Feng Office Community Edition (formerly OpenGoo) is an open-source collaboration platform developed and supported by Feng Office and the OpenGoo community. It is a fully featured online office suite with a similar set of features as other online office suites, like Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zimbra, LibreOffice Online and Zoho Office Suite. The application can be downloaded and installed on a server. Feng Office could also be categorized as collaborative software and as personal information manager software. == Features == Feng Office Community Edition main features include project management, document management, contact management, e-mail and time management. Text documents and presentations can be created and edited online. Files can be uploaded, organized and shared, independent of file formats. Organization of the information in Feng Office Community Edition is done using workspaces and tags. The application presents the information stored using different interfaces such as lists, dashboards and calendar views. == Licensing == Feng Office Community Edition is distributed under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 only. == Technology used == Feng Office uses PHP, JavaScript, AJAX (ExtJS) and MySQL technology. Several open source projects served as a basis for development. ActiveCollab's last open sourced release was used as the initial code base. It includes CKEditor for online document editing. == System requirements == The server could run on any operating system. The system needs the following packages: Apache HTTP Server 2.0+ PHP 5.0+ MySQL 4.1+ (InnoDB support recommended) On the client side, the user is only required to use a modern Web browser. == History == OpenGoo started as a degree project at the faculty of Engineering of the University of the Republic, Uruguay. The project was presented and championed by Software Engineer Conrado Viña. Software Engineers Marcos Saiz and Ignacio de Soto developed the first prototype as their thesis. Professors Eduardo Fernández and Tomas Laurenzo served as tutors. Conrado, Ignacio and Marcos founded the OpenGoo community and remain active members and core developers. The thesis was approved with the highest score. In 2008, Viña joined the Uruguayan software development company Moove It. Currently there is a second project for OpenGoo at the same university being developed by students Fernando Rodríguez, Ignacio Vázquez and Juan Pedro del Campo. Their project aims to build an open source Web-based spreadsheet. In December 2009 the OpenGoo name was changed to Feng Office Community Edition.
RFPolicy
The RFPolicy outlines a method for contacting vendors about security vulnerabilities found in their products. It was initially written in 2000 by hacker and security consultant Rain Forest Puppy. It was perhaps the second disclosure policy, following Simple Nomad's. The policy gives the vendor five working days to respond to the reporter of the bug. If the vendor fails to contact the reporter within those five days, the issue is recommended to be disclosed to the general community. The reporter should help the vendor reproduce the bug and work out a fix. The reporter should delay notifying the general community about the bug if the vendor provides feasible reasons for requiring so. If the vendor fails to respond or shuts down communication with the reporter of the problem within five working days, the reporter should disclose the issue to the general community. When issuing an alert or fix, the vendor should give the reporter proper credit for reporting the bug. Context for the history of vulnerability disclosure is available in a history article.
ReRites
ReRites (also known as RERITES, ReadingRites, Big Data Poetry) is a literary work of "Human + A.I. poetry" by David Jhave Johnston that used neural network models trained to generate poetry which the author then edited. ReRites won the Robert Coover Award for a Work of Electronic Literature in 2022. == About the project == The ReRites project began as a daily rite of writing with a neural network, expanded into a series of performances from which video documentation has been published online, and concluded with a set of 12 books and an accompanying book of essays published by Anteism Books in 2019. In Electronic Literature, Scott Rettberg describes the early phases of the project in 2016, when it bore the preliminary name Big Data Poetry. Jhave (the artist name that David Jhave Johnston goes by) describes the process of writing ReRites as a rite: "Every morning for 2 hours (normally 6:30–8:30am) I get up and edit the poetic output of a neural net. Deleting, weaving, conjugating, lineating, cohering. Re-writing. Re-wiring authorship: hybrid augmented enhanced evolutionary". There is video documentation of the writing process. The human editing of the neural network's output is fundamental to this project, and Jhave gives examples of both unedited text extracts and his edited versions in