A metadata repository is a database created to store metadata. Metadata is information about the structures that contain the actual data. Metadata is often said to be "data about data", but this is misleading. Data profiles are an example of actual "data about data". Metadata adds one layer of abstraction to this definition– it is data about the structures that contain data. Metadata may describe the structure of any data, of any subject, stored in any format. A well-designed metadata repository typically contains data far beyond simple definitions of the various data structures. Typical repositories store dozens to hundreds of separate pieces of information about each data structure. Comparing the metadata of a couple data items - one digital and one physical - clarify what metadata is: First, digital: For data stored in a database one may have a table called "Patient" with many columns, each containing data which describes a different attribute of each patient. One of these columns may be named "Patient_Last_Name". What is some of the metadata about the column that contains the actual surnames of patients in the database? We have already used two items: the name of the column that contains the data (Patient_Last_Name) and the name of the table that contains the column (Patient). Other metadata might include the maximum length of last name that may be entered, whether or not last name is required (can we have a patient without Patient_Last_Name?), and whether the database converts any surnames entered in lower case to upper case. Metadata of a security nature may show the restrictions which limit who may view these names. Second, physical: For data stored in a brick and mortar library, one have many volumes and may have various media, including books. Metadata about books would include ISBN, Binding_Type, Page_Count, Author, etc. Within Binding_Type, metadata would include possible bindings, material, etc. This contextual information of business data include meaning and content, policies that govern, technical attributes, specifications that transform, and programs that manipulate. == Definition == The metadata repository is responsible for physically storing and cataloging metadata. Data in a metadata repository should be generic, integrated, current, and historical: Generic Meta model should store the metadata by generic terms instead of storing it by an applications-specific defined way, so that if your data base standard changes from one product to another the physical meta model of the metadata repository would not need to change. Integration of the metadata repository allows all business areas' metadata to be in an integrated fashion: Covering all domains and subject areas of the organization. current and historical The metadata repository should have accessible current and historical metadata. Metadata repositories used to be referred to as a data dictionary. With the transition of needs for the metadata usage for business intelligence has increased so is the scope of the metadata repository increased. Earlier data dictionaries are the closest place to interact technology with business. Data dictionaries are the universe of metadata repository in the initial stages but as the scope increased Business glossary and their tags to variety of status flags emerged in the business side while consumption of the technology metadata, their lineage and linkages made the repository, the source for valuable reports to bring business and technology together and helped data management decisions easier as well as assess the cost of the changes. Metadata repository explores the enterprise wide data governance, data quality and master data management (includes master data and reference data) and integrates this wealth of information with integrated metadata across the organization to provide decision support system for data structures, even though it only reflects the structures consumed from various systems. == Repository vs. registry == Repository has additional functionalities compared with registry. Metadata repository not only stores metadata like Metadata registry but also adds relationships with related metadata types. Metadata when related in a flow from its point of entry into organization up to the deliverables is considered as the lineage of that data point. Metadata when related across other related metadata types is called linkages. By providing the relationships to all the metadata points across the organization and maintaining its integrity with an architecture to handle the changes, metadata repository provides the basic material for understanding the complete data flow and their definitions and their impact. Also the important feature is to maintain the version control though this statement for contrasting is open for discussion. These definitions are still evolving, so the accuracy of the definitions needs refinement. The purpose of registry is to define the metadata element and maintained across the organization. And data models and other data management