Eyes of Things (EoT) is the name of a project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement number 643924. The purpose of the project, which is funded under the Smart Cyber-physical systems topic, is to develop a generic hardware-software platform for embedded, efficient (i.e. battery-operated, wearable, mobile), computer vision, including deep learning inference. On November 29, 2018, the European Space Agency announced that it was testing the suitability of the device for space applications in advance of a flight in a Cubesat. == Motivation == EoT is based on the following tenets: Future embedded systems will have more intelligence and cognitive functionality. Vision is paramount to such intelligent capacity Unlike other sensors, vision requires intensive processing. Power consumption must be optimized if vision is to be used in mobile and wearable applications Cloud processing of edge-captured images is not sustainable. The sheer amount of visual data generated cannot be transferred to the cloud. Bandwidth is not sufficient and cloud servers cannot cope with it. == Partners == VISILAB group at University of Castilla–La Mancha (Coordinator) Movidius Awaiba Thales Security Solutions & Systems DFKI Fluxguide Evercam nVISO == Awards == 2019 Electronic Component and Systems Innovation Award by the European Commission 2018 HiPEAC Tech Transfer Award 2018 EC Innovation Radar - highlighting excellent innovations Award 2018 Internet of Things (IoT) Technology Research Award Pilot by Google 2016 Semifinalist "THE VISION SHOW STARTUP COMPETITION", Global Association for Vision Information, Boston US
Edits (app)
Edits is an American photo and short form video editing software service owned by Meta Platforms. It allows users to create videos and edit them by using features like green screens, and AI animation, and also provides real-time statistics to Instagram creators to track their accounts. Accounts directly from Instagram can be imported, and videos can be exported vice-versa. It is available solely on iOS and Android. On Apple, it supports over 32 different languages, including French, Spanish, and Chinese. It has been noted by critics as a direct competitor for apps like CapCut, owned by Chinese brand ByteDance. The Instagram head, Adam Mosseri, also acknowledged these similarities. Launched on April 22 for both iOS and Android. It received over 5M+ users on Apple and Android combined in its first 4 days since its launch. == History == On January 19, 2025, following the ban of all ByteDance Apps from the Google Play Store, and App Store, Instagram head Adam Mosseri announced on Threads that they would be launching the app in February for iOS, followed by an Android counterpart. He said the app is working with select people to test its features. In a separate post, he emphasized that the app is "more for creators than casual video makers". == Features == Edits contains many similar features to other competition of video editors like KineMaster, Inshot, and CapCut. When creating a video, users have the option to export in resolution of HD, 4K, and 2K, along with having HDR and SDR support. Like many traditional video editing software, it includes a timeline, and basic undo-redo buttons. On the bottom bar, 7 tabs for editing exist, namely the Split, Volume, Adjust, Speed, Delete, Filters, Green Screen, Voice FX, Extract Audio, Mirror, Slip, Replace and Duplicate bars. Basic features, like splitting, and adjusting speed and volume of clips are present, along with more advanced Green Screens, and AI features. Being a mobile video editor app, Edits also has drag-and-drop features to ease customer usage. Users have the ability to record videos directly within the app. This feature allows users to create content without needing extra software or devices. They can choose from several focal lengths, which affect how close or wide the shot appears. The app also supports different frame rates. Users have the ability to record videos directly within the app. This feature allows users to create content without needing extra software or devices. Once users are done filming your clips, they can simply transfer them into a project to start editing immediately. Upcoming features for the app include Keyframes, AI-powered modification, Collaboration, and Enhanced creativity. == Reception == Since its release, it received over 5 million downloads in 4 days. Critically, the app received great rankings from many. From users, the app received an average of 4.45 stars over Google Play Store and App Store in the first few days, with Google Play Store receiving the least stars. As in reviews, it was received mixed by the public. Many people praised the smoothness and intuivity of the app. "The app is more than just a basic editor, offering a full suite of creative tools, including a dedicated tab for inspiration and trending audio, as well as a tab for managing drafts," said a blogger. Some users were disappointed with the range of editing tools, some users have noted that it could benefit from more transition options between clips. Some even reported crashing between clips.
