Empirical dynamic modeling (EDM) is a framework for analysis and prediction of nonlinear dynamical systems. Applications include population dynamics, ecosystem service, medicine, neuroscience, dynamical systems, geophysics, and human-computer interaction. EDM was originally developed by Robert May and George Sugihara. It can be considered a methodology for data modeling, predictive analytics, dynamical system analysis, machine learning and time series analysis. == Description == Mathematical models have tremendous power to describe observations of real-world systems. They are routinely used to test hypothesis, explain mechanisms and predict future outcomes. However, real-world systems are often nonlinear and multidimensional, in some instances rendering explicit equation-based modeling problematic. Empirical models, which infer patterns and associations from the data instead of using hypothesized equations, represent a natural and flexible framework for modeling complex dynamics. Donald DeAngelis and Simeon Yurek illustrated that canonical statistical models are ill-posed when applied to nonlinear dynamical systems. A hallmark of nonlinear dynamics is state-dependence: system states are related to previous states governing transition from one state to another. EDM operates in this space, the multidimensional state-space of system dynamics rather than on one-dimensional observational time series. EDM does not presume relationships among states, for example, a functional dependence, but projects future states from localised, neighboring states. EDM is thus a state-space, nearest-neighbors paradigm where system dynamics are inferred from states derived from observational time series. This provides a model-free representation of the system naturally encompassing nonlinear dynamics. A cornerstone of EDM is recognition that time series observed from a dynamical system can be transformed into higher-dimensional state-spaces by time-delay embedding with Takens's theorem. The state-space models are evaluated based on in-sample fidelity to observations, conventionally with Pearson correlation between predictions and observations. == Methods == Primary EDM algorithms include Simplex projection, Sequential locally weighted global linear maps (S-Map) projection, Multivariate embedding in Simplex or S-Map, Convergent cross mapping (CCM), and Multiview Embeding, described below. Nearest neighbors are found according to: NN ( y , X , k ) = ‖ X N i E − y ‖ ≤ ‖ X N j E − y ‖ if 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ k {\displaystyle {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)=\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|\leq \|X_{N_{j}}^{E}-y\|{\text{ if }}1\leq i\leq j\leq k} === Simplex === Simplex projection is a nearest neighbor projection. It locates the k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbors to the location in the state-space from which a prediction is desired. To minimize the number of free parameters k {\displaystyle k} is typically set to E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} defining an E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} dimensional simplex in the state-space. The prediction is computed as the average of the weighted phase-space simplex projected T p {\displaystyle Tp} points ahead. Each neighbor is weighted proportional to their distance to the projection origin vector in the state-space. Find k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbor: N k ← NN ( y , X , k ) {\displaystyle N_{k}\gets {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)} Define the distance scale: d ← ‖ X N 1 E − y ‖ {\displaystyle d\gets \|X_{N_{1}}^{E}-y\|} Compute weights: For{ i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,k} } : w i ← exp ( − ‖ X N i E − y ‖ / d ) {\displaystyle w_{i}\gets \exp(-\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|/d)} Average of state-space simplex: y ^ ← ∑ i = 1 k ( w i X N i + T p ) / ∑ i = 1 k w i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}\gets \sum _{i=1}^{k}\left(w_{i}X_{N_{i}+T_{p}}\right)/\sum _{i=1}^{k}w_{i}} === S-Map === S-Map extends the state-space prediction in Simplex from an average of the E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} nearest neighbors to a linear regression fit to all neighbors, but localised with an exponential decay kernel. The exponential localisation function is F ( θ ) = exp ( − θ d / D ) {\displaystyle F(\theta )={\text{exp}}(-\theta d/D)} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the neighbor distance and D {\displaystyle D} the mean distance. In this way, depending on the value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } , neighbors close to the prediction origin point have a higher weight than those further from it, such that a local linear approximation to the nonlinear system is reasonable. This localisation ability allows one to identify an optimal local scale, in-effect quantifying the degree of state dependence, and hence nonlinearity of the system. Another feature of S-Map is that for a properly fit model, the regression coefficients between variables have been shown to approximate the gradient (directional derivative) of variables along the manifold. These Jacobians represent the time-varying interaction