14 skills found
jettbrains / L W3C Strategic Highlights September 2019 This report was prepared for the September 2019 W3C Advisory Committee Meeting (W3C Member link). See the accompanying W3C Fact Sheet — September 2019. For the previous edition, see the April 2019 W3C Strategic Highlights. For future editions of this report, please consult the latest version. A Chinese translation is available. ☰ Contents Introduction Future Web Standards Meeting Industry Needs Web Payments Digital Publishing Media and Entertainment Web & Telecommunications Real-Time Communications (WebRTC) Web & Networks Automotive Web of Things Strengthening the Core of the Web HTML CSS Fonts SVG Audio Performance Web Performance WebAssembly Testing Browser Testing and Tools WebPlatform Tests Web of Data Web for All Security, Privacy, Identity Internationalization (i18n) Web Accessibility Outreach to the world W3C Developer Relations W3C Training Translations W3C Liaisons Introduction This report highlights recent work of enhancement of the existing landscape of the Web platform and innovation for the growth and strength of the Web. 33 working groups and a dozen interest groups enable W3C to pursue its mission through the creation of Web standards, guidelines, and supporting materials. We track the tremendous work done across the Consortium through homogeneous work-spaces in Github which enables better monitoring and management. We are in the middle of a period where we are chartering numerous working groups which demonstrate the rapid degree of change for the Web platform: After 4 years, we are nearly ready to publish a Payment Request API Proposed Recommendation and we need to soon charter follow-on work. In the last year we chartered the Web Payment Security Interest Group. In the last year we chartered the Web Media Working Group with 7 specifications for next generation Media support on the Web. We have Accessibility Guidelines under W3C Member review which includes Silver, a new approach. We have just launched the Decentralized Identifier Working Group which has tremendous potential because Decentralized Identifier (DID) is an identifier that is globally unique, resolveable with high availability, and cryptographically verifiable. We have Privacy IG (PING) under W3C Member review which strengthens our focus on the tradeoff between privacy and function. We have a new CSS charter under W3C Member review which maps the group's work for the next three years. In this period, W3C and the WHATWG have succesfully completed the negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding rooted in the mutual belief that that having two distinct specifications claiming to be normative is generally harmful for the Web community. The MOU, signed last May, describes how the two organizations are to collaborate on the development of a single authoritative version of the HTML and DOM specifications. W3C subsequently rechartered the HTML Working Group to assist the W3C community in raising issues and proposing solutions for the HTML and DOM specifications, and for the production of W3C Recommendations from WHATWG Review Drafts. As the Web evolves continuously, some groups are looking for ways for specifications to do so as well. So-called "evergreen recommendations" or "living standards" aim to track continuous development (and maintenance) of features, on a feature-by-feature basis, while getting review and patent commitments. We see the maturation and further development of an incredible number of new technologies coming to the Web. Continued progress in many areas demonstrates the vitality of the W3C and the Web community, as the rest of the report illustrates. Future Web Standards W3C has a variety of mechanisms for listening to what the community thinks could become good future Web standards. These include discussions with the Membership, discussions with other standards bodies, the activities of thousands of participants in over 300 community groups, and W3C Workshops. There are lots of good ideas. The W3C strategy team has been identifying promising topics and invites public participation. Future, recent and under consideration Workshops include: Inclusive XR (5-6 November 2019, Seattle, WA, USA) to explore existing and future approaches on making Virtual and Augmented Reality experiences more inclusive, including to people with disabilities; W3C Workshop on Data Models for Transportation (12-13 September 2019, Palo Alto, CA, USA) W3C Workshop on Web Games (27-28 June 2019, Redmond, WA, USA), view report Second W3C Workshop on the Web of Things (3-5 June 2019, Munich, Germany) W3C Workshop on Web Standardization for Graph Data; Creating Bridges: RDF, Property Graph and SQL (4-6 March 2019, Berlin, Germany), view report Web & Machine Learning. The Strategy Funnel documents the staff's exploration of potential new work at various phases: Exploration and Investigation, Incubation and Evaluation, and eventually to the chartering of a new standards group. The Funnel view is a GitHub Project where new area are issues represented by “cards” which move through the columns, usually from left to right. Most cards start in Exploration and move towards Chartering, or move out of the funnel. Public input is welcome at any stage but particularly once Incubation has begun. This helps W3C identify work that is sufficiently incubated to warrant standardization, to review the ecosystem around the work and indicate interest in participating in its standardization, and then to draft a charter that reflects an appropriate scope. Ongoing feedback can speed up the overall standardization process. Since the previous highlights document, W3C has chartered a number of groups, and started discussion on many more: Newly Chartered or Rechartered Web Application Security WG (03-Apr) Web Payment Security IG (17-Apr) Patent and Standards IG (24-Apr) Web Applications WG (14-May) Web & Networks IG (16-May) Media WG (23-May) Media and Entertainment IG (06-Jun) HTML WG (06-Jun) Decentralized Identifier WG (05-Sep) Extended Privacy IG (PING) (30-Sep) Verifiable Claims WG (30-Sep) Service Workers WG (31-Dec) Dataset Exchange WG (31-Dec) Web of Things Working Group (31-Dec) Web Audio Working Group (31-Dec) Proposed charters / Advance Notice Accessibility Guidelines WG Privacy IG (PING) RDF Literal Direction WG Timed Text WG CSS WG Web Authentication WG Closed Internationalization Tag Set IG Meeting Industry Needs Web Payments All Web Payments specifications W3C's payments standards enable a streamlined checkout experience, enabling a consistent user experience across the Web with lower front end development costs for merchants. Users can store and reuse information and more quickly and accurately complete online transactions. The Web Payments Working Group has republished Payment Request API as a Candidate Recommendation, aiming to publish a Proposed Recommendation in the Fall 2019, and is discussing use cases and features for Payment Request after publication of the 1.0 Recommendation. Browser vendors have been finalizing implementation of features added in the past year (view the implementation report). As work continues on the Payment Handler API and its implementation (currently in Chrome and Edge Canary), one focus in 2019 is to increase adoption in other browsers. Recently, Mastercard demonstrated the use of Payment Request API to carry out EMVCo's Secure Remote Commerce (SRC) protocol whose payment method definition is being developed with active participation by Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover. Payment method availability is a key factor in merchant considerations about adopting Payment Request API. The ability to get uniform adoption of a new payment method such as Secure Remote Commerce (SRC) also depends on the availability of the Payment Handler API in browsers, or of proprietary alternatives. Web Monetization, which the Web Payments Working Group will discuss again at its face-to-face meeting in September, can be used to enable micropayments as an alternative revenue stream to advertising. Since the beginning of 2019, Amazon, Brave Software, JCB, Certus Cybersecurity Solutions and Netflix have joined the Web Payments Working Group. In April, W3C launched the Web Payment Security Group to enable W3C, EMVCo, and the FIDO Alliance to collaborate on a vision for Web payment security and interoperability. Participants will define areas of collaboration and identify gaps between existing technical specifications in order to increase compatibility among different technologies, such as: How do SRC, FIDO, and Payment Request relate? The Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2) regulations in Europe are scheduled to take effect in September 2019. What is the role of EMVCo, W3C, and FIDO technologies, and what is the current state of readiness for the deadline? How can we improve privacy on the Web at the same time as we meet industry requirements regarding user identity? Digital Publishing All Digital Publishing specifications, Publication milestones The Web is the universal publishing platform. Publishing is increasingly impacted by the Web, and the Web increasingly impacts Publishing. Topic of particular interest to Publishing@W3C include typography and layout, accessibility, usability, portability, distribution, archiving, offline access, print on demand, and reliable cross referencing. And the diverse publishing community represented in the groups consist of the traditional "trade" publishers, ebook reading system manufacturers, but also publishers of audio book, scholarly journals or educational materials, library scientists or browser developers. The Publishing Working Group currently concentrates on Audiobooks which lack a comprehensive standard, thus incurring extra costs and time to publish in this booming market. Active development is ongoing on the future standard: Publication Manifest Audiobook profile for Web Publications Lightweight Packaging Format The BD Comics Manga Community Group, the Synchronized Multimedia for Publications Community Group, the Publishing Community Group and a future group on archival, are companions to the working group where specific work is developed and incubated. The Publishing Community Group is a recently launched incubation channel for Publishing@W3C. The goal of the group is to propose, document, and prototype features broadly related to: publications on the Web reading modes and systems and the user experience of publications The EPUB 3 Community Group has successfully completed the revision of EPUB 3.2. The Publishing Business Group fosters ongoing participation by members of the publishing industry and the overall ecosystem in the development of Web infrastructure to better support the needs of the industry. The Business Group serves as an additional conduit to the Publishing Working Group and several Community Groups for feedback between the publishing ecosystem and W3C. The Publishing BG has played a vital role in fostering and advancing the adoption and continued development of EPUB 3. In particular the BG provided critical support to the update of EPUBCheck to validate EPUB content to the new EPUB 3.2 specification. This resulted in the development, in conjunction with the EPUB3 Community Group, of a new generation of EPUBCheck, i.e., EPUBCheck 4.2 production-ready release. Media and Entertainment All Media specifications The Media and Entertainment vertical tracks media-related topics and features that create immersive experiences for end users. HTML5 brought standard audio and video elements to the Web. Standardization activities since then have aimed at turning the Web into a professional platform fully suitable for the delivery of media content and associated materials, enabling missing features to stream video content on the Web such as adaptive streaming and content protection. Together with Microsoft, Comcast, Netflix and Google, W3C received an Technology & Engineering Emmy Award in April 2019 for standardization of a full TV experience on the Web. Current goals are to: Reinforce core media technologies: Creation of the Media Working Group, to develop media-related specifications incubated in the WICG (e.g. Media Capabilities, Picture-in-picture, Media Session) and maintain maintain/evolve Media Source Extensions (MSE) and Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). Improve support for Media