Fraud represents a significant problem for governments and businesses and specialized analysis techniques for discovering fraud using them are required. Some of these methods include knowledge discovery in databases (KDD), data mining, machine learning and statistics. They offer applicable and successful solutions in different areas of electronic fraud crimes. In general, the primary reason to use data analytics techniques is to tackle fraud since many internal control systems have serious weaknesses. For example, the currently prevailing approach employed by many law enforcement agencies to detect companies involved in potential cases of fraud consists in receiving circumstantial evidence or complaints from whistleblowers. As a result, a large number of fraud cases remain undetected and unprosecuted. In order to effectively test, detect, validate, correct error and monitor control systems against fraudulent activities, businesses entities and organizations rely on specialized data analytics techniques such as data mining, data matching, the sounds like function, regression analysis, clustering analysis, and gap analysis. Techniques used for fraud detection fall into two primary classes: statistical techniques and artificial intelligence. == Statistical techniques == Examples of statistical data analysis techniques are: Data preprocessing techniques for detection, validation, error correction, and filling up of missing or incorrect data. Calculation of various statistical parameters such as averages, quantiles, performance metrics, probability distributions, and so on. For example, the averages may include average length of call, average number of calls per month and average delays in bill payment. Models and probability distributions of various business activities either in terms of various parameters or probability distributions. Computing user profiles. Time-series analysis of time-dependent data. Clustering and classification to find patterns and associations among groups of data. Data matching Data matching is used to compare two sets of collected data. The process can be performed based on algorithms or programmed loops. Trying to match sets of data against each other or comparing complex data types. Data matching is used to remove duplicate records and identify links between two data sets for marketing, security or other uses. Sounds like Function is used to find values that sound similar. The Phonetic similarity is one way to locate possible duplicate values, or inconsistent spelling in manually entered data. The ‘sounds like’ function converts the comparison strings to four-character American Soundex codes, which are based on the first letter, and the first three consonants after the first letter, in each string. Regression analysis allows you to examine the relationship between two or more variables of interest. Regression analysis estimates relationships between independent variables and a dependent variable. This method can be used to help understand and identify relationships among variables and predict actual results. Gap analysis is used to determine whether business requirements are being met, if not, what are the steps that should be taken to meet successfully. Matching algorithms to detect anomalies in the behavior of transactions or users as compared to previously known models and profiles. Techniques are also needed to eliminate false alarms, estimate risks, and predict future of current transactions or users. Some forensic accountants specialize in forensic analytics which is the procurement and analysis of electronic data to reconstruct, detect, or otherwise support a claim of financial fraud. The main steps in forensic analytics are data collection, data preparation, data analysis, and reporting. For example, forensic analytics may be used to review an employee's purchasing card activity to assess whether any of the purchases were diverted or divertible for personal use. == Artificial intelligence == Fraud detection is a knowledge-intensive activity. The main AI techniques used for fraud detection include: Data mining to classify, cluster, and segment the data and automatically find associations and rules in the data that may signify interesting patterns, including those related to fraud. Expert systems to encode expertise for detecting fraud in the form of rules. Pattern recognition to detect approximate classes, clusters, or patterns of suspicious behavior either automatically (unsupervised) or to match given inputs. Machine learning techniques to automatically identify characteristics of fraud. Neural nets to independently generate classification, clustering, generalization, and forecasting that can then be compared against conclusions raised in internal audits or formal financial documents such as 10-Q. Other techniques such as link analysis, Bayesian networks, decision theory, and sequence matching are also used for fraud detection. A new and