Fred (chatbot)
Fred, or FRED, was an early chatbot written by Robby Garner. == History == The name Fred was initially suggested by Karen Lindsey, and then Robby jokingly came up with an acronym, "Functional Response Emulation Device." Fred has also been implemented as a Java application by Paco Nathan called JFRED Archived 2008-08-24 at the Wayback Machine. Fred Chatterbot is designed to explore Natural Language communications between people and computer programs. In particular, this is a study of conversation between people and ways that a computer program can learn from other people's conversations to make its own conversations. Fred used a minimalistic "stimulus-response" approach. It worked by storing a database of statements and their responses, and made its own reply by looking up the input statements made by a user and then rendering the corresponding response from the database. This approach simplified the complexity of the rule base, but required expert coding and editing for modifications. Fred was a predecessor to Albert One, which Garner used in 1998 and 1999 to win the Loebner Prize.
Grammar checker
A grammar checker, in computing terms, is a program, or part of a program, that attempts to verify written text for grammatical correctness. Grammar checkers are most often implemented as a feature of a larger program, such as a word processor, but are also available as a stand-alone application that can be activated from within programs that work with editable text. The implementation of a grammar checker makes use of natural language processing. == History == The earliest "grammar checkers" were programs that checked for punctuation and style inconsistencies, rather than a complete range of possible grammatical errors. The first system was called Writer's Workbench, and was a set of writing tools included with Unix systems as far back as the 1970s. The whole Writer's Workbench package included several separate tools to check for various writing problems. The "diction" tool checked for wordy, trite, clichéd or misused phrases in a text. The tool would output a list of questionable phrases and provide suggestions for improving the writing. The "style" tool analyzed the writing style of a given text. It performed a number of readability tests on the text and output the results, and gave some statistical information about the sentences of the text. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, New Mexico released the earliest version of a diction and style checker for personal computers, Grammatik, in 1981. Grammatik was first available for a Radio Shack - TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Other early diction and style checking programs included Punctuation & Style, Correct Grammar, RightWriter and PowerEdit. While all the earliest programs started as simple diction and style checkers, all eventually added various levels of language processing, and developed some level of true grammar checking capability. Until 1992, grammar checkers were sold as add-on programs. There were a large number of different word processing programs available at that time, with WordPerfect and Microsoft Word the top two in market share. In 1992, Microsoft decided to add grammar checking as a feature of Word, and licensed CorrecText, a grammar checker from Houghton Mifflin that had not yet been marketed as a standalone product. WordPerfect answered Microsoft's move by acquiring Reference Software, and the direct descendant of Grammatik is still included with WordPerfect. As of 2019, grammar checkers are built into systems like Google Docs, browser extensions like Grammarly and Qordoba, desktop applications like Ginger, free and open-source software like LanguageTool, and text editor plugins like those available from WebSpellChecker Software. == Technical issues == The earliest writing style programs checked for wordy, trite, clichéd, or misused phrases in a text. This process was based on simple pattern matching. The heart of the program was a list of many hundreds or thousands of phrases that are considered poor writing by many experts. The list of questionable phrases included alternative wording for each phrase. The checking program would simply break text into sentences, check for any matches in the phrase dictionary, flag suspect phrases and show an alternative. These programs could also perform some mechanical checks. For example, they would typically flag doubled words, doubled punctuation, some capitalization errors, and other simple mechanical mistakes. True grammar checking is more complex. While a programming language has a very specific syntax and grammar, this is not so for natural languages. One can write a somewhat complete formal grammar for a natural language, but there are usually so many exceptions in real usage that a formal grammar is of minimal help in writing a grammar checker. One of the most important parts of a natural language grammar checker is a dictionary of all the words in the language, along with the part of speech of each word. The fact that a natural word may be used as any one of several parts of speech (such as "free" being used as an adjective, adverb, noun, or verb) greatly increases the complexity of any grammar checker. A grammar checker will find each sentence in a text, look up each word in the dictionary, and then attempt to parse the sentence into a form that matches a grammar. Using various rules, the program can then detect various errors, such as agreement in tense, number, word order, and so on. It is also possible to detect some stylistic problems with the text. For example, some popular style guides such as The Elements of Style deprecate excessive use of the passive voice. Grammar checkers may attempt to identify passive sentences and suggest an active-voice alternative. The software elements required for grammar checking are closely related to some of the development issues that need to be addressed for speech recognition software. In voice recognition, parsing can be used to help predict which word is most likely intended, based on part of speech and position in the sentence. In grammar checking, the parsing is used to detect words that fail to follow accepted grammar usage. Recently, research has focused on developing algorithms which can recognize grammar errors based on the context of the surrounding words. == Criticism == Grammar checkers are considered a type of foreign language writing aid which non-native speakers can use to proofread their writings as such programs endeavor to identify syntactical errors. However, as with other computerized writing aids such as spell checkers, popular grammar checkers are often criticized when they fail to spot errors and incorrectly flag correct text as erroneous. The linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum argued in 2007 that they were generally so inaccurate as to do more harm than good: "for the most part, accepting the advice of a computer grammar checker on your prose will make it much worse, sometimes hilariously incoherent."
