Noam Slonim (Hebrew: נעם סלונים; born in Jerusalem) is an Israeli computer scientist, specializing in Natural Language Processing and the application of Large language models. He is a Research Scientist at Google Research Israel (since September 2025) and formerly an IBM Distinguished Engineer. He founded and served as Principal Investigator of Project Debater and led Language Model Utilization at IBM Research. Beyond his scientific achievements, Slonim had a writing and media career. He was a writer for Season 4 of The Cameric Five TV comedy show, published a weekly column in Haaretz on brain science, and co-created and wrote the Israeli sitcom Puzzle. He was also the head writer for Seasons 2 and 3 of the sitcom Ha-movilim and featured in the 2020 documentary The Debater. In October 2025, his debut novel, Questionable Memories, was published by Kinneret Publishing Group. == Education and research interests == Slonim graduated from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1996 with a B.S. degree in Computer Science, Physics, and Mathematics. In 2002 he completed Ph.D. summa cum laude at the Interdisciplinary Center for Neural Computation at the Hebrew University, under the supervision of Professor Naftali Tishby. His thesis focused on the theory and applications of the Information Bottleneck method. From 2003 till 2006 he did post-doctoral studies at the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics at Princeton University, working with Professor Bill Bialek and Professor Saeed Tavazoie. He joined IBM Research in 2007. Slonim holds over 30 patents (granted or pending) and has co-authored more than 100 scientific publications. In 2025, he joined Google Research Israel as a research scientist. == Research activities == From 1998 to 2003 he worked on the theory and applications of the Information Bottleneck method, suggesting various cluster analysis algorithms inspired by this method, and demonstrating the practical value of these algorithms on various domains. From 2003 to 2006 he worked on developing Machine Learning algorithms that rely on Information Theory concepts, and applied these algorithms to the analysis of various types of Genomics data. In 2011 he proposed to develop the first Artificial Intelligence system that can meaningfully participate in a full live debate with an expert human debater. This work gave rise to Project Debater, that debated expert human debaters in several live events during 2018 and 2019. In 2020, Slonim delivered the opening keynote at the EMNLP conference, describing the IBM Research work on developing Project Debater. From 2022 to 2025, he led IBM Research efforts applying large language models to practical use cases; in 2025 he moved to Google Research Israel as a Research Scientist. == Writing and video career == In 1996 Slonim was a writer for Season 4 of The Cameric Five TV comedy show. In 1997–1998 he published a weekly column in Haaretz newspaper, focused on brain science research. In 1997–1999 he co-created and co-wrote the Israeli sitcom, Puzzle. In 2008–2010 he was the head writer of Season 2 and Season 3 of the Israeli Sitcom, Ha-movilim. In 2020 he was featured in the documentary The Debater, an official selection of the 2020 Copenhagen International Documentary Film Festival. In 2025, his debut novel, Questionable Memories, was published by Kinneret Publishing Group.
