Tagsistant is a semantic file system for the Linux kernel, written in C and based on FUSE. Unlike traditional file systems that use hierarchies of directories to locate objects, Tagsistant introduces the concept of tags. == Design and differences with hierarchical file systems == In computing, a file system is a type of data store which could be used to store, retrieve and update files. Each file can be uniquely located by its path. The user must know the path in advance to access a file and the path does not necessarily include any information about the content of the file. Tagsistant uses a complementary approach based on tags. The user can create a set of tags and apply those tags to files, directories and other objects (devices, pipes, ...). The user can then search all the objects that match a subset of tags, called a query. This kind of approach is well suited for managing user contents like pictures, audio recordings, movies and text documents but is incompatible with system files (like libraries, commands and configurations) where the univocity of the path is a security requirement to prevent the access to a wrong content. == The tags/ directory == A Tagsistant file system features four main directories: archive/ relations/ stats/ tags/ Tags are created as sub directories of the tags/ directory and can be used in queries complying to this syntax: tags/subquery/[+/subquery/[+/subquery/]]/@/ where a subquery is an unlimited list of tags, concatenated as directories: tag1/tag2/tag3/.../tagN/ The portion of a path delimited by tags/ and @/ is the actual query. The +/ operator joins the results of different sub-queries in one single list. The @/ operator ends the query. To be returned as a result of the following query: tags/t1/t2/+/t1/t4/@/ an object must be tagged as both t1/ and t2/ or as both t1/ and t4/. Any object tagged as t2/ or t4/, but not as t1/ will not be retrieved. The query syntax deliberately violates the POSIX file system semantics by allowing a path token to be a descendant of itself, like in tags/t1/t2/+/t1/t4/@ where t1/ appears twice. As a consequence a recursive scan of a Tagsistant file system will exit with an error or endlessly loop, as done by Unix find: This drawback is balanced by the possibility to list the tags inside a query in any order. The query tags/t1/t2/@/ is completely equivalent to tags/t2/t1/@/ and tags/t1/+/t2/t3/@/ is equivalent to tags/t2/t3/+/t1/@/. The @/ element has the precise purpose of restoring the POSIX semantics: the path tags/t1/@/directory/ refers to a traditional directory and a recursive scan of this path will properly perform. == The reasoner and the relations/ directory == Tagsistant features a simple reasoner which expands the results of a query by including objects tagged with related tags. A relation between two tags can be established inside the relations/ directory following a three level pattern: relations/tag1/rel/tag2/ The rel element can be includes or is_equivalent. To include the rock tag in the music tag, the Unix command mkdir can be used: mkdir -p relations/music/includes/rock The reasoner can recursively resolve relations, allowing the creation of complex structures: mkdir -p relations/music/includes/rock mkdir -p relations/rock/includes/hard_rock mkdir -p relations/rock/includes/grunge mkdir -p relations/rock/includes/heavy_metal mkdir -p relations/heavy_metal/includes/speed_metal The web of relations created inside the relations/ directory constitutes a basic form of ontology. == Autotagging plugins == Tagsistant features an autotagging plugin stack which gets called when a file or a symlink is written. Each plugin is called if its declared MIME type matches The list of working plugins released with Tagsistant 0.6 is limited to: text/html: tags the file with each word in
ISLRN
The ISLRN or International Standard Language Resource Number is Persistent Unique Identifier for Language Resources. == Context == On November 18, 2013, 12 major organisations (see list below) from the fields Language Resources and Technologies, Computational Linguistics, and Digital Humanities held a cooperation meeting in Paris (France) and agreed to announce the establishment of the International Standard Language Resource Number (ISLRN), to be assigned to each Language Resource. Among the 12 organisations, 4 institutions constitute the ISLRN Steering Committee (ST) ADHO ACL Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing ST COCOSDA, International Committee for the Coordination & Standardisation of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques ICCL (COLING) European Data Forum ELRA ST IAMT, International Association for Machine Translation Archived 2010-06-24 at the Wayback Machine ISCA LDC ST Oriental COCOSDA ST RMA, Language Resource Management Agency == Size and Content == The Joint Research Centre(JRC), the [European Commission]'s in-house science service, was the first organisation to adopt the ISLRN initiative and requested. 2500 resources and tools have already been allocated an ISLRN. These resources include written data (Annotated corpus, Annotated text, List of misspelled word, Terminological database, Treebank, Wordnet, etc.) and speech corpora (Synthesised Speech, Transcripts and Audiovisual Recordings, Conversational Speech, Folk Sayings, etc.) == Objectives == Providing Language Resources with unique names and identifiers using a standardized nomenclature ensures the identification of each Language Resources and streamlines the citation with proper references in activities within Human Language Technology as well as in documents and scientific publications. Such unique identifier also enhances the reproducibility, an essential feature of scientific work.
