Non-separable wavelets are multi-dimensional wavelets that are not directly implemented as tensor products of wavelets on some lower-dimensional space. They have been studied since 1992. They offer a few important advantages. Notably, using non-separable filters leads to more parameters in design, and consequently better filters. The main difference, when compared to the one-dimensional wavelets, is that multi-dimensional sampling requires the use of lattices (e.g., the quincunx lattice). The wavelet filters themselves can be separable or non-separable regardless of the sampling lattice. Thus, in some cases, the non-separable wavelets can be implemented in a separable fashion. Unlike separable wavelet, the non-separable wavelets are capable of detecting structures that are not only horizontal, vertical or diagonal (show less anisotropy). == Examples == Red-black wavelets Contourlets Shearlets Directionlets Steerable pyramids Non-separable schemes for tensor-product wavelets
Managed private cloud
Managed private cloud (also known as "hosted private cloud" or "single-tenant SaaS") refers to a principle in software architecture where a single instance of the software runs on a server, serves a single client organization (tenant), and is managed by a third party. The third-party provider is responsible for providing the hardware for the server and also for preliminary maintenance. This is in contrast to multitenancy, where multiple client organizations share a single server, or an on-premises deployment, where the client organization hosts its software instance. Managed private clouds also fall under the larger umbrella of cloud computing. == Adoption == The need for private clouds arose due to enterprises requiring a dedicated service and infrastructure for their cloud computing needs, such as for business-critical operations, improved security, and better control over their resources. Managed private cloud adoption is a popular choice among organizations. It has been on the rise due to enterprises requiring a dedicated cloud environment and preferring to avoid having to deal with management, maintenance, or future upgrade costs for the associated infrastructure and services. Such operational costs are unavoidable in on-premises private cloud data centers. == Advantages and challenges of managed private cloud == A managed private cloud cuts down on upkeep costs by outsourcing infrastructure management and maintenance to the managed cloud provider. It is easier to integrate an organization's existing software, services, and applications into a dedicated cloud hosting infrastructure which can be customized to the client's needs instead of a public cloud platform, whose hardware or infrastructure/software platform cannot be individualized to each client. Customers who choose a managed private cloud deployment usually choose them because of their desire for efficient cloud deployment, but also have the need for service customization or integration only available in a single-tenant environment. This chart shows the key benefits of the different types of deployments, and shows the overlap between these cloud solutions. This chart shows key drawbacks. Since deployments are done in a single-tenant environment, it is usually cost-prohibitive for small and medium-sized businesses. While server upkeep and maintenance are handled by the service provider, including network management and security, the client is charged for all such services. It is up to the potential client to determine if a managed private cloud solution aligns with their business objectives and budget. While the service provider maintains the upkeep of servers, network, and platform infrastructure, sensitive data is typically not stored on managed private clouds as it may leave business-critical information prone to breaches via third-party attacks on the cloud service provider. Common customizations and integrations include: Active Directory Single Sign-on Learning Management Systems Video Teleconferencing == Deployment strategies and service providers == Software companies have taken a variety of strategies in the Managed Private Cloud realm. Some software organizations have provided managed private cloud options internally, such as Microsoft. Companies that offer an on-premises deployment option, by definition, enable third-party companies to market Managed Private Cloud solutions. A few managed private cloud service providers are: Adobe Connect: Adobe Connect may be purchased for on-premises deployment, multi-tenant hosted deployment, managed private cloud as ACMS, or managed by third-party managed private cloud provider ConnectSolutions. Rackspace CenturyLink Microsoft licenses for Lync, SharePoint and Exchange may be purchased for on-premises deployment, a multi-tenant hosted deployment via Office 365, or managed by third-party cloud hosting from Azaleos, ConnectSolutions and others.