novel technique called System properties approach has also been employed where ever rank data is available. Statistical analysis of research data is the most comprehensive method for determining if data fraud exists. Data fraud as defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) includes fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. == Machine learning and data mining == Early data analysis techniques were oriented toward extracting quantitative and statistical data characteristics. These techniques facilitate useful data interpretations and can help to get better insights into the processes behind the data. Although the traditional data analysis techniques can indirectly lead us to knowledge, it is still created by human analysts. To go beyond, a data analysis system has to be equipped with a substantial amount of background knowledge, and be able to perform reasoning tasks involving that knowledge and the data provided. In effort to meet this goal, researchers have turned to ideas from the machine learning field. This is a natural source of ideas, since the machine learning task can be described as turning background knowledge and examples (input) into knowledge (output). If data mining results in discovering meaningful patterns, data turns into information. Information or patterns that are novel, valid and potentially useful are not merely information, but knowledge. One speaks of discovering knowledge, before hidden in the huge amount of data, but now revealed. The machine learning and artificial intelligence solutions may be classified into two categories: 'supervised' and 'unsupervised' learning. These methods seek for accounts, customers, suppliers, etc. that behave 'unusually' in order to output suspicion scores, rules or visual anomalies, depending on the method. Whether supervised or unsupervised methods are used, note that the output gives us only an indication of fraud likelihood. No stand alone statistical analysis can assure that a particular object is a fraudulent one, but they can identify them with very high degrees of accuracy. As a result, effective collaboration between machine learning model and human analysts is vital to the success of fraud detection applications. === Supervised learning === In supervised learning, a random sub-sample of all records is taken and manually classified as either 'fraudulent' or 'non-fraudulent' (task can be decomposed on more classes to meet algorithm requirements). Relatively rare events such as fraud may need to be over sampled to get a big enough sample size. These manually classified records are then used to train a supervised machine learning algorithm. After building a model using this training data, the algorithm should be able to classify new records as either fraudulent or non-fraudulent. Supervised neural networks, fuzzy neural nets, and combinations of neural nets and rules, have been extensively explored and used for detecting fraud in mobile phone networks and financial statement fraud. Bayesian learning neural network is implemented for credit card fraud detection, telecommunications fraud, auto claim fraud detection, and medical insurance fraud. Hybrid knowledge/statistical-based systems, where expert knowledge is integrated with statistical power, use a series of data mining techniques for the purpose of detecting cellular clone fraud. Specifically, a rule-learning program to uncover indicators of fraudulent behaviour from a large database of customer transactions is implemented. Cahill et al. (2000) design a fraud signature, based on data of fraudulent calls, to detect telecommunications fraud. For scoring a call for fraud its probability under the account signature is compared to its probability under a fraud signature. The fraud signature is updated sequentially, enabling event-driven fraud detection. Link analysis comprehends a different approach. It relates known fraudsters to other individuals, using record linkage and social network methods. This type of detection is only able to detect fra
Granular computing
Granular computing is an emerging computing paradigm of information processing that concerns the processing of complex information entities called "information granules", which arise in the process of data abstraction and derivation of knowledge from information or data. Generally speaking, information granules are collections of entities that usually originate at the numeric level and are arranged together due to their similarity, functional or physical adjacency, indistinguishability, coherency, or the like. At present, granular computing is more a theoretical perspective than a coherent set of methods or principles. As a theoretical perspective, it encourages an approach to data that recognizes and exploits the knowledge present in data at various levels of resolution or scales. In this sense, it encompasses all methods which provide flexibility and adaptability in the