teams refer to the registry for any changes to follow. While Metadata repository sources metadata from various metadata systems in the organizations and reflects what is in the upstream. Repository never acts as an upstream while registry is used as an upstream for metadata changes. == Reason for use == Metadata repository enables all the structure of the organizations data containers to one integrated place. This opens plethora of resourceful information for making calculated business decisions. This tool uses one generic form of data model to integrate all the models thus brings all the applications and programs of the organization into one format. And on top of it applying the business definitions and business processes brings the business and technology closer that will help organizations make reliable roadmaps with definite goals. With one stop information, business will have more control on the changes, and can do impact analysis of the tool. Usually business spends much time and money to make decisions based on discovery and research on impacts to make changes or to add new data structures or remove structures in data management of the organization. With a structured and well maintained repository, moving the product from ideation to delivery takes the least amount of time (considering other variables are constant). To sum it up: Integration of the metadata across the organization Build relationship between various metadata types Build relationship between various disparate systems Define business golden copy of definitions Version control of the changes at structure level Interaction with Reference data Link view to master data Automatic synchronization with various authorized metadata source systems More control to business decisions Validate the structures by overlapping the models Discovering discrepancies, gaps, lineage, metrics at data structure level Each database management system (DBMS) and database tools have their own language for the metadata components within. Database applications already have their own repositories or registries that are expected to provide all of the necessary functionality to access the data stored within. Vendors do not want other companies to be capable of easily migrating data away from their products and into competitors products, so they are proprietary with the way they handle metadata. CASE tools, DBMS dictionaries, ETL tools, data cleansing tools, OLAP tools, and data mining tools all handle and store metadata differently. Only a metadata repository can be designed to store the metadata components from all of these tools. == Design == Metadata repositories should store metadata in four classifications: ownership, descriptive characteristics, rules and policies, and physical characteristics. Ownership, showing the data owner and the application owner. The descriptive characteristics, define the names, types and lengths, and definitions describing business data or business processes. Rules and policies, will define security, data cleanliness, timelines for data, and relationships. Physical characteristics define the origin or source, and physical location. Like building a logical data model for creating a database, a logical meta model can help identify the metadata requirements for business data. The metadata repository will be centralized, decentralized, or distributed. A centralized design means that there is one database for the metadata repository that stores metadata for all applications business wide. A centralized metadata repository has the same advantages and disadvantages of a centralized database. Easier to manage because all the data is in one database, but the disadvantage is that bottlenecks may occur. A decentralized metadata repository stores metadata in multiple databases, either separated by location and or departments of the business. This makes management of the repository more involved than a centraliz
Spectral shape analysis
Spectral shape analysis relies on the spectrum (eigenvalues and/or eigenfunctions) of the Laplace–Beltrami operator to compare and analyze geometric shapes. Since the spectrum of the Laplace–Beltrami operator is invariant under isometries, it is well suited for the analysis or retrieval of non-rigid shapes, i.e. bendable objects such as humans, animals, plants, etc. == Laplace == The Laplace–Beltrami operator is involved in many important differential equations, such as the heat equation and the wave equation. It can be defined on a Riemannian manifold as the divergence of the gradient of a real-valued function f: Δ f := div grad f . {\displaystyle \Delta f:=\operatorname {div} \operatorname {grad} f.} Its spectral components can be computed by solving the Helmholtz equation (or Laplacian eigenvalue problem): Δ φ i + λ i φ i = 0. {\displaystyle \Delta \varphi _{i}+\lambda _{i}\varphi _{i}=0.