Digital inclusion involves the activities necessary to ensure equitable access to and use of information and communications technologies for participation in social and economic life including for education, social services, health, social, and community participation. Digital inclusion includes access to affordable broadband Internet services, Internet-enabled devices, access to digital literacy training, quality technical support, and applications and online content designed to enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation, and collaboration. Related concepts include digital divide, digital exclusion and digital inequality, however digital inclusion focuses more on the strategies, policies, and programs required to address the digital divide. As many services have moved online and with the increasing use of telehealth to deliver primary care, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, digital inclusion, including digital literacy and internet access is increasingly regarded as a social determinant of health. Accessibility, relevance, and impact have been identified as essential elements of digital inclusion as it pertains to health information systems. "Digital inclusion is broadly defined as different strategies designed to ensure that all people have equal access, opportunities and skills to benefit from digital technologies and systems" (ITU, 2019, as cited in Carmi and Yates, 2020). Since 2020, there have been many technology companies that have begun implementing different features or roles within their companies to support breaking down the digital divide. For example, HP has announced the digital divide accelerator. This accelerator will support nonprofits in Greece, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Spain. The goal for this role is to help equip children and other people within the community to understand the skills needed to become a part of the digital community. == Background == With the increasing use of computers and the Internet in the 1990s and early 2000s concerns rose around digital equality, however this primarily focused on the physical access to technology. This gave rise to the concept of the digital divide which was originally developed to describe the growing disparity in Internet access between rural and urban areas of the United States of America. This gradually expanded to considerations of digital access between countries in what is termed the global digital divide, which mirrors many of the disparities seen within countries but on an international scale. However, with the adoption of digital technologies across most sectors of society, and the increasing diversity of technologies and programs, access and use of ICT became more complex and essential for many aspects of daily life. This led to new terminology and a second wave of research on digital inequality which has been identified as the (1) usage gap, (2) second level digital divide, (3) emerging digital differentiation, and (4) digital inclusion. == Strategies for digital inclusion == A review of the literature in 2019 found that while physical access to digital technologies and the internet continues to be a barrier to digital inclusion, digital ability and attitude were also potential barriers. Key strategies identified for improving digital inclusion are social support, direct user experience and collaborative learning/design. Education is a key aspect of digital inclusion as digital technologies have become a key means of engaging with all levels of the education system, requiring levels of digital competence for successful engagement with the curriculum. In addition lifelong learning is required as technologies, services and systems are changing constantly. Public libraries and community service providers play a key role in supporting digital inclusion through access to computers, internet connection and expertise and training. Designing for digital inclusion may also help with poor written literacy, which remains a barrier for 10% of the world's population. UNESCO has developed Guidelines for designing digital technologies in ways that could assist those who are illiterate. == Indigenous digital inclusion == Digital inclusion is a critical issue for many Indigenous communities across the globe, many of whom lack access to adequate resources. The Australian Government has set a National Closing the Gap target for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have equal levels of digital inclusion by 2026. Many people on tribal land and in Native Hawaiian land struggle with the technology gap. The Native Entities Capacity and Planning Grant Program has $45.3 million available to help address these challenges and empower Indian Tribes, Alaska Native entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations. Some of the impacts so far are in the education and workforce development and healthcare access through telehealth.