Whitehead's algorithm
Whitehead's algorithm is a mathematical algorithm in group theory for solving the automorphic equivalence problem in the finite rank free group Fn. The algorithm is based on a classic 1936 paper of J. H. C. Whitehead. It is still unknown (except for the case n = 2) if Whitehead's algorithm has polynomial time complexity. == Statement of the problem == Let F n = F ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle F_{n}=F(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})} be a free group of rank n ≥ 2 {\displaystyle n\geq 2} with a free basis X = { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle X=\{x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}\}} . The automorphism problem, or the automorphic equivalence problem for F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} asks, given two freely reduced words w , w ′ ∈ F n {\displaystyle w,w'\in F_{n}} whether there exists an automorphism φ ∈ Aut ( F n ) {\displaystyle \varphi \in \operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})} such that φ ( w ) = w ′ {\displaystyle \varphi (w)=w'} . Thus the automorphism problem asks, for w , w ′ ∈ F n {\displaystyle w,w'\in F_{n}} whether Aut ( F n ) w = Aut ( F n ) w ′ {\displaystyle \operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})w=\operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})w'} . For w , w ′ ∈ F n {\displaystyle w,w'\in F_{n}} one has Aut ( F n ) w = Aut ( F n ) w ′ {\displaystyle \operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})w=\operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})w'} if and only if Out ( F n ) [ w ] = Out ( F n ) [ w ′ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {Out} (F_{n})[w]=\operatorname {Out} (F_{n})[w']} , where [ w ] , [ w ′ ] {\displaystyle [w],[w']} are conjugacy classes in F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} of w , w ′ {\displaystyle w,w'} accordingly. Therefore, the automorphism problem for F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} is often formulated in terms of Out ( F n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Out} (F_{n})} -equivalence of conjugacy classes of elements of F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} . For an element w ∈ F n {\displaystyle w\in F_{n}} , | w | X {\displaystyle |w|_{X}} denotes the freely reduced length of w {\displaystyle w} with respect to X {\displaystyle X} , and ‖ w ‖ X {\displaystyle \|w\|_{X}} denotes the cyclically reduced length of w {\displaystyle w} with respect to X {\displaystyle X} . For the automorphism problem, the length of an input w {\displaystyle w} is measured as | w | X {\displaystyle |w|_{X}} or as ‖ w ‖ X {\displaystyle \|w\|_{X}} , depending on whether one views w {\displaystyle w} as an element of F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} or as defining the corresponding conjugacy class [ w ] {\displaystyle [w]} in F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} . == History == The automorphism problem for F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} was algorithmically solved by J. H. C. Whitehead in a classic 1936 paper, and his solution came to be known as Whitehead's algorithm. Whitehead used a topological approach in his paper. Namely, consider the 3-manifold M n = # i = 1 n S 2 × S 1 {\displaystyle M_{n}=\#_{i=1}^{n}\mathbb {S} ^{2}\times \mathbb {S} ^{1}} , the connected sum of n {\displaystyle n} copies of S 2 × S 1 {\displaystyle \mathbb {S} ^{2}\times \mathbb {S} ^{1}} . Then π 1 ( M n ) ≅ F n {\displaystyle \pi _{1}(M_{n})\cong F_{n}} , and, moreover, up to a quotient by a finite normal subgroup isomorphic to Z 2 n {\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} _{2}^{n}} , the mapping class group of M n {\displaystyle M_{n}} is equal to Out ( F n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Out} (F_{n})} ; see. Different free bases of F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} can be represented by isotopy classes of "sphere systems" in M n {\displaystyle M_{n}} , and the cyclically reduced form of an element w ∈ F n {\displaystyle w\in F_{n}} , as well as the Whitehead graph of [ w ] {\displaystyle [w]} , can be "read-off" from how a loop in general position representing [ w ] {\displaystyle [w]} intersects the spheres in the system. Whitehead moves can be represented by certain kinds of topological "swapping" moves modifying the sphere system. Subsequently, Rapaport, and later, based on her work, Higgins and Lyndon, gave a purely combinatorial and algebraic re-interpretation of Whitehead's work and of Whitehead's algorithm. The exposition of Whitehead's algorithm in the book of Lyndon and Schupp is based on this combinatorial approach. Culler and Vogtmann, in their 1986 paper that introduced the Outer space, gave