Information architecture is the structural design of shared information environments, in particular the organisation of websites and software to support usability and findability. The term information architecture was coined by Richard Saul Wurman. Since its inception, information architecture has become an emerging community of practice focused on applying principles of design, architecture and information science in digital spaces. Typically, a model or concept of information is used and applied to activities which require explicit details of complex information systems. These activities include library systems and database development. == Definition == The term information architecture has different meanings in different branches of information systems or information technology. === User experience === In user experience design, information architecture has been described as the structural design of shared information environments, comprising the study and practice of organising and labelling web sites, intranets, online communities, and software to support user experience, in particular, the findability and usability of information. It has also been described as an emerging community of practice focused on bringing principles of design and architecture to the digital landscape. === Information systems === Technically speaking, information architecture comprises the combination of organization, labeling, search and navigation systems within websites and intranets, serving as a navigational aid to the content of information-rich systems. === Data architecture === Information architecture can be described as a subset of data architecture where usable data is constructed, designed, and arranged in a fashion most useful to the users of data. === Systems design === In the field of systems design, for example, information architecture is a component of enterprise architecture that deals with the information component when describing the structure of an enterprise. Some system design practitioners regard information architecture as strictly the application of information science to web design, which considers such issues as classification and information retrieval, and not factors like user experience and information design. == Principles == Principles of information architecture include the following: The principle of objects The principle of choices The principle of disclosure The principle of exemplars The principle of front doors The principle of multiple classification The principle of focused navigation The principle of growth == History == Richard Saul Wurman is credited with coining the term information architecture in relation to the design of information. From 1998 to 2015, Peter Morville and Louis Rosenfeld were co-authors of Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. Other authors include Jesse James Garrett and Christina Wodtke.
Serverless computing
Serverless computing is "a cloud service category where the customer can use different cloud capability types without the customer having to provision, deploy and manage either hardware or software resources, other than providing customer application code or providing customer data. Serverless computing represents a form of virtualized computing", according to ISO/IEC 22123-2. Serverless computing is a broad ecosystem that includes the cloud provider, function as a service (FaaS), managed services, tools, frameworks, engineers, stakeholders, and other interconnected elements. == Overview == Serverless is a misnomer in the sense that servers are still used by cloud service providers to execute code for developers. The definition of serverless computing has evolved over time, leading to varied interpretations. According to Ben Kehoe, serverless represents a spectrum rather than a rigid definition. Emphasis should shift from strict definitions and specific technologies to adopting a serverless mindset, focusing on leveraging serverless solutions to address business challenges. Serverless computing does not eliminate complexity but shifts much of it from the operations team to the development team. However, this shift is not absolute, as operations teams continue to manage aspects such as identity and access management (IAM), networking, security policies, and cost optimization. Additionally, while breaking down applications into finer-grained components can increase management complexity, the relationship between granularity and management difficulty is not strictly linear. There is often an optimal level of modularization where the benefits outweigh the added management overhead. According to Yan Cui, serverless techniques should be adopted only when they help to deliver customer value faster. And while adopting, organizations should take small steps and de-risk along the way. == Challenges == Serverless applications are prone to fallacies of distributed computing. In addition, they are prone to the following fallacies: Versioning is simple Compensating transactions always work Observability is optional === Monitoring and debugging === Monitoring and debugging serverless applications can present unique challenges due to their distributed, event-driven nature and proprietary environments. Traditional tools may fall short, making it difficult to track execution flows across services. However, modern solutions such as distributed tracing tools (e.g., AWS X-Ray, Datadog), centralized logging, and cloud-agnostic observability platforms are mitigating these challenges. Emerging technologies like OpenTelemetry, AI-powered anomaly detection, and serverless-specific frameworks are further improving visibility and root cause analysis. While challenges persist, advancements in monitoring and