resolution at which knowledge or information is extracted and represented. == Types of granulation == As mentioned above, granular computing is not an algorithm or process; there is no particular method that is called "granular computing". It is rather an approach to looking at data that recognizes how different and interesting regularities in the data can appear at different levels of granularity, much as different features become salient in satellite images of greater or lesser resolution. On a low-resolution satellite image, for example, one might notice interesting cloud patterns representing cyclones or other large-scale weather phenomena, while in a higher-resolution image, one misses these large-scale atmospheric phenomena but instead notices smaller-scale phenomena, such as the interesting pattern that is the streets of Manhattan. The same is generally true of all data: At different resolutions or granularities, different features and relationships emerge. The aim of granular computing is to try to take advantage of this fact in designing more effective machine-learning and reasoning systems. There are several types of granularity that are often encountered in data mining and machine learning, and we review them below: === Value granulation (discretization/quantization) === One type of granulation is the quantization of variables. It is very common that in data mining or machine-learning applications the resolution of variables needs to be decreased in order to extract meaningful regularities. An example of this would be a variable such as "outside temperature" (temp), which in a given application might be recorded to several decimal places of precision (depending on the sensing apparatus). However, for purposes of extracting relationships between "outside temperature" and, say, "number of health-club applications" (club), it will generally be advantageous to quantize "outside temperature" into a smaller number of intervals. ==== Motivations ==== There are several interrelated reasons for granulating variables in this fashion: Based on prior domain knowledge, there is no expectation that minute variations in temperature (e.g., the difference between 80–80.7 °F (26.7–27.1 °C)) could have an influence on behaviors driving the number of health-club applications. For this reason, any "regularity" which our learning algorithms might detect at this level of resolution would have to be spurious, as an artifact of overfitting. By coarsening the temperature variable into intervals the difference between which we do anticipate (based on prior domain knowledge) might influence number of health-club applications, we eliminate the possibility of detecting these spurious patterns. Thus, in this case, reducing resolution is a method of controlling overfitting. By reducing the number of intervals in the temperature variable (i.e., increasing its grain size), we increase the amount of sample data indexed by each interval designation. Thus, by coarsening the variable, we increase sample sizes and achieve better statistical estimation. In this sense, increasing granularity provides an antidote to the so-called curse of dimensionality, which relates to the exponential decrease in statistical power with increase in number of dimensions or variable cardinality. Independent of prior domain knowledge, it is often the case that meaningful regularities (i.e., which can be detected by a given learning methodology, representational language, etc.) may exist at one level of resolution and not at another. For example, a simple learner or pattern recognition system may seek to extract regularities satisfying a conditional probability threshold such as p ( Y = y j | X = x i ) ≥ α . {\displaystyle p(Y=y_{j}|X=x_{i})\geq \alpha .} In the special case where α = 1 , {\displaystyle \alpha =1,} this recognition system is essentially detecting logical implication of the form X = x i → Y = y j {\displaystyle X=x_{i}\rightarrow Y=y_{j}} or, in words, "if X = x i , {\displaystyle X=x_{i},} then Y = y j {\displaystyle Y=y_{j}} ". The system's ability to recognize such implications (or, in general, conditional probabilities exceeding threshold) is partially contingent on the resolution with which the system analyzes the variables. As an example of this last point, consider the feature space shown to the right. The variables may each be regarded at two different resolutions. Variable X {\displaystyle X} may be regarded at a high (quaternary) resolution wherein it takes on the four values { x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4}\}} or at a lower (binary) resolution wherein it takes on the two values { X 1 , X 2 } . {\displaystyle \{X_{1},X_{2}\}.