[13] == Measuring digital inclusion == The Australian Digital Inclusion Index (ADII) is a research project which has been tracking digital inclusion throughout Australia since 2016. It uses survey data to measure digital inclusion across three dimensions of access, affordability and digital ability. == The Future of Digital Inclusion == On February 16, 2021, a global dialogue within the United Nations (UN) took a look at the future of digital inclusion. Through the adoption of the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development, Member States made a commitment. They pledged to "leave no one behind." By 2030, the UN's goal is to close the digital divide by providing access to the Internet and mobile technologies for all nations and peoples and for all segments of society. The UN sees the crisis of too many people in our global society still living unconnected and how the digital divide remains a challenge that must be addressed. == Gaming == The Xbox Adaptive Controller is a groundbreaking example of digital inclusion, designed to make gaming more accessible to people with limited mobility. Developed by Microsoft, it features large programmable buttons and ports that connect to a wide range of external devices like switches, joysticks, and mounts, allowing users to customize their gaming experience based on their unique needs. By removing traditional physical barriers to gameplay, the Xbox Adaptive Controller empowers more people to participate in digital entertainment, promotes equal access to technology, and fosters a more inclusive gaming community. == Digital inclusion advocacy groups == Australian Digital Inclusion Alliance National Digital Inclusion Alliance (US)
International Clinical Trials Registry Platform
The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is a platform for the registration of clinical trials operated by the World Health Organization. The ICTRP combines data from multiple cooperating clinical trials registries to generate a global view of clinical trials worldwide, with a search portal that allows access to the entire dataset. It requires a minimum standard set of database fields, the WHO Trial Registration Data Set, to be present for a trial to be registered. All entries are given a Universal Trial Number (UTN) that identifies them uniquely. The organization has sought to assist various national governments in establishing their own clinical trials databases. It combines data from the following primary registries and data providers: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBec) Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS), Republic of Korea ClinicalTrials.gov Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), European Medicines Agency Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR) German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) ISRCTN (UK) International Traditional Medicine Clinical Trial Registry (ITMCTR) Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) Japan Primary Registries Network (JPRN) Lebanese Clinical Trials Registry (LBCTR) Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (OMON) Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) Peruvian Clinical Trial Registry (REPEC) Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry (SLCTR)
Reflection lines
Engineers use reflection lines to judge a surface's quality. Reflection lines reveal surface flaws, particularly discontinuities in normals indicating that the surface is not C 2 {\displaystyle C^{2}} . Reflection lines may be created and examined on physical surfaces or virtual surfaces with the help of computer graphics. For example, the shiny surface of an automobile body is illuminated with reflection lines by surrounding the car with parallel light sources. Virtually, a surface can be rendered with reflection lines by modulating the surfaces point-wise color according to a simple calculation involving the surface normal, viewing direction and a square wave environment map. == Mathematical definition == Consider a point p {\displaystyle p} on a surface M {\displaystyle M} with (normalized) normal n {\displaystyle n} . If an observer views this point from infinity at view direction v {\displaystyle v} then the reflected view direction r {\displaystyle r} is: r = v − 2 ( n ⋅ v ) n . {\displaystyle r=v-2(n\cdot v)n.