publications about the project. Kyle Booten describes ReRites as "simultaneously dusty and outrageously verdant, monotonously sublime and speckled with beautiful and rare specimens". === Performances === ReRites was first shared with an audience through a series of performances where audience members and poets would participate in reading the automatically generated texts, which appeared on screen so fast that human readers could barely keep up. This has been described as allowing participants to "re-discover[..] the peculiar pleasures of being embodied", or, in Jhave's own words, as a space where human participants were "playing their wits and voices against an evocative infinite deep-learning muse". The first performance was at Brown University's Interrupt Festival in 2019. It has been performed many times since, including at the Barbican Centre in London and Anteism Books. === Print publications === For a single year Jhave published one book of poetry from the ReRites project each month. These twelve volumes are accompanied by a book of essays, all published by Anteism Books. The accompanying essays provide critical responses to the project from poets and scholars including Allison Parrish, Johanna Drucker, Kyle Booten, Stephanie Strickland, John Cayley, Lai-Tze Fan, Nick Montfort, Mairéad Byrne, and Chris Funkhouser. Allison Parrish notes elsewhere that these paratexts to ReRites serve a legitimising function for a genre of poetry that is not yet institutionally acknowledged. === Technical details === Starting in 2016 under the name Big Data Poetry, Jhave generated poems using, in his own words, "neural network code (..) adapted from three corporate github-hosted machine-learning libraries: TensorFlow (Google), PyTorch (Facebook), and AWD-LSTM (SalesForce)". He explains that the "models were trained on a customised corpus of 600,000 lines of poetry ranging from the romantic epoch to the 20th century avant garde". Jhave maintains a GitHub repository with some of the code supporting ReRites. == Reception == ReRites is described by John Cayley as "one of the most thorough and beautiful" poetic responses to machine learning. The work's influence on the field of electronic literature was acknowledged in 2022, when the work won the Electronic Literature Organization's Robert Coover Award for a Work of Electronic Literature. The jury described ReRites as particularly poignant in the time of the pandemic, as it was "a documentation of the performance of the private ritual of writing and the obsessive-compulsive need for writers to communicate — even when no one else is reading". The question of authorship and voice in ReRites has been raised by several critics. Although generated poetry is an established genre in electronic literature, Cayley notes that unlike the combinatory poems created by authors like Nick Montfort, where the author explicitly defines which words and phrases will be recombined, ReRites has "not been directed by literary preconceptions inscribed in the program itself, but only by patterns and rhythms pre-existing in the corpora". In an essay for the Australian journal TEXT, David Thomas Henry Wright asks how to understand authorship and authority in ReRites: "Who or what is the authority of the work? The original data fed into the machine, that is not currently retrievable or discernible from the final works? The code that was taken and adapted for his purposes? Or Jhave, the human editor?" Wright concludes that Jhave is the only actor with any intentionality and therefore the authority of the work. The centrality of the human editor is also emphasised by other scholars. In a chapter analysing ReRites Malthe Stavning Erslev argues that the machine learning misrepresents the dataset it is trained on. While ReRites uses 21st century neural networks, it has been compared to earlier literary traditions. Poet Victoria Stanton, who read at one of the ReRites performances, has compared ReRites to found poetry, while David Thomas Henry Wright compares it to the Oulipo movement and Mark Amerika to the cut-up technique. Scholars also position ReRites firmly within the long tradition of generative poetry both in electronic literature and print, stretching from the I Ching, Queneau's Cent Mille Milliards de Poemes and Nabokov's Pale Fire to computer-generated poems like Christopher Strachey's Love Letter Generator (1952) and more contemporary examples. Jhave describes the process of working with the output from the neural network as "carving". In his book My Life as an Artificial Creative Intelligence, Mark Amerika writes that the "method of carving the digital outputs provided by the language model as part of a collaborative remix jam session with GPT-2, where the language artist and the language model play off each other’s unexpected outputs as if caught in a live postproduction set, is one I share with electronic literature composer David Jhave Johnston, whose AI poetry experiments precede my own investigations."