} Similarly, variable Y {\displaystyle Y} may be regarded at a high (quaternary) resolution or at a lower (binary) resolution, where it takes on the values { y 1 , y 2 , y 3 , y 4 } {\displaystyle \{y_{1},y_{2},y_{3},y_{4}\}} or { Y 1 , Y 2 } , {\displaystyle \{Y_{1},Y_{2}\},} respectively. At the high resolution, there are no detectable implications of the form X = x i → Y = y j , {\displaystyle X=x_{i}\rightarrow Y=y_{j},} since every x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is associated with more than one y j , {\displaystyle y_{j},} and thus, for all x i , {\displaystyle x_{i},} p ( Y = y j | X = x i ) < 1. {\displaystyle p(Y=y_{j}|X=x_{i})<1.} However, at the low (binary) variable resolution, two bilateral implications become detectable: X = X 1 ↔ Y = Y 1 {\displaystyle X=X_{1}\leftrightarrow Y=Y_{1}} and X = X 2 ↔ Y = Y 2 {\displaystyle X=X_{2}\leftrightarrow Y=Y_{2}} , since every X 1 {\displaystyle X_{1}} occurs iff Y 1 {\displaystyle Y_{1}} and X 2 {\displaystyle X_{2}} occurs iff Y 2 . {\displaystyle Y_{2}.} Thus, a pattern recognition system scanning for implications of this kind would find them at the binary variable resolution, but would fail to find them at the higher quaternary variable resolution. ==== Issues and methods ==== It is not feasible to exhaustively test all possible discretization resolutions on all variables in order to see which combination of resolutions yields interesting or significant results. Instead, the feature space must be preprocessed (often by an entropy analysis of some kind) so that some guidance can be given as to how the discretization process should proceed. Moreover, one cannot generally achieve good results by naively analyzing and discretizing each variable independently, since this may obliterate the very interactions that we had hoped to discover. A sample of papers that address the problem of variable discretization in general, and multiple-variable discretization in particular, is as follows: Chiu, Wong & Cheung (1991), Bay (2001), Liu et al. (2002), Wang & Liu (1998), Zighed, Rabaséda & Rakotomalala (1998), Catlett (1991), Dougherty, Kohavi & Sahami (1995), Monti & Cooper (1999), Fayyad & Irani (1993), Chiu, Cheung & Wong (1990), Nguyen & Nguyen (1998), Grzymala-Busse & Stefanowski (2001), Ting (1994), Ludl & Widmer (2000), Pfahringer (1995), An & Cercone (1999), Chiu & Cheung (1989), Chmielewski & Grzymala-Busse (1996), Lee & Shin (1994), Liu & Wellman (2002), Liu & Wellman (2004). === Variable granulation (clustering/aggregation/transformation) === Variable granulation is a term that could describe a variety of techniques, most of which are aimed at reducing dimensionality, redundancy, and storage requirements. We briefly describe some of the ideas here, and present pointers to the literature. ==== Variable transformation ==== A number of classical methods, such as principal component analysis, multidimensional scaling, factor analysis, and structural equation modeling, and their relatives, fall under the genus of "variable transformation." Also in this category are more modern areas of study such as dimensionality reduction, projection pursuit, and independent component analysis. The common goal of these methods in general is to find a representation of the data in terms of new variables, which are a linear or nonlinear transformation of the original variables, and in which important stati
Google Gadgets
Google Gadgets are dynamic web content that can be embedded on a web page. They can be added to and interact strongly with Google's iGoogle personalized home page (discontinued in November 2013, although iGoogle Gadgets still work on other websites) and the Google Desktop (discontinued in September 2011) application, as well as Google Wave (also no longer supported by Google) and Google Sites. Webmasters can add and customize a gadget to their own business or personal web site, a process called "syndication". Gadgets are developed by Google and third-party developers using the Google Gadgets API, using basic web technologies such as XML and JavaScript. == Multi-user persistent - Wave Gadgets == With the advent of Google Wave (now Apache Wave), gadgets became able to have persistent storage and multi-user capabilities and better state management. Gadgets using Google Wave in this way were simply known as 'Wave Gadgets'. For instance, a game written using a Google Gadget could use Google Wave technology to record a list of users and high scores without having to worry about how to permanently store the scores on a hosted server. The use of Google Wave would give the gadget multi-user and permanent storage capabilities. For example, scores could be stored in a Google Wave hosted permanently by Google at no cost to the user. As of early 2013, Google Gadgets were deprecated in Google Spreadsheets. Shortly after, they were removed from all spreadsheets. == Technology == Google Gadgets are written in XML and can have HTML and JavaScript components, and were able to use Google Wave. Here is an example of a Hello World program written using Google Gadget technology. Google Gadgets API is a Google API which allows developers to create Google Gadgets easily.