} (The vector v {\displaystyle v} is decomposed into its normal part v n = ( n ⋅ v ) v {\displaystyle v_{n}=(n\cdot v)v} and tangential part v t = v − v n {\displaystyle v_{t}=v-v_{n}} . Upon reflection, the tangential part is kept and the normal part is negated.) For reflection lines we consider the surface M {\displaystyle M} surrounded by parallel lines with direction a {\displaystyle a} , representing infinite, non-dispersive light sources. For each point p {\displaystyle p} on M {\displaystyle M} we determine which line is seen from direction v {\displaystyle v} . The position on each line is of no interest. Define the vector r p {\displaystyle r_{p}} to be the reflection direction r {\displaystyle r} projected onto a plane P {\displaystyle P} that is orthogonal to a {\displaystyle a} : r p = r − ( r ⋅ a ) a {\displaystyle r_{p}=r-(r\cdot a)a} and similarly let v p {\displaystyle v_{p}} be the viewing direction projected onto P {\displaystyle P} : v p = v − ( v ⋅ a ) a {\displaystyle v_{p}=v-(v\cdot a)a} Finally, define v o {\displaystyle v_{o}} to be the direction lying in P {\displaystyle P} perpendicular to a {\displaystyle a} and v p {\displaystyle v_{p}} : v o = a × v p {\displaystyle v_{o}=a\times v_{p}} Using these vectors, the reflection line function θ ( p ) : M → ( − π , π ] {\displaystyle \theta (p):M\rightarrow (-\pi ,\pi ]} is a scalar function mapping points p {\displaystyle p} on the surface to angles between v p {\displaystyle v_{p}} and r p {\displaystyle r_{p}} : θ = arctan ( r p ⋅ v o , r p ⋅ v p ) {\displaystyle \theta =\arctan {(r_{p}\cdot v_{o},r_{p}\cdot v_{p})}} where a r c t a n ( y , x ) {\displaystyle arctan(y,x)} is the atan2 function producing a number in the range ( − π , π ] {\displaystyle (-\pi ,\pi ]} . ( v p {\displaystyle v_{p}} and v o {\displaystyle v_{o}} can be viewed as a local coordinate system in P {\displaystyle P} with x {\displaystyle x} -axis in direction v p {\displaystyle v_{p}} and y {\displaystyle y} -axis in direction v o {\displaystyle v_{o}} .) Finally, to render the reflection lines positive values θ > 0 {\displaystyle \theta >0} are mapped to a light color and non-positive values to a dark color. == Highlight lines == Highlight lines are a view-independent alternative to reflection lines. Here the projected normal is directly compared against some arbitrary vector x {\displaystyle x} perpendicular to the light source: θ = arctan ( n a ⋅ a ⊥ , n a ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \theta =\arctan {(n_{a}\cdot a^{\perp },n_{a}\cdot x)}} where n a {\displaystyle n_{a}} is the surface normal projected on the light source plane P {\displaystyle P} : n a ^ / | n a ^ | , n a ^ = n − ( n ⋅ a ) a {\displaystyle {\hat {n_{a}}}/|{\hat {n_{a}}}|,{\hat {n_{a}}}=n-(n\cdot a)a} The relationship between reflection lines and highlight lines is likened to that between specular and diffuse shading.
Zé Delivery
Zé Delivery is a startup developed by Brazilian drinks company AmBev which offers an app for delivering drinks. The app is available for Android and iOS. Created in 2016 by AmBev's ZX Ventures hub, the service has an international presence in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Panama and the Dominican Republic. It is also present in more than 300 Brazilian cities. Because it has an extensive category of alcoholic beverages, the service is only used by people over 18. It also offers soft drinks, juices, energy drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages.
GEPIR
GEPIR (Global Electronic Party Information Registry) was a distributed database operated and owned by GS1 that contains basic information on over 1,000,000 companies in over 100 countries. The database could be searched by Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) code (including Universal Product Code (UPC) and EAN-13 codes), container Code (Serial Shipping Container Code (SSCC)), location number (Global Location Number (GLN)), and (in some countries) the company name. A SOAP webservice existed for API access. As of end December 2023, GEPIR was replaced by a service called Verified by GS1. While it operated, GEPIR had more than 1 million members in more than 100 countries. In 2013, all GS1 111 member organisations joined GEPIR. == Access == GEPIR was accessible for free in almost all countries but the number of request per day was limited (from 20 to 30). Since October 2013, GS1 France restricts access to GEPIR to companies (registration with SIREN code was required to use it). A premium access service had been created by GS1 France in January 2010 which allows companies to use GS1 web and SOAP interface without any limit. == System architecture == GEPIR was a lookup service coordinated by the GS1 GO that provided all end users with the ability to look up information about GS1 Identification Keys. Depending on the service, systems were provided by GS1 Member Organisations (MOs) or 3rd party service providers, or both. Where a GS1 MO did not choose to provide the service directly to its end users, the GS1 Global Office provided the service for that geography. Some services involved a technical component deployed by the GS1 Global Office that coordinates the systems provided by GS1 MOs and/or 3rd party service providers. The GEPIR service was provided by systems deployed by GS1 MOs, with the GS1 GO providing a central point of coordination to federate the local systems. The GS1 GO also provides the MO-level service for MOs that could not or did not wish to deploy their own system.