Static program analysis
In computer science, static program analysis (also known as static analysis or static simulation) is the analysis of computer programs performed without executing them, in contrast with dynamic program analysis, which is performed on programs during their execution in the integrated environment. The term is usually applied to analysis performed by an automated tool, with human analysis typically being called "program understanding", program comprehension, or code review. In the last of these, software inspection and software walkthroughs are also used. In most cases the analysis is performed on some version of a program's source code, and, in other cases, on some form of its object code. Two leading approaches to resource certification have been Static Analysis (SA) and Implicit Computational Complexity (ICC). SA is algorithmic in nature: it focuses on a broad programming language of choice, and seeks to determine by syntactic means whether given programs in that language are feasible. In contrast, ICC attempts to create from the outset specialized programming languages or methods that delineate a complexity class. Thus, SA's focus is on compile time, making no demand on the programmer; whereas ICC is a language-design discipline." The discipline of static analysis should not be confused with linting, which is the process of checking for coding style mistakes. == Rationale == The sophistication of the analysis performed by tools varies from those that only consider the behaviour of individual statements and declarations, to those that include the complete source code of a program in their analysis. The uses of the information obtained from the analysis vary from highlighting possible coding errors (e.g., the lint tool) to formal methods that mathematically prove properties about a given program (e.g., its behaviour matches that of its specification). Software metrics and reverse engineering can be described as forms of static analysis. Deriving software metrics and static analysis are increasingly deployed together, especially in creation of embedded systems, by defining so-called software quality objectives. A growing commercial use of static analysis is in the verification of properties of software used in safety-critical computer systems and locating potentially vulnerable code. For example, the following industries have identified the use of static code analysis as a means of improving the quality of increasingly sophisticated and complex software: Medical software: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has identified the use of static analysis for medical devices. Nuclear software: In the UK the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) recommends the use of static analysis on reactor protection systems. Aviation software (in combination with dynamic analysis). Automotive & Machines (functional safety features form an integral part of each automotive product development phase, ISO 26262, section 8). A study in 2012 by VDC Research reported that 28.7% of the embedded software engineers surveyed use static analysis tools and 39.7% expect to use them within 2 years. A study from 2010 found that 60% of the interviewed developers in European research projects made at least use of their basic IDE built-in static analyzers. However, only about 10% employed an additional other (and perhaps more advanced) analysis tool. In the application security industry the name static application security testing (SAST) is also used. SAST is an important part of Security Development Lifecycles (SDLs) such as the SDL defined by Microsoft and a common practice in software companies. == Tool types == The OMG (Object Management Group) published a study regarding the types of software analysis required for software quality measurement and assessment. This document on "How to Deliver Resilient, Secure, Efficient, and Easily Changed IT Systems in Line with CISQ Recommendations" describes three levels of software analysis. Unit Level Analysis that takes place within a specific program or subroutine, without connecting to the context of that program. Technology Level Analysis that takes into account interactions between unit programs to get a more holistic and semantic view of the overall program in order to find issues and avoid obvious false positives. System Level Analysis that takes into account the interactions between unit programs, but without being limited to one specific technology or programming language. A further level of software analysis can be defined. Mission/Business Level Analysis that takes into account the business/mission layer terms, rules and processes that are implemented within the software system for its operation as part of enterprise or program/mission layer activities. These elements are implemented without being limited to one specific technology or programming language and in many cases are distributed across multiple languages, but are statically extracted and analyzed for system understanding for mission assurance. == Formal methods == Formal methods is the term applied to the analysis of software (and computer hardware) whose results are obtained purely through the use of rigorous mathematical methods. The mathematical techniques used include denotational semantics, axiomatic semantics, operational semantics, and abstract interpretation. By a straightforward reduction to the halting problem, it is possible to prove that (for any Turing complete language), finding all possible run-time errors in an arbitrary program (or more generally any kind of violation of a specification on the final result of a program) is undecidable: there is no mechanical method that can always answer truthfully whether an arbitrary program may or may not exhibit runtime errors. This result dates from the works of Church, Gödel and Turing in the 1930s (see: Halting problem and Rice's theorem). As with many undecidable questions, one can still attempt to give useful approximate solutions. Some of the implementation techniques of formal static analysis include: Abstract interpretation, to model the effect that every statement has on the state of an abstract machine (i.e., it 'executes' the software based on the mathematical properties of each statement and declaration). This abstract machine over-approximates the behaviours of the system: the abstract system is thus made simpler to analyze, at the expense of incompleteness (not every property true of the original system is true of the abstract system). If properly done, though, abstract interpretation is sound (every property true of the abstract system can be mapped to a true property of the original system). Data-flow analysis, a lattice-based technique for gathering information about the possible set of values; Hoare logic, a formal system with a set of logical rules for reasoning rigorously about the correctness of computer programs. There is tool support for some programming languages (e.g., the SPARK programming language (a subset of Ada) and the Java Modeling Language—JML—using ESC/Java and ESC/Java2, Frama-C WP (weakest precondition) plugin for the C language extended with ACSL (ANSI/ISO C Specification Language) ). Model checking, considers systems that have finite state or may be reduced to finite state by abstraction; Symbolic execution, as used to derive mathematical expressions representing the value of mutated variables at particular points in the code. Nullable reference analysis == Data-driven static analysis == Data-driven static analysis leverages extensive codebases to infer coding rules and improve the accuracy of the analysis. For instance, one can use all Java open-source packages available on GitHub to learn good analysis strategies. The rule inference can use machine learning techniques. It is also possible to learn from a large amount of past fixes and warnings. == Remediation == Static analyzers produce warnings. For certain types of warnings, it is possible to design and implement automated remediation techniques. For example, Logozzo and Ball have proposed automated remediations for C# cccheck.