a hybrid approach to Whitehead's algorithm, presented in combinatorial terms but closely following Whitehead's original ideas. == Whitehead's algorithm == Our exposition regarding Whitehead's algorithm mostly follows Ch.I.4 in the book of Lyndon and Schupp, as well as. === Overview === The automorphism group Aut ( F n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})} has a particularly useful finite generating set W {\displaystyle {\mathcal {W}}} of Whitehead automorphisms or Whitehead moves. Given w , w ′ ∈ F n {\displaystyle w,w'\in F_{n}} the first part of Whitehead's algorithm consists of iteratively applying Whitehead moves to w , w ′ {\displaystyle w,w'} to take each of them to an "automorphically minimal" form, where the cyclically reduced length strictly decreases at each step. Once we find automorphically these minimal forms u , u ′ {\displaystyle u,u'} of w , w ′ {\displaystyle w,w'} , we check if ‖ u ‖ X = ‖ u ′ ‖ X {\displaystyle \|u\|_{X}=\|u'\|_{X}} . If ‖ u ‖ X ≠ ‖ u ′ ‖ X {\displaystyle \|u\|_{X}\neq \|u'\|_{X}} then w , w ′ {\displaystyle w,w'} are not automorphically equivalent in F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} . If ‖ u ‖ X = ‖ u ′ ‖ X {\displaystyle \|u\|_{X}=\|u'\|_{X}} , we check if there exists a finite chain of Whitehead moves taking u {\displaystyle u} to u ′ {\displaystyle u'} so that the cyclically reduced length remains constant throughout this chain. The elements w , w ′ {\displaystyle w,w'} are not automorphically equivalent in F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} if and only if such a chain exists. Whitehead's algorithm also solves the search automorphism problem for F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} . Namely, given w , w ′ ∈ F n {\displaystyle w,w'\in F_{n}} , if Whitehead's algorithm concludes that Aut ( F n ) w = Aut ( F n ) w ′ {\displaystyle \operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})w=\operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})w'} , the algorithm also outputs an automorphism φ ∈ Aut ( F n ) {\displaystyle \varphi \in \operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})} such that φ ( w ) = w ′ {\displaystyle \varphi (w)=w'} . Such an element φ ∈ Aut ( F n ) {\displaystyle \varphi \in \operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})} is produced as the composition of a chain of Whitehead moves arising from the above procedure and taking w {\displaystyle w} to w ′ {\displaystyle w'} . === Whitehead automorphisms === A Whitehead automorphism, or Whitehead move, of F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} is an automorphism τ ∈ Aut ( F n ) {\displaystyle \tau \in \operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})} of F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} of one of the following two types: There is a permutation σ ∈ S n {\displaystyle \sigma \in S_{n}} of { 1 , 2 , … , n } {\displaystyle \{1,2,\dots ,n\}} such that for i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,n} τ ( x i ) = x σ ( i ) ± 1 {\displaystyle \tau (x_{i})=x_{\sigma (i)}^{\pm 1}} Such τ {\displaystyle \tau } is called a Whitehead automorphism of the first kind. There is an element a ∈ X ± 1 {\displaystyle a\in X^{\pm 1}} , called the multiplier, such that for every x ∈ X ± 1 {\displaystyle x\in X^{\pm 1}} τ ( x ) ∈ { x , x a , a − 1 x , a − 1 x a } . {\displaystyle \tau (x)\in \{x,xa,a^{-1}x,a^{-1}xa\}.} Such τ {\displaystyle \tau } is called a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind. Since τ {\displaystyle \tau } is an automorphism of F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} , it follows that τ ( a ) = a {\displaystyle \tau (a)=a} in this case. Often, for a Whitehead automorphism τ ∈ Aut ( F n ) {\displaystyle \tau \in \operatorname {Aut} (F_{n})} , the corresponding outer automorphism in Out ( F n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Out} (F_{n})} is also called a Whitehead automorphism or a Whitehead move. ==== Examples ==== Let F 4 = F ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 ) {\displaystyle F_{4}=F(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})} . Let τ : F 4 → F 4 {\displaystyle \tau :F_{4}\to F_{4}} be a homomorphism such that τ ( x 1 ) = x 2 x 1 , τ ( x 2 ) = x 2 , τ ( x 3 ) = x 2 x 3 x 2 − 1 , τ ( x 4 ) = x 4 {\displaystyle \tau (x_{1})=x_{2}x_{1},\quad \tau (x_{2})=x_{2},\quad \tau (x_{3})=x_{2}x_{3}x_{2}^{-1},\quad \tau (x_{4})=x_{4}} Then τ {\displaystyle \tau } is actually an automorphism of F 4 {\displaystyle F_{4}} , and, moreover, τ {\displaystyle \tau } is a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind, with the multiplier a = x 2 − 1 {\displaystyle a=x_{2}^{-1}} . Let τ ′ : F 4 → F 4 {\displaystyle \tau ':F_{4}\to F_{4}} be a homomorphism such that τ ′ ( x 1 ) = x 1 , τ ′ ( x 2 ) = x 1 − 1 x 2 x 1 , τ ′ ( x 3 ) = x 1 − 1 x 3 x 1 , τ ′ ( x 4 ) = x 1 − 1 x 4 x 1 {\displaystyle \tau '(x_{1})=x_{1},\quad \tau '(x_{2})=x_{1}^{-1}x_{2}x_{1},\quad \tau '(x_{3})=x_{1}^{-1}x_{3}x_{1},\quad \tau '(x_{4})=x_{1}^{-1}x_{4}x_{1}} Then τ ′ {\displaystyle \tau '} is actually an inner automorphism of F 4 {\displaystyle F_{4}} given by conjugation by x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} , and, moreover, τ ′ {\displaystyle \