} The solutions are the eigenfunctions φ i {\displaystyle \varphi _{i}} (modes) and corresponding eigenvalues λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}} , representing a diverging sequence of positive real numbers. The first eigenvalue is zero for closed domains or when using the Neumann boundary condition. For some shapes, the spectrum can be computed analytically (e.g. rectangle, flat torus, cylinder, disk or sphere). For the sphere, for example, the eigenfunctions are the spherical harmonics. The most important properties of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are that they are isometry invariants. In other words, if the shape is not stretched (e.g. a sheet of paper bent into the third dimension), the spectral values will not change. Bendable objects, like animals, plants and humans, can move into different body postures with only minimal stretching at the joints. The resulting shapes are called near-isometric and can be compared using spectral shape analysis. == Discretizations == Geometric shapes are often represented as 2D curved surfaces, 2D surface meshes (usually triangle meshes) or 3D solid objects (e.g. using voxels or tetrahedra meshes). The Helmholtz equation can be solved for all these cases. If a boundary exists, e.g. a square, or the volume of any 3D geometric shape, boundary conditions need to be specified. Several discretizations of the Laplace operator exist (see Discrete Laplace operator) for the different types of geometry representations. Many of these operators do not approximate well the underlying continuous operator. == Spectral shape descriptors == === ShapeDNA and its variants === The ShapeDNA is one of the first spectral shape descriptors. It is the normalized beginning sequence of the eigenvalues of the Laplace–Beltrami operator. Its main advantages are the simple representation (a vector of numbers) and comparison, scale invariance, and in spite of its simplicity a very good performance for shape retrieval of non-rigid shapes. Competitors of shapeDNA include singular values of Geodesic Distance Matrix (SD-GDM) and Reduced BiHarmonic Distance Matrix (R-BiHDM). However, the eigenvalues are global descriptors, therefore the shapeDNA and other global spectral descriptors cannot be used for local or partial shape analysis. === Global point signature (GPS) === The global point signature at a point x {\displaystyle x} is a vector of scaled eigenfunctions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator computed at x {\displaystyle x} (i.e. the spectral embedding of the shape). The GPS is a global feature in the sense that it cannot be used for partial shape matching. === Heat kernel signature (HKS) === The heat kernel signature makes use of the eigen-decomposition of the heat kernel: h t ( x , y ) = ∑ i = 0 ∞ exp ( − λ i t ) φ i ( x ) φ i ( y ) . {\displaystyle h_{t}(x,y)=\sum _{i=0}^{\infty }\exp(-\lambda _{i}t)\varphi _{i}(x)\varphi _{i}(y).} For each point on the surface the diagonal of the heat kernel h t ( x , x ) {\displaystyle h_{t}(x,x)} is sampled at specific time values t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} and yields a local signature that can also be used for partial matching or symmetry detection. === Wave kernel signature (WKS) === The WKS follows a similar idea to the HKS, replacing the heat equation with the Schrödinger wave equation. === Improved wave kernel signature (IWKS) === The IWKS improves the WKS for non-rigid shape retrieval by introducing a new scaling function to the eigenvalues and aggregating a new curvature term. === Spectral graph wavelet signature (SGWS) === SGWS is a local descriptor that is not only isometric invariant, but also compact, easy to compute and combines the advantages of both band-pass and low-pass filters. An important facet of SGWS is the ability to combine the advantages of WKS and HKS into a single signature, while allowing a multiresolution representation of shapes. == Spectral Matching == The spectral decomposition of the graph Laplacian associated with complex shapes (see Discrete Laplace operator) provides eigenfunctions (modes) which are invariant to isometries. Each vertex on the shape could be uniquely represented with a combinations of the eigenmodal values at each point, sometimes called spectral coordinates: s ( x ) = ( φ 1 ( x ) , φ 2 ( x ) , … , φ N ( x ) ) for vertex x . {\displaystyle s(x)=(\varphi _{1}(x),\varphi _{2}(x),\ldots ,\varphi _{N}(x)){\text{ for vertex }}x.} Spectral matching consists of establishing the point correspondences by pairing vertices on different shapes that have the most similar spectral coordinates. Early work focused on sparse correspondences for stereoscopy. Computational efficiency now enables dense correspondences on full meshes, for instance between cortical surfaces. Spectral matching could also be used for complex non-rigid image registration, which is notably difficult when images have very large deformations. Such image registration methods based on spectral eigenmodal values indeed capture global shape characteristics, and contrast with conventional non-rigid image registration methods which are often based on local shape characteristics (e.g., image gradients).
Personal, Inc.