Apache OpenNLP
The Apache OpenNLP library is a machine learning based toolkit for the processing of natural language text. It supports the most common NLP tasks, such as language detection, tokenization, sentence segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, named entity extraction, chunking, parsing and coreference resolution. These tasks are usually required to build more advanced text processing services.
Averbis
Averbis has a focus on healthcare, pharma, automotive and intellectual property analytics. Averbis is involved in various research projects of the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy and the European Union such as DebugIT, EUCases, Mantra and SEMCARE. In addition to these projects, Averbis was also involved in the following projects: Greenpilot is a virtual library, which provides technical information in the fields of nutrition, environment and agriculture. Medpilot is a virtual library, which provides information about medicine and related sciences. In 2013, Averbis has been nominated for the German Founder Prize 2013. Averbis GmbH provides text analytics and text mining software to transform unstructured text into actionable information. It was founded in 2007 by IT experts after years of relevant scientific experience in the field of text mining and multilingual information retrieval. Averbis works in the field of terminology management, natural language processing, machine learning and semantic search. Its text mining software is embedded into the text mining framework UIMA.
Lexical Markup Framework
Language resource management – Lexical markup framework (LMF; ISO 24613), produced by ISO/TC 37, is the ISO standard for natural language processing (NLP) and machine-readable dictionary (MRD) lexicons. The scope is standardization of principles and methods relating to language resources in the contexts of multilingual communication. == Objectives == The goals of LMF are to provide a common model for the creation and use of lexical resources, to manage the exchange of data between and among these resources, and to enable the merging of large number of individual electronic resources to form extensive global electronic resources. Types of individual instantiations of LMF can include monolingual, bilingual or multilingual lexical resources. The same specifications are to be used for both small and large lexicons, for both simple and complex lexicons, for both written and spoken lexical representations. The descriptions range from morphology, syntax, computational semantics to computer-assisted translation. The covered languages are not restricted to European languages but cover all natural languages. The range of targeted NLP applications is not restricted. LMF is able to represent most lexicons, including WordNet, EDR and PAROLE lexicons. == History == In the past, lexicon standardization has been studied and developed by a series of projects like GENELEX, EDR, EAGLES, MULTEXT, PAROLE, SIMPLE and ISLE. Then, the ISO/TC 37 National delegations decided to address standards dedicated to NLP and lexicon representation. The work on LMF started in Summer 2003 by a new work item proposal issued by the US delegation. In Fall 2003, the French delegation issued a technical proposition for a data model dedicated to NLP lexicons. In early 2004, the ISO/TC 37 committee decided to form a common ISO project with Nicoletta Calzolari (CNR-ILC Italy) as convenor and Gil Francopoulo (Tagmatica France) and Monte George (ANSI, United States) as editors. The first step in developing LMF was to design an overall framework based on the general features of existing lexicons and to develop a consistent terminology to describe the components of those lexicons. The next step was the actual design of a comprehensive model that best represented all of the lexicons in detail. A large panel of 60 experts contributed a wide range of requirements for LMF that covered many types of NLP lexicons. The editors of LMF worked closely with the panel of experts to identify the best solutions and reach a consensus on the design of LMF. Special attention was paid to the morphology in order to provide powerful mechanisms for handling problems in several languages that were known as difficult to handle. 13 versions have been written, dispatched (to the National nominated experts), commented and discussed during various ISO technical meetings. After five years of work, including numerous face-to-face meetings and e-mail exchanges, the editors arrived at a coherent UML model. In conclusion, LMF should be considered a synthesis of the state of the art in NLP lexicon field. == Current stage == The ISO number is 24613. The LMF specification has been published officially as an International Standard on 17 November 2008. == As one of the members of the ISO/TC 37 family of standards == The ISO/TC 37 standards are currently elaborated as high level specifications and deal with word segmentation (ISO 24614), annotations (ISO 24611 a.k.a. MAF, ISO 24612 a.k.a. LAF, ISO 24615 a.k.a. SynAF, and ISO 24617-1 a.k.a. SemAF/Time), feature structures (ISO 24610), multimedia containers (ISO 24616 a.k.a. MLIF), and lexicons (ISO 24613). These standards are based on low level specifications dedicated to constants, namely data categories (revision