeing with the function on { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle \{0,1\}^{n}} are given by: f m ∗ = ∑ k = 0 m ( − 1 ) | k | + | m | ( m k ) f k {\displaystyle f_{m}^{}=\sum _{k=0}^{m}(-1)^{|k|+|m|}{\binom {m}{k}}f_{k}} For example, the three variable majority function polynomial has coefficients (0, 0, 1, -2): Maj ( x , y , z ) = ( x y + x z + y z ) − 2 ( x y z ) {\displaystyle {\text{Maj}}(x,y,z)=(xy+xz+yz)-2(xyz)} == Examples ==
Internet
The Internet (or internet) is the global system of interconnected computer networks that uses the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to communicate between networks and devices. It is a network of networks that comprises private, public, academic, business, and government networks of local to global scope, linked by electronic, wireless, and optical networking technologies. The Internet carries a vast range of information services and resources, such as the interlinked hypertext documents and applications of the World Wide Web (WWW), electronic mail, discussion groups, internet telephony, streaming media and file sharing. Most traditional communication media, including telephone, radio, television, paper mail, newspapers, and print publishing, have been transformed by the Internet, giving rise to new media such as email, online music, digital newspapers, news aggregators, and audio and video streaming websites. The Internet has enabled and accelerated new forms of personal interaction through instant messaging, Internet forums, and social networking services. Online shopping has also grown to occupy a significant market across industries, enabling firms to extend brick and mortar presences to serve larger markets. Business-to-business and financial services on the Internet affect supply chains across entire industries. The origins of the Internet date back to research that enabled the time-sharing of computer resources, the development of packet switching, and the design of computer networks for data communication. The set of communication protocols to enable internetworking on the Internet arose from research and development commissioned in the 1970s by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense in collaboration with universities and researchers across the United States, United Kingdom and France. The Internet has no single centralized governance in either technological implementation or policies for access and usage. Each constituent network sets its own policies. The overarching definitions of the two principal name spaces on the Internet, the Internet Protocol address (IP address) space and the Domain Name System (DNS), are directed by a maintainer organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The technical underpinning and standardization of the core protocols is an activity of the non-profit Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). == Terminology == The word internetted was used as early as 1849, meaning interconnected or interwoven. The word Internet was used in 1945 by the United States War Department in a radio operator's manual, and in 1974 as the shorthand form of Internetwork. Today, the term Internet most commonly refers to the global system of interconnected computer networks, though it may also refer to any group of smaller networks. The word Internet may be capitalized as a proper noun, although this is becoming less common. This reflects the tendency in English to capitalize new terms and move them to lowercase as they become familiar. The word is sometimes still capitalized to distinguish the global internet from smaller networks, though many publications, including the AP Stylebook since 2016, recommend the lowercase form in every case. In 2016, the Oxford English Dictionary found that, based on a study of around 2.5 billion printed and online sources, "Internet" was capitalized in 54% of cases. The terms Internet and World Wide Web are often used interchangeably; it is common to speak of "going on the Internet" when using a web browser to view web pages. However, the World Wide Web, or the Web, is only one of a large number of Internet services. It is the global collection of web pages, documents and other web resources linked by hyperlinks and URLs. == History == === 1960s === In the 1960s, computer scientists began developing systems for time-sharing of computer resources. J. C. R. Licklider proposed the idea of a universal network while working at Bolt Beranek & Newman and, later, leading the Information Processing Techniques Office at the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense. Research into packet switching, one of the fundamental Internet technologies, started in the work of Paul Baran at RAND in the early 1960s and, independently, Donald Davies at the United Kingdom's National Physical Laboratory in 1965. After the Symposium on Operating Systems Principles in 1967, packet switching from the proposed NPL network was incorporated into the design of the ARPANET, an experimental resource sharing network proposed by ARPA. ARPANET development began with two network nodes which were interconnected between the University of California, Los Angeles and the Stanford Research Institute on 29 October 1969. The third site was at the University of California, Santa Barbara, followed by the University of Utah. === 1970s === By the end of 1971, 15 sites were connected to the young ARPANET. Thereafter, the ARPANET gradually developed into a decentralized communications network, connecting remote centers and military bases in the United States. Other user