Personal (also referred to as Personal.com or Personal, Inc.) was a consumer personal data service and identity management system for individuals to aggregate, manage and reuse their own data. It merged with digi.me in August 2017, a business in Europe that has the same business model. The combined company is called digi.me. One of its product lines, a collaborative data management and information security solution for the workplace called TeamData, was spun off as a new company as a result of the merger. == History == Personal was founded in 2009 in Washington, DC by the management team that built The Map Network, a location data and mapping platform that was acquired by Nokia/NAVTEQ in 2006. Personal was the first online consumer-facing company to be named an Ambassador for Privacy by Design for its technical, business and legal commitments to providing users with control over the data they store in Personal's service. Called a “life management platform” by The Economist and a “personal encrypted cloud service” by TIME for its user-centric approach to data, the company has been associated with both the Infomediary model originated in 1999 by John Hagel III and Mark Singer, as well as the vendor relationship management (VRM) model developed by Doc Searls. Personal raised $30m in funding to develop its platform and products from such leading investors as Steve Case's Revolution Ventures, Grotech Ventures, Allen & Company, Ted Leonsis, Neil Ashe, Jonathan Miller, Bill Miller of Legg Mason, Esther Dyson of EDventures, and Eric C. Anderson. The company received recognition for its user agreement, called the Owner Data Agreement, which acted like a reverse license agreement when data was shared between registered parties and emphasized that data ownership resides with the user. Doc Searls wrote in The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge that the Owner Data Agreement “had no precedent and modeled a new legal position, both for vendors and for intermediaries.” Personal was early to embrace “small data,” which it defines as “big data for the benefit of individuals.” The term “small data” may have been originally coined by Jeremie Miller of Sing.ly, who mentioned it in a talk at the Web 2.0 Summit in November 2011 and is cited in The Intention Economy. In 2011, Personal was a part of the first group of companies to join the Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium's Startup Circle. A Small Data Meetup group has also formed in New York City, bringing together technology, legal and business experts to exchange ideas about user-centric and user-driven models for internet products and services. Personal has been included in case studies by Ctrl-Shift and Forrester regarding Personal Data Stores and Personal Identity Management. In 2011, Personal received the Innovator Spotlight Award at Privacy Identity Innovation Conference (pii2011) and participated in the Technology Showcase at pii2012. In 2012, TechHive named Personal as one of the top five apps or web services of SXSW. Personal won the 2013 Campus Technology Innovators Award with Lone Star College in July 2013. Personal was included in a list of Executive Travel Magazine's favorite travel apps for 2013 in its May/June issue. In 2013, Personal was also included as part of NYU GovLab's Open Data 500 and was named by J. Walter Thompson as one of 100 things to watch for in 2014. In 2015, the National Law Journal named Company Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel, Joshua P. Galper, as one of their 50 "Cybersecurity & Privacy Trailblazers." == Products and services == === Overview === The Personal Platform was a privacy- and security-by-design platform for individuals to manage and reuse their own data and information. The Fill It app was a 1-click form-filling solution for web and mobile logins, checkouts and forms, and the Data Vault app served as the main cloud-based repository for a user's data. Personal helped individuals take control and benefit from their information while knowing that the information in their Data Vault remained legally theirs and could not be used without their permission. === Data Vault with Cloud Sync === Personal spent two years building the Personal Platform before launching its Data Vault product in beta in November 2011. Following Privacy by Design principles, Personal only enabled users to see or share the sensitive data and all the files they stored in their Data Vault. Such information was encrypted, and could only be decrypted with a user's password. Only users could choose and know their passwords to their vault because Personal did not store user passwords – and therefore could not reset them without deleting a user's sensitive data and all files stored in their vault. All Personal apps and services were linked to a user's private Data Vault. The Data Vault featured automatic synchronization of data and files added on any device logged into Personal. It also featured a “Secure Share” function that created a live, private network, allowing registered users to share access to data and files through an exchange of encrypted keys without the risk of transmitting the data or files through non-secure, direct means. It also allowed users to immediately update data across their own network and revoke access to it when they choose. Fast Company called the Data Vault “a tool that will simplify our lives.” Personal launched its Android app on November 30, 2011. The iOS Data Vault app was released on May 7, 2012. Personal officially launched its application