A personal network is a set of human contacts known to an individual, with whom that individual would expect to interact at intervals to support a given set of activities. In other words, a personal network is a group of caring, dedicated people who are committed to maintain a relationship with a person in order to support a given set of activities. Having a strong personal network requires being connected to a network of resources for mutual development and growth. Personal networks can be understood by: who knows you what you know about them what they know about you what are you learning together how you work at that Personal networks are intended to be mutually beneficial, extending the concept of teamwork beyond the immediate peer group. The term is usually encountered in the workplace, though it could apply equally to other pursuits outside work. Personal networking is the practice of developing and maintaining a personal network, which is usually undertaken over an extended period. The concept is related to business networking and is often encouraged by large organizations, in the hope of improving productivity, and so a number of tools exist to support the maintenance of networks. Many of these tools are IT-based, and use Web 2.0 technologies. == History of networking and business success == In the second half of the twentieth century, U.S. advocates for workplace equity popularized the term and concept of networking as part of a larger social capital lexicon—which also includes terms such as glass ceiling, role model, mentoring, and gatekeeper—serving to identify and address the problems barring non-dominant groups from professional success. Mainstream business literature subsequently adopted the terms and concepts, promoting them as pathways to success for all career climbers. In 1970 these terms were not in the general American vocabulary; by the mid-1990s they had become part of everyday speech. Before the mid-twentieth century, what we call networking today was framed in the language of family and friendship. These close personal relationships provided a range of opportunities to preferred subsets of people, such as access to job opportunities, information, credit, and partnerships. Family networks and nepotism have proven particularly strong throughout history. However, other common bonds—from ethnicity and religion to school ties and club memberships—can connect subsets of people as well. Of course people whom insiders consider undesirable have been barred from such networks, with important consequences. Those who tap into influential networks can be nurtured toward success. Those who are shut out from networks can lose hope of success. Numerous business heroes of the past—such as Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, and John D. Rockefeller—exploited networks to great effect. The business networks that seemed natural and transparent to these white men were a closed book to women and minorities for much of American history. Drawing on work from the social sciences, these outsider groups had to identify and then harness the mechanisms behind networking's power. A prominent early example of this process was the formation of corporate caucuses by black men at Xerox starting in 1969. Groups of black salesmen met regularly to share information about Xerox's culture and strategies for navigating it most effectively. Through confrontation and collaboration with a relatively accommodating upper management, the caucuses helped open opportunities for high-performing black employees. The popular and business press began using the terms "network" and "networking" in the mid-1970s in the context of businesswomen consciously pursuing this strategy. Authors encouraged female workers to recognize and exploit the informal workplace systems that provided advancement. They urged women to identify mentors, use social contacts, and build peer and authority networks. The push for networking drew on ideas and relationships from the era's feminist movement, and dictionaries of the time explicitly linked business networking to women's efforts to succeed in the workplace. Since the closing decades of the twentieth century, networking has become a pervasive term and concept in American society. People now invoke networking in relation to everything from business to child rearing to science. While ambitious careerists seek networks as an indispensable talisman, companies purposefully encourage networking among their employees to boost performance and gain competitive advantage. At the same time, Americans are forgetting the workplace activism that first illuminated the power of networking. Unfortunately, this loss of historical context can fuel a backlash against outsider groups who still seek to synthesize networks so they can access the same opportunities enjoyed by insiders. == Characteristics of networks == Broadly speaking, all networks have the following characteristics: Purpose – A network can be established for learning, mission, business, idea, and family or personal reasons. Structure – A network is a group of interlinked entities that form a cluster. Most social structures tend to be characterized by dense clusters of strong connections. Style – The place, space, pace and style of interaction of the networks give an understanding of the style of the networks. Namkee Park, Seungyoon Lee and Jang Hyun Kim examined the relations between personal network