debugging tools are steadily addressing these limitations. === Security === According to OWASP, serverless applications are vulnerable to variations of traditional attacks, insecure code, and some serverless-specific attacks (like denial of wallet). So, the risks have changed and attack prevention requires a shift in mindset. === Vendor lock-in === Serverless computing is provided as a third-party service. Applications and software that run in the serverless environment are by default locked to a specific cloud vendor. This issue is exacerbated in serverless computing, as with its increased level of abstraction, public vendors only allow customers to upload code to a FaaS platform without the authority to configure underlying environments. More importantly, when considering a more complex workflow that includes backend-as-a-service (BaaS), a BaaS offering can typically only natively trigger a FaaS offering from the same provider. This makes the workload migration in serverless computing virtually impossible. Therefore, considering how to design and deploy serverless workflows from a multi-cloud perspective could mitigate this. == High-performance computing == Serverless computing may not be ideal for certain high-performance computing (HPC) workloads due to resource limits often imposed by cloud providers, including maximum memory, CPU, and runtime restrictions. For workloads requiring sustained or predictable resource usage, bulk-provisioned servers can sometimes be more cost-effective than the pay-per-use model typical of serverless platforms. However, serverless computing is increasingly capable of supporting specific HPC workloads, particularly those that are highly parallelizable and event-driven, by leveraging its scalability and elasticity. The suitability of serverless computing for HPC continues to evolve with advancements in cloud technologies. == Anti-patterns == The grain of sand anti-pattern refers to the creation of excessively small components (e.g., functions) within a system, often resulting in increased complexity, operational overhead, and performance inefficiencies. Lambda pinball is a related anti-pattern that can occur in serverless architectures when functions (e.g., AWS Lambda, Azure functions) excessively invoke each other in fragmented chains, leading to latency, debugging and testing challenges, and reduced observability. These anti-patterns are associated with the formation of a distributed monolith. These anti-patterns are often addressed through the application of clear domain boundaries, which distinguish between public and published interfaces. Public interfaces are technically accessible interfaces, such as methods, classes, API endpoints, or triggers, but they do not come with formal stability guarantees. In contrast, published interfaces involve an explicit stability contract, including formal versioning, thorough documentation, a defined deprecation policy, and often support for backward compatibility. Published interfaces may also require maintaining multiple versions simultaneously and adhering to formal deprecation processes when breaking changes are introduced. Fragmented chains of function calls are often observed in systems where serverless components (functions) interact with other resources in complex patterns, sometimes described as spaghetti architecture or a distributed monolith. In contrast, systems exhibiting clearer boundaries typically organize serverless components into cohesive groups, where internal public interfaces manage inter-component communication, and published interfaces define communication across group boundaries. This distinction highlights differences in stability guarantees and maintenance commitments, contributing to reduced dependency complexity. Additionally, patterns associated with excessive serverless function chaining are sometimes addressed through architectural strategies that emphasize native service integrations instead of individual functions, a concept referred to as the functionless mindset. However, this approach is noted to involve a steeper learning curve, and integration limitations may vary even within the same cloud vendor ecosystem. Reporting on serverless databases presents challenges, as retrieving data for a reporting service can either break the bounded contexts, reduce the timeliness of the data, or do both. This applies regardless of whether data is pulled directly from databases, retrieved via HTTP, or collected in batches. Mark Richards refers to this as the reach-in reporting anti-pattern. A possible alternative to this approach is for databases to asynchronously push the necessary data to the reporting service instead of the reporting service pulling it. While this method requires a separate contract between services and the reporting service and can be complex to implement, it helps preserve bounded contexts while maintaining a high level of data timeliness. == Principles == Adopting DevSecOps practices can help improve the use and security of serverless technologies. In serverless applications, the distinction between infrastructure and business logic is often blurred, with applications typically distributed across multiple services. To maximize the effectiveness of testing, integration testing is emphasized for serverless applications. Additionally, to facilitate debugging and implementation, orchestration is used within the bounded context, while choreography is employed between different bounded contexts. Ephemeral resources are typically kept together to maintain high cohesion. However, shared resources with long spin-up times, such as AWS RDS clusters and landing zones, are often managed in separate repositories, deployment pipeline, and stacks.