Time Warp Edit Distance
In the data analysis of time series, Time Warp Edit Distance (TWED) is a measure of similarity (or dissimilarity) between pairs of discrete time series, controlling the relative distortion of the time units of the two series using the physical notion of elasticity. In comparison to other distance measures, (e.g. DTW (dynamic time warping) or LCS (longest common subsequence problem)), TWED is a metric. Its computational time complexity is O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} , but can be drastically reduced in some specific situations by using a corridor to reduce the search space. Its memory space complexity can be reduced to O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} . It was first proposed in 2009 by P.-F. Marteau. == Definition == δ λ , ν ( A 1 p , B 1 q ) = M i n { δ λ , ν ( A 1 p − 1 , B 1 q ) + Γ ( a p ′ → Λ ) d e l e t e i n A δ λ , ν ( A 1 p − 1 , B 1 q − 1 ) + Γ ( a p ′ → b q ′ ) m a t c h o r s u b s t i t u t i o n δ λ , ν ( A 1 p , B 1 q − 1 ) + Γ ( Λ → b q ′ ) d e l e t e i n B {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p},B_{1}^{q})=Min{\begin{cases}\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p-1},B_{1}^{q})+\Gamma (a_{p}^{'}\to \Lambda )&{\rm {delete\ in\ A}}\\\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p-1},B_{1}^{q-1})+\Gamma (a_{p}^{'}\to b_{q}^{'})&{\rm {match\ or\ substitution}}\\\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p},B_{1}^{q-1})+\Gamma (\Lambda \to b_{q}^{'})&{\rm {delete\ in\ B}}\end{cases}}} whereas Γ ( α p ′ → Λ ) = d L P ( a p ′ , a p − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( t a p − t a p − 1 ) + λ {\displaystyle \Gamma (\alpha _{p}^{'}\to \Lambda )=d_{LP}(a_{p}^{'},a_{p-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (t_{a_{p}}-t_{a_{p-1}})+\lambda } Γ ( α p ′ → b q ′ ) = d L P ( a p ′ , b q ′ ) + d L P ( a p − 1 ′ , b q − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( | t a p − t b q | + | t a p − 1 − t b q − 1 | ) {\displaystyle \Gamma (\alpha _{p}^{'}\to b_{q}^{'})=d_{LP}(a_{p}^{'},b_{q}^{'})+d_{LP}(a_{p-1}^{'},b_{q-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (|t_{a_{p}}-t_{b_{q}}|+|t_{a_{p-1}}-t_{b_{q-1}}|)} Γ ( Λ → b q ′ ) = d L P ( b p ′ , b p − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( t b q − t b q − 1 ) + λ {\displaystyle \Gamma (\Lambda \to b_{q}^{'})=d_{LP}(b_{p}^{'},b_{p-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (t_{b_{q}}-t_{b_{q-1}})+\lambda } Whereas the recursion δ λ , ν {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }} is initialized as: δ λ , ν ( A 1 0 , B 1 0 ) = 0 , {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{0},B_{1}^{0})=0,} δ λ , ν ( A 1 0 , B 1 j ) = ∞ f o r j ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{0},B_{1}^{j})=\infty \ {\rm {{for\ }j\geq 1}}} δ λ , ν ( A 1 i , B 1 0 ) = ∞ f o r i ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{i},B_{1}^{0})=\infty \ {\rm {{for\ }i\geq 1}}} with a 0 ′ = b 0 ′ = 0 {\displaystyle a'_{0}=b'_{0}=0} === Implementations === An implementation of the TWED algorithm in C with a Python wrapper is available at TWED is also implemented into the Time Series Subsequence Search Python package (TSSEARCH for short) available at [1]. An R implementation of TWED has been integrated into the TraMineR, a R package for mining, describing and visualizing sequences of states or events, and more generally discrete sequence data. Additionally, cuTWED is a CUDA- accelerated implementation of TWED which uses an improved algorithm due to G. Wright (2020). This method is linear in memory and massively parallelized. cuTWED is written in CUDA C/C++, comes with Python bindings, and also includes Python bindings for Marteau's reference C implementation. ==== Python ==== Backtracking, to find the most cost-efficient path: ==== MATLAB ==== Backtracking, to find the most cost-efficient path:
Five safes