Automated essay scoring
Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a
Ayoba
Ayoba is an African communication platform developed in South Africa. It is owned by Progressive Tech Holdings in Mauritius and managed by SIMFY Africa. Launched on May 4, 2019, as of April 2024, it has over 35 million active users. == History == Ayoba was first published on Google Play in February 2019. Its first marketing campaign and brand launch took place in Cameroon on May 4, 2019. In June 2019, the platform introduced its first eight channels. In November 2019, the platform reached one million active users, which increased to two million by June 2020. Subsequently, ayoba expanded its services, including the launch of games for Android in February 2020, Momo (Mobile Money) in Cameroon in May 2020, and MicroApps in May 2020. It also launched music and voice and video calling features in 12 territories in August 2020. The first version of ayoba for iOS was released in September 2020. In December of the same year, games and Messaging 2.0 were launched on the platform. In November 2020, it won Best Mobile Application at the African Digital Awards. In 2021, it won OTT Brand of the Year at the Marketing World Awards in Ghana. In December 2022, it received Top Innovative Technology and Telecom Product of the Year at the National Communications Awards in December 2022. In June 2023 ayoba partnered with BoomPlay and as of April 2024, it had 35 million monthly active users. Ayoba has partnered with Jumia Ghana to offer exclusive deals to users. Ayoba users can get a 10% discount on selected Jumia purchases through the app, with no data charges for MTN users. This partnership aims to make online shopping more affordable and accessible by integrating Jumia's offers into the ayoba app. Ayoba supports over 35 million users across Africa and provides services in 22 languages. To access the deals, users can download the ayoba app from the Google Play Store, iOS Store, or the official website. == Platform features == Chat, Call and Share: ayoba enables instant messaging, voice notes, picture sharing, and file sharing with contacts, even if they do not have the app installed. The app supports voice and video calls on both Android and iOS, as well as group chats, help channel and SMS continuity (non ayoba users receive messages as SMS, their responses appear in the ayoba app). Music: ayoba offers a free music player with daily updates on international and African music. Users can find playlists for different genres. Games: ayoba provides a selection of interactive games, including action, adventure, and children's games available on both Android and iOS. Mobile Money Transfers: In certain territories, ayoba supports mobile money transfers using MTN Mobile Money (MoMo) for transactions within the app. MicroApps: ayoba features individual MicroApps within the platform that offer content and services, including streaming channels, podcasts, and specialized apps. The availability of these apps may vary by country. == Operations == ayoba primarily focuses on the following territories: Nigeria, Cameroon, South Africa, Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire, Uganda, Republic of Congo, Benin, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Senegal, Togo, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Sudan, South Sudan, and Liberia. The company operates from its offices in Cape Town and Johannesburg, South Africa. David Gillaranz served as the CEO from 2019 to 2021, and Burak Akinci has been the CEO since 2021.
Color moments
Color moments are measures that characterise color distribution in an image in the same way that central moments uniquely describe a probability distribution. Color moments are mainly used for color indexing purposes as features in image retrieval applications in order to compare how similar two images are based on color. Usually one image is compared to a database of digital images with pre-computed features in order to find and retrieve a similar Image. Each comparison between images results in a similarity score, and the lower this score is the more identical the two images are supposed to be. == Overview == Color moments are scaling and rotation invariant. It is usually the case that only the first three color moments are used as features in image retrieval applications as most of the color distribution information is contained in the low-order moments. Since color moments encode both shape and color information they are a good feature to use under changing lighting conditions, but they cannot handle occlusion very successfully. Color moments can be computed for any color model. Three color moments are computed per channel (e.g. 9 moments if the color model is RGB and 12 moments if the color model is CMYK). Computing color moments is done in the same way as computing moments of a probability distribution. === Mean === The first color moment can be interpreted as the average color in the image, and it can be calculated by using the following formula E i = ∑ j = 1 N 1 N p i j {\displaystyle E_{i}=\textstyle \sum _{j=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}p_{ij}} where N is the number of pixels in the image and p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} is the value of the j-th pixel of the image at the i-th color channel. === Standard Deviation === The second color moment is the standard deviation, which is obtained by taking the square root of the variance of the color distribution. σ i = ( 1 N ∑ j = 1 N ( p i j − E i ) 2 ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}={\sqrt {({\frac {1}{N}}\textstyle \sum _{j=1}^{N}(p_{ij}-E_{i})^{2})}}} where E i {\displaystyle E_{i}} is the mean value, or first color moment, for the i-th color channel of the image. === Skewness === The third color moment is the skewness. It measures how asymmetric the color distribution is, and thus it gives information about the shape of the color distribution. Skewness can be computed with the following formula: s i = ( 1 N ∑ j = 1 N ( p i j − E i ) 3 ) 3 σ i {\displaystyle s_{i}={\frac {\sqrt[{3}]{\left({\frac {1}{N}}\textstyle \sum _{j=1}^{N}(p_{ij}-E_{i})^{3}\right)}}{\sigma _{i}}}} === Kurtosis === Kurtosis is the fourth color moment, and, similarly to skewness, it provides information about the shape of the color distribution. More specifically, kurtosis is a measure of how extreme the tails are in comparison to the normal distribution. === Higher-order color moments === Higher-order