Azure Data Lake
Azure Data Lake is a scalable data storage and analytics service. The service is hosted in Azure, Microsoft's public cloud. == History == Azure Data Lake service was released on November 16, 2016. It is based on COSMOS, which is used to store and process data for applications such as Azure, AdCenter, Bing, MSN, Skype and Windows Live. COSMOS features a SQL-like query engine called SCOPE upon which U-SQL was built. == Storage == Data Lake Storage is a cloud service to store structured, semi-structured or unstructured data produced from applications including social networks, relational data, sensors, videos, web apps, mobile or desktop devices. A single account can store trillions of files where a single file can be greater than a petabyte in size. == Analytics == Data Lake Analytics is a parallel on-demand job service. The parallel processing system is based on Microsoft Dryad. Dryad can represent arbitrary Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) of computation. Data Lake Analytics provides a distributed infrastructure that can dynamically allocate resources so that customers pay for only the services they use. The system uses Apache YARN, the part of Apache Hadoop which governs resource management across clusters. Data Lake Store supports any application that uses the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) interface. == U-SQL == U-SQL is a query language for Data Lake Analytics parallel data transformation and processing programs. It combines SQL and C#: it is and an evolution of the declarative SQL language with native extensibility through user code written in C#. U-SQL uses C# data types and the C# expression language. == Retirement == In 2021, Microsoft announced the 2024 retirement of the original Azure Data Lake Storage, now called "Gen1". The related Azure Data Lake Analytics / U-SQL technologies are also being retired. Azure Data Lake Storage Gen2, an extension of Azure Storage, will continue. The suggested replacement technologies are Azure Synapse Analytics and Apache Spark.
AirPair
AirPair is a service and eponymous company that connects people who need help with programming issues (usually, programmers at small technology companies or at finance companies that use technology products) and people who can help them. Unlike services such as oDesk and Elance, AirPair is not a service for outsourcing programming tasks, but rather a service that facilitates one-off knowledge transfers from people with highly specialized knowledge of particular technology stacks or programming issues to people who are in need of specialized help. == History == AirPair launched in March 2013, with founder Jonathon Kresner, who hails from Australia, working full-time, and it soon hired three other part-time developers to work alongside him. Kresner had previously founded two other startups: Preparty, a social invitation and event-booking service based in Australia, and ClimbFind, an online rock-climbing community that reached a million users. Kresner was inspired to work on AirPair because he saw the need for outside expert assistance with programming issues arise regularly at these startups. In November 2013, founder Kresner describes the company's initial success at bootstrapping itself to "Ramen profitability" in a blog post. In December 2013, AirPair was accepted into the Winter 2014 Y Combinator batch. In March 2014, AirPair announced it would launch partnerships with Stripe, Twilio, and other companies that had their own application programming interfaces, allowing developers having trouble with the APIs to seek help over AirPair from experts on the APIs. AirPair presented at the Y Combinator Winter 2014 Demo Day on March 25, 2014, and successfully raised over $1 million within the next 48 hours. == Reception == A review of AirPair by Will Lam stressed that because payment was based on time rather than results, it was important to use it for clearly thought-out questions where one had high confidence that the session would help. Dennis Beatty, who met AirPair founder Jonathon Kresner in March 2014, wrote in April 2014 a glowing review of AirPair's vision of connecting people and its business success. AirPair has been compared with other peer-to-peer coding help sites such as Codementor and HackHands.