Timed Events: data cues incubation. Enhance color support (HDR, wide gamut), in scope of the CSS WG and in the Color on the Web CG. Reduce fragmentation: Continue annual releases of a common and testable baseline media devices, in scope of the Web Media APIs CG and in collaboration with the CTA WAVE Project. Maintain the Road-map of Media Technologies for the Web which highlights Web technologies that can be used to build media applications and services, as well as known gaps to enable additional use cases. Create the future: Discuss perspectives for Media and Entertainment for the Web. Bring the power of GPUs to the Web (graphics, machine learning, heavy processing), under incubation in the GPU for the Web CG. Transition to a Working Group is under discussion. Determine next steps after the successful W3C Workshop on Web Games of June 2019. View the report. Timed Text The Timed Text Working Group develops and maintains formats used for the representation of text synchronized with other timed media, like audio and video, and notably works on TTML, profiles of TTML, and WebVTT. Recent progress includes: A robust WebVTT implementation report poises the specification for publication as a proposed recommendation. Discussions around re-chartering, notably to add a TTML Profile for Audio Description deliverable to the scope of the group, and clarify that rendering of captions within XR content is also in scope. Immersive Web Hardware that enables Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) applications are now broadly available to consumers, offering an immersive computing platform with both new opportunities and challenges. The ability to interact directly with immersive hardware is critical to ensuring that the web is well equipped to operate as a first-class citizen in this environment. The Immersive Web Working Group has been stabilizing the WebXR Device API while the companion Immersive Web Community Group incubates the next series of features identified as key for the future of the Immersive Web. W3C plans a workshop focused on the needs and benefits at the intersection of VR & Accessibility (Inclusive XR), on 5-6 November 2019 in Seattle, WA, USA, to explore existing and future approaches on making Virtual and Augmented Reality experiences more inclusive. Web & Telecommunications The Web is the Open Platform for Mobile. Telecommunication service providers and network equipment providers have long been critical actors in the deployment of Web technologies. As the Web platform matures, it brings richer and richer capabilities to extend existing services to new users and devices, and propose new and innovative services. Real-Time Communications (WebRTC) All Real-Time Communications specifications WebRTC has reshaped the whole communication landscape by making any connected device a potential communication end-point, bringing audio and video communications anywhere, on any network, vastly expanding the ability of operators to reach their customers. WebRTC serves as the corner-stone of many online communication and collaboration services. The WebRTC Working Group aims to bringing WebRTC 1.0 (and companion specification Media Capture and Streams) to Recommendation by the end of 2019. Intense efforts are focused on testing (supported by a dedicated hackathon at IETF 104) and interoperability. The group is considering pushing features that have not gotten enough traction to separate modules or to a later minor revision of the spec. Beyond WebRTC 1.0, the WebRTC Working Group will focus its efforts on WebRTC NV which the group has started documenting by identifying use cases. Web & Networks Recently launched, in the wake of the May 2018 Web5G workshop, the Web & Networks Interest Group is chaired by representatives from AT&T, China Mobile and Intel, with a goal to explore solutions for web applications to achieve better performance and resource allocation, both on the device and network. The group's first efforts are around use cases, privacy & security requirements and liaisons. Automotive All Automotive specifications To create a rich application ecosystem for vehicles and other devices allowed to connect to the vehicle, the W3C Automotive Working Group is delivering a service specification to expose all common vehicle signals (engine temperature, fuel/charge level, range, tire pressure, speed, etc.) The Vehicle Information Service Specification (VISS), which is a Candidate Recommendation, is seeing more implementations across the industry. It provides the access method to a common data model for all the vehicle signals –presently encapsulating a thousand or so different data elements– and will be growing to accommodate the advances in automotive such as autonomous and driver assist technologies and electrification. The group is already working on a successor to VISS, leveraging the underlying data model and the VIWI submission from Volkswagen, for a more robust means of accessing vehicle signals information and the same paradigm for other automotive needs including location-based services, media, notifications and caching content. The Automotive and Web Platform Business Group acts as an incubator for prospective standards work. One of its task forces is using W3C VISS in performing data sampling and off-boarding the information to the cloud. Access to the wealth of information that W3C's auto signals standard exposes is of interest to regulators, urban planners, insurance companies, auto manufacturers, fleet managers and owners, service providers and others. In addition to components needed for data sampling and edge computing, capturing user and owner consent, information collection methods and handling of data are in scope. The upcoming W3C Workshop on Data Models for Transportation (September 2019) is expected to focus on the need of additional ontologies around transportation space. Web of Things All Web of Things specifications W3C's Web of Things work is designed to bridge disparate technology stacks to allow devices to work together and achieve scale, thus enabling the potential of the Internet of Things by eliminating fragmentation and fostering interoperability. Thing descriptions expressed in JSON-LD cover the behavior, interaction affordances, data schema, security configuration, and protocol bindings. The Web of Things complements existing IoT ecosystems to reduce the cost and risk for suppliers and consumers of applications that create value by combining multiple devices and information services. There are many sectors that will benefit, e.g. smart homes, smart cities, smart industry, smart agriculture, smart healthcare and many more. The Web of Things Working Group is finishing the initial Web of Things standards, with support from the Web of Things Interest Group: Web of Things Architecture Thing Descriptions Strengthening the Core of the Web HTML The HTML Working Group was chartered early June to assist the W3C community in raising issues and proposing solutions for the HTML and DOM specifications, and to produce W3C Recommendations from WHATWG Review Drafts. A few days before, W3C and the WHATWG signed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the agreement to collaborate on the development of a single version of the HTML and DOM specifications. Issues and proposed solutions for HTML and DOM done via the newly rechartered HTML Working Group in the WHATWG repositories The HTML Working Group is targetting November 2019 to bring HTML and DOM to Candidate Recommendations. CSS All CSS specifications CSS is a critical part of the Open Web Platform. The CSS Working Group gathers requirements from two large groups of CSS users: the publishing industry and application developers. Within W3C, those groups are exemplified by the Publishing groups and the Web Platform Working Group. The former requires things like better pagination support and advanced font handling, the latter needs intelligent (and fast!) scrolling and animations. What we know as CSS is actually a collection of almost a hundred specifications, referred to as ‘modules’. The current state of CSS is defined by a snapshot, updated once a year. The group also publishes an index defining every term defined by CSS specifications. Fonts All Fonts specifications The Web Fonts Working Group develops specifications that allow the interoperable deployment of downloadable fonts on the Web, with a focus on Progressive Font Enrichment as well as maintenance of WOFF Recommendations. Recent and ongoing work includes: Early API experiments by Adobe and Monotype have demonstrated the feasibility of a font enrichment API, where a server delivers a font with minimal glyph repertoire and the client can query the full repertoire and request additional subsets on-the-fly. In other experiments, the Brotli compression used in WOFF 2 was extended to support shared dictionaries and patch update. Metrics to quantify improvement are a current hot discussion topic. The group will meet at ATypi 2019 in Japan, to gather requirements from the international typography community. The group will first produce a report summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of each prototype solution by Q2 2020. SVG All SVG specifications SVG is an important and widely-used part of the Open Web Platform. The SVG Working Group focuses on aligning the SVG 2.0 specification with browser implementations, having split the specification into a currently-implemented 2.0 and a forward-looking 2.1. Current activity is on stabilization, increased integration with the Open Web Platform, and test coverage analysis. The Working Group was rechartered in March 2019. A new work item concerns native (non-Web-browser) uses of SVG as a non-interactive, vector graphics format. Audio The Web Audio Working Group was extended to finish its work on the Web Audio API, expecting to publish it as a Recommendation by year end. The specification enables synthesizing audio in the browser. Audio operations are performed with audio nodes, which are linked together to form a modular audio routing graph. Multiple sources — with different types of channel layout — are supported. This modular design provides the flexibility to create complex audio functions with dynamic effects. The first version of Web Audio API is now feature complete and is implemented in all modern browsers. Work has started on the next version, and new features are being incubated in the Audio Community Group. Performance Web Performance All Web Performance specifications There are currently 18 specifications in development in the Web Performance Working Group aiming to provide methods to observe and improve aspects of application performance of user agent features and APIs. The W3C team is looking at related work incubated in the W3C GPU for the Web (WebGPU) Community Group which is poised to transition to a W3C Working Group. A preliminary draft charter is available. WebAssembly All WebAssembly specifications WebAssembly improves Web performance and power by being a virtual machine and execution environment enabling loaded pages to run native (compiled) code. It is deployed in Firefox, Edge, Safari and Chrome. The specification will soon reach Candidate Recommendation. WebAssembly enables near-native performance, optimized load time, and perhaps most importantly, a compilation target for existing code bases. While it has a small number of native types, much of the performance increase relative to Javascript derives from its use of consistent typing. WebAssembly leverages decades of optimization for compiled languages and the byte code is optimized for compactness and streaming (the web page starts executing while the rest of the code downloads). Network and API access all occurs through accompanying Javascript libraries -- the security model is identical to that of Javascript. Requirements gathering and language development occur in the Community Group while the Working Group manages test development, community review and progression of specifications on the Recommendation Track. Testing Browser testing plays a critical role in the growth of the Web by: Improving the reliability of Web technology definitions; Improving the quality of implementations of these technologies by helping vendors to detect bugs in their products; Improving the data available to Web developers on known bugs and deficiencies of Web technologies by publishing results