Coghead
Coghead was a web application company based out of Redwood City, California. The company offered a web-based service for building and hosting custom online database applications. Applications were built around custom data collections and were typically designed to facilitate management of, and collaboration on, business data. Examples of Coghead's "gallery" applications include project management, simple Customer relationship management, bug tracking and extreme programming. Coghead's service was available through a limited-access beta program before "going live" for free trial accounts in April, 2007. Coghead launched a paid subscription plans in June, 2007. On February 19, 2009, Coghead announced that its intellectual property assets (its 'service') had been acquired by SAP AG (NYSE:SAP). == Product == Coghead's product was a fully hosted environment for building, accessing, and maintaining applications and the associated business data. Like other so-called "Web 2.0" companies, Coghead built its product around the idea of "software as a service". The product was intended to allow users to design a range of applications from scratch using only a drag and drop, WYSIWYG user interface, with very limited scripting or coding (if any) required. Coghead also offered its paid subscribers the ability to develop and publish "Coglets," web forms that allowed site visitors to view data in, or submit data into, the host's Coghead database. On February 19, 2009, Coghead announced that SAP AG had acquired the Coghead service through an asset purchase. The SAP asset purchase closed in the 1st Quarter 2009. Immediately upon closing the asset purchase, the public-facing service was taken off-line by SAP as they prepared to integrate the Coghead code with other SAP assets. This forced many of Coghead's customers to find alternative solutions.
Serverless computing
Serverless computing is "a cloud service category where the customer can use different cloud capability types without the customer having to provision, deploy and manage either hardware or software resources, other than providing customer application code or providing customer data. Serverless computing represents a form of virtualized computing", according to ISO/IEC 22123-2. Serverless computing is a broad ecosystem that includes the cloud provider, function as a service (FaaS), managed services, tools, frameworks, engineers, stakeholders, and other interconnected elements. == Overview == Serverless is a misnomer in the sense that servers are still used by cloud service providers to execute code for developers. The definition of serverless computing has evolved over time, leading to varied interpretations. According to Ben Kehoe, serverless represents a spectrum rather than a rigid definition. Emphasis should shift from strict definitions and specific technologies to adopting a serverless mindset, focusing on leveraging serverless solutions to address business challenges. Serverless computing does not eliminate complexity but shifts much of it from the operations team to the development team. However, this shift is not absolute, as operations teams continue to manage aspects such as identity and access management (IAM), networking, security policies, and cost optimization. Additionally, while breaking down applications into finer-grained components can increase management complexity, the relationship between granularity and management difficulty is not strictly linear. There is often an optimal level of modularization where the benefits outweigh the added management overhead. According to Yan Cui, serverless techniques should be adopted only when they help to deliver customer value faster. And while adopting, organizations should take small steps and de-risk along the way. == Challenges == Serverless applications are prone to fallacies of distributed computing. In addition, they are prone to the following fallacies: Versioning is simple Compensating transactions always work Observability is optional === Monitoring and debugging === Monitoring and debugging serverless applications can present unique challenges due to their distributed, event-driven nature and proprietary environments. Traditional tools may fall short, making it difficult to track execution flows across services. However, modern solutions such as distributed tracing tools (e.g., AWS X-Ray, Datadog), centralized logging, and cloud-agnostic observability platforms are mitigating these challenges. Emerging technologies like OpenTelemetry, AI-powered anomaly detection, and serverless-specific frameworks are further improving visibility and root cause analysis. While challenges persist, advancements in monitoring and debugging tools are steadily addressing these limitations. === Security === According to OWASP, serverless applications are vulnerable to variations of traditional attacks, insecure code, and some serverless-specific attacks (like denial of wallet). So, the risks have changed and attack prevention requires a shift in mindset. === Vendor lock-in === Serverless computing is provided as a third-party service. Applications and software that run in the serverless environment are by default locked to a specific cloud