FAIR data
FAIR data is data which meets the 2016 FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). The FAIR principles emphasize machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in the volume, complexity, and rate of production of data. The abbreviation FAIR/O data is sometimes used to indicate that the dataset or database in question complies with the FAIR principles and also carries an explicit data‑capable open license. == FAIR principles published by GO FAIR == Findable The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the FAIRification process. F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below) F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe F4. (Meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource Accessible Once the user finds the required data, they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation. A1. (Meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardised communications protocol A1.1 The protocol is open, free, and universally implementable A1.2 The protocol allows for an authentication and authorisation procedure, where necessary A2. Metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available Interoperable The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing. I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data Reusable The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings. R1. (Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. For instance, principle F4 defines that both metadata and data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource (the infrastructure component). === Acceptance and implementation === Before FAIR, a 2007 OECD report was the most influential paper discussing similar ideas related to data accessibility. In January 2014, the Lorentz Centre at Leiden University hosted a workshop entitled "Jointly designing a data FAIRPORT" where the participants first formulated the FAIR principles. After further discussions, they were published in the March 2016 issue of Scientific Data. At the 2016 G20 Hangzhou summit, the G20 leaders issued a statement endorsing the application of FAIR principles to research. Also in 2016, a group of Australian organisations developed a Statement on FAIR Access to Australia's Research Outputs, which aimed to extend the principles to research outputs more generally. In 2017, Germany, Netherlands and France agreed to establish an international office to support the FAIR initiative, the GO FAIR International Support and Coordination Office. Other international organisations active in the research data ecosystem, such as CODATA or Research Data Alliance (RDA) also support FAIR implementations by their communities. FAIR principles implementation assessment is being explored by FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group of RDA, CODATA's strategic Decadal Programme "Data for Planet: Making data work for cross-domain challenges" mentions FAIR data principles as a fundamental enabler of data driven science. The Association of European Research Libraries recommends the use of FAIR principles. A 2017 paper by advocates of FAIR data reported that awareness of the FAIR concept was increasing among various researchers and institutes, but also, understanding of the concept was becoming confused as different people apply their own differing perspectives to it. Guides on implementing FAIR data practices state that the cost of a data management plan in compliance with FAIR data practices should be 5% of the total research budget. In 2019 the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) released the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance as a complementary guide. The CARE principles extend principles outlined in FAIR data to include Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics to ensure data guidelines address historical contexts and power differentials. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance were drafted at the International Data Week and Research Data Alliance Plenary co-hosted event, "Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles for the Governance of Indigenous Data Workshop", held 8 November 2018, in Gaborone, Botswana. The lack of information on how to implement the guidelines have led to inconsistent interpretations of them. In January 2020, representatives of nine groups of universities around the world produced the Sorbonne declaration on research data rights, which included a commitment to FAIR data, and called on governments to provide support to enable it. In 2021, researchers identified the FAIR principles as a conceptual component of data catalog software tools, with the other components being metadata management, business context and data responsibility roles. In April 2022, Matthias Scheffler and colleagues argued in Nature that FAIR principles are "a must" so that data mining and artificial intelligence can extract useful scientific information from the data. There have been moves in the geosciences to establish FAIR data by use of decimal georeferencing However, making data (and research outcomes) FAIR is a challenging task, and it is challenging to assess the FAIRness. In 2020, the FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group published a set of guidelines for assessing "FAIRness".