Differentiable imaging
Differentiable imaging is a method within computational imaging that incorporates differentiable programming to design imaging systems. It treats the entire imaging process - from light passing through optical components to the numerical reconstruction—as a differentiable programming problem. This approach links optical hardware with numerical reconstruction, enabling joint optimization of both parts through differentiable programming. Differentiable imaging additionally extends the scope of computational imaging beyond image reconstruction, such as by aiding in characterization of optical components. == Background == Computational imaging combines optical hardware and computational algorithms to capture and reconstruct information that conventional imaging system cannot. This is achieved from a combination of the imaging system and the software used in the image reconstruction. Since the captured information may not directly show the image of the target, these systems often rely on numerical models that describe how light encodes the target. In practice, such models may deviate from the physical systems due to uncertainties such as noise, misalignments, manufacturing imperfections, environmental variations, etc. These uncertainties can cause a mismatch between the physical system and its numerical model, which may degrade reconstruction quality and limit the effectiveness of the hardware–software co-design. Uncertainty quantification is also studied in other hybrid physical–numerical systems, such as digital twin. While numerical modeling imaging systems date back to the several decades, such as the multislice method in electron microscopy or X-Ray nanotomography, differentiable imaging emphasizes jointly modeling uncertainties and solving inverse problems with image reconstruction simultaneously. Differentiable imaging transforms the traditional encoding model y = f ( x ) {\textstyle y=f(x)} into a more comprehensive formulation y = f ( x , θ ) {\textstyle y=f(x,\theta )} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } represents a parameter set of mismatches between physical systems and numerical models. The forward model captures the entire imaging pipeline through a series of interconnected component functions: y = f ( x , θ ) , f = f n o i s e ∘ f c ∘ f o c ∘ f x ∘ f o i ∘ f i , {\displaystyle y=f(x,\theta ),\qquad f=f_{noise}\circ f_{c}\circ f_{oc}\circ f_{x}\circ f_{oi}\circ f_{i},} where the function composition operator ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } connects each system component, and θ = { θ c , θ o c , … } {\displaystyle \theta =\{\theta _{c},\theta _{oc},\ldots \}} encompasses uncertainty system parameters. Each component corresponds to specific physical processes within the imaging system, from illumination through object interactions to sensor behavior and noises. This forward model enables the formulation of an inverse problem that simultaneously optimizes system parameters while reconstructing images: x ∗ , θ ∗ = argmin x , θ L ( f ( x , θ ) , y ) + ∑ n = 1 N β n R n ( x ) {\displaystyle x^{},\theta ^{}={\text{argmin}}_{x,\theta }{\mathcal {L}}(f(x,\theta ),y)+\sum _{n=1}^{N}\beta _{n}{\mathcal {R}}_{n}(x)} s . t . x ∈ Ω x , θ ∈ Ω θ {\displaystyle s.t.\quad x\in \Omega _{x},\theta \in \Omega _{\theta }} Here, L ( f ( x , θ ) , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}(f(x,\theta ),y)} represents the fidelity term that quantifies the discrepancy between the model predictions and measured data. The whole process of the y = f ( x , θ ) {\displaystyle y=f(x,\theta )} is constructed as a computer graph based on differentiable programming, and the inverse problem is solved with gradient based algorithm, while the gradient is calculated with automatic differentiation. == Applications == One application of differentiable imaging is uncertainty management, which seeks to quantify and mitigate the impact of factors induce reality-numerical mismatch. Explicitly accounting for uncertainties can improve reconstruction accuracy and system robustness. Examples include: Model-related uncertainties: unknown or unmeasurable variables—for instance, optical system quantities that differ from the design specifications Data and system uncertainties: artifacts introduced during image acquisition, such as low-quality data, noise, or hardware imperfections Manufacturing uncertainties: variability in the production of imaging hardware—such as slight deviations in lens curvature or sensor alignment—that alters the physical system's behavior
Production (computer science)
In computer science, a production or production rule is a rewrite rule that replaces some symbols with other symbols. A finite set of productions P {\displaystyle P} is the main component in the specification of a formal grammar (specifically a generative grammar). In such grammars, a set of productions is a special case of relation on the set of strings V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}} (where ∗ {\displaystyle {}^{}} is the Kleene star operator) over a finite set of symbols V {\displaystyle V} called a vocabulary that defines which non-empty strings can be substituted with others. The set of productions is thus a special kind subset P ⊂ V ∗ × V ∗ {\displaystyle P\subset V^{}\times V^{}} and productions are then written in the form u → v {\displaystyle u\to v} to mean that ( u , v ) ∈ P {\displaystyle (u,v)\in P} (not to be confused with → {\displaystyle \to } being used as