Single address space operating system
In computer science, a single address space operating system (or SASOS) is an operating system that provides only one globally shared address space for all processes. In a single address space operating system, numerically identical (virtual memory) logical addresses in different processes all refer to exactly the same byte of data. In a traditional OS with private per-process address space, memory protection is based on address space boundaries ("address space isolation"). Single address-space operating systems make translation and protection orthogonal, which in no way weakens protection. The core advantage is that pointers (i.e. memory references) have global validity, meaning their meaning is independent of the process using it. This allows sharing pointer-connected data structures across processes, and making them persistent, i.e. storing them on backup store. Some processor architectures have direct support for protection independent of translation. On such architectures, a SASOS may be able to perform context switches faster than a traditional OS. Such architectures include Itanium, and Version 5 of the Arm architecture, as well as capability architectures such as CHERI. A SASOS should not be confused with a flat memory model, which provides no address translation and generally no memory protection. In contrast, a SASOS makes protection orthogonal to translation: it may be possible to name a data item (i.e. know its virtual address) while not being able to access it. SASOS projects using hardware-based protection include the following: Angel IBM i (formerly called OS/400) Iguana at NICTA, Australia Mungi at NICTA, Australia Nemesis Opal Scout Sombrero Related are OSes that provide protection through language-level type safety: Br1X Genera JX a research Java OS Phantom OS Singularity Theseus OS Torsion
CU-RTC-WEB
Customizable, Ubiquitous Real Time Communication over the Web is an API definition being drafted by Bernard Aboba at Microsoft. It is a competing standard to WebRTC, which drafted by a World Wide Web Consortium working group since May 2011. As of 2024, CU-RTC-WEB is still in the drafting phase, with ongoing discussions and contributions from various stakeholders in the tech community. Bernard Aboba, who serves as a co-chair of the W3C WebRTC Working Group, is actively involved in both CU-RTC-WEB and WebRTC, indicating a commitment to advancing real-time communication standards across platforms.
WEA Manufacturing
WEA Manufacturing was the record, tape, and compact disc manufacturing arm of WEA International Inc. from 1978 to 2003, when it was sold and merged into Cinram International, a previous competitor. The last owner when the plant closed was Technicolor. == History == WEA Manufacturing Inc. was created in 1978–1979 when Warner Communications Inc. purchased two of its longtime suppliers: the record pressing plants Specialty Records Corporation (Olyphant, Pennsylvania) and Allied Record Company (Los Angeles). The company was headquartered in Olyphant, where the original plant was replaced in late 1981 by a new facility which retained the name Specialty Records Corporation. The Specialty Records Corporation name was dropped in 1996 in favor of WEA Manufacturing. The company invested in CD manufacturing in 1986, matching a $247,000 contribution by economic development corporation Ben Franklin Technology Partners to develop and implement new processes of manufacturing audio CDs and CD-ROMs. BFTP assembled a team of experts in physics, electrical engineering, and thin film technology from the University of Scranton and Lehigh University to carry out the research and development. The Olyphant plant and another plant in Alsdorf, Germany, were expanded to support CD pressing that year, with the Olyphant facility's production commencing first in September 1986. WEA Manufacturing grew to become one of the largest manufacturers of recorded media in the world. The company began manufacturing Laserdiscs in July 1991. The company's DVD division, Warner Advanced Media Operations (WAMO), helped design the high-density format used in DVDs, and manufactured some of the first DVDs in the late 1990s. The company was sold to Cinram International in October 2003 and no longer exists under the name WEA Manufacturing, but the Olyphant plant continued to operate under its new ownership. In 2005, the company was Lackawanna County's largest employer, with over 2,300 people working at the Olyphant plant. Cinram closed the former Allied plant in 2006, while Technicolor (which purchased Cinram's