color moments are usually not part of the color moments feature set in image retrieval tasks as they require more data in order to obtain a good estimate of their value, and also the lower-order moments generally provide enough information. == Applications == Color moments have significant applications in image retrieval. They can be used in order to compare how similar two images are. This is a relatively new approach to color indexing. The greatest advantage of using color moments comes from the fact that there is no need to store the complete color distribution. This greatly speeds up image retrieval since there are less features to compare. In addition, the first three color moments have the same units, which allows for comparison between them. === Color indexing === Color indexing is the main application of color moments. Images can be indexed, and the index will contain the computed color moments. Then, if someone has a particular image and wants to find similar images in the database, the color moments of the image of interest will also be computed. After that the following function will be used in order to compute a similarity score between the image of interest and all the images in the database: d m o m ( H , I ) = ∑ i = 1 r w i 1 | E i 1 − E i 2 | + w i 2 | σ i 1 − σ i 2 | + w i 3 | s i 1 − s i 2 | {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)=\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{r}w_{i1}|E_{i}^{1}-E_{i}^{2}|+w_{i2}|\sigma _{i}^{1}-\sigma _{i}^{2}|+w_{i3}|s_{i}^{1}-s_{i}^{2}|} where: H and I are the color distributions of the two images that are being compared i is the channel index and r is the total number of channels E i 1 {\displaystyle E_{i}^{1}} and E i 2 {\displaystyle E_{i}^{2}} are the first order moments computed for the image distributions. σ i 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}^{1}} and σ i 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}^{2}} are the second order moments computed for the image distributions. s_i^1 and s_i^2 are the third order moments computed for the image distributions. w i 1 {\displaystyle w_{i1}} , w i 2 {\displaystyle w_{i2}} , and w i 3 {\displaystyle w_{i3}} are weights, specified by the user, for each of the three color moments used. Finally, the images in the database will be ranked according to the computed similarity score with the image of interest, and the database images with the lowest d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} value should be retrieved. "A retrieval based on d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} may produce false positives because the index contains no information about the correlation between the color channels". == Example == A simple and concise example of the use of color moments for image retrieval tasks is illustrated in. Consider having several test images in a database and a "New Image". The goal is to retrieve images from the database that are similar to the "New Image". The first three color moments are used as features. There are several steps in this computation. Image preprocessing (Optional) - The image preprocessing step of the computation process is optional. For example, in this step all images could be modified to be the same size (in terms of pixels). However, since color moments are invariant to scaling, it is not necessary to make all images the same width and height. Computing the features - Use the color moments formulae in order to compute the first three moments for each of the color channels in the image. For example, if the HSV color space is used, this means that for each of the images, 9 features in total will be computed (the first three order moments for the Hue, Saturation, and Value channels). Calculating the similarity score - After computing the color moments the weights for each of the moments in the d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} function should be determined by the user. The weights have to be adjusted each time in accordance with the application or condition and quality of the images. Following that the d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} function is used to calculate a similarity score for the "New Image" and each of the images in the database. Ranking and image retrieval - From the previous step the d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} values were obtained. Now a comparison of these values can be made in order to decide which of the images in the database are more similar to the "New Image", and thus rank the database images accordingly. The smaller the d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} value is the more similar the two color distributions are supposed to be. Finally, some of the top ranked images (the ones with the smallest d m o m ( H , I ) {\displaystyle d_{mom}(H,I)} value) from the database are retrieved.
Quantum natural language processing
Quantum natural language processing (QNLP) is the application of quantum computing to natural language processing (NLP). It computes word embeddings as parameterised quantum circuits that can solve NLP tasks faster than any classical computer. It is inspired by categorical quantum mechanics and the DisCoCat framework, making use of string diagrams to translate from grammatical structure to quantum processes. == Theory == The first quantum algorithm for natural language processing used the DisCoCat framework and Grover's algorithm to show a quadratic quantum speedup for a text classification task. It was later shown that quantum language processing is BQP-Complete, i.e. quantum language models are more expressive than their classical counterpart, unless quantum mechanics can be efficiently simulated by classical computers. These two theoretical results assume fault-tolerant quantum computation and a QRAM, i.e. an efficient way to load classical data on a quantum computer. Thus, they are not applicable to the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers available today. == Experiments == The algorithm of Zeng and Coecke was adapted to the constraints of NISQ computers and implemented on IBM quantum computers to solve binary classification tasks. Instead of loading classical word vectors onto a quantum memory, the word vectors are computed directly as the parameters of quantum circuits. These parameters are optimised using methods from quantum machine learning to solve data-driven tasks such as question answering, machine translation and even algorithmic music composition.