Information strategist
An information strategist analyses the information flow within an organisation and directs its information resources to better serve the organisation's strategic goals. They work with information technology or within a corporate library to direct high quality information from a variety of sources to users, based upon their profiles and needs. In warfare, information strategists not only seek to improve information flows for their own side but also try to disrupt the information flows of the enemy in order to demoralize and deceive them.
Single source of truth
In information science and information technology, single source of truth (SSOT) architecture, or single point of truth (SPOT) architecture, for information systems is the practice of structuring information models and associated data schemas such that every data element is mastered (or edited) in only one place, providing data normalization to a canonical form (for example, in database normalization or content transclusion). There are several scenarios with respect to copies and updates: The master data is never copied and instead only references to it are made; this means that all reads and updates go directly to the SSOT. The master data is copied but the copies are only read and only the master data is updated; if requests to read data are only made on copies, this is an instance of CQRS. The master data is copied and the copies are updated; this needs a reconciliation mechanism when there are concurrent updates. Updates on copies can be thrown out whenever a concurrent update is made on the master, so they are not considered fully committed until propagated to the master. (many blockchains work that way.) Concurrent updates are merged. (if an automatic merge fails, it could fall back on another strategy, which could be the previous strategy or something else like manual intervention, which most source version control systems do.) The advantages of SSOT architectures include easier prevention of mistaken inconsistencies (such as a duplicate value/copy somewhere being forgotten), and greatly simplified version control. Without a SSOT, dealing with inconsistencies implies either complex and error-prone consensus algorithms, or using a simpler architecture that's liable to lose data in the face of inconsistency (the latter may seem unacceptable but it is sometimes a very good choice; it is how most blockchains operate: a transaction is actually final only if it was included in the next block that is mined). Ideally, SSOT systems provide data that are authentic (and authenticatable), relevant, and referable. Deployment of an SSOT architecture is becoming increasingly important in enterprise settings where incorrectly linked duplicate or de-normalized data elements (a direct consequence of intentional or unintentional denormalization of any explicit data model) pose a risk for retrieval of outdated, and therefore incorrect, information. Common examples (i.e., example classes of implementation) are as follows: In electronic health records (EHRs), it is imperative to accurately validate patient identity against a single referential repository, which serves as the SSOT. Duplicate representations of data within the enterprise would be implemented by the use of pointers rather than duplicate database tables, rows, or cells. This ensures that data updates to elements in the authoritative location are comprehensively distributed to all federated database constituencies in the larger overall enterprise architecture. EHRs are an excellent class for exemplifying how SSOT architecture is both poignantly necessary and challenging to achieve: it is challenging because inter-organization health information exchange is inherently a cybersecurity competence hurdle, and nonetheless it is necessary, to prevent medical errors, to prevent the wasted costs of inefficiency (such as duplicated work or rework), and to make the primary care and medical home concepts feasible (to achieve competent care transitions). Single-source publishing as a general principle or ideal in content management relies on having SSOTs, via transclusion or (otherwise, at least) substitution. Substitution happens via libraries of objects that can be propagated as static copies which are later refreshed when necessary (that is, when refreshing of the copy-paste or import is triggered by a larger updating event). Component content management systems are a class of content management systems that aim to provide competence on this level. == Implementation == === Ontologic interactions === An acknowledged prerequisite (of the notion that any given single source of truth can exist) is that it depends on the ontologic condition that no more than a single truth (about any particular fact or idea) exists, an assertion that is ontologic in both the IT sense and the general sense of that word. In many instances, this presents no problem (for example, within particular namespaces, or even across them, as long as naming collisions or broader name conflicts are adequately handled). The broadest contexts (and thus thorniest, regarding ontologic discrepancies) require adequate epistemic regime comparison and reconciliation (or at least negotiation or transactional exchanges). An archetypal example of this class of reconciliation is that two theological seminary libraries, from two different religions (X and Y), could exchange information with an SSOT architecture, but the unification of truth would reside on the level of the statement that "religion X asserts that God is purple