vendor. This issue is exacerbated in serverless computing, as with its increased level of abstraction, public vendors only allow customers to upload code to a FaaS platform without the authority to configure underlying environments. More importantly, when considering a more complex workflow that includes backend-as-a-service (BaaS), a BaaS offering can typically only natively trigger a FaaS offering from the same provider. This makes the workload migration in serverless computing virtually impossible. Therefore, considering how to design and deploy serverless workflows from a multi-cloud perspective could mitigate this. == High-performance computing == Serverless computing may not be ideal for certain high-performance computing (HPC) workloads due to resource limits often imposed by cloud providers, including maximum memory, CPU, and runtime restrictions. For workloads requiring sustained or predictable resource usage, bulk-provisioned servers can sometimes be more cost-effective than the pay-per-use model typical of serverless platforms. However, serverless computing is increasingly capable of supporting specific HPC workloads, particularly those that are highly parallelizable and event-driven, by leveraging its scalability and elasticity. The suitability of serverless computing for HPC continues to evolve with advancements in cloud technologies. == Anti-patterns == The grain of sand anti-pattern refers to the creation of excessively small components (e.g., functions) within a system, often resulting in increased complexity, operational overhead, and performance inefficiencies. Lambda pinball is a related anti-pattern that can occur in serverless architectures when functions (e.g., AWS Lambda, Azure functions) excessively invoke each other in fragmented chains, leading to latency, debugging and testing challenges, and reduced observability. These anti-patterns are associated with the formation of a distributed monolith. These anti-patterns are often addressed through the application of clear domain boundaries, which distinguish between public and published interfaces. Public interfaces are technically accessible interfaces, such as methods, classes, API endpoints, or triggers, but they do not come with formal stability guarantees. In contrast, published interfaces involve an explicit stability contract, including formal versioning, thorough documentation, a defined deprecation policy, and often support for backward compatibility. Published interfaces may also require maintaining multiple versions simultaneously and adhering to formal deprecation processes when breaking changes are introduced. Fragmented chains of function calls are often observed in systems where serverless components (functions) interact with other resources in complex patterns, sometimes described as spaghetti architecture or a distributed monolith. In contrast, systems exhibiting clearer boundaries typically organize serverless components into cohesive groups, where internal public interfaces manage inter-component communication, and published interfaces define communication across group boundaries. This distinction highlights differences in stability guarantees and maintenance commitments, contributing to reduced dependency complexity. Additionally, patterns associated with excessive serverless function chaining are sometimes addressed through architectural strategies that emphasize native service integrations instead of individual functions, a concept referred to as the functionless mindset. However, this approach is noted to involve a steeper learning curve, and integration limitations may vary even within the same cloud vendor ecosystem. Reporting on serverless databases presents challenges, as retrieving data for a reporting service can either break the bounded contexts, reduce the timeliness of the data, or do both. This applies regardless of whether data is pulled directly from databases, retrieved via HTTP, or collected in batches. Mark Richards refers to this as the reach-in reporting anti-pattern. A possible alternative to this approach is for databases to asynchronously push the necessary data to the reporting service instead of the reporting service pulling it. While this method requires a separate contract between services and the reporting service and can be complex to implement, it helps preserve bounded contexts while maintaining a high level of data timeliness. == Principles == Adopting DevSecOps practices can help improve the use and security of serverless technologies. In serverless applications, the distinction between infrastructure and business logic is often blurred, with applications typically distributed across multiple services. To maximize the effectiveness of testing, integration testing is emphasized for serverless applications. Additionally, to facilitate debugging and implementation, orchestration is used within the bounded context, while choreography is employed between different bounded contexts. Ephemeral resources are typically kept together to maintain high cohesion. However, shared resources with long spin-up times, such as AWS RDS clusters and landing zones, are often managed in separate repositories, deployment pipeline, and stacks.