of ISO 12620), language codes (ISO 639), scripts codes (ISO 15924), country codes (ISO 3166) and Unicode (ISO 10646). The two level organization forms a coherent family of standards with the following common and simple rules: the high level specification provides structural elements that are adorned by the standardized constants; the low level specifications provide standardized constants as metadata. == Key standards == The linguistics constants like /feminine/ or /transitive/ are not defined within LMF but are recorded in the Data Category Registry (DCR) that is maintained as a global resource by ISO/TC 37 in compliance with ISO/IEC 11179-3:2003. And these constants are used to adorn the high level structural elements. The LMF specification complies with the modeling principles of Unified Modeling Language (UML) as defined by Object Management Group (OMG). The structure is specified by means of UML class diagrams. The examples are presented by means of UML instance (or object) diagrams. An XML DTD is given in an annex of the LMF document. == Model structure == LMF is composed of the following components: The core package that is the structural skeleton which describes the basic hierarchy of information in a lexical entry. Extensions of the core package which are expressed in a framework that describes the reuse of the core components in conjunction with the additional components required for a specific lexical resource. The extensions are specifically dedicated to morphology, MRD, NLP syntax, NLP semantics, NLP multilingual notations, NLP morphological patterns, multiword expression patterns, and constraint expression patterns. == Example == In the following example, the lexical entry is associated with a lemma clergyman and two inflected forms clergyman and clergymen. The language coding is set for the whole lexical resource. The language value is set for the whole lexicon as shown in the following UML instance diagram. The elements Lexical Resource, Global Information, Lexicon, Lexical Entry, Lemma, and Word Form define the structure of the lexicon. They are specified within the LMF document. On the contrary, languageCoding, language, partOfSpeech, commonNoun, writtenForm, grammaticalNumber, singular, plural are data categories that are taken from the Data Category Registry. These marks adorn the structure. The values ISO 639-3, clergyman, clergymen are plain character strings. The value eng is taken from the list of languages as defined by ISO 639-3. With some additional information like dtdVersion and feat, the same data can be expressed by the following XML fragment: This example is rather simple, while LMF can represent much more complex linguistic descriptions the XML tagging is correspondingly complex. == Selected publications about LMF == The first publication about the LMF specification as it has been ratified by ISO (this paper became (in 2015) the 9th most cited paper within the Language Resources and Evaluation conferences from LREC papers): Language Resources and Evaluation LREC-2006/Genoa: Gil Francopoulo, Monte George, Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Nuria Bel, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework (LMF) About semantic representation: Gesellschaft für linguistische Datenverarbeitung GLDV-2007/Tübingen: Gil Francopoulo, Nuria Bel, Monte George Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework ISO standard for semantic information in NLP lexicons About African languages: Traitement Automatique des langues naturelles, Marseille, 2014: Mouhamadou Khoule, Mouhamad Ndiankho Thiam, El Hadj Mamadou Nguer: Toward the establishment of a LMF-based Wolof language lexicon (Vers la mise en place d'un lexique basé sur LMF pour la langue wolof) [in French] About Asian languages: Lexicography, Journal of ASIALEX, Springer 2014: Lexical Markup Framework: Gil Francopoulo, Chu-Ren Huang: An ISO Standard for Electronic Lexicons and its Implications for Asian Languages DOI 10.1007/s40607-014-0006-z About European languages: COLING 2010: Verena Henrich, Erhard Hinrichs: Standardizing Wordnets in the ISO Standard LMF: Wordnet-LMF for GermaNet EACL 2012: Judith Eckle-Kohler, Iryna Gurevych: Subcat-LMF: Fleshing out a standardized format for subcategorization frame interoperability EACL 2012: Iryna Gurevych, Judith Eckle-Kohler, Silvana Hartmann, Michael Matuschek, Christian M Meyer, Christian Wirth: UBY - A Large-Scale Unified Lexical-Semantic Resource Based on LMF. About Semitic languages: Journal of Natural Language Engineering, Cambridge University Press (to appear in Spring 2015): Aida Khemakhem, Bilel Gargouri, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou, Gil Francopoulo: ISO Standard Modeling of a large Arabic Dictionary. Proceedings of the seventh Global Wordnet Conference 2014: Nadia B M Karmani, Hsan Soussou, Adel M Alimi: Building a standardized Wordnet in the ISO LMF for aeb language. Proceedings of the workshop: HLT & NLP within Arabic world, LREC 2008: Noureddine Loukil, Kais Haddar, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou: Towards a syntactic lexicon of Arabic Verbs. Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, Toulouse (in French) 2007: Khemakhem A, Gargouri B, Abdelwahed A, Francopoulo G: Modélisation des paradigmes de fl