The Five Safes is a framework for helping make decisions about making effective use of data which is confidential or sensitive. It is mainly used to describe or design research access to statistical data held by government and health agencies, and by data archives such as the UK Data Service. It is not an internationally accepted standard. Two of the Five Safes refer to statistical disclosure control, and so the Five Safes is usually used to contrast statistical and non-statistical controls when comparing data management options. == Concept == The Five Safes proposes that data management decisions be considered as solving problems in five 'dimensions': projects, people, settings, data and outputs. The combination of the controls leads to 'safe use'. These are most commonly expressed as questions, for example: These dimensions are scales, not limits. That is, solutions can have a mix of more or fewer controls in each dimension, but the overall aim of 'safe use' independent of the particular mix. For example, a public use file available for open download cannot control who uses it, where or for what purpose, and so all the control (protection) must be in the data itself. In contrast, a file which is only accessed through a secure environment with certified users can contain very sensitive information: the non-statistical controls allow the data to be 'unsafe'. One academic likened the process to a graphic equalizer, where bass and treble can be combined independently to produce a sound the listener likes, which has proven to be a very useful metaphor. This 2023 Data Foundation webinar is an expert discussion of how the elements interact, including an excellent introductory representation. There is no 'order' to the Five Safes, in that one is necessarily more important than the others. However, Ritchie argued that the 'managerial' controls (projects, people, setting) should be addressed before the 'statistical' controls (data, output). The Five Safes concept is associated with other topics which developed from the same programme at ONS, although these are not necessarily implemented. Safe people is associated with 'active researcher management', while safe outputs is linked with principles-based output statistical disclosure control. The Five Safes is a positive framework, describing what is and is not. The EDRU ('evidence-based, default-open, risk-managed, user-centred') attitudinal model is sometimes used to give a normative context == The 'data access spectrum' == From 2003 the Five Safes was also represented in a simpler form as a 'Data Access Spectrum'. The non-data controls (project, people, setting, outputs) tend to work together, in that organisations often see these as a complementary set of restrictions on access. These can then be contrasted with choices about data anonymisation to present a linear representation of data access options. This presentation is consistent with the idea of 'data as a residual', as well as data protection laws of the time which often characterised data simply as anonymous or not anonymous. A similar idea had already been developed independently in 2001 by Chuck Humphrey of the Canadian RDC network, the 'continuum of access'. More recently, The Open Data Institute has developed a 'Data Spectrum toolkit' which includes industry-specific examples. == History and terminology == The Five Safes was devised in the winter of 2002/2003 by Felix Ritchie at the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) to describe its secure remote-access Virtual Microdata Laboratory (VML). It was described at this time as the 'VML Security Model'. This was adopted by the NORC data enclave, and more widely in the US, as the 'portfolio model' (although this is now also used to refer to a slightly different legal/statistical/educational breakdown). In 2012 the framework as was still being referred to as the 'VML security model', but its increasing use among non-UK organisations led to the adoption of the more general and informative phrase 'Five Safes'. The original framework only had four safes (projects, people, settings and outputs): the framework was used to describe highly detailed data access through a secure environment, and so the 'data' dimension was irrelevant. From 2007 onwards, 'safe data' was included as the framework was used to a describe a wider range of ONS activities. As the US version was based upon the 2005 specification, some US iterations uses have the original four dimensions (eg). Some discussions, such as the OECD, use the term 'secure' instead 'safe'. However, the use of both these terms can cause presentational problems: less control in a particular dimension could be seen to imply 'unsafe users' or 'insecure settings', for example, which distracts from the main message. Hence, the Australian government uses the term "five data sharing principles". The 'Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework' uses a framework based on the Five Safes but relabelling "projects", "people", and "settings" as "governance", "agency" and "infrastructure", respectively; "Output" is omitted, and "safe use" becomes "functional anonymisation". There is no reference to the Five Safes or any associated literature. The Australian