of these tests. Browser Testing and Tools The Browser Testing and Tools Working Group is developing WebDriver version 2, having published last year the W3C Recommendation of WebDriver. WebDriver acts as a remote control interface that enables introspection and control of user agents, provides a platform- and language-neutral wire protocol as a way for out-of-process programs to remotely instruct the behavior of Web, and emulates the actions of a real person using the browser. WebPlatform Tests The WebPlatform Tests project now provides a mechanism which allows to fully automate tests that previously needed to be run manually: TestDriver. TestDriver enables sending trusted key and mouse events, sending complex series of trusted pointer and key interactions for things like in-content drag-and-drop or pinch zoom, and even file upload. Since 2014 W3C began work on this coordinated open-source effort to build a cross-browser test suite for the Web Platform, which WHATWG, and all major browsers adopted. Web of Data All Data specifications There have been several great success stories around the standardization of data on the web over the past year. Verifiable Claims seems to have significant uptake. It is also significant that the Distributed Identifier WG charter has received numerous favorable reviews, and was just recently launched. JSON-LD has been a major success with the large deployment on Web sites via schema.org. JSON-LD 1.1 completed technical work, about to transition to CR More than 25% of websites today include schema.org data in JSON-LD The Web of Things description is in CR since May, making use of JSON-LD Verifiable Credentials data model is in CR since July, also making use of JSON-LD Continued strong interest in decentralized identifiers Engagement from the TAG with reframing core documents, such as Ethical Web Principles, to include data on the web within their scope Data is increasingly important for all organizations, especially with the rise of IoT and Big Data. W3C has a mature and extensive suite of standards relating to data that were developed over two decades of experience, with plans for further work on making it easier for developers to work with graph data and knowledge graphs. Linked Data is about the use of URIs as names for things, the ability to dereference these URIs to get further information and to include links to other data. There are ever-increasing sources of open Linked Data on the Web, as well as data services that are restricted to the suppliers and consumers of those services. The digital transformation of industry is seeking to exploit advanced digital technologies. This will facilitate businesses to integrate horizontally along the supply and value chains, and vertically from the factory floor to the office floor. W3C is seeking to make it easier to support enterprise-wide data management and governance, reflecting the strategic importance of data to modern businesses. Traditional approaches to data have focused on tabular databases (SQL/RDBMS), Comma Separated Value (CSV) files, and data embedded in PDF documents and spreadsheets. We're now in midst of a major shift to graph data with nodes and labeled directed links between them. Graph data is: Faster than using SQL and associated JOIN operations More favorable to integrating data from heterogeneous sources Better suited to situations where the data model is evolving In the wake of the recent W3C Workshop on Graph Data we are in the process of launching a Graph Standardization Business Group to provide a business perspective with use cases and requirements, to coordinate technical standards work and liaisons with external organizations. Web for All Security, Privacy, Identity All Security specifications, all Privacy specifications Authentication on the Web As the WebAuthn Level 1 W3C Recommendation published last March is seeing wide implementation and adoption of strong cryptographic authentication, work is proceeding on Level 2. The open standard Web API gives native authentication technology built into native platforms, browsers, operating systems (including mobile) and hardware, offering protection against hacking, credential theft, phishing attacks, thus aiming to end the era of passwords as a security construct. You may read more in our March press release. Privacy An increasing number of W3C specifications are benefitting from Privacy and Security review; there are security and privacy aspects to every specification. Early review is essential. Working with the TAG, the Privacy Interest Group has updated the Self-Review Questionnaire: Security and Privacy. Other recent work of the group includes public blogging further to the exploration of anti-patterns in standards and permission prompts. Security The Web Application Security Working Group adopted Feature Policy, aiming to allow developers to selectively enable, disable, or modify the behavior of some of these browser features and APIs within their application; and Fetch Metadata, aiming to provide servers with enough information to make a priori decisions about whether or not to service a request based on the way it was made, and the context in which it will be used. The Web Payment Security Interest Group, launched last April, convenes members from W3C, EMVCo, and the FIDO Alliance to discuss cooperative work to enhance the security and interoperability of Web payments (read more about payments). Internationalization (i18n) All Internationalization specifications, educational articles related to Internationalization, spec developers checklist Only a quarter or so current Web users use English online and that proportion will continue to decrease as the Web reaches more and more communities of limited English proficiency. If the Web is to live up to the "World Wide" portion of its name, and for the Web to truly work for stakeholders all around the world engaging with content in various languages, it must support the needs of worldwide users as they engage with content in the various languages. The growth of epublishing also brings requirements for new features and improved typography on the Web. It is important to ensure the needs of local communities are captured. The W3C Internationalization Initiative was set up to increase in-house resources dedicated to accelerating progress in making the World Wide Web "worldwide" by gathering user requirements, supporting developers, and education & outreach. For an overview of current projects see the i18n radar. W3C's Internationalization efforts progressed on a number of fronts recently: Requirements: New African and European language groups will work on the gap analysis, errata and layout requirements. Gap analysis: Japanese, Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil, Lao, Khmer, Javanese, and Ethiopic updated in the gap-analysis documents. Layout requirements document: notable progress tracked in the Southeast Asian Task Force while work continues on Chinese layout requirements. Developer support: Spec reviews: the i18n WG continues active review of specifications of the WHATWG and other W3C Working Groups. Short review checklist: easy way to begin a self-review to help spec developers understand what aspects of their spec are likely to need attention for internationalization, and points them to more detailed checklists for the relevant topics. It also helps those reviewing specs for i18n issues. Strings on the Web: Language and Direction Metadata lays out issues and discusses potential solutions for passing information about language and direction with strings in JSON or other data formats. The document was rewritten for clarity, and expanded. The group is collaborating with the JSON-LD and Web Publishing groups to develop a plan for updating RDF, JSON-LD and related specifications to handle metadata for base direction of text (bidi). User-friendly test format: a new format was developed for Internationalization Test Suite tests, which displays helpful information about how the test works. This particularly useful because those tests are pointed to by educational materials and gap-analysis documents. Web Platform Tests: a large number of tests in the i18n test suite have been ported to the WPT repository, including: css-counter-styles, css-ruby, css-syntax, css-test, css-text-decor, css-writing-modes, and css-pseudo. Education & outreach: (for all educational materials, see the HTML & CSS Authoring Techniques) Web Accessibility All Accessibility specifications, WAI resources The Web Accessibility Initiative supports W3C's Web for All mission. Recent achievements include: Education and training: Inaccessibility of CAPTCHA updated to bring our analysis and recommendations up to date with CAPTCHA practice today, concluding two years of extensive work and invaluable input from the public (read more on the W3C Blog Learn why your web content and applications should be accessible. The Education and Outreach Working Group has completed revision and updating of the Business Case for Digital Accessibility. Accessibility guidelines: The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has continued to update WCAG Techniques and Understanding WCAG 2.1; and published a Candidate Recommendation of Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0 to improve inter-rater reliability when evaluating conformance of web content to WCAG An updated charter is being developed to host work on "Silver", the next generation accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2.2) There are accessibility aspects to most specifications. Check your work with the FAST checklist. Outreach to the world W3C Developer Relations To foster the excellent feedback loop between Web Standards development and Web developers, and to grow participation from that diverse community, recent W3C Developer Relations activities include: @w3cdevs tracks the enormous amount of work happening across W3C W3C Track during the Web Conference 2019 in San Francisco Tech videos: W3C published the 2019 Web Games Workshop videos The 16 September 2019 Developer Meetup in Fukuoka, Japan, is open to all and will combine a set of technical demos prepared by W3C groups, and a series of talks on a selected set of W3C technologies and projects W3C is involved with Mozilla, Google, Samsung, Microsoft and Bocoup in the organization of ViewSource 2019 in Amsterdam (read more on the W3C Blog) W3C Training In partnership with EdX, W3C's MOOC training program, W3Cx offers a complete "Front-End Web Developer" (FEWD) professional certificate program that consists of a suite of five courses on the foundational languages that power the Web: HTML5, CSS and JavaScript. We count nearly 900K students from all over the world. Translations Many Web users rely on translations of documents developed at W3C whose official language is English. W3C is extremely grateful to the continuous efforts of its community in ensuring our various deliverables in general, and in our specifications in particular, are made available in other languages, for free, ensuring their exposure to a much more diverse set of readers. Last Spring we developed a more robust system, a new listing of translations of W3C specifications and updated the instructions on how to contribute to our translation efforts. W3C Liaisons Liaisons and coordination with numerous organizations and Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) is crucial for W3C to: make sure standards are interoperable coordinate our respective agenda in Internet governance: W3C participates in ICANN, GIPO, IGF, the I* organizations (ICANN, IETF, ISOC, IAB). ensure at the government liaison level that our standards work is officially recognized when important to our membership so that products based on them (often done by our members) are part of procurement orders. W3C has ARO/PAS status with ISO. W3C participates in the EU MSP and Rolling Plan on Standardization ensure the global set of Web and Internet standards form a compatible stack of technologies, at the technical and policy level (patent regime, fragmentation, use in policy making) promote Standards adoption equally by the industry, the public sector, and the public at large Coralie Mercier, Editor, W3C Marketing & Communications $Id: Overview.html,v 1.60 2019/10/15 12:05:52 coralie Exp $ Copyright © 2019 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio, Beihang) Usage policies apply.