Mathematical morphology
Mathematical morphology (MM) is a theory and technique for analyzing and processing geometrical structures. It's based on set theory, lattice theory, topology, and random functions. MM is most commonly applied to digital images, but it can be employed as well on graphs, surface meshes, solids, and many other spatial structures. Topological and geometrical continuous-space concepts such as size, shape, convexity, connectivity, and geodesic distance, were introduced by MM on both continuous and discrete spaces. MM is also the foundation of morphological image processing, which consists of a set of operators that transform images according to the above characterizations. The basic morphological operators are erosion, dilation, opening and closing. MM was originally developed for binary images, and was later extended to grayscale functions and images. The subsequent generalization to complete lattices is widely accepted today as MM's theoretical foundation. == History == Mathematical Morphology was developed in 1964 by the collaborative work of Georges Matheron and Jean Serra, at the École des Mines de Paris, France. Matheron supervised the PhD thesis of Serra, devoted to the quantification of mineral characteristics from thin cross sections, and this work resulted in a novel practical approach, as well as theoretical advancements in integral geometry and topology. In 1968, the Centre de Morphologie Mathématique was founded by the École des Mines de Paris in Fontainebleau, France, led by Matheron and Serra. During the rest of the 1960s and most of the 1970s, MM dealt essentially with binary images, treated as sets, and generated a large number of binary operators and techniques: Hit-or-miss transform, dilation, erosion, opening, closing, granulometry, thinning, skeletonization, ultimate erosion, conditional bisector, and others. A random approach was also developed, based on novel image models. Most of the work in that period was developed in Fontainebleau. From the mid-1970s to mid-1980s, MM was generalized to grayscale functions and images as well. Besides extending the main concepts (such as dilation, erosion, etc.) to functions, this generalization yielded new operators, such as morphological gradients, top-hat transform and the Watershed (MM's main segmentation approach). In the 1980s and 1990s, MM gained a wider recognition, as research centers in several countries began to adopt and investigate the method. MM started to be applied to a large number of imaging problems and applications, especially in the field of non-linear filtering of noisy images. In 1986, Serra further generalized MM, this time to a theoretical framework based on complete lattices. This generalization brought flexibility to the theory, enabling its application to a much larger number of structures, including color images, video, graphs, meshes, etc. At the same time, Matheron and Serra also formulated a theory for morphological filtering, based on the new lattice framework. The 1990s and 2000s also saw further theoretical advancements, including the concepts of connections and levelings. In 1993, the first International Symposium on Mathematical Morphology (ISMM) took place in Barcelona, Spain. Since then, ISMMs are organized every 2–3 years: Fontainebleau, France (1994); Atlanta, USA (1996); Amsterdam, Netherlands (1998); Palo Alto, CA, USA (2000); Sydney, Australia (2002); Paris, France (2005); Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2007); Groningen, Netherlands (2009); Intra (Verbania), Italy (2011); Uppsala, Sweden (2013); Reykjavík, Iceland (2015); Fontainebleau, France (2017); and Saarbrücken, Germany (2019). =
Transparency in the software supply chain
Transparency in the software supply chain is a condition in which participants involved in the development, procurement, operation, auditing, or regulation of software can determine which components, dependencies, build stages, identifiers, and relationships within the supply chain make up the delivered product. The disclosure of information about software components, their interrelationships, origins, and development methods—for the purposes of risk management, vulnerability detection, and compliance—takes place throughout the software lifecycle. Transparency is one of the key security attributes of the software supply chain, as a deeper understanding of the chain enables participants to identify vulnerabilities and mitigate threats. Problems in the software supply chain can cause billions in losses and create operational challenges for government and commercial entities, as demonstrated by incidents involving SolarWinds, Bybit, 3CX, Jaguar Land Rover, GitHub, and NotPetya. Modern software is often assembled from third-party libraries and open-source components. According to research by the Linux Foundation and Synopsys, 96% of the commercial codebases analyzed contained open-source software, and 70–90% of a typical codebase may consist of open-source components. Without transparency, any software component can become a threat. As a result, companies may spend billions of dollars building robust external defenses, but this will not protect against vulnerabilities in legitimate software inside the perimeter. At the same time, supply chain attacks also erode trust between customers and their IT providers, as malicious code is often embedded in official updates with certificates and digital signatures. One of the primary ways to ensure transparency is through a software bill of materials, which documents the components used to create the software and the relationships within the supply chain. == Concept == The software supply chain is the collection of systems, devices, people, artifacts, and processes involved in the creation of the final software product. Attacks on the software supply chain differ from conventional attacks in that they follow a four-stage pattern: compromise, modification, distribution, and subsequent exploitation of the compromised or modified component. A defining feature of a supply chain attack is the introduction or manipulation of a change at an upstream stage, which is subsequently exploited at a downstream stage. Transparency refers to the availability of knowledge about the chain, while validity concerns the integrity of operations and artifacts and the authentication of