version was required to include references to the Five Safes, and presented it as an alternative without comment. == Application == The framework has had three uses: pedagogical, descriptive, and design. Since 2016, it has also been used, directly and indirectly in legislation. See for more detailed examples. === Pedagogy === The first significant use of the framework, other than internal administrative use, was to structure researcher training courses at the UK Office for National Statistics from 2003. UK Data Archive, Administrative Data Research Network, Eurostat, Statistics New Zealand, the Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography, NORC, Statistics Canada and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, amongst others, have also used this framework. Most of these courses are for researchers using restricted-access facilities; the Eurostat courses are unusual in that they are designed for all users of sensitive data. === Description === The framework is often used to describe existing data access solutions (e.g. UK HMRC Data Lab, UK Data Service, Statistics New Zealand) or planned/conceptualised ones (e.g. Eurostat in 2011). An early use was to help identify areas where ONS' still had 'irreducible risks' in its provision of secure remote access. The framework is mostly used for confidential social science data. To date it appears to have made little impact on medical research planning, although it is now included in the revised guidelines on implementing HIPAA regulations in the US, and by Cancer Research UK and the Health Foundation in the UK. It has also been used to describe a security model for the Scottish Health Informatics Programme. === Design === In general the Five Safes has been used to describe solutions post-factum, and to explain/justify choices made, but an increasing number of organisations have used the framework to design data access solutions. For example, the Hellenic Statistical Agency developed a data strategy built around the Five Safes in 2016; the UK Health Foundation used the Five Safes to design its data management and training programmes. Use in the private sector is less common but some organisations have incorporated the Five Safes into consulting services. In 2015 the UK Data Service organized a workshop to encourage data users from the academic and private sectors to think about how to manage confidential research data, using the Five Safes to demonstrate alternative options and best practice. Early adopters for strategic design use were in Australia: both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Department of Social Service used the Five Safes as an ex ante design tool. In 2017 the Australian Productivity Commission recommended adopting a version of the framework to support cross-government data sharing and re-use. This underwent extensive consultation and culminated in the DAT Act 2022. Since 2020 the Five Safes has been the overriding framework for the design of new secure facilities and data sharing arrangements in the UK for public health and social sciences. This has been promoted by the Office for Statistics Regulation, the UK Statistics Authority, NHS DIgital, and the research funding bodies Administrative Data Research UK and DARE UK. === Regulation and legislation === Three laws have incorporated the Fives Safes. They are explicit in the South Australian Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016, and implicit in the research provisions of the UK Digital Economy Act 2017. The Australian Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 renames the Five Safes as the Five Data Sharing Principles.A 2025 statutory review of the DAT Act 2022 found "that the DAT Act has not been effective in achieving its objectives.". The review includes specific referen
Summify
Summify was a social news aggregator founded by Mircea Paşoi and Cristian Strat, two former Google and Microsoft interns from Romania. The service emailed its users a periodic summary of news articles shared from their social networks based on their relevance and importance. The platform supported Twitter, Facebook, and Google Reader accounts. == History == In 2009, Paşoi and Strat created ReadFu, a plugin that provided a contextual summary and statistics of the target page of a hyperlink. In January 2010, ReadFu was accepted into the Vancouver-based start-up incubator Bootup Labs. On March 20, 2010 the service was renamed to Summify and a private beta began. On August 11, 2010 Paşoi and Strat announced a new direction for the service. It would become a real-time social news reader that aggregates incoming news from social networks and displays articles by importance using social reactions. After some feedback that the users preferred article digests by email more than the real-time news reader version, Summify discontinued the news reader version. In March 2011, Summify completed a Seed round, with investors including Rob Glaser, Accel Partners, and Stewart Butterfield. Summify received coverage from various news and media outlets such as TechCrunch. It was also featured in various news platforms, such as Time, The Globe and Mail, Mashable, VentureBeat, Gizmodo, Lifehacker, and The Next Web. Summify released a free app on the Apple App Store on July 8, 2011. The app allowed users to read their web summaries from iOS mobile devices. Summify was acquired by Twitter on January 19, 2012. The service shut down soon after, on June 22, 2012.