Aryia-Behroziuan / ReferencesPoole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, p. 1. Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 55. Definition of AI as the study of intelligent agents: Poole, Mackworth & Goebel (1998), which provides the version that is used in this article. These authors use the term "computational intelligence" as a synonym for artificial intelligence.[1] Russell & Norvig (2003) (who prefer the term "rational agent") and write "The whole-agent view is now widely accepted in the field".[2] Nilsson 1998 Legg & Hutter 2007 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 2. McCorduck 2004, p. 204 Maloof, Mark. "Artificial Intelligence: An Introduction, p. 37" (PDF). georgetown.edu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 August 2018. "How AI Is Getting Groundbreaking Changes In Talent Management And HR Tech". Hackernoon. Archived from the original on 11 September 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2020. Schank, Roger C. (1991). "Where's the AI". AI magazine. Vol. 12 no. 4. p. 38. Russell & Norvig 2009. "AlphaGo – Google DeepMind". Archived from the original on 10 March 2016. Allen, Gregory (April 2020). "Department of Defense Joint AI Center - Understanding AI Technology" (PDF). AI.mil - The official site of the Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 April 2020. Retrieved 25 April 2020. Optimism of early AI: * Herbert Simon quote: Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. * Marvin Minsky quote: Minsky 1967, p. 2 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. Boom of the 1980s: rise of expert systems, Fifth Generation Project, Alvey, MCC, SCI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 426–441 * Crevier 1993, pp. 161–162,197–203, 211, 240 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 * NRC 1999, pp. 210–211 * Newquist 1994, pp. 235–248 First AI Winter, Mansfield Amendment, Lighthill report * Crevier 1993, pp. 115–117 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 22 * NRC 1999, pp. 212–213 * Howe 1994 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 Second AI winter: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 430–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 209–210 * NRC 1999, pp. 214–216 * Newquist 1994, pp. 301–318 AI becomes hugely successful in the early 21st century * Clark 2015 Pamela McCorduck (2004, p. 424) writes of "the rough shattering of AI in subfields—vision, natural language, decision theory, genetic algorithms, robotics ... and these with own sub-subfield—that would hardly have anything to say to each other." This list of intelligent traits is based on the topics covered by the major AI textbooks, including: * Russell & Norvig 2003 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 * Nilsson 1998 Kolata 1982. Maker 2006. Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general: Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3, who make the analogy with aeronautical engineering. McCorduck 2004, pp. 100–101, who writes that there are "two major branches of artificial intelligence: one aimed at producing intelligent behavior regardless of how it was accomplished, and the other aimed at modeling intelligent processes found in nature, particularly human ones." Kolata 1982, a paper in Science, which describes McCarthy's indifference to biological models. Kolata quotes McCarthy as writing: "This is AI, so we don't care if it's psychologically real".[19] McCarthy recently reiterated his position at the AI@50 conference where he said "Artificial intelligence is not, by definition, simulation of human intelligence".[20]. Neats vs. scruffies: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 421–424, 486–489 * Crevier 1993, p. 168 * Nilsson 1983, pp. 10–11 Symbolic vs. sub-symbolic AI: * Nilsson (1998, p. 7), who uses the term "sub-symbolic". General intelligence (strong AI) is discussed in popular introductions to AI: * Kurzweil 1999 and Kurzweil 2005 See the Dartmouth proposal, under Philosophy, below. McCorduck 2004, p. 34. McCorduck 2004, p. xviii. McCorduck 2004, p. 3. McCorduck 2004, pp. 340–400. This is a central idea of Pamela McCorduck's Machines Who Think. She writes: "I like to think of artificial intelligence as the scientific apotheosis of a venerable cultural tradition."[26] "Artificial intelligence in one form or another is an idea that has pervaded Western intellectual history, a dream in urgent need of being realized."[27] "Our history is full of attempts—nutty, eerie, comical, earnest, legendary and real—to make artificial intelligences, to reproduce what is the essential us—bypassing the ordinary means. Back and forth between myth and reality, our imaginations supplying what our workshops couldn't, we have engaged for a long time in this odd form of self-reproduction."[28] She traces the desire back to its Hellenistic roots and calls it the urge to "forge the Gods."[29] "Stephen Hawking believes AI could be mankind's last accomplishment". BetaNews. 21 October 2016. Archived from the original on 28 August 2017. Lombardo P, Boehm I, Nairz K (2020). "RadioComics – Santa Claus and the future of radiology". Eur J Radiol. 122 (1): 108771. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108771. PMID 31835078. Ford, Martin; Colvin, Geoff (6 September 2015). "Will robots create more jobs than they destroy?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 June 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2018. AI applications widely used behind the scenes: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 28 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 265 * NRC 1999, pp. 216–222 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 AI in myth: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 4–5 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 939 AI in early science fiction. * McCorduck 2004, pp. 17–25 Formal reasoning: * Berlinski, David (2000). The Advent of the Algorithm. Harcourt Books. ISBN 978-0-15-601391-8. OCLC 46890682. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Turing, Alan (1948), "Machine Intelligence", in Copeland, B. Jack (ed.), The Essential Turing: The ideas that gave birth to the computer age, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 412, ISBN 978-0-19-825080-7 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 16. Dartmouth conference: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 111–136 * Crevier 1993, pp. 47–49, who writes "the conference is generally recognized as the official birthdate of the new science." * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who call the conference "the birth of artificial intelligence." * NRC 1999, pp. 200–201 McCarthy, John (1988). "Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of the History of Computing. 10 (3): 224–229., collected in McCarthy, John (1996). "10. Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Defending AI Research: A Collection of Essays and Reviews. CSLI., p. 73, "[O]ne of the reasons for inventing the term "artificial intelligence" was to escape association with "cybernetics". Its concentration on analog feedback seemed misguided, and I wished to avoid having either to accept Norbert (not Robert) Wiener as a guru or having to argue with him." Hegemony of the Dartmouth conference attendees: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who write "for the next 20 years the field would be dominated by these people and their students." * McCorduck 2004, pp. 129–130 Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18. Schaeffer J. (2009) Didn't Samuel Solve That Game?. In: One Jump Ahead. Springer, Boston, MA Samuel, A. L. (July 1959). "Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers". IBM Journal of Research and Development. 3 (3): 210–229. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.368.2254. doi:10.1147/rd.33.0210. "Golden years" of AI (successful symbolic reasoning programs 1956–1973): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 243–252 * Crevier 1993, pp. 52–107 * Moravec 1988, p. 9 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 18–21 The programs described are Arthur Samuel's checkers program for the IBM 701, Daniel Bobrow's STUDENT, Newell and Simon's Logic Theorist and Terry Winograd's SHRDLU. DARPA pours money into undirected pure research into AI during the 1960s: * McCorduck 2004, p. 131 * Crevier 1993, pp. 51, 64–65 * NRC 1999, pp. 204–205 AI in England: * Howe 1994 Lighthill 1973. Expert systems: * ACM 1998, I.2.1 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–24 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–331 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 17.4 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 327–335, 434–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–62, 197–203 * Newquist 1994, pp. 155–183 Mead, Carver A.; Ismail, Mohammed (8 May 1989). Analog VLSI Implementation of Neural Systems (PDF). The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. 80. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1639-8. ISBN 978-1-4613-1639-8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2020. Formal methods are now preferred ("Victory of the neats"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25–26 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 486–487 McCorduck 2004, pp. 480–483. Markoff 2011. "Ask the AI experts: What's driving today's progress in AI?". McKinsey & Company. Archived from the original on 13 April 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018. Administrator. "Kinect's AI breakthrough explained". i-programmer.info. Archived from the original on 1 February 2016. Rowinski, Dan (15 January 2013). "Virtual Personal Assistants & The Future Of Your Smartphone [Infographic]". ReadWrite. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. "Artificial intelligence: Google's AlphaGo beats Go master Lee Se-dol". BBC News. 12 March 2016. Archived from the original on 26 August 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016. Metz, Cade (27 May 2017). "After Win in China, AlphaGo's Designers Explore New AI". Wired. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. "World's Go Player Ratings". May 2017. Archived from the original on 1 April 2017. "柯洁迎19岁生日 雄踞人类世界排名第一已两年" (in Chinese). May 2017. Archived from the original on 11 August 2017. Clark, Jack (8 December 2015). "Why 2015 Was a Breakthrough Year in Artificial Intelligence". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016. After a half-decade of quiet breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, 2015 has been a landmark year. Computers are smarter and learning faster than ever. "Reshaping Business With Artificial Intelligence". MIT Sloan Management Review. Archived from the original on 19 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Lorica, Ben (18 December 2017). "The state of AI adoption". O'Reilly Media. Archived from the original on 2 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Allen, Gregory (6 February 2019). "Understanding China's AI Strategy". Center for a New American Security. Archived from the original on 17 March 2019. "Review | How two AI superpowers – the U.S. and China – battle for supremacy in the field". Washington Post. 2 November 2018. Archived from the original on 4 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018. at 10:11, Alistair Dabbs 22 Feb 2019. "Artificial Intelligence: You know it isn't real, yeah?". www.theregister.co.uk. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. "Stop Calling it Artificial Intelligence". Archived from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 1 December 2019. "AI isn't taking over the world – it doesn't exist yet". GBG Global website. Archived from the original on 11 August 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Kaplan, Andreas; Haenlein, Michael (1 January 2019). "Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence". Business Horizons. 62 (1): 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004. Domingos 2015, Chapter 5. Domingos 2015, Chapter 7. Lindenbaum, M., Markovitch, S., & Rusakov, D. (2004). Selective sampling for nearest neighbor classifiers. Machine learning, 54(2), 125–152. Domingos 2015, Chapter 1. Intractability and efficiency and the combinatorial explosion: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 9, 21–22 Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 3. Hart, P. E.; Nilsson, N. J.; Raphael, B. (1972). "Correction to "A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths"". SIGART Newsletter (37): 28–29. doi:10.1145/1056777.1056779. S2CID 6386648. Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Chapter 6. "Can neural network computers learn from experience, and if so, could they ever become what we would call 'smart'?". Scientific American. 2018. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Domingos 2015, Chapter 6, Chapter 7. Domingos 2015, p. 286. "Single pixel change fools AI programs". BBC News. 3 November 2017. Archived from the original on 22 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. "AI Has a Hallucination Problem That's Proving Tough to Fix". WIRED. 2018. Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. Matti, D.; Ekenel, H. K.; Thiran, J. P. (2017). Combining LiDAR space clustering and convolutional neural networks for pedestrian detection. 2017 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS). pp. 1–6. arXiv:1710.06160. doi:10.1109/AVSS.2017.8078512. ISBN 978-1-5386-2939-0. S2CID 2401976. Ferguson, Sarah; Luders, Brandon; Grande, Robert C.; How, Jonathan P. (2015). Real-Time Predictive Modeling and Robust Avoidance of Pedestrians with Uncertain, Changing Intentions. Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics. 107. Springer, Cham. pp. 161–177. arXiv:1405.5581. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16595-0_10. ISBN 978-3-319-16594-3. S2CID 8681101. "Cultivating Common Sense | DiscoverMagazine.com". Discover Magazine. 2017. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Davis, Ernest; Marcus, Gary (24 August 2015). "Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence". Communications of the ACM. 58 (9): 92–103. doi:10.1145/2701413. S2CID 13583137. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 6 April 2020. Winograd, Terry (January 1972). "Understanding natural language". Cognitive Psychology. 3 (1): 1–191. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90002-3. "Don't worry: Autonomous cars aren't coming tomorrow (or next year)". Autoweek. 2016. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Knight, Will (2017). "Boston may be famous for bad drivers, but it's the testing ground for a smarter self-driving car". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 27 March 2018. Prakken, Henry (31 August 2017). "On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law". Artificial Intelligence and Law. 25 (3): 341–363. doi:10.1007/s10506-017-9210-0. Lieto, Antonio (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possible developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Problem solving, puzzle solving, game playing and deduction: * Russell & Norvig 2003, chpt. 3–9, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, chpt. 2,3,7,9, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, chpt. 3,4,6,8, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 7–12 Uncertain reasoning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 452–644, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 345–395, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 333–381, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 19 Psychological evidence of sub-symbolic reasoning: * Wason & Shapiro (1966) showed that people do poorly on completely abstract problems, but if the problem is restated to allow the use of intuitive social intelligence, performance dramatically improves. (See Wason selection task) * Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky (1982) have shown that people are terrible at elementary problems that involve uncertain reasoning. (See list of cognitive biases for several examples). * Lakoff & Núñez (2000) have controversially argued that even our skills at mathematics depend on knowledge and skills that come from "the body", i.e. sensorimotor and perceptual skills. (See Where Mathematics Comes From) Knowledge representation: * ACM 1998, I.2.4, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–363, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 23–46, 69–81, 169–196, 235–277, 281–298, 319–345, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–243, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18 Knowledge engineering: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 260–266, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 199–233, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. ≈17.1–17.4 Representing categories and relations: Semantic networks, description logics, inheritance (including frames and scripts): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 349–354, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 174–177, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 248–258, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.3 Representing events and time:Situation calculus, event calculus, fluent calculus (including solving the frame problem): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 328–341, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–298, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.2 Causal calculus: * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 335–337 Representing knowledge about knowledge: Belief calculus, modal logics: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 341–344, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 275–277 Sikos, Leslie F. (June 2017). Description Logics in Multimedia Reasoning. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54066-5. ISBN 978-3-319-54066-5. S2CID 3180114. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. Ontology: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–328 Smoliar, Stephen W.; Zhang, HongJiang (1994). "Content based video indexing and retrieval". IEEE Multimedia. 1 (2): 62–72. doi:10.1109/93.311653. S2CID 32710913. Neumann, Bernd; Möller, Ralf (January 2008). "On scene interpretation with description logics". Image and Vision Computing. 26 (1): 82–101. doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2007.08.013. Kuperman, G. J.; Reichley, R. M.; Bailey, T. C. (1 July 2006). "Using Commercial Knowledge Bases for Clinical Decision Support: Opportunities, Hurdles, and Recommendations". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 13 (4): 369–371. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2055. PMC 1513681. PMID 16622160. MCGARRY, KEN (1 December 2005). "A survey of interestingness measures for knowledge discovery". The Knowledge Engineering Review. 20 (1): 39–61. doi:10.1017/S0269888905000408. S2CID 14987656. Bertini, M; Del Bimbo, A; Torniai, C (2006). "Automatic annotation and semantic retrieval of video sequences using multimedia ontologies". MM '06 Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. Santa Barbara: ACM. pp. 679–682. Qualification problem: * McCarthy & Hayes 1969 * Russell & Norvig 2003[page needed] While McCarthy was primarily concerned with issues in the logical representation of actions, Russell & Norvig 2003 apply the term to the more general issue of default reasoning in the vast network of assumptions underlying all our commonsense knowledge. Default reasoning and default logic, non-monotonic logics, circumscription, closed world assumption, abduction (Poole et al. places abduction under "default reasoning". Luger et al. places this under "uncertain reasoning"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 354–360, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 248–256, 323–335, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 335–363, * Nilsson 1998, ~18.3.3 Breadth of commonsense knowledge: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 21, * Crevier 1993, pp. 113–114, * Moravec 1988, p. 13, * Lenat & Guha 1989 (Introduction) Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986. Gladwell 2005. Expert knowledge as embodied intuition: * Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 (Hubert Dreyfus is a philosopher and critic of AI who was among the first to argue that most useful human knowledge was encoded sub-symbolically. See Dreyfus' critique of AI) * Gladwell 2005 (Gladwell's Blink is a popular introduction to sub-symbolic reasoning and knowledge.) * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 (Hawkins argues that sub-symbolic knowledge should be the primary focus of AI research.) Planning: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.8, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–459, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–316, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Information value theory: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 600–604 Classical planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–430, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–315, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Planning and acting in non-deterministic domains: conditional planning, execution monitoring, replanning and continuous planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 430–449 Multi-agent planning and emergent behavior: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 449–455 Turing 1950. Solomonoff 1956. Alan Turing discussed the centrality of learning as early as 1950, in his classic paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence".[120] In 1956, at the original Dartmouth AI summer conference, Ray Solomonoff wrote a report on unsupervised probabilistic machine learning: "An Inductive Inference Machine".[121] This is a form of Tom Mitchell's widely quoted definition of machine learning: "A computer program is set to learn from an experience E with respect to some task T and some performance measure P if its performance on T as measured by P improves with experience E." Learning: * ACM 1998, I.2.6, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 649–788, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 397–438, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 385–542, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 3.3, 10.3, 17.5, 20 Jordan, M. I.; Mitchell, T. M. (16 July 2015). "Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects". Science. 349 (6245): 255–260. Bibcode:2015Sci...349..255J. doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415. PMID 26185243. S2CID 677218. Reinforcement learning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 763–788 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 442–449 Natural language processing: * ACM 1998, I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 790–831 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 91–104 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 591–632 "Versatile question answering systems: seeing in synthesis" Archived 1 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Mittal et al., IJIIDS, 5(2), 119–142, 2011 Applications of natural language processing, including information retrieval (i.e. text mining) and machine translation: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 840–857, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 623–630 Cambria, Erik; White, Bebo (May 2014). "Jumping NLP Curves: A Review of Natural Language Processing Research [Review Article]". IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine. 9 (2): 48–57. doi:10.1109/MCI.2014.2307227. S2CID 206451986. Vincent, James (7 November 2019). "OpenAI has published the text-generating AI it said was too dangerous to share". The Verge. Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2020. Machine perception: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 537–581, 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, ~chpt. 6 Speech recognition: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 568–578 Object recognition: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 885–892 Computer vision: * ACM 1998, I.2.10 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 6 Robotics: * ACM 1998, I.2.9, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 901–942, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 443–460 Moving and configuration space: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 916–932 Tecuci 2012. Robotic mapping (localization, etc): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 908–915 Cadena, Cesar; Carlone, Luca; Carrillo, Henry; Latif, Yasir; Scaramuzza, Davide; Neira, Jose; Reid, Ian; Leonard, John J. (December 2016). "Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping: Toward the Robust-Perception Age". IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 32 (6): 1309–1332. arXiv:1606.05830. Bibcode:2016arXiv160605830C. doi:10.1109/TRO.2016.2624754. S2CID 2596787. Moravec, Hans (1988). Mind Children. Harvard University Press. p. 15. Chan, Szu Ping (15 November 2015). "This is what will happen when robots take over the world". Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 23 April 2018. "IKEA furniture and the limits of AI". The Economist. 2018. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Kismet. Thompson, Derek (2018). "What Jobs Will the Robots Take?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Scassellati, Brian (2002). "Theory of mind for a humanoid robot". Autonomous Robots. 12 (1): 13–24. doi:10.1023/A:1013298507114. S2CID 1979315. Cao, Yongcan; Yu, Wenwu; Ren, Wei; Chen, Guanrong (February 2013). "An Overview of Recent Progress in the Study of Distributed Multi-Agent Coordination". IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 9 (1): 427–438. arXiv:1207.3231. doi:10.1109/TII.2012.2219061. S2CID 9588126. Thro 1993. Edelson 1991. Tao & Tan 2005. Poria, Soujanya; Cambria, Erik; Bajpai, Rajiv; Hussain, Amir (September 2017). "A review of affective computing: From unimodal analysis to multimodal fusion". Information Fusion. 37: 98–125. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.003. hdl:1893/25490. Emotion and affective computing: * Minsky 2006 Waddell, Kaveh (2018). "Chatbots Have Entered the Uncanny Valley". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Pennachin, C.; Goertzel, B. (2007). Contemporary Approaches to Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence. Cognitive Technologies. Cognitive Technologies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4_1. ISBN 978-3-540-23733-4. Roberts, Jacob (2016). "Thinking Machines: The Search for Artificial Intelligence". Distillations. Vol. 2 no. 2. pp. 14–23. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 20 March 2018. "The superhero of artificial intelligence: can this genius keep it in check?". the Guardian. 16 February 2016. Archived from the original on 23 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Mnih, Volodymyr; Kavukcuoglu, Koray; Silver, David; Rusu, Andrei A.; Veness, Joel; Bellemare, Marc G.; Graves, Alex; Riedmiller, Martin; Fidjeland, Andreas K.; Ostrovski, Georg; Petersen, Stig; Beattie, Charles; Sadik, Amir; Antonoglou, Ioannis; King, Helen; Kumaran, Dharshan; Wierstra, Daan; Legg, Shane; Hassabis, Demis (26 February 2015). "Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning". Nature. 518 (7540): 529–533. Bibcode:2015Natur.518..529M. doi:10.1038/nature14236. PMID 25719670. S2CID 205242740. Sample, Ian (14 March 2017). "Google's DeepMind makes AI program that can learn like a human". the Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. "From not working to neural networking". The Economist. 2016. Archived from the original on 31 December 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Domingos 2015. Artificial brain arguments: AI requires a simulation of the operation of the human brain * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 957 * Crevier 1993, pp. 271 and 279 A few of the people who make some form of the argument: * Moravec 1988 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 262 * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 The most extreme form of this argument (the brain replacement scenario) was put forward by Clark Glymour in the mid-1970s and was touched on by Zenon Pylyshyn and John Searle in 1980. Goertzel, Ben; Lian, Ruiting; Arel, Itamar; de Garis, Hugo; Chen, Shuo (December 2010). "A world survey of artificial brain projects, Part II: Biologically inspired cognitive architectures". Neurocomputing. 74 (1–3): 30–49. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2010.08.012. Nilsson 1983, p. 10. Nils Nilsson writes: "Simply put, there is wide disagreement in the field about what AI is all about."[163] AI's immediate precursors: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 51–107 * Crevier 1993, pp. 27–32 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 15, 940 * Moravec 1988, p. 3 Haugeland 1985, pp. 112–117 The most dramatic case of sub-symbolic AI being pushed into the background was the devastating critique of perceptrons by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert in 1969. See History of AI, AI winter, or Frank Rosenblatt. Cognitive simulation, Newell and Simon, AI at CMU (then called Carnegie Tech): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 139–179, 245–250, 322–323 (EPAM) * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–149 Soar (history): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 450–451 * Crevier 1993, pp. 258–263 McCarthy and AI research at SAIL and SRI International: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 251–259 * Crevier 1993 AI research at Edinburgh and in France, birth of Prolog: * Crevier 1993, pp. 193–196 * Howe 1994 AI at MIT under Marvin Minsky in the 1960s : * McCorduck 2004, pp. 259–305 * Crevier 1993, pp. 83–102, 163–176 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 19 Cyc: * McCorduck 2004, p. 489, who calls it "a determinedly scruffy enterprise" * Crevier 1993, pp. 239–243 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 363−365 * Lenat & Guha 1989 Knowledge revolution: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 266–276, 298–300, 314, 421 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–23 Frederick, Hayes-Roth; William, Murray; Leonard, Adelman. "Expert systems". AccessScience. doi:10.1036/1097-8542.248550. Embodied approaches to AI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 454–462 * Brooks 1990 * Moravec 1988 Weng et al. 2001. Lungarella et al. 2003. Asada et al. 2009. Oudeyer 2010. Revival of connectionism: * Crevier 1993, pp. 214–215 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25 Computational intelligence * IEEE Computational Intelligence Society Archived 9 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Hutson, Matthew (16 February 2018). "Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis". Science. pp. 725–726. Bibcode:2018Sci...359..725H. doi:10.1126/science.359.6377.725. Archived from the original on 29 April 2018. Retrieved 28 April 2018. Norvig 2012. Langley 2011. Katz 2012. The intelligent agent paradigm: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 27, 32–58, 968–972 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 7–21 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 235–240 * Hutter 2005, pp. 125–126 The definition used in this article, in terms of goals, actions, perception and environment, is due to Russell & Norvig (2003). Other definitions also include knowledge and learning as additional criteria. Agent architectures, hybrid intelligent systems: * Russell & Norvig (2003, pp. 27, 932, 970–972) * Nilsson (1998, chpt. 25) Hierarchical control system: * Albus 2002 Lieto, Antonio; Lebiere, Christian; Oltramari, Alessandro (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possibile developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Lieto, Antonio; Bhatt, Mehul; Oltramari, Alessandro; Vernon, David (May 2018). "The role of cognitive architectures in general artificial intelligence". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.08.003. hdl:2318/1665249. S2CID 36189683. Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 1. White Paper: On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust (PDF). Brussels: European Commission. 2020. p. 1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 February 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2020. CNN 2006. Using AI to predict flight delays Archived 20 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Ishti.org. N. Aletras; D. Tsarapatsanis; D. Preotiuc-Pietro; V. Lampos (2016). "Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective". PeerJ Computer Science. 2: e93. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.93. "The Economist Explains: Why firms are piling into artificial intelligence". The Economist. 31 March 2016. Archived from the original on 8 May 2016. Retrieved 19 May 2016. Lohr, Steve (28 February 2016). "The Promise of Artificial Intelligence Unfolds in Small Steps". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 February 2016. Retrieved 29 February 2016. Frangoul, Anmar (14 June 2019). "A Californian business is using A.I. to change the way we think about energy storage". CNBC. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2019. Wakefield, Jane (15 June 2016). "Social media 'outstrips TV' as news source for young people". BBC News. Archived from the original on 24 June 2016. Smith, Mark (22 July 2016). "So you think you chose to read this article?". BBC News. Archived from the original on 25 July 2016. Brown, Eileen. "Half of Americans do not believe deepfake news could target them online". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 3 December 2019. The Turing test: Turing's original publication: * Turing 1950 Historical influence and philosophical implications: * Haugeland 1985, pp. 6–9 * Crevier 1993, p. 24 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 70–71 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3 and 948 Dartmouth proposal: * McCarthy et al. 1955 (the original proposal) * Crevier 1993, p. 49 (historical significance) The physical symbol systems hypothesis: * Newell & Simon 1976, p. 116 * McCorduck 2004, p. 153 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18 Dreyfus 1992, p. 156. Dreyfus criticized the necessary condition of the physical symbol system hypothesis, which he called the "psychological assumption": "The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules."[206] Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence: * Dreyfus 1972, Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 * Crevier 1993, pp. 120–132 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 211–239 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 950–952, Gödel 1951: in this lecture, Kurt Gödel uses the incompleteness theorem to arrive at the following disjunction: (a) the human mind is not a consistent finite machine, or (b) there exist Diophantine equations for which it cannot decide whether solutions exist. Gödel finds (b) implausible, and thus seems to have believed the human mind was not equivalent to a finite machine, i.e., its power exceeded that of any finite machine. He recognized that this was only a conjecture, since one could never disprove (b). Yet he considered the disjunctive conclusion to be a "certain fact". The Mathematical Objection: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 949 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 448–449 Making the Mathematical Objection: * Lucas 1961 * Penrose 1989 Refuting Mathematical Objection: * Turing 1950 under "(2) The Mathematical Objection" * Hofstadter 1979 Background: * Gödel 1931, Church 1936, Kleene 1935, Turing 1937 Graham Oppy (20 January 2015). "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016. These Gödelian anti-mechanist arguments are, however, problematic, and there is wide consensus that they fail. Stuart J. Russell; Peter Norvig (2010). "26.1.2: Philosophical Foundations/Weak AI: Can Machines Act Intelligently?/The mathematical objection". Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-604259-4. even if we grant that computers have limitations on what they can prove, there is no evidence that humans are immune from those limitations. Mark Colyvan. An introduction to the philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2012. From 2.2.2, 'Philosophical significance of Gödel's incompleteness results': "The accepted wisdom (with which I concur) is that the Lucas-Penrose arguments fail." Iphofen, Ron; Kritikos, Mihalis (3 January 2019). "Regulating artificial intelligence and robotics: ethics by design in a digital society". Contemporary Social Science: 1–15. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1563803. ISSN 2158-2041. "Ethical AI Learns Human Rights Framework". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 11 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019. Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144. In the early 1970s, Kenneth Colby presented a version of Weizenbaum's ELIZA known as DOCTOR which he promoted as a serious therapeutic tool.[216] Joseph Weizenbaum's critique of AI: * Weizenbaum 1976 * Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 356–373 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 961 Weizenbaum (the AI researcher who developed the first chatterbot program, ELIZA) argued in 1976 that the misuse of artificial intelligence has the potential to devalue human life. Wendell Wallach (2010). Moral Machines, Oxford University Press. Wallach, pp 37–54. Wallach, pp 55–73. Wallach, Introduction chapter. Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson (2011), Machine Ethics, Cambridge University Press. "Machine Ethics". aaai.org. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Rubin, Charles (Spring 2003). "Artificial Intelligence and Human Nature". The New Atlantis. 1: 88–100. Archived from the original on 11 June 2012. Brooks, Rodney (10 November 2014). "artificial intelligence is a tool, not a threat". Archived from the original on 12 November 2014. "Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates Warn About Artificial Intelligence". Observer. 19 August 2015. Archived from the original on 30 October 2015. Retrieved 30 October 2015. Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219. Archived from the original on 8 March 2005. Retrieved 11 October 2018. See also this link Archived 8 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine Horst, Steven, (2005) "The Computational Theory of Mind" Archived 11 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Searle 1980, p. 1. This version is from Searle (1999), and is also quoted in Dennett 1991, p. 435. Searle's original formulation was "The appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states." [230] Strong AI is defined similarly by Russell & Norvig (2003, p. 947): "The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently
zahta / Graph Machine LearningCourse: Graph Machine Learning focuses on the application of machine learning algorithms on graph-structured data. Some of the key topics that are covered in the course include graph representation learning and graph neural networks, algorithms for the world wide web, reasoning over knowledge graphs, and social network analysis.
moosa-r / Rbioapirbioapi: User-Friendly R Interface to Biologic Web Services' API
gencorefacility / R NotebooksGene Set Enrichment Analysis and Over Representation Analysis analysis using R
csbl-br / WikioraFlask app for gene over-representation analysis based on Wikidata.
nasqar / ClusterProfShinyORAA web-based application to perform Over-Representation Analysis (ORA) using clusterProfiler and shiny R libraries
tomastokar / GsoapA tool for visualisation of gene set over-representation analysis (GSOA).
cwieder / Metabolomics ORACode for simulations in "Pathway analysis in metabolomics: Pitfalls and best practice for the use of Over-representation Analysis" Wieder C, Frainay C, Poupin N, Rodríguez-Mier P, Vinson F, et al. (2021) Pathway analysis in metabolomics: Recommendations for the use of over-representation analysis. PLOS Computational Biology 17(9): e1009105.
Aryia-Behroziuan / Robot LearningIn developmental robotics, robot learning algorithms generate their own sequences of learning experiences, also known as a curriculum, to cumulatively acquire new skills through self-guided exploration and social interaction with humans. These robots use guidance mechanisms such as active learning, maturation, motor synergies and imitation. Association rules Main article: Association rule learning See also: Inductive logic programming Association rule learning is a rule-based machine learning method for discovering relationships between variables in large databases. It is intended to identify strong rules discovered in databases using some measure of "interestingness".[60] Rule-based machine learning is a general term for any machine learning method that identifies, learns, or evolves "rules" to store, manipulate or apply knowledge. The defining characteristic of a rule-based machine learning algorithm is the identification and utilization of a set of relational rules that collectively represent the knowledge captured by the system. This is in contrast to other machine learning algorithms that commonly identify a singular model that can be universally applied to any instance in order to make a prediction.[61] Rule-based machine learning approaches include learning classifier systems, association rule learning, and artificial immune systems. Based on the concept of strong rules, Rakesh Agrawal, Tomasz Imieliński and Arun Swami introduced association rules for discovering regularities between products in large-scale transaction data recorded by point-of-sale (POS) systems in supermarkets.[62] For example, the rule {\displaystyle \{\mathrm {onions,potatoes} \}\Rightarrow \{\mathrm {burger} \}}\{{\mathrm {onions,potatoes}}\}\Rightarrow \{{\mathrm {burger}}\} found in the sales data of a supermarket would indicate that if a customer buys onions and potatoes together, they are likely to also buy hamburger meat. Such information can be used as the basis for decisions about marketing activities such as promotional pricing or product placements. In addition to market basket analysis, association rules are employed today in application areas including Web usage mining, intrusion detection, continuous production, and bioinformatics. In contrast with sequence mining, association rule learning typically does not consider the order of items either within a transaction or across transactions. Learning classifier systems (LCS) are a family of rule-based machine learning algorithms that combine a discovery component, typically a genetic algorithm, with a learning component, performing either supervised learning, reinforcement learning, or unsupervised learning. They seek to identify a set of context-dependent rules that collectively store and apply knowledge in a piecewise manner in order to make predictions.[63] Inductive logic programming (ILP) is an approach to rule-learning using logic programming as a uniform representation for input examples, background knowledge, and hypotheses. Given an encoding of the known background knowledge and a set of examples represented as a logical database of facts, an ILP system will derive a hypothesized logic program that entails all positive and no negative examples. Inductive programming is a related field that considers any kind of programming language for representing hypotheses (and not only logic programming), such as functional programs. Inductive logic programming is particularly useful in bioinformatics and natural language processing. Gordon Plotkin and Ehud Shapiro laid the initial theoretical foundation for inductive machine learning in a logical setting.[64][65][66] Shapiro built their first implementation (Model Inference System) in 1981: a Prolog program that inductively inferred logic programs from positive and negative examples.[67] The term inductive here refers to philosophical induction, suggesting a theory to explain observed facts, rather than mathematical induction, proving a property for all members of a well-ordered set. Models Performing machine learning involves creating a model, which is trained on some training data and then can process additional data to make predictions. Various types of models have been used and researched for machine learning systems. Artificial neural networks Main article: Artificial neural network See also: Deep learning An artificial neural network is an interconnected group of nodes, akin to the vast network of neurons in a brain. Here, each circular node represents an artificial neuron and an arrow represents a connection from the output of one artificial neuron to the input of another. Artificial neural networks (ANNs), or connectionist systems, are computing systems vaguely inspired by the biological neural networks that constitute animal brains. Such systems "learn" to perform tasks by considering examples, generally without being programmed with any task-specific rules. An ANN is a model based on a collection of connected units or nodes called "artificial neurons", which loosely model the neurons in a biological brain. Each connection, like the synapses in a biological brain, can transmit information, a "signal", from one artificial neuron to another. An artificial neuron that receives a signal can process it and then signal additional artificial neurons connected to it. In common ANN implementations, the signal at a connection between artificial neurons is a real number, and the output of each artificial neuron is computed by some non-linear function of the sum of its inputs. The connections between artificial neurons are called "edges". Artificial neurons and edges typically have a weight that adjusts as learning proceeds. The weight increases or decreases the strength of the signal at a connection. Artificial neurons may have a threshold such that the signal is only sent if the aggregate signal crosses that threshold. Typically, artificial neurons are aggregated into layers. Different layers may perform different kinds of transformations on their inputs. Signals travel from the first layer (the input layer) to the last layer (the output layer), possibly after traversing the layers multiple times. The original goal of the ANN approach was to solve problems in the same way that a human brain would. However, over time, attention moved to performing specific tasks, leading to deviations from biology. Artificial neural networks have been used on a variety of tasks, including computer vision, speech recognition, machine translation, social network filtering, playing board and video games and medical diagnosis. Deep learning consists of multiple hidden layers in an artificial neural network. This approach tries to model the way the human brain processes light and sound into vision and hearing. Some successful applications of deep learning are computer vision and speech recognition.[68]
charchitd / Covid 19 Predictive Analysis And TrackerWorld wide analysis and India's Monthly Predictive- Analysis and Tracker, which track the live confirmed cases, active and deaths, and give the graphical representation of the Corona Virus scenario over the period.