networks and research networks, such as the Merit Network and CYCLADES, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Early international collaborations for the ARPANET were rare. Connections were made in 1973 to Norway (NORSAR and, later, NDRE) and to Peter Kirstein's research group at University College London, which provided a gateway to British academic networks, the first internetwork for resource sharing. ARPA projects, the International Network Working Group and commercial initiatives led to the development of various protocols and standards by which multiple separate networks could become a single network, or a network of networks. In 1974, Vint Cerf at Stanford University and Bob Kahn at DARPA published a proposal for "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication". Cerf and his graduate students used the term internet as a shorthand for internetwork in RFC 675. The Internet Experiment Notes and later RFCs repeated this use. The work of Louis Pouzin and Robert Metcalfe had important influences on the resulting TCP/IP design. National PTTs and commercial providers developed the X.25 standard and deployed it on public data networks. === 1980s === The ARPANET initially served as a backbone for the interconnection of regional academic and military networks in the United States to enable resource sharing. Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the Computer Science Network (CSNET). In 1982, the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized, which facilitated worldwide proliferation of interconnected networks. TCP/IP network access expanded again in 1986 when the National Science Foundation Network (NSFNet) provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States for researchers, first at speeds of 56 kbit/s and later at 1.5 Mbit/s and 45 Mbit/s. The NSFNet expanded into academic and research organizations in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan in 1988–89. Although other network protocols such as UUCP and PTT public data networks had global reach well before this time, this marked the beginning of the Internet as an intercontinental network. Commercial Internet service providers emerged in 1989 in the United States and Australia. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. === 1990s === The linking of commercial networks and enterprises by the early 1990s, as well as the advent of the World Wide Web, marked the beginning of the transition to the modern Internet. Steady advances in semiconductor technology and optical networking created new economic opportunities for commercial involvement in the expansion of the network in its core and for delivering services to the public. In mid-1989, MCI Mail and Compuserve established connections to the Internet, delivering email and public access products to the half million users of the Internet. Just months later, on 1 January 1990, PSInet launched an alternate Internet backbone for commercial use; one of the networks that added to the core of the commercial Internet of later years. In March 1990, the first high-speed T1 (1.5 Mbit/s) link between the NSFNET and Europe was installed between Cornell University and CERN, allowing much more robust communications than were capable with satellites. Later in 1990, Tim Berners-Lee began writing WorldWideWeb, the first web browser, after two years of lobbying CERN management. By Christmas 1990, Berners-Lee had built all the tools necessary for a working Web: the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 0.9, the HyperText Markup Language (HTML), the first Web browser (which was also an HTML editor and could access Usenet newsgroups and FTP files), the first HTTP server software (later known as CERN httpd), the first web server, and the first Web pages that described the project itself. In 1991 the
WYSIWYS
In cryptography, What You See Is What You Sign (WYSIWYS) is a property of digital signature systems that ensures the semantic content of signed messages can not be changed, either by accident or intent. == Mechanism of WYSIWYS == When digitally signing a document, the integrity of the signature relies not just on the soundness of the digital signature algorithms that are used, but also on the security of the computing platform used to sign the document. The WYSIWYS property of digital signature systems aims to tackle this problem by defining a desirable property that the visual representation of a digital document should be consistent across computing systems, particularly at the points of digital signature and digital signature verification. It is relatively easy to change the interpretation of a digital document by implementing changes on the computer system where the document is being processed, and the greater the semantic distance, the easier it gets. From a semantic perspective this creates uncertainty about what exactly has been signed. WYSIWYS is a property of a digital signature system that ensures that the semantic interpretation of a digitally signed message cannot be changed, either by accident or by intent. This property also ensures that a digital document to be signed can not contain hidden semantic content that can be revealed after the signature has been applied. Though a WYSIWYS implementation is only as secure as the computing platform it is running on, various methods have been proposed to make WYSIWYS more robust. The term WYSIWYS was coined by Peter Landrock and Torben Pedersen to describe some of the principles in delivering secure and legally binding digital signatures for Pan-European projects.