participants, and separation involves reducing unnecessary trust relationships and the radius of impact through compartmentalization. In this framework, transparency primarily helps during the pre-compromise and detection phases, as a clearer understanding of participants, operations, and artifacts makes it easier to identify weak links before attackers exploit them. Current major attack vectors include dependencies and containers, build infrastructure, and human participants, such as maintainers or developers. == History == Software supply-chain transparency developed from earlier efforts to document software components, long before the term came into widespread use in the cybersecurity field. Early component-documentation formats included SPDX, first published in 2011, and CycloneDX, first published in 2017. Initially, these formats were created to support license compliance, package identification, and tool compatibility. Their development helped shape a broader concept of software supply chain transparency, encompassing component documentation, disclosure practices, risk management, security analysis, and regulatory compliance. In 2018, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration launched a multistakeholder process on promoting software component transparency. This process helped move work on SBOMs from a specialized technical practice into the realm of policy and procurement to identify components used in software products. The 2020 compromise of the SolarWinds Orion platform made software supply chain security a central issue in government cybersecurity policy. An analysis of the “Sunburst” campaign prepared by the Atlantic Council noted that the vulnerability of the software supply chain had become a realized risk for national-security agencies. In May 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14028, which directed federal agencies to improve cybersecurity and increase transparency in the software supply chain, including requirements related to SBOMs. Reuters reported that the executive order required software developers selling their products to the federal government to provide greater visibility into their software and make security data available. In July 2021, the NTIA published the document “The Minimum Elements for a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)”, defining the basic data fields and practices for creating SBOMs. Between 2021 and 2025, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency updated its guidance on “Framing Software Component Transparency”, expanding the set of SBOM attributes, metadata requirements, and operational recommendations for the creation, exchange, and use of SBOMs. Major incidents that occurred following the SolarWinds attack have underscored the importance of transparency in vulnerability management and supply chain security. The Log4Shell vulnerability in the Log4j library, disclosed in December 2021, demonstrated how difficult it can be for organizations to identify a vulnerable component deeply embedded within applications and services. In 2024, an attempt to plant a backdoor in XZ Utils showed how attackers could exploit trust in open-source maintenance processes to introduce malicious code into widely used infrastructure software. By the mid-2020s, software supply chain transparency had become part of international cybersecurity coordination and regulation. On September 3, 2025, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the National Cybersecurity Office, in collaboration with cybersecurity agencies from 15 countries, released the document “A Shared Vision of Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for Cybersecurity.” In the European Union, the Cyber Resilience Act required manufacturers of products with digital elements to create, maintain, and retain SBOMs as part of the technical documentation for software placed on the EU market. == Transparency mechanisms == The primary mechanism for ensuring transparency is the software bill of materials (SBOM). An SBOM is a structured list of components, libraries, and tools used to build and distribute a software product, and it records dependencies in a way that helps organizations understand and assess their software supply chains. It can also be described as a formal record of components and their interdependencies, which gives users insight into their actual exposure to risks and threats. Five key areas of SBOM application in software supply chain security have been identified: vulnerability management, ensuring transparency, component evaluation, risk assessment, and ensuring supply chain integrity. In software supply chains, an SBOM documents all components, both open-source and proprietary. Under Executive Order 14028, U.S. federal agencies require software suppliers to provide SBOMs for government-procured software. The list of minimum required SBOM elements defined by NTIA includes three main categories: required data fields for describing each component (name, version, identifiers), automation support (machine-readable format, generation tools), and recommendations for creating SBOMs during development and purchasing. The post-2021 push for SBOMs was intended to provide visibility into the components used within software and to expose parts of an application that would otherwise remain hidden. This information can be used to prioritize patches, manage vulnerabilities, and support compliance work. Transparency also supports software traceability, which is becoming a standard feature of developer platforms. Traceability has become important because organizations are increasingly required to demonstrate how software was created, rather than simply listing its components. Higher levels of assurance require signed, tamper-proof traceability and more isolated, verifiable build environments. A related mechanism is build reproducibility. Reproducible builds are defined as build processes that make the compilation process deterministic, ensuring that the same source code always produces the same binary file. These builds are considered a foundational element for distributed verification, transparency-log maintenance, supply-chain workflow integration, and the creation of keyless signatures based on verifiable logs. Although reproducibility does not replace inventory or attestation, it gives external par