programming interface (APIs) on October 2, 2012 at the Mashery Business of APIs Conference. A review by CNET highlighted the challenges of getting people to trust such a new service with their sensitive data and spending the time required entering enough data to make it useful. === Fill It App and Form Index === When the Data Vault was launched in November 2011, Mashable posed the question: “Never Fill Out a Form Again?” The World Economic Forum in its February 2013 report highlighted the possibility of saving 10 billion hours globally “and improv[ing] the delivery of public and private sector services” through automated form-filling tools, specifically citing Personal's Fill It app. In January 2013, Personal launched Fill It in beta as a web bookmarklet for automatic form-filling. On June 11, 2014, Personal released Fill It as a web extension and announced that it was publishing an index of over 140,000 1-click online forms at www.fillit.com. The company also announced that a mobile version of the product will launch later in the year. According to a story in Tech Cocktail about the launch, Personal's “web extension and mobile app are able to support over 1,200 different types of reusable data, even enabling them to unlock more confidential information so they can complete longer forms, including patient registrations, job applications, event registrations, school admissions, insurance and bank applications, and government forms.” In November 2014, a mobile version of Fill It was launched that could autofill mobile forms using APIs. Personal's form portal ultimately indexed more than 500,000 forms with three components, which, together, allowed data to be captured and reused across any of the forms: (1) a form graph, which mapped individual form fields to the Personal ontology; (2) a semantic layer, which determined how data was required on a form (e.g. one field vs. three fields for a U.S. telephone number); and (3) a correlations graph, which helped individuals match their specific data to a form without looking at the data value (e.g. knowing which phone number is a mobile phone number, which address is a billing address, or that a person uses their middle name as a first name on most forms). === Monetizing personal data === With the initial public offering of Facebook in May 2012, there was media interest in the question of the monetary value of personal data and whether tools and services might emerge to help consumers monetize their own data. Personal was frequently cited as a company that could potentially offer such a service. Articles and pieces focusing on this subject have appeared in The New York Times, AdWeek, the MIT Technology Review, and on CNN and National Public Radio. Company Co-founder and CEO Shane Green was quoted as saying that “the average American consumer would soon be able to realize over $1,000 per year” by granting limited, anonymous access to their data to marketers, but that figure was never supported by Green or the company. === Launch of TeamData === In May 2016, Personal shifted its product focus to TeamData, which focuses on the problem of securing and collaboratively managing data in the workplace. It is now a separate business.
Information audit
The information audit (IA) extends the concept of auditing from a traditional scope of accounting and finance to the organisational information management system. Information is representative of a resource which requires effective management and this led to the development of interest in the use of an IA. Prior the 1990s and the methodologies of Orna, Henczel, Wood, Buchanan and Gibb, IA approaches and methodologies focused mainly upon an identification of formal information resources (IR). Later approaches included an organisational analysis and the mapping of the information flow. This gave context to analysis within an organisation's information systems and a holistic view of their IR and as such could contribute to the development of the information systems architecture (ISA). In recent years the IA has been overlooked in favour of the systems development process which can be less expensive than the IA, yet more heavily technically focused, project specific (not holistic) and does not favour the top-down analysis of the IA. == Definition == A definition for the Information Audit cannot be universally agreed-upon amongst scholars, however the definition offered by ASLIB received positive support from a few notable scholars including Henczel, Orna and Wood; “(the IA is a) systematic examination of information use, resources and flows, with a verification by reference to both people and existing documents, in order to establish the extent to which they are contributing to an organisation’s objectives” In summary, the term audit itself implies a counting, the IA being much the same yet it counts IR and analyses how they are used and how critical they are to the success of a given task. == Role and scope of an IA == In much the same way as the IA is difficult to define, it can be utilised in a range of contexts by the information professional, from complying with freedom of information legislation to identifying any existing gaps, duplications, bottlenecks or other inefficiencies in information flows and to understand how existing channels can be used for knowledge transfer In 2007 Buchanan and Gibb developed upon their 1998 examination of the IA process by outlining a summary of its main objectives: To identify an organisation’s information resource To identify an organisation’s information