whereas religion Y asserts that God is green", rather than on the level of "God is purple" or "God is green". === Architectures or architectural features === An ideal implementation of SSOT is rarely possible in most enterprises. This is because many organisations have multiple information systems, each of which needs access to data relating to the same entities (e.g., customer). Often these systems are purchased as commercial off-the-shelf products from vendors and cannot be modified in trivial ways. Each of these various systems therefore needs to store its own version of common data or entities, and therefore each system must retain its own copy of a record (hence immediately violating the SSOT approach defined above). For example, an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system (such as SAP or Oracle e-Business Suite) may store a customer record; the customer relationship management (CRM) system also needs a copy of the customer record (or part of it) and the warehouse dispatch system might also need a copy of some or all of the customer data (e.g., shipping address). In cases where vendors do not support such modifications, it is not always possible to replace these records with pointers to the SSOT. For organisations (with more than one information system) wishing to implement a Single Source of Truth (without modifying all but one master system to store pointers to other systems for all entities), some supporting architectures are: Master data management (MDM) Event store and event sourcing (ES) ==== Master data management (MDM) ==== A master data management system typically serves as the source of truth for an organization's metadata, helping to ensure accuracy and consistency throughout that organizations multiple data sources. Typically the MDM acts as a hub for multiple systems, many of which could allow (be the source of truth for) updates to different aspects of information on a given entity. For example, the CRM system may be the "source of truth" for most aspects of the customer, and is updated by a call centre operator. However, a customer may (for example) also update their address via a customer service web site, with a different back-end database from the CRM system. The MDM application receives updates from multiple sources, acts as a broker to determine which updates are to be regarded as authoritative (the golden record) and then syndicates this updated data to all subscribing systems. The MDM application normally requires an ESB to syndicate its data to multiple subscribing systems. ==== Event store and event sourcing (ES) ==== In event oriented architectures, it has become increasingly common to find an implementation of the Event Sourcing pattern which stores the system state as an ordered sequence of state changes. To do this, you need an Event Store, a particular type of database designed to hold all the events that change the state of the system. The event store in an Event Sourcing + Command Query Responsibility Separation + Domain Driven Design + Messaging architecture is in fact a "single source of truth", with the additional advantage that it can also act as an Enterprise Service Bus as it can listen directly to the event store for status changes as everything passes by. In addition, by saving all the events, it also plays the role of Data Warehouse. One last advantage is that through this system the Shared Database pattern can be implemented, another technique not mentioned to obtain a single source of truth. ==== Data warehouse (DW) ==== While the primary purpose of a data warehouse is to support reporting and analysis of data that has been combined from multiple sources, the fact that such data has been combined (according to business logic embedded in the data transformation and integration processes) means that the data warehouse is often used as a de facto SSOT. Generally, however, the data available from the data warehouse are not used to update other systems; rather the DW becomes
Distributed manufacturing
Distributed manufacturing, also known as distributed production, cloud producing, distributed digital manufacturing, and local manufacturing, is a form of decentralized manufacturing practiced by enterprises using a network of geographically dispersed manufacturing facilities that are coordinated using information technology. It can also refer to local manufacture via the historic cottage industry model, or manufacturing that takes place in the homes of consumers. == Enterprise == In enterprise environments, the primary attribute of distributed manufacturing is the ability to create value at geographically dispersed locations. For example, shipping costs could be minimized when products are built geographically close to their intended markets. Also, products manufactured in a number of small facilities distributed over a wide area can be customized with details adapted to individual or regional tastes. Manufacturing components in different physical locations and then managing the supply chain to bring them together for final assembly of a product is also considered a form of distributed manufacturing. Digital networks combined with additive manufacturing allow companies a decentralized and geographically independent distributed production (cloud manufacturing). == Consumer == Within the maker movement and DIY culture, small scale production by consumers often using peer-to-peer resources is being referred to as distributed manufacturing. Consumers download digital designs from an open design repository website like Youmagine or