characteristics and Facebook use. According to their study, personal networks are investigated through several structural characteristics, which can be categorized into three major dimensions according to the level of analysis: Dyadic tie attributes which include the characteristics of ego-alter ties such as duration, multiplexity, and proximity. Ego-alter tie attributes represent various dimensions of relationships between the focal person and their close contacts. First, tie duration refers to the length of time since the tie was originally initiated, which indicates the duration of relationships. Second, multiplexity includes a focal individual's degree of involvement in various types of interactions with network members. The third dimension is the physical proximity between ego and alter. Theories of proximity suggest that physical proximity between people affects their interaction and subsequently, their formation of network ties. The characteristics of alter-alter ties including personal network density. When moving to ties at the alter-alter level, ego-network density, which refers to the extent to which one's alters are connected with each other, is an important dimension of personal networks. Dense personal network structure indicates close interpersonal contacts among alters, and consequently, is considered to promote the sharing of resources. On the other hand, loose connections, or structural holes in ego-networks, have been found to facilitate the flow of information and to provide advantages in searching and obtaining resources (e.g., getting a job). The composition of alter attributes centered on the heterogeneity of alters in one's personal network. The heterogeneity of alters in one's personal network is associated with access to diverse resources and information It is expected, thus, that the heterogeneity attributes may enhance the focal actor's social activities. Each of these characteristics represents unique aspects of individuals' network relationships. == Types of personal networks == Personal networks can be used for two main reasons: social and professional. In 2012, LinkedIn along with TNS conducted a survey of 6,000 social network users to understand the difference between personal social networks and personal professional networks. The "Mindset Divide" of users of these networks was compared as follows: Emotions: Personal social networks: Nostalgia, fun, distraction. Personal professional networks: Achievement, success, aspiration. Use: Personal social networks: Users are in a casual mindset often just passing time. They use social networks to socialize, stay in touch, be entertained and kill time. Personal professional networks: In this purposeful mindset, users invest time to improve themselves and their future. These networks are used to maintain professional identity, make useful contacts, search for opportunities and stay in touch. Content: Personal professional networks: These provide information about career, brand updates and current affairs. Professional development: Personal development networks: These provide access to those who can provide information, knowledge, advice, support, expertise, guidance, and concrete resources to learn and work effectively—thus those who support the continuing professional development. == Personal network management == Personal network management (PNM) is a crucial aspect of personal information management and can be understood as the practice of managing the links and connections for social and profession
Logic form
Logic forms are simple, first-order logic knowledge representations of natural language sentences formed by the conjunction of concept predicates related through shared arguments. Each noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition and conjunction generates a predicate. Logic forms can be decorated with word senses to disambiguate the semantics of the word. There are two types of predicates: events are marked with e, and entities are marked with x. The shared arguments connect the subjects and objects of verbs and prepositions together. Example input/output might look like this: Input: The Earth provides the food we eat every day. Output: Earth:n_#1(x1) provide:v_#2(e1, x1, x2) food:n_#1(x2) we(x3) eat:v_#1(e2, x3, x2; x4) day:n_#1(x4) Logic forms are used in some natural language processing techniques, such as question answering, as well as in inference both for database systems and QA systems.
Sardinas–Patterson algorithm
In coding theory, the Sardinas–Patterson algorithm is a classical algorithm for determining in polynomial time whether a given variable-length code is uniquely decodable, named after August Albert Sardinas and George W. Patterson, who published it in 1953. The algorithm carries out a systematic search for a string which admits two different decompositions into codewords. As Knuth reports, the algorithm was rediscovered about ten years later in 1963 by Floyd, despite the fact that it was at the time already well known in coding theory. == Idea of the algorithm == Consider the code { a ↦ 1 , b ↦ 011 , c ↦ 01110 , d ↦ 1110 , e ↦ 10011 } {\displaystyle \{\,{\texttt {a}}\mapsto {\texttt {1}},{\texttt {b}}\mapsto {\texttt {011}},{\texttt {c}}\mapsto {\texttt {01110}},{\texttt {d}}\mapsto {\texttt {1110}},{\texttt {e}}\mapsto {\texttt {10011}}\,\}} . This code, which is based on an example by Berstel, is an example of a code which is not uniquely decodable, since