strengths between system variables. Find k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbor: N ← NN ( y , X , k ) {\displaystyle N\gets {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)} Sum of distances: D ← 1 k ∑ i = 1 k ‖ X N i E − y ‖ {\displaystyle D\gets {\frac {1}{k}}\sum _{i=1}^{k}\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|} Compute weights: For{ i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,k} } : w i ← exp ( − θ ‖ X N i E − y ‖ / D ) {\displaystyle w_{i}\gets \exp(-\theta \|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|/D)} Reweighting matrix: W ← diag ( w i ) {\displaystyle W\gets {\text{diag}}(w_{i})} Design matrix: A ← [ 1 X N 1 X N 1 − 1 … X N 1 − E + 1 1 X N 2 X N 2 − 1 … X N 2 − E + 1 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 1 X N k X N k − 1 … X N k − E + 1 ] {\displaystyle A\gets {\begin{bmatrix}1&X_{N_{1}}&X_{N_{1}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{1}-E+1}\\1&X_{N_{2}}&X_{N_{2}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{2}-E+1}\\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\1&X_{N_{k}}&X_{N_{k}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{k}-E+1}\end{bmatrix}}} Weighted design matrix: A ← W A {\displaystyle A\gets WA} Response vector at T p {\displaystyle Tp} : b ← [ X N 1 + T p X N 2 + T p ⋮ X N k + T p ] {\displaystyle b\gets {\begin{bmatrix}X_{N_{1}+T_{p}}\\X_{N_{2}+T_{p}}\\\vdots \\X_{N_{k}+T_{p}}\end{bmatrix}}} Weighted response vector: b ← W b {\displaystyle b\gets Wb} Least squares solution (SVD): c ^ ← argmin c ‖ A c − b ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {c}}\gets {\text{argmin}}_{c}\|Ac-b\|_{2}^{2}} Local linear model c ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {c}}} is prediction: y ^ ← c ^ 0 + ∑ i = 1 E c ^ i y i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}\gets {\hat {c}}_{0}+\sum _{i=1}^{E}{\hat {c}}_{i}y_{i}} === Multivariate Embedding === Multivariate Embedding recognizes that time-delay embeddings are not the only valid state-space construction. In Simplex and S-Map one can generate a state-space from observational vectors, or time-delay embeddings of a single observational time series, or both. === Convergent Cross Mapping === Convergent cross mapping (CCM) leverages a corollary to the Generalized Takens Theorem that it should be possible to cross predict or cross map between variables observed from the same system. Suppose that in some dynamical system involving variables X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} , X {\displaystyle X} causes Y {\displaystyle Y} . Since X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} belong to the same dynamical system, their reconstructions (via embeddings) M x {\displaystyle M_{x}} , and M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} , also map to the same system. The causal variable X {\displaystyle X} leaves a signature on the affected variable Y {\displaystyle Y} , and consequently, the reconstructed states based on Y {\displaystyle Y} can be used to cross predict values of X {\displaystyle X} . CCM leverages this property to infer causality by predicting X {\displaystyle X} using the M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} library of points (or vice versa for the other direction of causality), while assessing improvements in cross map predictability as larger and larger random samplings of M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} are used. If the prediction skill of X {\displaystyle X} increases and saturates as the entire M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} is used, this provides evidence that X {\displaystyle X} is casually influencing Y {\displaystyle Y} . === Multiview Embedding === Multiview Embedding is a Dimensionality reduction technique where a large number of state-space time series vectors are combitorially assessed towards maximal model predictability. == Extensions == Extensions to EDM techniques include: Generalized Theorems for Nonlinear State Space Reconstruction Extended Convergent Cross Mapping Dynamic stability S-Map regularization Visual analytics with EDM Convergent Cross Sorting Expert system with EDM hybrid Sliding windows based on the extended convergent cross-mapping Empirical Mode Modeling Accounting for missing data and variable step sizes Accounting for observation noise Hierarchical Bayesian EDM via Gaussian processes Intelligent and Adaptive Control Optimal control via Empirical dynamic programming Multiview distance regularised S-map
Gapo