Thingiverse and produce a product for low costs through a distributed network of 3D printing services such as 3D Hubs, Geomiq. In the most distributed form of distributed manufacturing the consumer becomes a prosumer and manufacturers products at home with an open-source 3-D printer such as the RepRap. In 2013 a desktop 3-D printer could be economically justified as a personal product fabricator and the number of free and open hardware designs were growing exponentially. Today there are millions of open hardware product designs at hundreds of repositories and there is some evidence consumers are 3-D printing to save money. For example, 2017 case studies probed the quality of: (1) six common complex toys; (2) Lego blocks; and (3) the customizability of open source board games and found that all filaments analyzed saved the prosumer over 75% of the cost of commercially available true alternative toys and over 90% for recyclebot filament. Overall, these results indicate a single 3D printing repository, MyMiniFactory, is saving consumers well over $60 million/year in offset purchases of only toys. These 3-D printers can now be used to make sophisticated high-value products like scientific instruments. Similarly, a study in 2022 found that 81% of open source designs provided economic savings and the total savings for the 3D printing community is more than $35 million from downloading only the top 100 products at YouMagine. In general, the savings are largest when compared to conventional products when prosumers use recycled materials in 'distributed recycling and additive manufacturing' (DRAM). == Emergency Distributed Manufacturing During COVID-19 Pandemic == Distributed manufacturing became far more visible during the COVID-19 pandemic because it offered a practical response to the breakdown of centralized global supply chains. As lock downs, border restrictions, and factory shutdowns disrupted conventional production, decentralized networks using local facilities such as Open Source Medical Supplies stepped in and manufactured over 48 million products. Additive manufacturing /3D printing were used to produce urgently needed items such as face shields, ventilators and their components, nasopharyngeal swabs, and other personal protective equipment. This demonstrated that distributed manufacturing could reduce lead times, improve responsiveness, and lessen dependence on distant suppliers during crisis conditions for a wide range of products. Peer-reviewed studies on pandemic-era manufacturing note that additive manufacturing was especially valuable because digital design files could be shared rapidly and produced close to the point of need, enabling hospitals, universities, small firms, and maker communities to supplement strained medical supply chains. The pandemic also helped shift distributed manufacturing from being seen as a niche or experimental model to a credible strategy for resilience, flexibility, and emergency response. At the same time, scholars caution that its wider adoption depends on solving issues related to quality assurance, regulation, material consistency, and coordination across distributed production sites. Overall, COVID-19 popularized distributed manufacturing by showing that localized, digitally enabled production could complement traditional manufacturing systems when speed, adaptability, and supply-chain resilience were critical. == Social change == Some call attention to the conjunction of commons-based peer production with distributed manufacturing techniques. The self-reinforced fantasy of a system of eternal growth can be overcome with the development of economies of scope, and here, the civil society can play an important role contributing to the raising of the whole productive structure to a higher plateau of more sustainable and customised productivity. Further, it is true that many issues, problems and threats rise due to the large democratization of the means of production, and especially regarding the physical ones. For instance, the recyclability of advanced nanomaterials is still questioned; weapons manufacturing could become easier; not to mention the implications on counterfeiting and on "intellectual property". It might be maintained that in contrast to the industrial paradigm whose competitive dynamics were about economies of scale, commons-based peer production and distributed manufacturing could develop economies of scope. While the advantages of scale rest on cheap global transportation, the economies of scope share infrastructure costs (intangible and tangible productive resources), taking advantage of the capabilities of the fabrication tools. And following Neil Gershenfeld in that "some of the least developed parts of the world need some of the most advanced technologies", commons-based peer production and distributed manufacturing may offer the necessary tools for thinking globally but act locally in response to certain problems and needs. As well as supporting individual personal manufacturing social and economic benefits are expected to result from the development of local production economies. In particular, the humanitarian and development sector are becoming increasingly interested in how distributed manufacturing can overcome the supply chain challenges of last mile distribution. Further, distributed manufacturing has been proposed as a key element in the Cosmopolitan localism or cosmolocalism framework to reconfigure production by prioritizing socio-ecological well-being over corporate profits, over-production and excess consumption. == Technology == By localizing manufacturing, distributed manufacturing may enable a balance between two opposite extreme qualities in technology development: Low technology and High tech. This balance is understood as an inclusive middle, a "mid-tech", that may go beyond the two polarities, incorporating them into a higher synthesis. Thus, in such an approach, low-tech and high-tech stop being mutually exclusive. They instead become a dialectic totality. Mid-tech may be abbreviated to "both…and…" instead of "neither…nor…". Mid-tech combines the efficiency and versatility of digital/automated technology with low-tech's potential for autonomy and resilience. == Contracting in Distributed Manufacturing == Research into contracting and order processing models tailored for distributed manufacturing has highlighted the need for flexible, role-based frameworks and advanced digital tools. These tools and frameworks are essential for addressing issues related to quality assurance, payment structures, legal compliance, and coordination among multiple actors. By addressing these challenges, contracting models for distributed manufacturing can unlock its potential for more localized, efficient, and sustainable production systems. A system prototype has been developed to simplify contracting for distributed manufacturing. This tool allows buyers to manage orders across multiple manufacturers using a single interface, automating workflows to ensure clarity and accountability for everyone involved. This research was led by the Internet of Production, as part of the mAkE project (African European Maker Innovation Ecosystem), funded by the European Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Ontology for Biomedical Investigations
The Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI) is an open-access, integrated ontology for the description of biological and clinical investigations. OBI provides a model for the design of an investigation, the protocols and instrumentation used, the materials used, the data generated and the type of analysis performed on it. The project is being developed as part of the OBO Foundry and as such adheres to all the principles therein such as orthogonal coverage (i.e. clear delineation from other foundry member ontologies) and the use of a common formal language. In OBI the common formal language used is the Web Ontology Language (OWL). As of March 2008, a pre-release version of the ontology was made available at the project's SVN repository. == Scope == The Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI) addresses the need for controlled vocabularies to support integration and joint ("cross-omics") analysis of experimental data, a need originally identified in the transcriptomics domain by the FGED Society, which developed the MGED Ontology as an annotation resource for microarray data.Smith B, Ashburner M, Rosse C, Bard J, Bug W, Ceusters W, et al. (November 2007). "The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration". Nature Biotechnology. 25 (11): 1251–5. doi:10.1038/nbt1346. PMC 2814061. PMID 17989687. OBI uses the basic formal ontology upper-level ontology as a means of describing general entities that do not belong to a specific problem domain. As such, all OBI classes are a subclass of some BFO class. The ontology has the scope of modeling all biomedical investigations and as such contains ontology terms for aspects such as: biological material – for example blood plasma instrument (and parts of an instrument therein) – for example DNA microarray, centrifuge information content – such as an image or a digital information entity such as an electronic medical record design and execution of an investigation (and individual experiments therein) – for example study design, electrophoresis material separation data transformation (incorporating aspects such as data normalization and data analysis) – for example principal components analysis dimensionality reduction, mean calculation Less 'concrete' aspects such as the role a given entity may play in a particular scenario (for example the role of a chemical compound in an experiment) and the function of an entity (for example the digestive function of the stomach to nutriate the body) are also covered in the ontology. == OBI consortium == The MGED Ontology was originally identified in the transcriptomics domain by the FGED Society and was developed to address the needs of data integration. Following a mutual decision to collaborate, this effort later became a wider collaboration between groups such as FGED, PSI and MSI in response to the needs of areas such as transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics and the FuGO (Functional Genomics Investigation Ontology) was created. This later became the OBI covering the wider scope of all biomedical investigations. As an international, cross-domain initiative, the OBI consortium draws upon a pool of experts from a variety of fields, not limited to biology. The current list of OBI consortium members is available at the OBI consortium website. The consortium is made up of a coordinating committee which is a combination of two subgroups, the Community Representative (those representing a particular biomedical community) and the Core Developers (ontology developers who may or may not be members of any single community). Separate to the coordinating committee is the Developers Working Group which consists of developers within the communities collaborating in the development of OBI at the discretion of current OBI Consortium members. == Papers on OBI ==