Fuse Mediation Router is an open source tool for integrating services using Enterprise Integration Patterns based on Apache Camel for use in enterprise IT organizations. It is certified, productized and fully supported by the people who wrote the code. Fuse Mediation Router uses a standard method of notation to go from diagram to implementation without coding. Fuse Mediation Router is a rule-based routing and process mediation engine that combines the ease of basic POJO development with the clarity of the standard Enterprise Integration Patterns. It can be deployed inside any container or be used stand-alone, and works directly with any kind of transport or messaging model to rapidly integrate existing services and applications. Fuse Mediation Router is now a part of Red Hat JBoss Fuse. == Tooling == FuseSource offers graphical, Eclipse-based tooling for Apache Camel for download.
Qloo
Qloo (pronounced "clue") is a company that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to understand taste and cultural correlations. It provides companies with an application programming interface (API). It received funding from Leonardo DiCaprio, Elton John, Barry Sternlicht, Pierre Lagrange and others. Qloo establishes consumer preference correlations via machine learning across data spanning cultural domains including music, film, television, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, and travel. The recommender system uses AI to predict correlations for further applications. == History == Qloo was founded in 2012 by chief executive officer Alex Elias and chief operating officer Jay Alger. Qloo initially launched an app designed for consumers, allowing them to understand their own tastes and receive personalized recommendations. The company amassed several million users and built a large catalog of cultural entities and corresponding user sentiment. In 2012, Qloo raised $1.4 million in seed funding from investors including Cedric the Entertainer, and venture capital firm Kindler Capital. Qloo had a public beta release in November 2012 after its initial funding. In 2013, the company raised an additional $1.6 million from Cross Creek Pictures founding partner Tommy Thompson, and Samih Toukan and Hussam Khoury, founders of Maktoob, an Internet services company purchased by Yahoo! for $164 million in 2009. On November 14, 2013, a website and an iPhone app were announced. The company later released an Android app, and tablet versions, in mid-2014. In 2015, Twitter approached Qloo about powering personalized social feeds and targeted eCommerce ads on the platform based on what users were posting. Qloo developed an enterprise-grade API to support Twitter’s needs. Twitter ended up pivoting to enable brands to use the social platform for customer service and support, but Qloo was able to sell access to its cultural intelligence via API to many other enterprise clients, marking the official transition from a B2C company to a B2B company. In 2016, Qloo secured $4.5 million in venture capital investment. The $4.5 million was split between a number of investors, including Barry Sternlicht, Pierre Lagrange, and Leonardo DiCaprio. In July 2017, Qloo raised $6.5 million in funding rounds from AXA Strategic Ventures, and Elton John. Following the investment, the founders stated in an interview with Tech Crunch that they would use the investment to expand Qloo's database. They hoped the move would secure larger contracts with corporate clients. At the time, clients already included Fortune 500 companies such as Twitter, PepsiCo, and BMW. In 2019, the company announced that it had acquired cultural recommendation service TasteDive, with Alex Elias becoming chairman of TasteDive. In September 2019, Qloo was named among the Top 14 Artificial Intelligence APIs by ProgrammableWeb. In 2022, Qloo raised $15M in Series B funding from Eldridge and AXA Venture Partners, enabling the privacy-centric AI leader to expand its team of world-class data scientists, enrich its technology, and build on its sales channels in order to continue to offer premier insights into global consumer taste for Fortune 500 companies across the globe. Qloo was recognized as the "Best Decision Intelligence Company" at the 2023 AI Breakthrough Awards. Also in 2023, the company was awarded a Top Performer Award by SourceForge. As of 2024, Qloo is a three-time Inc. 5000 honoree: No. 360 (2022), No. 344 (2021), No. 187 (2020). Qloo raised $25 million Series C round on February 21, 2024. The round was led by AI Ventures with participation from AXA Venture Partners, Eldridge, and Moderne Ventures, allowing Qloo to address new commercial surface areas for Taste AI, including on-device learning and foundational models leveraging Qloo, as well as introduce self-service platform to make consumer and taste analytics available to small and mid-sized enterprises and individuals. Qloo also announced pursuing opportunistic M&A using its balance sheet along the lines of the TasteDive acquisition completed, which expanded Qloo's first-party data moat and corpus of cultural learning. This latest financing brought the total amount raised since the company's founding in 2012 to over $56 million. == Services and features == Qloo calls itself a cultural AI platform to provide real-time correlation data across domains of culture and entertainment including: film, music, television, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, and travel. Each category contains subcategories. Qloo’s knowledge of a user's taste in one category can be utilized to offer suggestions in other categories. Users