Gapo is a Vietnamese social networking service based in Hanoi, Vietnam. Users are able to create a personal profile and share text, photos and videos with others on the platform. Users can also use Gapo for live streaming, instant messaging, blogging, and online payments. Gapo was launched in July 2019 by Hà Trung Kiên and Duong Vi Khoa. == History == Gapo was founded in response to calls for Vietnam's Communist-led government to produce a domestic alternative to social media giants like Facebook and Google. Gapo officially launched on July 23, 2019 at an event in Hanoi. The company received 500 billion đồng (US$22 million) in funding from technology corporation G-Group to be utilized in the first phase of development. They also partnered with Sony Music Entertainment to provide music content to its services. == Features == Gapo features a news feed for posting content, livestreaming, instant messaging, and blogging. It also allows users to pay online and access public services. == Reception == Within two days of launch, Gapo received about 200,000 registrations. By September 2019, the user base increased to one million. Upon launch, Gapo experienced significant technical difficulties. Users complained about the inability to sign up for a new account and said that certain functions were not available for use at launch. This issue caused Gapo to temporarily suspend their services in order to perform upgrades and bug fixes. Gapo relaunched the next day, though many users reported that the access speed decreased. The mobile app also received mixed reviews from users in both the App Store and the Google Play Store, with an average rating of 3.1 and 3.5, respectively. Most users found the app to be a knockoff of Facebook, although some users praised the app for being locally developed. === Expert opinions on platform viability === Le Hong Hiep of the ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute was doubtful that a Vietnamese-owned social network service could be as powerful as a foreign-based service, stating that Vietnam might not be able to develop a viable social media network to compete with the likes of Facebook or Google. Others, like blogger Ann Chi, said that, due to local players complying with local censorship policy, there is a chance that locals might not trust Gapo and other local services in light of possible surveillance. Regarding the targeted user base figure for the end of 2019 and 2021, experts cautioned that the company might need an additional trillion đồng of funding to reach its planned user base targets. In response, the company stated that Gapo was never meant to compete with Facebook, but instead noted that the main difference between Gapo and Facebook is that Gapo provides a personalized user experience through customization. == Censorship == Gapo has the right to censor posts and news that are deemed offensive and inaccurate by users or not approved by the censorship curators.
Upper ontology
In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e
Data (word)
The word data is most often used as a singular collective mass noun in educated everyday usage. However, due to the history and etymology of the word, considerable controversy has existed on whether it should be considered a mass noun used with verbs conjugated in the singular, or should be treated as the plural of the now-rarely-used datum. == Usage in English == In one sense, data is the plural form of datum. Datum actually can also be a count noun with the plural datums (see usage in datum article) that can be used with cardinal numbers (e.g., "80 datums"); data (originally a Latin plural) is not used like a normal count noun with cardinal numbers and can be plural with plural determiners such as these and many, or it can be used as a mass noun with a verb in the singular form. Even when a very small quantity of data is referenced (one number, for example), the phrase piece of data is often used, as opposed to datum. The debate over appropriate usage continues, but "data" as a singular form is far more common. In English, the word datum is still used in the general sense of "an item given". In cartography, geography, nuclear magnetic resonance and technical drawing, it is often used to refer to a single specific reference datum from which distances to all other data are measured. Any measurement or result is a datum, though data point is now far more common. Data is indeed most often used as a singular mass noun in educated everyday usage. Some major newspapers, such as The New York Times, use it either in the singular or plural. In The New York Times, the phrases "the survey data are still being analyzed" and "the first year for which data is available" have appeared within one day. The Wall Street Journal explicitly allows this usage in its style guide. The Associated Press style guide classifies data as a collective noun that takes the singular when treated as a unit but the plural when referring to individual items (e.g., "The data is sound" and "The data have been carefully collected"). In scientific writing, data is often treated as a plural, as in These data do not support the conclusions, but the word is also used as a singular mass entity like information (e.g., in computing and related disciplines). British usage now widely accepts treating data as singular in standard English, including everyday newspaper usage at least in non-scientific use. UK scientific publishing still prefers treating it as a plural. Some UK university style guides recommend using data for both singular and plural use, and others recommend treating it only as a singular in connection with computers. The IEEE Computer Society allows usage of data as either a mass noun or plural based on author preference, while IEEE in the editorial style manual indicates to always use the plural form. Some professional organizations and style guides require that authors treat data as a plural noun. For example, the Air Force Flight Test Center once stated that the word data is always plural, never singular.