Collabora Online
Collabora Online (often abbreviated as COOL) is an open-source online office suite developed by Collabora, based on LibreOffice Online, the web-based edition of the LibreOffice office suite. It enables real-time collaborative editing of documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and vector graphics in a web browser. Optional applications are available for offline use on Android, ChromeOS, iOS, iPadOS, Linux distributions, macOS, and Windows. It supports the OpenDocument format and is compatible with other major formats, including those used by Microsoft Office. The Document Foundation (TDF), the nonprofit organization behind LibreOffice, states that a majority of the LibreOffice software development is done by its partners like Collabora. Collabora Online is an open-source alternative to proprietary cloud office platforms such as Google Workspace and Microsoft 365. Unlike these services, it can be self-hosted or hosted by third-party providers. The platform is marketed particularly toward enterprises and public institutions seeking greater digital sovereignty and independence from U.S.-based "big tech" companies. Collabora also develops Collabora Office, a standalone desktop and mobile app suite based on LibreOffice. Although Collabora Online has increasingly taken on a central role, both products may be used in parallel, similar to Microsoft Office and Microsoft 365. In November 2025, Collabora released Collabora Office Desktop and renamed the previous product Collabora Office Classic. The new product shares code with Collabora Online and brings the same user interface to the desktop on Linux, Windows and MacOS. A separate version, the Collabora Online Development Edition (CODE), is offered free of charge and is recommended for individuals, small teams, and developers. CODE provides early access to new features and serves as a testing and development platform for open-source community contributors. As TDF does not offer a free version of LibreOffice Online, CODE represents the primary freely available option for organizations and individuals interested in deploying LibreOffice in a web-based, collaborative setting. == Applications == Collabora Online includes several applications for document editing, available through the web-based interface and optional desktop and mobile apps: Collabora Writer – A word processor based on LibreOffice Writer, comparable to Microsoft Word and Google Docs. It supports WYSIWYG editing, styles, formatting tools, comment threads, and change tracking. Collabora Calc – A spreadsheet editor based on LibreOffice Calc, similar to Microsoft Excel and Google Sheets. Features include pivot tables, formulas, data validation, conditional formatting, advanced sorting and filtering, charts, and support for up to 16,000 columns. Compatible with some macros written in VBA. Collabora Impress – A presentation program based on LibreOffice Impress, comparable to Microsoft PowerPoint and Google Slides. It supports master slides, transitions, speaker notes, and multimedia elements. Collabora Draw is not a separate application, most of the functionality of the Draw application is now integrated in Writer and Impress – vector graphics editor based on LibreOffice Draw, comparable to Microsoft Visio and Google Drawings. == Features == Collabora Online can be accessed from modern web browsers without the need for plug-ins or add-ons. It supports real-time collaborative editing of word processing documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and vector graphics. Collaboration features include commenting, version tracking with document comparison and restoration, and integration with communication tools such as chat or video calls. These functions are often enabled through integration with enterprise open-source cloud platforms like Nextcloud, ownCloud, Seafile, EGroupware, GroupOffice and others. Collabora Online can also be embedded or integrated into a variety of third-party applications. Although client apps are not required to use the web-based suite, optional applications are available for offline use on Android, ChromeOS, iOS, iPadOS, Linux distributions, macOS, and Windows. These apps share the same LibreOffice-based core as the server version, ensuring document compatibility across platforms. Development of the LibreOffice core benefits both the online server and the client applications simultaneously. The mobile apps offer touch-optimized interfaces that adapt to different screen sizes and can be used offline, with optional integration into cloud storage services. Collabora Online supports OpenDocument formats (ODF; .odt, .odp, .ods, .odg) in accordance with ISO/IEC 26300. It is also compatible with Microsoft Office formats, including Office Open XML (.docx, .pptx, .xlsx) and legacy binary formats (.doc, .ppt, .xls). Additional supported formats include PDF, PNG, CSV, TSV, RTF, EPUB, and others. The suite can import a range of formats supported by LibreOffice, including Microsoft Visio and Publisher files, Apple Keynote, Numbers, and Pages files, as well as legacy formats used by Lotus 1-2-3, Microsoft Works, and Quattro Pro. The core of Collabora