Enterprise Objects Framework
The Enterprise Objects Framework, or simply EOF, was introduced by NeXT in 1994 as a pioneering object-relational mapping product for its NeXTSTEP and OpenStep development platforms. EOF abstracts the process of interacting with a relational database by mapping database rows to Java or Objective-C objects. This largely relieves developers from writing low-level SQL code. EOF enjoyed some niche success in the mid-1990s among financial institutions who were attracted to the rapid application development advantages of NeXT's object-oriented platform. Since Apple Inc's merger with NeXT in 1996, EOF has evolved into a fully integrated part of WebObjects, an application server also originally from NeXT. Many of the core concepts of EOF re-emerged as part of Core Data, which further abstracts the underlying data formats to allow it to be based on non-SQL stores. == History == In the early 1990s NeXT Computer recognized that connecting to databases was essential to most businesses and yet also potentially complex. Every data source has a different data-access language (or API), driving up the costs to learn and use each vendor's product. The NeXT engineers wanted to apply the advantages of object-oriented programming, by getting objects to "talk" to relational databases. As the two technologies are very different, the solution was to create an abstraction layer, insulating developers from writing the low-level procedural code (SQL) specific to each data source. The first attempt came in 1992 with the release of Database Kit (DBKit), which wrapped an object-oriented framework around any database. Unfortunately, NEXTSTEP at the time was not powerful enough and DBKit had serious design flaws. NeXT's second attempt came in 1994 with the Enterprise Objects Framework (EOF) version 1, a complete rewrite that was far more modular and OpenStep compatible. EOF 1.0 was the first product released by NeXT using the Foundation Kit and introduced autoreleased objects to the developer community. The development team at the time was only four people: Jack Greenfield, Rich Williamson, Linus Upson and Dan Willhite. EOF 2.0, released in late 1995, further refined the architecture, introducing the editing context. At that point, the development team consisted of Dan Willhite, Craig Federighi, Eric Noyau and Charly Kleissner. EOF achieved a modest level of popularity in the financial programming community in the mid-1990s, but it would come into its own with the emergence of the World Wide Web and the concept of web applications. It was clear that EOF could help companies plug their legacy databases into the Web without any rewriting of that data. With the addition of frameworks to do state management, load balancing and dynamic HTML generation, NeXT was able to launch the first object-oriented Web application server, WebObjects, in 1996, with EOF at its core. In 2000, Apple Inc. (which had merged with NeXT) officially dropped EOF as a standalone product, meaning that developers would be unable to use it to create desktop applications for the forthcoming Mac OS X. It would, however, continue to be an integral part of a major new release of WebObjects. WebObjects 5, released in 2001, was significant for the fact that its frameworks had been ported from their native Objective-C programming language to the Java language. Critics of this change argue that most of the power of EOF was a side effect of its Objective-C roots, and that EOF lost the beauty or simplicity it once had. Third-party tools, such as EOGenerator, help fill the deficiencies introduced by Java (mainly due to the loss of categories). The Objective-C code base was re-introduced with some modifications to desktop application developers as Core Data, part of Apple's Cocoa API, with the release of Mac OS X Tiger in April 2005. == How EOF works == Enterprise Objects provides tools and frameworks for object-relational mapping. The technology specializes in providing mechanisms to retrieve data from various data sources, such as relational databases via JDBC and JNDI directories, and mechanisms to commit data back to those data