DPVweb
DPVweb is a database for virologists working on plant viruses combining taxonomic, bioinformatic and symptom data. == Description == DPVweb is a central web-based source of information about viruses, viroids and satellites of plants, fungi and protozoa. It provides comprehensive taxonomic information, including brief descriptions of each family and genus, and classified lists of virus sequences. It makes use of a large database that also holds detailed, curated, information for all sequences of viruses, viroids and satellites of plants, fungi and protozoa that are complete or that contain at least one complete gene. There are currently about 10,000 such sequences. For comparative purposes, DPVweb also contains a representative sequence of all other fully sequenced virus species with an RNA or single-stranded DNA genome. For each curated sequence the database contains the start and end positions of each feature (gene, non-translated region, etc.), and these have been checked for accuracy. As far as possible, the nomenclature for genes and proteins are standardized within genera and families. Sequences of features (either as DNA or amino acid sequences) can be directly downloaded from the website in FASTA format. The sequence information can also be accessed via client software for personal computers. == History == The Descriptions of Plant Viruses (DPVs) were first published by the Association of Applied Biologists in 1970 as a series of leaflets, each one written by an expert describing a particular plant virus. In 1998 all of the 354 DPVs published in paper were scanned, and converted into an electronic format in a database and distributed on CDROM. In 2001 the descriptions were made available on the new DPVweb site, providing open access to the now 400+ DPVs (currently 415) as well as taxonomic and sequence data on all plant viruses. == Uses == DPVweb is an aid to researchers in the field of plant virology as well as an educational resource for students of virology and molecular biology. The site provides a single point of access for all known plant virus genome sequences making it easy to collect these sequences together for further analysis and comparison. Sequence data from the DPVweb database have proved valuable for a number of projects: survey of codon usage bias amongst all plant viruses, two-way comparisons between comprehensive sets of sequences from the families Flexiviridae and Potyviridae that have helped inform taxonomy and clarify genus and species discrimination criteria, a survey and verification of the polyprotein cleavage sites within the family Potyviridae.
Cloud-based design and manufacturing
Cloud-based design and manufacturing (CBDM) refers to a service-oriented networked product development model in which service consumers are able to configure products or services and reconfigure manufacturing systems through Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), Hardware-as-a-Service (HaaS), and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). Adapted from the original cloud computing paradigm and introduced into the realm of computer-aided product development, Cloud-Based Design and Manufacturing is gaining significant momentum and attention from both academia and industry. Cloud-based design and manufacturing includes two aspects: cloud-based design and cloud-based manufacturing. Another related concept is cloud manufacturing that is more general and popular. Cloud-Based Design (CBD) refers to a networked design model that leverages cloud computing, service-oriented architecture (SOA), Web 2.0 (e.g., social network sites), and semantic web technologies to support cloud-based engineering design services in distributed and collaborative environments. Cloud-Based Manufacturing (CBM) refers to a networked manufacturing model that exploits on-demand access to a shared collection of diversified and distributed manufacturing resources to form temporary, reconfigurable production lines which enhance efficiency, reduce product lifecycle costs, and allow for optimal resource allocation in response to variable-demand customer generated tasking. The enabling technologies for Cloud-Based Design and Manufacturing include cloud computing, Web 2.0, Internet of Things (IoT), and service-oriented architecture (SOA). == History == The term cloud-based design and manufacturing (CBDM) was initially coined by Dazhong Wu, David Rosen, and Dirk Schaefer at Georgia Tech in 2012 for the purpose of articulating a new paradigm for digital manufacturing and design innovation in distributed and collaborative settings. The main objective of CBDM is to further reduce time and cost associated with maintaining information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructures for design and manufacturing, enhancing digital manufacturing and design innovation in distributed and collaborative environments, and adapting to rapidly changing market demands. In 2014, the same research group also published the worldwide first two books on the subjects of Cloud-Based Design and Manufacturing (CBDM) and Social Product Development (SPD) with Springer, edited by Dirk Schaefer. == Characteristics == CBDM exhibits the following key characteristics: Cloud-based distributed file system High performance computing Cloud-based social collaboration Ubiquitous access to distributed big data Rapid manufacturing scalability Agility On-demand self-service Semantic Web Real-time request for quotation Pay-per-use pricing model Multi-tenancy CBDM differs from traditional collaborative and distributed design and manufacturing systems such as web-based systems and agent-based systems from a number of perspectives, including (1) computing architecture, (2) data storage, (3) sourcing process, (4) information and communication technology infrastructure, (5) business model, (6) programming model, and (7) communication. == Service models == Infrastructure as a service (IaaS) Platform as a service (PaaS) Hardware as a service (HaaS) Software as a service (SaaS) Similar to cloud computing, CBDM services can be categorized into four major deployment models: the public cloud, private cloud, hybrid cloud, and community cloud. == Research progress in Academia == The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) MENTOR program Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council cloud manufacturing program European Commission's Seventh Framework Program (EC FP7)
Ontology merging
Ontology merging defines the act of bringing together two conceptually divergent ontologies or the instance data associated to two ontologies. This is similar to work in database merging (schema matching). This merging process can be performed in a number of ways, manually, semi automatically, or automatically. Manual ontology merging although ideal is extremely labour-intensive and current research attempts to find semi or entirely automated techniques to merge ontologies. These techniques are statistically driven often taking into account similarity of concepts and raw similarity of instances through textual string metrics and semantic knowledge. These techniques are similar to those used in information integration employing string metrics from open source similarity libraries.