Buckeye Corpus
The Buckeye Corpus of conversational speech is a speech corpus created by a team of linguists and psychologists at Ohio State University led by Prof. Mark Pitt. It contains high-quality recordings from 40 speakers in Columbus, Ohio conversing freely with an interviewer. The interviewer's voice is heard only faintly in the background of these recordings. The sessions were conducted as Sociolinguistics interviews, and are essentially monologues. The speech has been orthographically transcribed and phonetically labeled. The audio and text files, together with time-aligned phonetic labels, are stored in a format for use with speech analysis software (Xwaves and Wavesurfer). Software for searching the transcription files is also available at the project web site. The corpus is available to researchers in academia and industry. The project was funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the Office of Research at Ohio State University.
Data recovery
In computing, data recovery is a process of retrieving deleted, inaccessible, lost, corrupted, damaged, or overwritten data from secondary storage, removable media or files, when the data stored in them cannot be accessed in a usual way. The data is most often salvaged from storage media such as internal or external hard disk drives (HDDs), solid-state drives (SSDs), USB flash drives, magnetic tapes, CDs, DVDs, RAID subsystems, and other electronic devices. Recovery may be required due to physical damage to the storage devices or logical damage to the file system that prevents it from being mounted by the host operating system (OS). Logical failures occur when the hard drive devices are functional but the user or automated-OS cannot retrieve or access data stored on them. Logical failures can occur due to corruption of the engineering chip, lost partitions, firmware failure, or failures during formatting/re-installation. Data recovery can be a very simple or technical challenge. This is why there are specific software companies specialized in this field that help to get back data on your system. == About == The most common data recovery scenarios involve an operating system failure, malfunction of a storage device, logical failure of storage devices, accidental damage or deletion, etc. (typically, on a single-drive, single-partition, single-OS system), in which case the ultimate goal is simply to copy all important files from the damaged media to another new drive. This can be accomplished using a Live CD, or DVD by booting directly from a ROM or a USB drive instead of the corrupted drive in question. Many Live CDs or DVDs provide a means to mount the system drive and backup drives or removable media, and to move the files from the system drive to the backup media with a file manager or optical disc authoring software. Such cases can often be mitigated by disk partitioning and consistently storing valuable data files (or copies of them) on a different partition from the replaceable OS system files. Another scenario involves a drive-level failure, such as a compromised file system or drive partition, or a hard disk drive failure. In any of these cases, the data is not easily read from the media devices. Depending on the situation, solutions involve repairing the logical file system, partition table, or master boot record, or updating the firmware or drive recovery techniques ranging from software-based recovery of corrupted data, to hardware- and software-based recovery of damaged service areas (also known as the hard disk drive's "firmware"), to hardware replacement on a physically damaged drive which allows for the extraction of data to a new drive. If a drive recovery is necessary, the drive itself has typically failed permanently, and the focus is rather on a one-time recovery, salvaging whatever data can be read. In a third scenario, files have been accidentally "deleted" from a storage medium by the users. Typically, the contents of deleted files are not removed immediately from the physical drive; instead, references to them in the directory structure are removed, and thereafter space the deleted data occupy is made available for later data overwriting. In the mind of end users, deleted files cannot be discoverable through a standard file manager, but the deleted data still technically exists on the physical drive. In the meantime, the original file contents remain, often several disconnected fragments, and may be recoverable if not overwritten by other data files. The term "data recovery" is also used in the context of forensic applications or espionage, where data which have been encrypted, hidden, or deleted, rather than damaged, are recovered. Sometimes data present in the computer gets encrypted or hidden due to reasons like virus attacks which can only be recovered by some computer forensic experts. == Physical damage == A wide variety of failures can cause physical damage to storage media, which may result from human errors