then rate the suggestions, providing it with feedback for future suggestions. Qloo has partnerships with companies such as Expedia and iTunes. == Technology == Qloo’s Taste AI technology uses machine learning to decode and predict consumers’ interests, maintaining user anonymity. It is powered by 3.7 billion lifestyle entities (brands, music, film, TV, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, travel, and more) and trillions of anonymized consumer behavioral signals. Through AI, Qloo identifies patterns in these data signals, making predictions about how much interest a person or group has in a concept or thing. Central to Qloo’s technology are algorithms designed to detect and mitigate biases within datasets and models, allowing Qloo to assess the fairness of its AI systems with a focus on attributes such as age, gender, and race, enabling the company to fine-tune its AI models to align with their ethical standards. They also use visualization tools to probe the behavior of their AI models for conducting counterfactual analyses and for comparing the performances of the AI models across diverse demographic segments. Qloo’s Taste AI doesn’t collect or use any Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Instead, it derives recommendations for audience segments based on co-occurrences between lifestyle entities and anonymized behavioral signals. == Applications == Starbucks uses Qloo to create in-store music playlists tailored to specific neighborhoods. Hershey’s uses Qloo to customize the content of assorted candy bags. Michelin uses Qloo to serve recommendations in its Michelin Guide app. Netflix leverages Qloo’s technology to enhance merchandising by identifying actors who resonate with certain demographics. Qloo also works with PepsiCo, Samsung, The New York Mets, BuzzFeed, and Ticketmaster, Universal Music Group, and OOH advertising company JCDecaux.
Ontology-based data integration
Ontology-based data integration involves the use of one or more ontologies to effectively combine data or information from multiple heterogeneous sources. It is one of the multiple data integration approaches and may be classified as Global-As-View (GAV). The effectiveness of ontology‑based data integration is closely tied to the consistency and expressivity of the ontology used in the integration process. == Background == Data from multiple sources are characterized by multiple types of heterogeneity. The following hierarchy is often used: Syntactic heterogeneity: is a result of differences in representation format of data Schematic or structural heterogeneity: the native model or structure to store data differ in data sources leading to structural heterogeneity. Schematic heterogeneity that particularly appears in structured databases is also an aspect of structural heterogeneity. Semantic heterogeneity: differences in interpretation of the 'meaning' of data are source of semantic heterogeneity System heterogeneity: use of different operating system, hardware platforms lead to system heterogeneity Ontologies, as formal models of representation with explicitly defined concepts and named relationships linking them, are used to address the issue of semantic heterogeneity in data sources. In domains like bioinformatics and biomedicine, the rapid development, adoption and public availability of ontologies [1] Archived 2007-06-16 at the Wayback Machine has made it possible for the data integration community to leverage them for semantic integration of data and information. == The role of ontologies == Ontologies enable the unambiguous identification of entities in heterogeneous information systems and assertion of applicable named relationships that connect these entities together. Specifically, ontologies play the following roles: Content Explication The ontology enables accurate interpretation of data from multiple sources through the explicit definition of terms and relationships in the ontology. Query Model In some systems like SIMS, the query is formulated using the ontology as a global query schema. Verification The ontology verifies the mappings used to integrate data from multiple sources. These mappings may either be user specified or generated by a system. == Approaches using ontologies for data integration == There are three main architectures that are implemented in ontology‑based data integration applications, namely, Single ontology approach A single ontology is used as a global reference model in the system. This is the simplest approach as it can be simulated by other approaches. SIMS is a prominent example of this approach. The Structured Knowledge Source Integration component of Research Cyc is another prominent example of this approach. (Title = Harnessing Cyc to Answer Clinical Researchers' Ad Hoc Queries). The Gellish Taxonomic Dictionary-Ontology follows this approach as well. Multiple ontologies Multiple ontologies, each modeling an individual data source, are used in combination for integration. Though, this approach is more flexible than the single ontology approach, it requires creation of mappings between the multiple ontologies. Ontology mapping is a challenging issue and is focus of large number of research efforts in computer science [2]. The OBSERVER system is an example of this approach. Hybrid approaches The hybrid approach involves the use of multiple ontologies that subscribe to a common, top-level vocabulary. The top-level vocabulary defines the basic terms of the domain. Thus, the hybrid approach makes it easier to use multiple ontologies for integration in presence of the common vocabulary.