Online is written in C++ and utilizes LibreOfficeKit, a programming interface that enables reuse of much of LibreOffice's existing code for document saving, loading, and rendering. Collabora Online operates on the principle that documents remain on the server, with users viewing tile-rendered images of the document and sending their edits back to the server. The user interface is implemented in JavaScript. For file access and authentication with file hosting services, Collabora Online uses Microsoft's WOPI protocol, allowing compatibility with any service supporting Microsoft 365 integration. == Server == The server component can be self-hosted or deployed through third-party enterprise open-source cloud platforms, allowing organizations to maintain control over data and infrastructure. It is available for various Linux distributions and as a Docker image. The server enables features such as in-browser document editing, file synchronization, and real-time communication. These third-party cloud platforms typically offer additional functionality comparable to services such as Dropbox, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or Zoom, including file sharing, calendars, email, contacts, chat, and video conferencing. Collabora Online can be integrated into these applications, as well as with other services such as learning management systems and enterprise content platforms, through open APIs and an SDK. == Reception == Various online and print publications have discussed Collabora Online. In December 2016 the technology website Softpedia mentioned the availability of collaborative editing in version 2.0 and the integration with ownCloud, Nextcloud, and other file synchronization and sharing solutions. In June 2020, ZDNET reported that Collabora Online would be included as the standard office suite in Nextcloud version 19, noting that direct document editing was added to the native video conferencing software Talk. The technology blog OMG! Ubuntu! covered the release of Collabora's Android and iOS apps, emphasizing their offline functionality. In September 2020, Linux Magazine compared Collabora Online with OnlyOffice, noting the flexibility and platform independence of both tools and highlighting Collabora's extensive feature set derived from LibreOffice. === Digital sovereignty === Collabora Online's open-source design and support for self-hosting have made it notable in discussions about digital sovereignty—the ability of users and organizations to control their own data. This is particularly relevant in Europe, where concerns about dependence on U.S.-based "big tech" companies and data privacy have grown in recent years. On 10th June 2025, Microsoft executives under oath in the French Senate admitted that they cannot guarantee data sovereignty and would be compelled to pass French (and by implication the wider European Union) information to the US administration if requested via a warrant or subpoena. The Cloud Act is a law that gives the US government authority to obtain digital data held by US-based tech corporations, irrespective of whether that data is stored on servers at home or on foreign soil. A 2020 briefing by the European Parliament highlighted risks associated with reliance on major technology companies that collect and exploit user data. Legal decisions such as the Schrems II ruling have further underscored these concerns. Several European government agencies have adopted private cloud solutions using Collabora Online and related platforms to enhance data security and maintain control over sensitive information. == History == The former LibreOffice development team from SUSE joined Collabora in September 2013, forming the subsidiary Collabora Productivity. In 2015 Collabora and IceWarp announced the development of an enterprise-ready version of LibreOffice Online to compete wi
Showcase Workshop
Showcase Workshop, also referred to as Showcase, is a SaaS company that develops a presentation-building application for business use. Users upload files and images to a web platform which generates presentations viewable on a suite of mobile apps. Showcase was founded in 2011. The company’s headquarters are in Wellington, New Zealand. == History == Showcase Workshop was originally developed in response to dynamically changing content being presented on iPads at the 2012 Olympics. After market-testing a beta version of the core application, Showcase Workshop launched commercially in 2012. In 2014 Showcase partnered with Vodafone Global Enterprise. == Product == Users upload pre-existing PDFs, videos, images and Microsoft Office documents to a secure server, building presentations or ‘showcases’ which can then be downloaded via the mobile apps. The presentations are used for mobile sales enablement, training, or operational/health and safety purposes. == Reception == Reviewers have praised the ease of use of Showcase, calling it a “better alternative to developing a native app” and “intuitive”. Criticisms include the lack of differing templates and a lack of complex customisation controls. Showcase was nominated for a Tabby Award in 2014 and won a Tabby Award in 2015 for its Windows app.