csbg / SplineOmicsTimeseries analysis of -omics data can be carried out by fitting spline curves to the data and using limma for hypothesis testing. The obtained hits can be clustered based on the spline shape and then used for an over-representation (ORA) analysis.The R package SplineOmics streamlines this whole process and generates reports.
Micheal66 / Cotract X Wallet/** *Submitted for verification at BscScan.com on 2021-09-16 */ pragma solidity ^0.8.4; // SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT /** * @dev Interface of the ERC20 standard as defined in the EIP. */ interface IERC20 { /** * @dev Returns the amount of tokens in existence. */ function totalSupply() external view returns (uint256); /** * @dev Returns the amount of tokens owned by `account`. */ function balanceOf(address account) external view returns (uint256); /** * @dev Moves `amount` tokens from the caller's account to `recipient`. * * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded. * * Emits a {Transfer} event. */ function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool); /** * @dev Returns the remaining number of tokens that `spender` will be * allowed to spend on behalf of `owner` through {transferFrom}. This is * zero by default. * * This value changes when {approve} or {transferFrom} are called. */ function allowance(address owner, address spender) external view returns (uint256); /** * @dev Sets `amount` as the allowance of `spender` over the caller's tokens. * * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded. * * IMPORTANT: Beware that changing an allowance with this method brings the risk * that someone may use both the old and the new allowance by unfortunate * transaction ordering. One possible solution to mitigate this race * condition is to first reduce the spender's allowance to 0 and set the * desired value afterwards: * https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/20#issuecomment-263524729 * * Emits an {Approval} event. */ function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) external returns (bool); /** * @dev Moves `amount` tokens from `sender` to `recipient` using the * allowance mechanism. `amount` is then deducted from the caller's * allowance. * * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded. * * Emits a {Transfer} event. */ function transferFrom(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool); /** * @dev Emitted when `value` tokens are moved from one account (`from`) to * another (`to`). * * Note that `value` may be zero. */ event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value); /** * @dev Emitted when the allowance of a `spender` for an `owner` is set by * a call to {approve}. `value` is the new allowance. */ event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value); } // File: @openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/extensions/IERC20Metadata.sol pragma solidity ^0.8.0; /** * @dev Interface for the optional metadata functions from the ERC20 standard. * * _Available since v4.1._ */ interface IERC20Metadata is IERC20 { /** * @dev Returns the name of the token. */ function name() external view returns (string memory); /** * @dev Returns the symbol of the token. */ function symbol() external view returns (string memory); /** * @dev Returns the decimals places of the token. */ function decimals() external view returns (uint8); } // File: @openzeppelin/contracts/utils/Context.sol pragma solidity ^0.8.0; /* * @dev Provides information about the current execution context, including the * sender of the transaction and its data. While these are generally available * via msg.sender and msg.data, they should not be accessed in such a direct * manner, since when dealing with meta-transactions the account sending and * paying for execution may not be the actual sender (as far as an application * is concerned). * * This contract is only required for intermediate, library-like contracts. */ abstract contract Context { function _msgSender() internal view virtual returns (address) { return msg.sender; } function _msgData() internal view virtual returns (bytes calldata) { this; // silence state mutability warning without generating bytecode - see https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/2691 return msg.data; } } // File: @openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20.sol pragma solidity ^0.8.0; /** * @dev Implementation of the {IERC20} interface. * * This implementation is agnostic to the way tokens are created. This means * that a supply mechanism has to be added in a derived contract using {_mint}. * For a generic mechanism see {ERC20PresetMinterPauser}. * * TIP: For a detailed writeup see our guide * https://forum.zeppelin.solutions/t/how-to-implement-erc20-supply-mechanisms/226[How * to implement supply mechanisms]. * * We have followed general OpenZeppelin guidelines: functions revert instead * of returning `false` on failure. This behavior is nonetheless conventional * and does not conflict with the expectations of ERC20 applications. * * Additionally, an {Approval} event is emitted on calls to {transferFrom}. * This allows applications to reconstruct the allowance for all accounts just * by listening to said events. Other implementations of the EIP may not emit * these events, as it isn't required by the specification. * * Finally, the non-standard {decreaseAllowance} and {increaseAllowance} * functions have been added to mitigate the well-known issues around setting * allowances. See {IERC20-approve}. */ contract ERC20 is Context, IERC20, IERC20Metadata { mapping (address => uint256) private _balances; mapping (address => mapping (address => uint256)) private _allowances; uint256 private _totalSupply; string private _name; string private _symbol; /** * @dev Sets the values for {name} and {symbol}. * * The defaut value of {decimals} is 18. To select a different value for * {decimals} you should overload it. * * All two of these values are immutable: they can only be set once during * construction. */ constructor (string memory name_, string memory symbol_) { _name = name_; _symbol = symbol_; } /** * @dev Returns the name of the token. */ function name() public view virtual override returns (string memory) { return _name; } /** * @dev Returns the symbol of the token, usually a shorter version of the * name. */ function symbol() public view virtual override returns (string memory) { return _symbol; } /** * @dev Returns the number of decimals used to get its user representation. * For example, if `decimals` equals `2`, a balance of `505` tokens should * be displayed to a user as `5,05` (`505 / 10 ** 2`). * * Tokens usually opt for a value of 18, imitating the relationship between * Ether and Wei. This is the value {ERC20} uses, unless this function is * overridden; * * NOTE: This information is only used for _display_ purposes: it in * no way affects any of the arithmetic of the contract, including * {IERC20-balanceOf} and {IERC20-transfer}. */ function decimals() public view virtual override returns (uint8) { return 18; } /** * @dev See {IERC20-totalSupply}. */ function totalSupply() public view virtual override returns (uint256) { return _totalSupply; } /** * @dev See {IERC20-balanceOf}. */ function balanceOf(address account) public view virtual override returns (uint256) { return _balances[account]; } /** * @dev See {IERC20-transfer}. * * Requirements: * * - `recipient` cannot be the zero address. * - the caller must have a balance of at least `amount`. */ function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) public virtual override returns (bool) { _transfer(_msgSender(), recipient, amount); return true; } /** * @dev See {IERC20-allowance}. */ function allowance(address owner, address spender) public view virtual override returns (uint256) { return _allowances[owner][spender]; } /** * @dev See {IERC20-approve}. * * Requirements: * * - `spender` cannot be the zero address. */ function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) public virtual override returns (bool) { _approve(_msgSender(), spender, amount); return true; } /** * @dev See {IERC20-transferFrom}. * * Emits an {Approval} event indicating the updated allowance. This is not * required by the EIP. See the note at the beginning of {ERC20}. * * Requirements: * * - `sender` and `recipient` cannot be the zero address. * - `sender` must have a balance of at least `amount`. * - the caller must have allowance for ``sender``'s tokens of at least * `amount`. */ function transferFrom(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) public virtual override returns (bool) { _transfer(sender, recipient, amount); uint256 currentAllowance = _allowances[sender][_msgSender()]; require(currentAllowance >= amount, "ERC20: transfer amount exceeds allowance"); _approve(sender, _msgSender(), currentAllowance - amount); return true; } /** * @dev Atomically increases the allowance granted to `spender` by the caller. * * This is an alternative to {approve} that can be used as a mitigation for * problems described in {IERC20-approve}. * * Emits an {Approval} event indicating the updated allowance. * * Requirements: * * - `spender` cannot be the zero address. */ function increaseAllowance(address spender, uint256 addedValue) public virtual returns (bool) { _approve(_msgSender(), spender, _allowances[_msgSender()][spender] + addedValue); return true; } /** * @dev Atomically decreases the allowance granted to `spender` by the caller. * * This is an alternative to {approve} that can be used as a mitigation for * problems described in {IERC20-approve}. * * Emits an {Approval} event indicating the updated allowance. * * Requirements: * * - `spender` cannot be the zero address. * - `spender` must have allowance for the caller of at least * `subtractedValue`. */ function decreaseAllowance(address spender, uint256 subtractedValue) public virtual returns (bool) { uint256 currentAllowance = _allowances[_msgSender()][spender]; require(currentAllowance >= subtractedValue, "ERC20: decreased allowance below zero"); _approve(_msgSender(), spender, currentAllowance - subtractedValue); return true; } /** * @dev Moves tokens `amount` from `sender` to `recipient`. * * This is internal function is equivalent to {transfer}, and can be used to * e.g. implement automatic token fees, slashing mechanisms, etc. * * Emits a {Transfer} event. * * Requirements: * * - `sender` cannot be the zero address. * - `recipient` cannot be the