function notation, since there may be multiple rules for the same u {\displaystyle u} ). Given two subsets A , B ⊂ V ∗ {\displaystyle A,B\subset V^{}} , productions can be restricted to satisfy P ⊂ A × B {\displaystyle P\subset A\times B} , in which case productions are said "to be of the form A → B {\displaystyle A\to B} . Different choices and constructions of A , B {\displaystyle A,B} lead to different types of grammars. In general, any production of the form u → ϵ , {\displaystyle u\to \epsilon ,} where ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is the empty string (sometimes also denoted λ {\displaystyle \lambda } ), is called an erasing rule, while productions that would produce strings out of nowhere, namely of the form ϵ → v , {\displaystyle \epsilon \to v,} are never allowed. In order to allow the production rules to create meaningful sentences, the vocabulary is partitioned into (disjoint) sets Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } and N {\displaystyle N} providing two different roles: Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } denotes the terminal symbols known as an alphabet containing the symbols allowed in a sentence; N {\displaystyle N} denotes nonterminal symbols, containing a distinguished start symbol S ∈ N {\displaystyle S\in N} , that are needed together with the production rules to define how to build the sentences. In the most general case of an unrestricted grammar, a production u → v {\displaystyle u\to v} , is allowed to map arbitrary strings u {\displaystyle u} and v {\displaystyle v} in V {\displaystyle V} (terminals and nonterminals), as long as u {\displaystyle u} is not empty. So unrestricted grammars have productions of the form V ∗ ∖ { ϵ } → V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}\setminus \{\epsilon \}\to V^{}} or if we want to disallow changing finished sentences V ∗ N V ∗ = ( V ∗ ∖ Σ ∗ ) → V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}NV^{}=(V^{}\setminus \Sigma ^{})\to V^{}} , where V ∗ N V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}NV^{}} indicates concatenation and forces a non-terminal symbol to always be present on the left-hand side of the productions, and ∖ {\displaystyle \setminus } denotes set minus or set difference. If we do not allow the start symbol to occur in v {\displaystyle v} (the word on the right side), we have to replace V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}} with ( V ∖ { S } ) ∗ {\displaystyle (V\setminus \{S\})^{}} on the right-hand side. The other types of formal grammar in the Chomsky hierarchy impose additional restrictions on what constitutes a production. Notably in a context-free grammar, the left-hand side of a production must be a single nonterminal symbol. So productions are of the form: N → V ∗ {\displaystyle N\to V^{}} == Grammar generation == To generate a string in the language, one begins with a string consisting of only a single start symbol, and then successively applies the rules (any number of times, in any order) to rewrite this string. This stops when a string containing only terminals is obtained. The language consists of all the strings that can be generated in this manner. Any particular sequence of legal choices taken during this rewriting process yields one particular string in the language. If there are multiple different ways of generating this single string, then the grammar is said to be ambiguous. For example, assume the alphabet consists of a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} , with the start symbol S {\displaystyle S} , and we have the following rules: 1. S → a S b {\displaystyle S\rightarrow aSb} 2. S → b a {\displaystyle S\rightarrow ba} then we start with S {\displaystyle S} , and can choose a rule to apply to it. If we choose rule 1, we replace S {\displaystyle S} with a S b {\displaystyle aSb} and obtain the string a S b {\displaystyle aSb} . If we choose rule 1 again, we replace S {\displaystyle S} with a S b {\displaystyle aSb} and obtain the string a a S b b {\displaystyle aaSbb} . This process is repeated until we only have symbols from the alphabet (i.e., a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} ). If we now choose rule 2, we replace S {\displaystyle S} with b a {\displaystyle ba} and obtain the string a a b a b b {\displaystyle aababb} , and are done. We can write this series of choices more briefly, using symbols: S ⇒ a S b ⇒ a a S b b ⇒ a a b a b b {\displaystyle S\Rightarrow aSb\Rightarrow aaSbb\Rightarrow aababb} . The language of the grammar is the set of all the strings that can be generated using this process: { b a , a b a b , a a b a b b , a a a b a b b b , … } {\displaystyle \{ba,abab,aababb,aaababbb,\dotsc \}} .
Zoho Office Suite
Zoho Office Suite is an online office suite developed by Zoho Corporation. == History == Zoho Office Suite was launched in 2005 with a web-based word processor. Additional products, such as those for spreadsheets and presentations, were incorporated later into the suite. The applications are distributed as software as a service (SaaS). == Products == Zoho uses an open API for its Writer, Sheet, Show, Creator, Meeting, and Planner products. It also has plugins into Microsoft Word and Excel, an OpenOffice.org plugin, and a plugin for Firefox. Zoho Office Suite is free for individuals but offers a plan for teams, which includes Zoho WorkDrive, Zoho Workplace and other Zoho apps. In October 2009, Zoho integrated some of their applications with the Google Apps online suite.