sources. These mechanisms are designed in a layered, abstract approach that allows developers to think about data retrieval and commitment at a higher level than a specific data source or data source vendor. Central to this mapping is a model file (an "EOModel") that you build with a visual tool — either EOModeler, or the EOModeler plug-in to Xcode. The mapping works as follows: Database tables are mapped to classes. Database columns are mapped to class attributes. Database rows are mapped to objects (or class instances). You can build data models based on existing data sources or you can build data models from scratch, which you then use to create data structures (tables, columns, joins) in a data source. The result is that database records can be transposed into Java objects. The advantage of using data models is that applications are isolated from the idiosyncrasies of the data sources they access. This separation of an application's business logic from database logic allows developers to change the database an application accesses without needing to change the application. EOF provides a level of database transparency not seen in other tools and allows the same model to be used to access different vendor databases and even allows relationships across different vendor databases without changing source code. Its power comes from exposing the underlying data sources as managed graphs of persistent objects. In simple terms, this means that it organizes the application's model layer into a set of defined in-memory data objects. It then tracks changes to these objects and can reverse those changes on demand, such as when a user performs an undo command. Then, when it is time to save changes to the application's data, it archives the objects to the underlying data sources. === Using Inheritance === In designing Enterprise Objects developers can leverage the object-oriented feature known as inheritance. A Customer object and an Employee object, for example, might both inherit certain characteristics from a more generic Person object, such as name, address, and phone number. While this kind of thinking is inherent in object-oriented design, relational databases have no explicit support for inheritance. However, using Enterprise Objects, you can build data models that reflect object hierarchies. That is, you can design database tables to support inheritance by also designing enterprise objects that map to multiple tables or particular views of a database table. == Enterprise Objects (EOs) == An Enterprise Object is analogous to what is often known in object-oriented programming as a business object — a class which models a physical or conceptual object in the business domain (e.g. a customer, an order, an item, etc.). What makes an EO different from other objects is that its instance data maps to a data store. Typically, an enterprise object contains key-value pairs that represent a row in a relational database. The key is basically the column name, and the value is what was in that row in the database. So it can be said that an EO's properties persist beyond the life of any particular running application. More precisely, an Enterprise Object is an instance of a class that implements the com.webobjects.eocontrol.EOEnterpriseObject interface. An Enterprise Object has a corresponding model (called an EOModel) that defines the mapping between the class's object model and the database schema. However, an enterprise object doesn't explicitly know about its model. This level of abstraction means that database vendors can be switched without it affecting the developer's code. This gives Enterprise Objects a high degree of reusability. == EOF and Core Data == Despite their common origins, the two technologies diverged, with each technology retaining a subset of the features of the original Objective-C code base, while adding some new features. === Features Supported Only by EOF === EOF supports custom SQL; shared editing contexts; nested editing contexts; and pre-fetching and batch faulting of relationships, all features of the original Objective-C implementation not supported by Core Data. Core Data also does not provide the equivalent of an EOModelGroup—the NSManagedObjectModel class provides methods for merging models from existing models, and for retrieving merged models from bundles. === Features Supported Only by Core Data === Core Data supports fetched properties; multiple configurations within a managed object model; local stores; and store aggregation (the data for a given entity may be spread across multiple stores); customization and localization of property names and validation warnings; and the use of predicates for property validation. These features of the original Objective-C implementation are not supported by the Java implementation.