BioCreative
BioCreAtIvE (A critical assessment of text mining methods in molecular biology) consists in a community-wide effort for evaluating information extraction and text mining developments in the biological domain. It was preceded by the Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) Challenge Cup for detection of gene mentions. == Community Challenges == === First edition (2004-2005) === Three main tasks were posed at the first BioCreAtIvE challenge: the entity extraction task, the gene name normalization task, and the functional annotation of gene products task. The data sets produced by this contest serve as a Gold Standard training and test set to evaluate and train Bio-NER tools and annotation extraction tools. === Second edition (2006-2007) === The second BioCreAtIvE challenge (2006-2007) had also 3 tasks: detection of gene mentions, extraction of unique idenfiers for genes and extraction information related to physical protein-protein interactions. It counted with participation of 44 teams from 13 countries. === Third edition (2011-2012) === The third edition of BioCreative included for the first time the InterActive Task (IAT), designed to evaluate the practical usability of text mining tools in real-world biocuration tasks. === Fifth edition (2016) === BioCreative V had 5 different tracks, including an interactive task (IAT) for usability of text mining systems and a track using the BioC format for curating information for BioGRID.
Communication-avoiding algorithm
Communication-avoiding algorithms minimize movement of data within a memory hierarchy for improving its running-time and energy consumption. These minimize the total of two costs (in terms of time and energy): arithmetic and communication. Communication, in this context refers to moving data, either between levels of memory or between multiple processors over a network. It is much more expensive than arithmetic. == Formal theory == === Two-level memory model === A common computational model in analyzing communication-avoiding algorithms is the two-level memory model: There is one processor and two levels of memory. Level 1 memory is infinitely large. Level 0 memory ("cache") has size M {\displaystyle M} . In the beginning, input resides in level 1. In the end, the output resides in level 1. Processor can only operate on data in cache. The goal is to minimize data transfers between the two levels of memory. === Matrix multiplication === Corollary 6.2: More general results for other numerical linear algebra operations can be found in. The following proof is from. == Motivation == Consider the following running-time model: Measure of computation = Time per FLOP = γ Measure of communication = No. of words of data moved = β ⇒ Total running time = γ·(no. of FLOPs) + β·(no. of words) From the fact that β >> γ as measured in time and energy, communication cost dominates computation cost. Technological trends indicate that the relative cost of communication is increasing on a variety of platforms, from cloud computing to supercomputers to mobile devices. The report also predicts that gap between DRAM access time and FLOPs will increase 100× over coming decade to balance power usage between processors and DRAM. Energy consumption increases by orders of magnitude as we go higher in the memory hierarchy. United States president Barack Obama cited communication-avoiding algorithms in the FY 2012 Department of Energy budget request to Congress: New Algorithm Improves Performance and Accuracy on Extreme-Scale Computing Systems. On modern computer architectures, communication between processors takes longer than the performance of a floating-point arithmetic operation by a given processor. ASCR researchers have developed a new method, derived from commonly used linear algebra methods, to minimize communications between processors and the memory hierarchy, by reformulating the communication patterns specified within the algorithm. This method has been implemented in the TRILINOS framework, a highly-regarded suite of software, which provides functionality for researchers around the world to solve large scale, complex multi-physics problems. == Objectives == Communication-avoiding algorithms are designed with the following objectives: Reorganize algorithms to reduce communication across all memory hierarchies. Attain the lower-bound on communication when possible. The following simple example demonstrates how these are achieved. === Matrix multiplication example === Let A, B and C be square matrices of order n × n. The following naive algorithm implements C = C + A B: for i = 1 to n for j = 1 to n for k = 1 to n C(i,j) = C(i,j) + A(i,k) B(k,j) Arithmetic cost (time-complexity): n2(2n − 1) for sufficiently large n or O(n3). Rewriting this algorithm with communication cost labelled at each step for i = 1 to n {read row i of A into fast memory} - n2 reads for j = 1 to n {read C(i,j) into fast memory} - n2 reads {read column j of B into fast memory} - n3 reads for k = 1 to n C(i,j) = C(i,j) + A(i,k) B(k,j) {write C(i,j) back to slow memory} - n2 writes Fast memory may be defined as the local processor memory (CPU cache) of size M and slow memory may be defined as the DRAM. Communication cost (reads/writes): n3 + 3n2 or O(n3) Since total running time = γ·O(n3) + β·O(n3) and β >> γ the communication cost is dominant. The blocked (tiled) matrix multiplication algorithm reduces this dominant term: ==== Blocked (tiled) matrix multiplication ==== Consider A, B and C to be n/b-by-n/b matrices of b-by-b sub-blocks where b is called the block size; assume three b-by-b blocks fit in fast memory. for i = 1 to n/b for j = 1 to n/b {read block C(i,j) into fast memory} - b2 × (n/b)2 = n2 reads for k = 1 to n/b {read block A(i,k) into fast memory} - b2 × (n/b)3 = n3/b reads {read block B(k,j) into fast memory} - b2 × (n/b)3 = n3/b reads C(i,j) = C(i,j) + A(i,k) B(k,j) - {do a matrix multiply on blocks} {write block C(i,j) back to slow memory} - b2 × (n/b)2 = n2 writes Communication cost: 2n3/b + 2n2 reads/writes << 2n3 arithmetic cost Making b as large possible: 3b2 ≤ M we achieve the following communication lower bound: 31/2n3/M1/2 + 2n2 or Ω (no. of FLOPs / M1/2) == Previous approaches for reducing communication == Most of the approaches investigated in the past to address this problem rely on scheduling or tuning techniques that aim at overlapping communication with computation. However, this approach can lead to an improvement of at most a factor of two. Ghosting is a different technique for reducing communication, in which a processor stores and computes redundantly data from neighboring processors for future computations. Cache-oblivious algorithms represent a different approach introduced in 1999 for fast Fourier transforms, and then extended to graph algorithms, dynamic programming, etc. They were also applied to several operations in linear algebra as dense LU and QR factorizations. The design of architecture specific algorithms is another approach that can be used for reducing the communication in parallel algorithms, and there are many examples in the literature of algorithms that are adapted to a given communication topology.
Site Security Handbook
The Site Security Handbook, RFC 2196, is a guide on setting computer security policies and procedures for sites that have systems on the Internet (however, the information provided should also be useful to sites not yet connected to the Internet). The guide lists issues and factors that a site must consider when setting their own policies. It makes a number of recommendations and provides discussions of relevant areas. This guide is only a framework for setting security policies and procedures. In order to have an effective set of policies and procedures, a site will have to make many decisions, gain agreement, and then communicate and implement these policies. The guide is a product of the IETF SSH working group, and was published in 1997, obsoleting the earlier RFC 1244 from 1991.
NoSQL
NoSQL (originally meaning "not only SQL" or "non-relational") refers to a type of database design that stores and retrieves data differently from the traditional table-based structure of relational databases. Unlike relational databases, which organize data into rows and columns like a spreadsheet, NoSQL databases use a single data structure—such as key–value pairs, wide columns, graphs, or documents—to hold information. Since this non-relational design does not require a fixed schema, it scales easily to manage large, often unstructured datasets. NoSQL systems are sometimes called "Not only SQL" because they can support SQL-like query languages or work alongside SQL databases in polyglot-persistent setups, where multiple database types are combined. Non-relational databases date back to the late 1960s, but the term "NoSQL" emerged in the early 2000s, spurred by the needs of Web 2.0 companies like social media platforms. NoSQL databases are popular in big data and real-time web applications due to their simple design, ability to scale across clusters of machines (called horizontal scaling), and precise control over data availability. These structures can speed up certain tasks and are often considered more adaptable than fixed database tables. However, many NoSQL systems prioritize speed and availability over strict consistency (per the CAP theorem), using eventual consistency—where updates reach all nodes eventually, typically within milliseconds, but may cause brief delays in accessing the latest data, known as stale reads. While most lack full ACID transaction support, some, like MongoDB, include it as a key feature. == Barriers to adoption == Barriers to wider NoSQL adoption include their use of low-level query languages instead of SQL, inability to perform ad hoc joins across tables, lack of standardized interfaces, and significant investments already made in relational databases. Some NoSQL systems risk losing data through lost writes or other forms, though features like write-ahead logging—a method to record changes before they’re applied—can help prevent this. For distributed transaction processing across multiple databases, keeping data consistent is a challenge for both NoSQL and relational systems, as relational databases cannot enforce rules linking separate databases, and few systems support both ACID transactions and X/Open XA standards for managing distributed updates. Limitations within the interface environment are overcome using semantic virtualization protocols, such that NoSQL services are accessible to most operating systems. == History == The term NoSQL was used by Carlo Strozzi in 1998 to name his lightweight Strozzi NoSQL open-source relational database that did not expose the standard Structured Query Language (SQL) interface, but was still relational. His NoSQL RDBMS is distinct from the around-2009 general concept of NoSQL databases. Strozzi suggests that, because the current NoSQL movement "departs from the relational model altogether, it should therefore have been called more appropriately 'NoREL'", referring to "not relational". Johan Oskarsson, then a developer at Last.fm, reintroduced the term NoSQL in early 2009 when he organized an event to discuss "open-source distributed, non-relational databases". The name attempted to label the