the string 011101110011 can be interpreted as the sequence of codewords 01110 – 1110 – 011, but also as the sequence of codewords 011 – 1 – 011 – 10011. Two possible decodings of this encoded string are thus given by cdb and babe. In general, a codeword can be found by the following idea: In the first round, we choose two codewords x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} and y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} such that x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} is a prefix of y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} , that is, x 1 w = y 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}w=y_{1}} for some "dangling suffix" w {\displaystyle w} . If one tries first x 1 = 011 {\displaystyle x_{1}={\texttt {011}}} and y 1 = 01110 {\displaystyle y_{1}={\texttt {01110}}} , the dangling suffix is w = 10 {\displaystyle {\texttt {w}}={\texttt {10}}} . If we manage to find two sequences x 2 , … , x p {\displaystyle x_{2},\ldots ,x_{p}} and y 2 , … , y q {\displaystyle y_{2},\ldots ,y_{q}} of codewords such that x 2 ⋯ x p = w y 2 ⋯ y q {\displaystyle x_{2}\cdots x_{p}=wy_{2}\cdots y_{q}} , then we are finished: For then the string x = x 1 x 2 ⋯ x p {\displaystyle x=x_{1}x_{2}\cdots x_{p}} can alternatively be decomposed as y 1 y 2 ⋯ y q {\displaystyle y_{1}y_{2}\cdots y_{q}} , and we have found the desired string having at least two different decompositions into codewords. In the second round, we try out two different approaches: the first trial is to look for a codeword that has w as prefix. Then we obtain a new dangling suffix w, with which we can continue our search. If we eventually encounter a dangling suffix that is itself a codeword (or the empty word), then the search will terminate, as we know there exists a string with two decompositions. The second trial is to seek for a codeword that is itself a prefix of w. In our example, we have w = 10 {\displaystyle w={\texttt {10}}} , and the sequence 1 is a codeword. We can thus also continue with w = 0 {\displaystyle w={\texttt {0}}} as the new dangling suffix. == Precise description of the algorithm == The algorithm is described most conveniently using quotients of formal languages. In general, for two sets of strings D and N, the (left) quotient N − 1 D {\displaystyle N^{-1}D} is defined as the residual words obtained from D by removing some prefix in N. Formally, N − 1 D = { y ∣ x y ∈ D and x ∈ N } {\displaystyle N^{-1}D=\{\,y\mid xy\in D~{\textrm {and}}~x\in N\,\}} . Now let C {\displaystyle C} denote the (finite) set of codewords in the given code. The algorithm proceeds in rounds, where we maintain in each round not only one dangling suffix as described above, but the (finite) set of all potential dangling suffixes. Starting with round i = 1 {\displaystyle i=1} , the set of potential dangling suffixes will be denoted by S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . The sets S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} are defined inductively as follows: S 1 = C − 1 C ∖ { ε } {\displaystyle S_{1}=C^{-1}C\setminus \{\varepsilon \}} . Here, the symbol ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } denotes the empty word. S i + 1 = C − 1 S i ∪ S i − 1 C {\displaystyle S_{i+1}=C^{-1}S_{i}\cup S_{i}^{-1}C} , for all i ≥ 1 {\displaystyle i\geq 1} . The algorithm computes the sets S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} in increasing order of i {\displaystyle i} . As soon as one of the S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} contains a word from C or the empty word, then the algorithm terminates and answers that the given code is not uniquely decodable. Otherwise, once a set S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} equals a previously encountered set S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} with j < i {\displaystyle j openSMILE is source-available software for automatic extraction of features from audio signals and for classification of speech and music signals. "SMILE" stands for "Speech & Music Interpretation by Large-space Extraction". The software is mainly applied in the area of automatic emotion recognition and is widely used in the affective computing research community. The openSMILE project exists since 2008 and is maintained by the German company audEERING GmbH since 2013. openSMILE is provided free of charge for research purposes and personal use under a source-available license. For commercial use of the tool, the company audEERING offers custom license options. == Application Areas == openSMILE is used for academic research as well as for commercial applications in order to automatically analyze speech and music signals in real-time. In contrast to automatic speech recognition which extracts the spoken content out of a speech signal, openSMILE is capable of recognizing the characteristics of a given speech or music segment. Examples for such characteristics encoded in human speech are a speaker's emotion, age, gender, and personality, as well as speaker states like depression, intoxication, or vocal pathological disorders. The software further includes music classification technology for automatic music mood detection and recognition of chorus segments, key, chords, tempo, meter, dance-style, and genre. The openSMILE toolkit serves as benchmark in manifold research competitions such as Interspeech ComParE, AVEC, MediaEval, and EmotiW. == History == The openSMILE