needs Furthermore, Buchanan and Gibb went on to state that the IA also had to meet the following additional objectives: To identify the cost/benefits of information resources To identify the opportunities to use the information resources for strategic competitive advantage To integrate IT investment with strategic business initiatives To identify information flow and processes To develop an integrated information strategy and/or policy To create an awareness of the importance of Information Resource Management (IRM) To monitor/evaluate conformance to information related standards, legislations, policy and guidelines. == Methodology evolution == === Overview === In 1976 Riley first published a definition of IA as a way of analysing IR based on a cost-benefit model. Since Riley, scholars have outlined further developed methodologies. Henderson took a cost-benefit approach hoping to draw focus from manpower-costing to information storage and acquisition which he felt was being overlooked. In 1985 Gillman focused upon identifying the relationships which existed between various components in order to map them to one another. Neither Henderson nor Gillman’s methods offered alternative approaches beyond the existing organisational frameworks. Quinn took a hybrid-approach combining Gillman and Henderson’s methods to identify the purpose of existing IR and to position them within the organisation, as did Worlock. The differentiator between Quinn and Worlock lay in Worlock’s consideration of solutions outside of the current organisational structure. These approaches had thus far had paid little attention to the needs of the user or in making structured recommendations for the development of a corporate information strategy. Therefore, here follows a brief outline and overall comparison of four published strategic approaches in order that one might understand the development of the IA methodology. === Burk and Horton === In 1988 Burk and Horton developed InfoMap, the first IA methodology developed for widespread use. It aimed to discover, map and evaluate the IR within an organisation using a 4-stage process: Survey staff using questionnaires/interviews Measure the IR against cost/value Analyse resources Synthesise the findings and map the strengths and weaknesses of the IR against the objectives of the organisation. Although the method inventoried all IR (and therefore met standard ISO 1779) this bottom-up approach revealed limited analysis of the organisation holistically and the steps were not explicit enough. === Orna === Orna produced a top-down methodology in contrast to Burk and Horton, placing emphasis upon the importance of organisational analysis and aimed to assist in the production of a corporate information policy. Initially the method had just 4-stages, this later revised to a 10-stage process which included pre and post-audit stages as below: Conduct a preliminary review to confirm operational/strategic direction Gain support/resource from management Gain commitment from the other stakeholders (staff) Planning including the project, team, tools and techniques Identify the IR, information flow and produce a cost/value assessment Interpret findings based upon current versus desired state Produce a report to present findings Implement recommendations Monitor effects of change Repeat the IA Orna’s method introduced the need for a cyclical IA to be put in place in order for the IR to be continually tracked and improvements made regularly. Again this method was criticised for lacking some practical application and in 2004 Orna revised the methodology once more to try to rectify this problem === Buchanan and Gibb === In 1998, similarly to Orna's earlier publication, Buchanan and Gibb took a top-down approach, drawing techniques from established management disciplines to provide a framework and a level of familiarity for information professionals. This set of techniques was a notable contribution to IA methodologies and understood the need to be flexible for each organisation. Theirs was a 5-stage process: Promote benefits of the IA through seminars/surveys/CEO letter for cooperation Identify the mission objectives of the organisation, define environment (PEST), map information flow and examine organisation culture. Analyse and formulate action plan for problem areas, flow diagrams and a report of findings and recommendations Account for cost of IR and related services using Activity Based Costing (ABC) and Output Based Specification (OBS). Synthesise the whole process in final audit report and provide an information strategy (strategic direction) in relation to the organisation’s mission statement. This was the introduction of a new approach to costing the IR and had an integrated strategic direction, yet the scholars admitted that this method may be impractical for smaller organisations. === Henczel === Henczel’s methodology drew upon the strengths of Orna and Buchanan and Gibb to produce a 7-stage process: Planning and submission of business case for approval to proceed Data collection and development of an IR database and population through survey techniques Structured data analysis Data evaluation, interpretation and formulation of recommendations Communication of recommendations through a report Implementing recommendations through a devised programme The IA as a continuum-establishment of a cyclical process Focus was made once more on the strategic direction of the organisation conducting the IA. Furthermore, Henczel made examination into the use of the IA as a