emergence of an increasing number of non-relational, distributed data stores, including open source clones of Google's Bigtable/MapReduce and Amazon's DynamoDB. == Types and examples == There are various ways to classify NoSQL databases, with different categories and subcategories, some of which overlap. What follows is a non-exhaustive classification by data model, with examples: === Key–value store === Key–value (KV) stores use the associative array (also called a map or dictionary) as their fundamental data model. In this model, data is represented as a collection of key–value pairs, such that each possible key appears at most once in the collection. The key–value model is one of the simplest non-trivial data models, and richer data models are often implemented as an extension of it. The key–value model can be extended to a discretely ordered model that maintains keys in lexicographic order. This extension is computationally powerful, in that it can efficiently retrieve selective key ranges. Key–value stores can use consistency models ranging from eventual consistency to serializability. Some databases support ordering of keys. There are various hardware implementations, and some users store data in memory (RAM), while others on solid-state drives (SSD) or rotating disks (aka hard disk drive (HDD)). === Document store === The central concept of a document store is that of a "document". While the details of this definition differ among document-oriented databases, they all assume that documents encapsulate and encode data (or information) in some standard formats or encodings. Encodings in use include XML, YAML, and JSON and binary forms like BSON. Documents are addressed in the database via a unique key that represents that document. Another defining characteristic of a document-oriented database is an API or query language to retrieve documents based on their contents. Different implementations offer different ways of organizing and/or grouping documents: Collections Tags Non-visible metadata Directory hierarchies Compared to relational databases, collections could be considered analogous to tables and documents analogous to records. But they are different – every record in a table has the same sequence of fields, while documents in a collection may have fields that are completely different. === Graph === Graph databases are designed for data whose relations are well represented as a graph consisting of elements connected by a finite number of relations. Examples of data include social relations, public transport links, road maps, network topologies, etc. Graph databases and their query language == Performance == The performance of NoSQL databases is usually evaluated using the metric of throughput, which is measured as operations per second. Performance evaluation must pay attention to the right benchmarks such as production configurations, parameters of the databases, anticipated data volume, and concurrent user workloads. Ben Scofield rated different categories of NoSQL databases as follows: Performance and scalability comparisons are most commonly done using the YCSB benchmark. == Handling relational data == Since most NoSQL databases lack ability for joins in queries, the database schema generally needs to be designed differently. There are three main techniques for handling relational data in a NoSQL database. (See table join and ACID support for NoSQL databases that support joins.) === Multiple queries === Instead of retrieving all the data with one query, it is common to do several queries to get the desired data. NoSQL queries are often faster than traditional SQL queries, so the cost of additional queries may be acceptable. If an excessive number of queries would be necessary, one of the other two approaches is more appropriate. === Caching, replication and non-normalized data === Instead of only storing foreign keys, it is common to store actual foreign values along with the model's data. For example, each blog comment might include the username in addition to a user id, thus providing easy access to the username without requiring another lookup. When a username changes, however, this will now need to be changed in many places in the database. Thus this approach works better when reads are much more common than writes. === Nesting data === With document databases like MongoDB it is common to put more data in a smaller number of collections. For example, in a blogging application, one might choose to store comments within the blog post document, so that with a single retrieval one gets all the comments. Thus in this approach a single document contains all the data needed for a specific task. == ACID and join support == A database is marked as supporting ACID properties (atomicity, consistency, isolation, durability) or join operations if the documentation for the database makes that claim. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the capability is fully supported in a manner similar to most SQL databases. == Query optimization and indexing in NoSQL databases == Different NoSQL databases, such as DynamoDB, MongoDB, Cassandra, Couchbase, HBase, and Redis, exhibit varying behaviors when querying non-indexed fields. Many perform full-table or collection scans for such queries, applying filtering operations after retrieving data. However, modern NoSQL databases often incorporate advanced features to optimize query performance. For example, MongoDB supports compound indexes and query-optimization strategies, Cassandra offers secondary indexes and materialized views, and Redis employs custom indexing mechanisms tailored to specific use cases. Systems like El