and natural disasters. CD-ROMs can have their metallic substrate or dye layer scratched off; hard disks can suffer from a multitude of mechanical failures, such as head crashes, PCB failure, and failed motors; tapes can simply break. Physical damage to a hard drive, even in cases where a head crash has occurred, does not necessarily mean permanent data loss. However, in extreme cases, such as prolonged exposure to moisture and corrosion —like the lost Bitcoin hard drive of James Howells, buried in the Newport landfill for over a decade — recovery is usually impossible. In rare cases, forensic techniques such as magnetic force microscopy (MFM) have been explored to detect residual magnetic traces when data holds exceptional value. Other techniques employed by many professional data recovery companies can typically salvage most, if not all, of the data that had been lost when the failure occurred. Of course, there are exceptions to this, such as cases where severe damage to the hard drive platters may have occurred. However, if the hard drive can be repaired and a full image or clone created, then the logical file structure can be rebuilt in most instances. Most physical damage cannot be repaired by end users. For example, opening a hard disk drive in a normal environment can allow airborne dust to settle on the platter and become caught between the platter and the read/write head. During normal operation, read/write heads float 3 to 6 nanometers above the platter surface, and the average dust particles found in a normal environment are typically around 30,000 nanometers in diameter. When these dust particles get caught between the read/write heads and the platter, they can cause new head crashes that further damage the platter and thus compromise the recovery process. Furthermore, end users generally do not have the hardware or technical expertise required to make these repairs. Consequently, data recovery companies are often employed to salvage important data with the more reputable ones using class 100 dust- and static-free cleanrooms. === Recovery techniques === Recovering data from physically damaged hardware can involve multiple techniques. Some damage can be repaired by replacing parts in the hard disk. This alone may make the disk usable, but there may still be logical damage. A specialized disk-imaging procedure is used to recover every readable bit from the surface. Once this image is acquired and saved on a reliable medium, the image can be safely analyzed for logical damage and will possibly allow much of the original file system to be reconstructed. ==== Hardware repair ==== A common misconception is that a damaged printed circuit board (PCB) may be simply replaced during recovery procedures by an identical PCB from a healthy drive. While this may work in rare circumstances on hard disk drives manufactured before 2003, it will not work on newer drives. Electronics boards of modern drives usually contain drive-specific adaptation data (generally a map of bad sectors and tuning parameters) and other information required to properly access data on the drive. Replacement boards often need this information to effectively recover all of the data. The replacement board may need to be reprogrammed. Some manufacturers (Seagate, for example) store this information on a serial EEPROM chip, which can be removed and transferred to the replacement board. Each hard disk drive has what is called a system area or service area; this portion of the drive, which is not directly accessible to the end user, usually contains drive's firmware and adaptive data that helps the drive operate within normal parameters. One function of the system area is to log defective sectors within the drive; essentially telling the drive where it can and cannot write data. The sector lists are also stored on various chips attached to the PCB, and they are unique to each hard disk drive. If the data on the PCB do not match what is stored on the platter, then the drive will not calibrate properly. In most cases the drive heads will click because they are unable to find the data matching what is stored on the PCB. == Logical damage == The term "logical damage" refers to situations in which the error is not a problem in the hardware and requires software-level solutions. === Corrupt partitions and file systems, media errors === In some cases, data on a hard disk drive can be unreadable due to damage to the partition table or file system, or to (intermittent) media errors. In the majority of these cases, at least a portion of the original data can be recovered by repairing the damaged partition table or file system using specialized data recovery software such as TestDisk; software like ddrescue can image media despite intermittent errors, and image raw data when there is partition table or file system damage. This type of data recovery can be performed by people without expertise in drive hardware as it requires no special physica