first-step in the development of a knowledge audit or knowledge management strategy as discussed in the later section. == Case studies == Scholars and information professionals have since tested the above methodologies with varied results. An early case study produced by Soy and Bustelo in a Spanish financial institution in 1999 aimed to identify the use of information resources for qualitative and quantitative data analysis due to the rapid expansion of the organisation within a six-year period. Although the methodology was not explicitly credited to any of the above-mentioned scholars, it did follow a strategic (post 1990's) IA process including gaining support from management, the use of questionnaires for data collection, analysis and evaluation of the data, identification and mapping of the IR, cost-analysis and outlining recommendations to assist with the establishment of an Information policy. In addition the IA report suggested that the process would need to be continual (cyclical as Orna, Henczel and Buchanan and Gibb suggest). Conclusions of this case-study stated that th
Driver scheduling problem
The driver scheduling problem (DSP) is type of problem in operations research and theoretical computer science. The DSP consists of selecting a set of duties (assignments) for the drivers or pilots of vehicles (e.g., buses, trains, boats, or planes) involved in the transportation of passengers or goods, within the constraints of various legislative and logistical criteria. == Criteria and modelling == This very complex problem involves several constraints related to labour and company rules and also different evaluation criteria and objectives. Being able to solve this problem efficiently can have a great impact on costs and quality of service for public transportation companies. There is a large number of different rules that a feasible duty might be required to satisfy, such as Minimum and maximum stretch duration Minimum and maximum break duration Minimum and maximum work duration Minimum and maximum total duration Maximum extra work duration Maximum number of vehicle changes Minimum driving duration of a particular vehicle Operations research has provided optimization models and algorithms that lead to efficient solutions for this problem. Among the most common models proposed to solve the DSP are the Set Covering and Set Partitioning Models (SPP/SCP). In the SPP model, each work piece (task) is covered by only one duty. In the SCP model, it is possible to have more than one duty covering a given work piece. In both models, the set of work pieces that needs to be covered is laid out in rows, and the set of previously defined feasible duties available for covering specific work pieces is arranged in columns. The DSP resolution, based on either of these models, is the selection of the set of feasible duties that guarantees that there is one (SPP) or more (SCP) duties covering each work piece while minimizing the total cost of the final schedule.
Attensity
Attensity was an American company that provided social analytics and engagement applications for social customer relationship management (social CRM). Attensity's text analytics software applications extracted facts, relationships and sentiment from unstructured data. == History == Attensity was founded in 2000. An early investor in Attensity was In-Q-Tel, which funds technology to support the missions of the US Government and the broader DOD. InTTENSITY, an independent company that has combined Inxight with Attensity Software (the only joint development project that combines two InQTel funded software packages), was the exclusive distributor and outlet for Attensity in the Federal Market. In 2009, Attensity Corp., then based in Palo Alto, merged with Germany's Empolis and Living-e AG to form Attensity Group. In 2010, Attensity Group acquired Biz360, a provider of social media monitoring and market intelligence solutions. In early 2012, Attensity Group divested itself of the Empolis business unit via a management buyout; that unit currently conducts business under its pre-merger name. Attensity Group was a closely held private company. Its majority shareholder was Aeris Capital, a private Swiss investment office advising a high-net-worth individual and his charitable foundation. Foundation Capital, Granite Ventures, and Scale Venture Partners were among Biz360's investors and thus became shareholders in Attensity Group. In February 2016, Attensity's IP assets were acquired by InContact, and Attensity closed.
DONE
The Data-based Online Nonlinear Extremumseeker (DONE) algorithm is a black-box optimization algorithm. DONE models the unknown cost function and attempts to find an optimum of the underlying function. The DONE algorithm is suitable for optimizing costly and noisy functions and does not require derivatives. An advantage of DONE over similar algorithms, such as Bayesian optimization, is that the computational cost per iteration is independent of the number of function evaluations. == Methods == The DONE algorithm was first proposed by Hans Verstraete and Sander Wahls in 2015. The algorithm fits a surrogate model based on random Fourier features and then uses a well-known L-BFGS algorithm to find an optimum of the surrogate model. == Applications == DONE was first demonstrated for maximizing the signal in optical coherence tomography measurements, but has since then been applied to various other applications. For example, it was used to help extending the field of view in light sheet fluorescence microscopy.