assets in 2015) closed the Olyphant plant in 2018. == Patents == WEA Manufacturing held U.S. patents related to compact disc manufacture: Print scanner, (1993). Interference of converging spherical waves with application to the design of light-readable information-recording media and systems for reading such media, (2004). Method of manufacturing a composite disc structure and apparatus for performing the method, (2005). Methods and apparatus for reducing the shrinkage of an optical disc's clamp area and the resulting optical disc, (2005). == Litigation == In 1990, WEA Manufacturing was sued by a Canadian firm, Optical Recording Co. (ORC), for alleged infringement of two 1971 patents related to glass mastering equipment which was used by Time Warner and WEA Manufacturing in the manufacture of approximately 450 million CDs. ORC contended that unlike five other major CD manufacturers in the U.S., Time Warner had refused to license the technology from ORC. In 1992, a jury assessed damages of 6 cents per disc, plus $4–5 million in interest.
Feature hashing
In machine learning, feature hashing, also known as the hashing trick (by analogy to the kernel trick), is a fast and space-efficient way of vectorizing features, i.e. turning arbitrary features into indices in a vector or matrix. It works by applying a hash function to the features and using their hash values as indices directly (after a modulo operation), rather than looking the indices up in an associative array. In addition to its use for encoding non-numeric values, feature hashing can also be used for dimensionality reduction. This trick is often attributed to Weinberger et al. (2009), but there exists a much earlier description of this method published by John Moody in 1989. == Motivation == === Motivating example === In a typical document classification task, the input to the machine learning algorithm (both during learning and classification) is free text. From this, a bag of words (BOW) representation is constructed: the individual tokens are extracted and counted, and each distinct token in the training set defines a feature (independent variable) of each of the documents in both the training and test sets. Machine learning algorithms, however, are typically defined in terms of numerical vectors. Therefore, the bags of words for a set of documents is regarded as a term-document matrix where each row is a single document, and each column is a single feature/word; the entry i, j in such a matrix captures the frequency (or weight) of the j'th term of the vocabulary in document i. (An alternative convention swaps the rows and columns of the matrix, but this difference is immaterial.) Typically, these vectors are extremely sparse—according to Zipf's law. The common approach is to construct, at learning time or prior to that, a dictionary representation of the vocabulary of the training set, and use that to map words to indices. Hash tables and tries are common candidates for dictionary implementation. E.g., the three documents John likes to watch movies. Mary likes movies too. John also likes football. can be converted, using the dictionary to the term-document matrix ( John likes to watch movies Mary too also football 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}{\textrm {John}}&{\textrm {likes}}&{\textrm {to}}&{\textrm {watch}}&{\textrm {movies}}&{\textrm {Mary}}&{\textrm {too}}&{\textrm {also}}&{\textrm {football}}\\1&1&1&1&1&0&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0&1&1&1&0&0\\1&1&0&0&0&0&0&1&1\end{pmatrix}}} (Punctuation was removed, as is usual in document classification and clustering.) The problem with this process is that such dictionaries take up a large amount of storage space and grow in size as the training set grows. On the contrary, if the vocabulary is kept fixed and not increased with a growing training set, an adversary may try to invent new words or misspellings that are not in the stored vocabulary so as to circumvent a machine learned filter. To address this challenge, Yahoo! Research attempted to use feature hashing for their spam filters. Note that the hashing trick isn't limited to text classification and similar tasks at the document level, but can be applied to any problem that involves large (perhaps unbounded) numbers of features. === Mathematical motivation === Mathematically, a token is an element t {\displaystyle t} in a finite (or countably infinite) set T {\displaystyle T} . Suppose we only need to process a finite corpus, then we can put all tokens appearing in the corpus into T {\displaystyle T} , meaning that T {\displaystyle T} is finite. However, suppose we want to process all possible words made of the English letters, then T {\displaystyle T} is countably infinite. Most neural networks can only operate on real vector inputs, so we must construct a "dictionary" function ϕ : T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . When T {\displaystyle T} is finite, of size | T | = m ≤ n {\displaystyle |T|=m\leq n} , then we can use one-hot encoding to map it into R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . First, arbitrarily enumerate T = { t 1 , t 2 , . . , t m } {\displaystyle T=\{t_{1},t_{2},..,t_{m}\}} , then define ϕ ( t i ) = e i {\displaystyle \phi (t_{i})=e_{i}} . In other words, we assign a unique index i {\displaystyle i} to each token, then map the token with index i {\displaystyle i} to the unit basis vector e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} . One-hot encoding is easy to interpret, but it requires one to maintain the arbitrary enumeration of T {\displaystyle T} . Given a token t ∈ T {\displaystyle t\in T} , to compute ϕ ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)} , we must find out the index i {\displaystyle i} of the token t {\displaystyle t} . Thus, to implement ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } efficiently, we need a fast-to-compute bijection h : T → { 1 , . . . , m } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,m\}} , then we have ϕ ( t ) = e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)=e_{h(t)}} . In fact, we can relax the requirement slightly: It suffices to have a fast-to-compute injection h : T → { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,n\}} , then use ϕ ( t ) = e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)=e_{h(t)}} . In practice, there is no simple way to construct an efficient injection h : T → { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,n\}} . However, we do not need a strict injection, but only an approximate injection. That is, when t ≠ t ′ {\displaystyle t\neq t'} , we should probably have h ( t ) ≠ h ( t ′ ) {\displaystyle h(t)\neq h(t')} , so that probably ϕ ( t ) ≠ ϕ ( t ′ ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)\neq \phi (t')} . At this point, we have just specified that h {\displaystyle h} should be a hashing function. Thus we reach the idea of feature hashing. == Algorithms == === Feature hashing (Weinberger et al. 2009) === The basic feature hashing algorithm presented in (Weinberger et al. 2009) is defined as follows. First, one specifies two hash functions: the kernel hash h : T → { 1 , 2 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,2,...,n\}} , and the sign hash ζ : T → { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle \zeta :T\to \{-1,+1\}} . Next, one defines the feature hashing function: ϕ : T → R n , ϕ ( t ) = ζ ( t ) e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n},\quad \phi (t)=\zeta (t)e_{h(t)}} Finally, extend this feature hashing function to strings of tokens by ϕ : T ∗ → R n , ϕ ( t 1 , . . . , t k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ϕ ( t j ) {\displaystyle \phi :T^{}\to \mathbb {R} ^{n},\quad \phi (t_{1},...,t_{k})=\sum _{j=1}^{k}\phi (t_{j})} where T ∗ {\displaystyle T^{}} is the set of all finite strings consisting of tokens in T {\displaystyle T} . Equivalently, ϕ ( t 1 , . . . , t k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ζ ( t j ) e h ( t j ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( ∑ j : h ( t j ) = i ζ ( t j ) ) e i {\displaystyle \phi (t_{1},...,t_{k})=\sum _{j=1}^{k}\zeta (t_{j})e_{h(t_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\sum _{j:h(t_{j})=i}\zeta (t_{j})\right)e_{i}} ==== Geometric properties ==== We want to say something about the geometric property of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , but T {\displaystyle T} , by itself, is just a set of tokens, we cannot impose a geometric structure on it except the discrete topology, which is generated by the discrete metric. To make it nicer, we lift it to T → R T {\displaystyle T\to \mathbb {R} ^{T}} , and lift ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } from ϕ : T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} to ϕ : R T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :\mathbb {R} ^{T}\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} by linear extension: ϕ ( ( x t ) t ∈ T ) = ∑ t ∈ T x t ζ ( t ) e h ( t ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( ∑ t : h ( t ) = i x t ζ ( t ) ) e i {\displaystyle \phi ((x_{t})_{t\in T})=\sum _{t\in T}x_{t}\zeta (t)e_{h(t)}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\sum _{t:h(t)=i}x_{t}\zeta (t)\right)e_{i}} There is an infinite sum there, which must be handled at once. There are essentially only two ways to handle infinities. One may impose a metric, then take its completion, to allow well-behaved infinite sums, or one may demand that nothing is actually infinite, only potentially so. Here, we go for the potential-infinity way, by restricting R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} to contain only vectors with finite support: ∀ ( x t ) t ∈ T ∈ R T {\displaystyle \forall (x_{t})_{t\in T}\in \mathbb {R} ^{T}} , only finitely many entries of ( x t ) t ∈ T {\displaystyle (x_{t})_{t\in T}} are nonzero. Define an inner product on R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} in the obvious way: ⟨ e t , e t ′ ⟩ = { 1 , if t = t ′ , 0 , else. ⟨ x , x ′ ⟩ = ∑ t , t ′ ∈ T x t x t ′ ⟨ e t , e t ′ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle e_{t},e_{t'}\rangle ={\begin{cases}1,{\text{ if }}t=t',\\0,{\text{ else.}}\end{cases}}\quad \langle x,x'\rangle =\sum _{t,t'\in T}x_{t}x_{t'}\langle e_{t},e_{t'}\rangle } As a side note, if T {\displaystyle T} is infinite, then the inner product space R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} is not complete. Taking its completion would get us to a Hilbert space, which allows well-behaved infinite sums. Now we have an inner product space, with enough structure to describe the geometry of the feature hashing function ϕ : R T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :\ma
Content strategy
Content strategy guides the planning, development, and management of content. It is a recognized field in user experience design, and it also draws from adjacent disciplines such as information architecture, content management, business analysis, digital marketing, and technical communication. == Definitions == Content strategy has been described as planning for "the creation, publication, and governance of useful, usable content." It has also been called "a repeatable system that defines the entire editorial content development process for a website development project." In a 2007 article titled "Content Strategy: The Philosophy of Data," Rachel Lovinger describes the goal of content strategy as using "words and data to create unambiguous content that supports meaningful, interactive experiences." Here, she also provided the analogy that "content strategy is to copywriting as information architecture is to design." She encourages content strategists and collaborators to engage in early discussions about content meaning, models, and tools, to make sure strategy is integrated from the start rather than as an afterthought. The Content Strategy Alliance combines Kevin Nichols' definition with Kristina Halvorson's and defines content strategy as "getting the right content to the right user at the right time through strategic planning of content creation, delivery, and governance." == Practitioners == Content strategists are often familiar with a wide range of approaches, techniques, and tools. The perspectives that content strategists bring also depend heavily on their professional training and education. For instance, some specialize in "front-end strategy," which includes developing personas, journey mapping the user experience, aligning business strategy and user needs, developing a brand strategy, exploring different channels, and creating style guidelines and search engine optimization (SEO) guidelines. Others specialize in "back-end strategy," which includes creating content models, planning taxonomies and metadata, structuring content management systems, and building systems to support content reuse. Both roles involve addressing workflow and governance issues. Many organizations and individuals tend to confuse content strategists with editors. However, content strategy is "about more than just the written word," according to Washington State University associate professor Brett Atwood. For example, Atwood indicates that a practitioner needs to also "consider how content might be re-distributed and/or re-purposed in other channels of delivery." It has also been proposed that the content strategist performs the role of a curator. Just as a museum curator sifts through a collection of content and identifies key pieces that can be juxtaposed against each other to create meaning and spur excitement, a content strategist "must approach a business’s content as a medium that needs to be strategically selected and placed to engage the audience, convey a message, and inspire action."