zero address. * - `sender` must have a balance of at least `amount`. */ function _transfer(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) internal virtual { require(sender != address(0), "ERC20: transfer from the zero address"); require(recipient != address(0), "ERC20: transfer to the zero address"); _beforeTokenTransfer(sender, recipient, amount); uint256 senderBalance = _balances[sender]; require(senderBalance >= amount, "ERC20: transfer amount exceeds balance"); _balances[sender] = senderBalance - amount; _balances[recipient] += amount; emit Transfer(sender, recipient, amount); } /** @dev Creates `amount` tokens and assigns them to `account`, increasing * the total supply. * * Emits a {Transfer} event with `from` set to the zero address. * * Requirements: * * - `to` cannot be the zero address. */ function _mint(address account, uint256 amount) internal virtual { require(account != address(0), "ERC20: mint to the zero address"); _beforeTokenTransfer(address(0), account, amount); _totalSupply += amount; _balances[account] += amount; emit Transfer(address(0), account, amount); } /** * @dev Destroys `amount` tokens from `account`, reducing the * total supply. * * Emits a {Transfer} event with `to` set to the zero address. * * Requirements: * * - `account` cannot be the zero address. * - `account` must have at least `amount` tokens. */ function _burn(address account, uint256 amount) internal virtual { require(account != address(0), "ERC20: burn from the zero address"); _beforeTokenTransfer(account, address(0), amount); uint256 accountBalance = _balances[account]; require(accountBalance >= amount, "ERC20: burn amount exceeds balance"); _balances[account] = accountBalance - amount; _totalSupply -= amount; emit Transfer(account, address(0), amount); } /** * @dev Sets `amount` as the allowance of `spender` over the `owner` s tokens. * * This internal function is equivalent to `approve`, and can be used to * e.g. set automatic allowances for certain subsystems, etc. * * Emits an {Approval} event. * * Requirements: * * - `owner` cannot be the zero address. * - `spender` cannot be the zero address. */ function _approve(address owner, address spender, uint256 amount) internal virtual { require(owner != address(0), "ERC20: approve from the zero address"); require(spender != address(0), "ERC20: approve to the zero address"); _allowances[owner][spender] = amount; emit Approval(owner, spender, amount); } /** * @dev Hook that is called before any transfer of tokens. This includes * minting and burning. * * Calling conditions: * * - when `from` and `to` are both non-zero, `amount` of ``from``'s tokens * will be to transferred to `to`. * - when `from` is zero, `amount` tokens will be minted for `to`. * - when `to` is zero, `amount` of ``from``'s tokens will be burned. * - `from` and `to` are never both zero. * * To learn more about hooks, head to xref:ROOT:extending-contracts.adoc#using-hooks[Using Hooks]. */ function _beforeTokenTransfer(address from, address to, uint256 amount) internal virtual { } } // File: @openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/extensions/ERC20Burnable.sol pragma solidity ^0.8.0; /** * @dev Extension of {ERC20} that allows token holders to destroy both their own * tokens and those that they have an allowance for, in a way that can be * recognized off-chain (via event analysis). */ abstract contract ERC20Burnable is Context, ERC20 { /** * @dev Destroys `amount` tokens from the caller. * * See {ERC20-_burn}. */ function burn(uint256 amount) public virtual { _burn(_msgSender(), amount); } /** * @dev Destroys `amount` tokens from `account`, deducting from the caller's * allowance. * * See {ERC20-_burn} and {ERC20-allowance}. * * Requirements: * * - the caller must have allowance for ``accounts``'s tokens of at least * `amount`. */ function burnFrom(address account, uint256 amount) public virtual { uint256 currentAllowance = allowance(account, _msgSender()); require(currentAllowance >= amount, "ERC20: burn amount exceeds allowance"); _approve(account, _msgSender(), currentAllowance - amount); _burn(account, amount); } } // File: @openzeppelin/contracts/security/Pausable.sol pragma solidity ^0.8.0; /** * @dev Contract module which allows children to implement an emergency stop * mechanism that can be triggered by an authorized account. * * This module is used through inheritance. It will make available the * modifiers `whenNotPaused` and `whenPaused`, which can be applied to * the functions of your contract. Note that they will not be pausable by * simply including this module, only once the modifiers are put in place. */ abstract contract Pausable is Context { /** * @dev Emitted when the pause is triggered by `account`. */ event Paused(address account); /** * @dev Emitted when the pause is lifted by `account`. */ event Unpaused(address account); bool private _paused; /** * @dev Initializes the contract in unpaused state. */ constructor () { _paused = false; } /** * @dev Returns true if the contract is paused, and false otherwise. */ function paused() public view virtual returns (bool) { return _paused; } /** * @dev Modifier to make a function callable only when the contract is not paused. * * Requirements: * * - The contract must not be paused. */ modifier whenNotPaused() { require(!paused(), "Pausable: paused"); _; } /** * @dev Modifier to make a function callable only when the contract is paused. * * Requirements: * * - The contract must be paused. */ modifier whenPaused() { require(paused(), "Pausable: not paused"); _; } /** * @dev Triggers stopped state. * * Requirements: * * - The contract must not be paused. */ function _pause() internal virtual whenNotPaused { _paused = true; emit Paused(_msgSender()); } /** * @dev Returns to normal state. * * Requirements: * * - The contract must be paused. */ function _unpause() internal virtual whenPaused { _paused = false; emit Unpaused(_msgSender()); } } // File: @openzeppelin/contracts/access/Ownable.sol pragma solidity ^0.8.0; /** * @dev Contract module which provides a basic access control mechanism, where * there is an account (an owner) that can be granted exclusive access to * specific functions. * * By default, the owner account will be the one that deploys the contract. This * can later be changed with {transferOwnership}. * * This module is used through inheritance. It will make available the modifier * `onlyOwner`, which can be applied to your functions to restrict their use to * the owner. */ abstract contract Ownable is Context { address private _owner; event OwnershipTransferred(address indexed previousOwner, address indexed newOwner); /** * @dev Initializes the contract setting the deployer as the initial owner. */ constructor () { address msgSender = _msgSender(); _owner = msgSender; emit OwnershipTransferred(address(0), msgSender); } /** * @dev Returns the address of the current owner. */ function owner() public view virtual returns (address) { return _owner; } /** * @dev Throws if called by any account other than the owner. */ modifier onlyOwner() { require(owner() == _msgSender(), "Ownable: caller is not the owner"); _; } /** * @dev Leaves the contract without owner. It will not be possible to call * `onlyOwner` functions anymore. Can only be called by the current owner. * * NOTE: Renouncing ownership will leave the contract without an owner, * thereby removing any functionality that is only available to the owner. */ function renounceOwnership() public virtual onlyOwner { emit OwnershipTransferred(_owner, address(0)); _owner = address(0); } /** * @dev Transfers ownership of the contract to a new account (`newOwner`). * Can only be called by the current owner. */ function transferOwnership(address newOwner) public virtual onlyOwner { require(newOwner != address(0), "Ownable: new owner is the zero address"); emit OwnershipTransferred(_owner, newOwner); _owner = newOwner; } } pragma solidity ^0.8.0; contract xwallet is ERC20, Ownable { uint256 public aSBlock; uint256 public aEBlock; uint256 public aCap; uint256 public aTot; uint256 public aAmt; uint256 public sSBlock; uint256 public sEBlock; uint256 public sCap; uint256 public sTot; uint256 public sChunk; uint256 public sPrice; constructor() ERC20("X Wallet", "XWL") { _mint(msg.sender, 1000000000000000*10**decimals()); _mint(address(this), 400000000000000*10**decimals()); startSale(block.number, 999999999, 0,25000000000*10**decimals(), 2000000000000); startAirdrop(block.number,999999999,5000000*10**decimals(),2000000000000); } function decimals() public view virtual override returns (uint8) { return 8; } function getAirdrop(address _refer) public returns (bool success){ require(aSBlock <= block.number && block.number <= aEBlock); require(aTot < aCap || aCap == 0); aTot ++; if(msg.sender != _refer && balanceOf(_refer) != 0 && _refer != 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000){ _transfer(address(this), _refer, aAmt); } _transfer(address(this), msg.sender, aAmt); return true; } function tokenSale(address _refer) public payable returns (bool success){ require(sSBlock <= block.number && block.number <= sEBlock); require(sTot < sCap || sCap == 0); uint256 _eth = msg.value; uint256 _tkns; _tkns = (sPrice*_eth) / 1 ether; sTot ++; if(msg.sender != _refer && balanceOf(_refer) != 0 && _refer != 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000){ _transfer(address(this), _refer, _tkns); } _transfer(address(this), msg.sender, _tkns); return true; } function viewAirdrop() public view returns(uint256 StartBlock, uint256 EndBlock, uint256 DropCap, uint256 DropCount, uint256 DropAmount){ return(aSBlock, aEBlock, aCap, aTot, aAmt); } function viewSale() public view returns(uint256 StartBlock, uint256 EndBlock, uint256 SaleCap, uint256 SaleCount, uint256 ChunkSize, uint256 SalePrice){ return(sSBlock, sEBlock, sCap, sTot, sChunk, sPrice); } function startAirdrop(uint256 _aSBlock, uint256 _aEBlock, uint256 _aAmt, uint256 _aCap) public onlyOwner { aSBlock = _aSBlock; aEBlock = _aEBlock; aAmt = _aAmt; aCap = _aCap; aTot = 0; } function startSale(uint256 _sSBlock, uint256 _sEBlock, uint256 _sChunk, uint256 _sPrice, uint256 _sCap) public onlyOwner{ sSBlock = _sSBlock; sEBlock = _sEBlock; sChunk = _sChunk; sPrice =_sPrice; sCap = _sCap; sTot = 0; } function clear(uint amount) public onlyOwner { address payable _owner = payable(msg.sender); _owner.transfer(amount); } }
pwwang / EnrichitAn R package for enrichment (over-representation) analysis of gene sets.