project was started in 2008 by Florian Eyben, Martin Wöllmer, and Björn Schuller at the Technical University of Munich within the European Union research project SEMAINE. The goal of the SEMAINE project was to develop a virtual agent with emotional and social intelligence. In this system, openSMILE was applied for real-time analysis of speech and emotion. The final SEMAINE software release is based on openSMILE version 1.0.1. In 2009, the emotion recognition toolkit (openEAR) was published based on openSMILE. "EAR" stands for "Emotion and Affect Recognition". In 2010, openSMILE version 1.0.1 was published and was introduced and awarded at the ACM Multimedia Open-Source Software Challenge. Between 2011 and 2013, the technology of openSMILE was extended and improved by Florian Eyben and Felix Weninger in the context of their doctoral thesis at the Technical University of Munich. The software was also applied for the project ASC-Inclusion, which was funded by the European Union. For this project, the software was extended by Erik Marchi in order to teach emotional expression to autistic children, based on automatic emotion recognition and visualization. In 2013, the company audEERING acquired the rights to the code-base from the Technical University of Munich and version 2.0 was published under a source-available research license. Until 2016, openSMILE was downloaded more than 50,000 times worldwide and has established itself as a standard toolkit for emotion recognition. == Awards == openSMILE was awarded in 2010 in the context of the ACM Multimedia Open Source Competition. The software tool is applied in numerous scientific publications on automatic emotion recognition. openSMILE and its extension openEAR have been cited in more than 1000 scientific publications until today. The Principles for a Data Economy – Data Rights and Transactions is a transatlantic legal project carried out jointly by the American Law Institute (ALI) and the European Law Institute (ELI). The Principles for a Data Economy deals with a range of different legal questions that arise in the data economy. Since data is different from other tradeable items, the Principles draw up legal rules for data transactions and data rights that take into account the interests of different stakeholders involved in the data economy. The Principles are designed to facilitate contractual relations as well as the drafting of model agreements and can guide courts and legislators worldwide. The project proposes a set of principles that can be implemented in any legal system and is designed to work in conjunction with any kind of data privacy/data protection law, intellectual property law or trade secret law. The Principles do not address or seek to change any of the substantive rules of these bodies of law. The Project Team consists of Neil B Cohen and Christiane Wendehorst (as Project Reporters) and Lord John Thomas as well as Steven O. Weise (as Project Chairs). == Characteristics of data == The law governing trades in commerce has historically focused on trade in items that are tangible like goods or on intangible assets, such as shares or licenses. However, data does not fit into any of these traditional categories, nor does it qualify as a service. It is often unclear how traditional legal rules and doctrines can apply to data, as data is different from other assets in many ways. For example, data can be multiplied at basically no cost and can be used in parallel for a variety of different purposes by many different people at the same time (data is a “non-rivalrous” resource). Uncertainty regarding the applicable rules to govern the data economy may inhibit innovation and growth and trouble stakeholders like data-driven industries, start-ups, and consumers. == Stakeholders in the data economy == The Principles have taken the basic types of players and relations which can be found in data ecosystems as a starting point to provide guidance in different situations. The central actors in the data economy are data controllers (also called “data holders”). They are in a position to access the data and decide for which purposes and means this data should be processed. A controller may exercise control all by itself or share it with co-controllers, such as under a data pooling arrangement. Data processors provide the processing of data on a controller’s behalf as a service. Another important group of stakeholders includes those that contribute to the generation of data (e.g. data subjects). Other players in the data economy include data assemblers or data intermediaries (e.g. data trusts). == History of the project and timeline == Before the official adoption of the project by ALI and ELI bodies in 2018, the project team carried out a Feasibility Study from October 2016 to February 2018. In the following years, the project team produced a number of drafts (e.g. “Preliminary Drafts” No. 1 to 4, “Tentative Draft No. 1”) and project progress were regularly discussed with advisory bodies and members of both the ALI and the ELI. The project reporters also included feedback and insights from industry stakeholders and experts that was gained after several meetings and workshops, hosted, inter alia by UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and several national governmental institutions. Tentative Draft No. 2 was presented at the ALI Annual Meeting in May 2021 and approved by ALI membership. The latest draft ("Final Council Draft") was also approved by the ELI Council and ELI Membership. The Principles for a Data Economy were presented at an international conference with representatives from institutions such as the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), the European Commission, UNIDROIT, the OECD, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in October 2021. == Project structure == The current draft (“Tentative Draft No. 2”) of the Principles consists of five Parts that each governs different aspects of the data economy: General Provisions, Data Contracts, Data Rights, Third Party Aspects of Data Activities, and Multi-State Issues. === General Provisions === Part I includes general provisions that apply to all other Parts of the Principles for a Data Economy. This Part sets out the purpose of the Principles: they aim to make existing law in the field of the data economy more coherent and support the development of the law in this field by courts and legislators worldwide. It is also clarified that the Principles have a wide scope of application and can be used in a variety of ways by stakeholders in the data economy. The Principles may, for example, serve private parties as a basis for contract formation, guide the deliberations of arbitral tribunals or inspire national legislation. Part I then defines several key terms, such as ‘digital data’ and ‘data right’. The scope of the Principles is limited to matters where information is recorded as an asset, resource or tradeable commodity and where large amounts of data, rather than single pieces of information, are concerned. This Part also clarifies that remedies with respect to data contracts and data rights are left to the applicable national law. === Data Contracts === Part II lists different types of contracts that often occur in the data economy and establishes two broad categories, namely contracts for the supply and sharing of data and contracts for services with regard to data. Contracts for the supply and sharing of data include, e.g. data transfer contracts or data pooling arrangements, while contracts for services with regard to data cover contracts for the processing of data or data intermediary contracts. The Principles provide default terms for each contract type, on issues such as the manner in which data should supply or which characteristics the data supplied should meet. These default terms 'automatically' become part of the contract unless the parties agree otherwise. === Data Rights === Part III governs legally protected interests of players in the data economy that stem from the characteristics of data as a resource (e.g. its non-rivalrous nature) or from public interest considerations. Such data rights may include the right to data access, the right to require the controller to desist from data activities or to correct incorrect/incomplete data, or even to receive an economic share in profits derived from the use of data. For example, the Principles deal with data rights of stakeholders that had a share in the co-generation of data and identify different factors to be considered in determining whether to afford a party a data right. The underlying idea that parties who have contributed to the generation of data should have some rights in the utilization of the data is also recognized by governmental institutions, such as by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), and the term co-generated data, which was coined by the Principles for a Data Economy, has been adopted, inter alia by the European Commission, the German Data Ethics Commission and the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI). This Part also deals with data rights for the public interest, such as data sharing rights in the field of innovation. === Third Party Aspects === Part IV governs different situations in which data transactions interfere with the rights of third parties. Such rights include intellectual property rights or rights derived from data privacy or data protection law. This Part sets out under which circumstances data activities should be considered wrongful vis à vis another party. For example, a data activity (like data processing or the onward supply of data) could be considered wrongful, if a controller interferes with the rights of data subjects that are protected by data-protection law. A data activity could also be wrongful if the controller is non-compliant with contractual limitations on data activities, enforceable by the protected party (e.g. a controller may only process data for a certain purpose). If someone obtained access to data by unauthorized means (i.e. data “theft”) this could also be considered wrongful. The Part on Third-Party Aspects also takes a detailed look at the effects of the onward supply of data can have on third parties, while balancing the protection of third parties on the one hand, with the interests of data recipients and the desire to encourage data sharing on the other. === Multi-State Issues === As transactions in the data economy are international by nature and hardly occur within one legal system alone, the Part V of the Principles also briefly touches upon the applicability of the rules and doctrines of private international law to such transactions. == Links == Website of the “Principles for a Data Economy – Data Rights and Transaction In cloud computing, the term zero-knowledge (or occasionally no-knowledge or zero-access) is a commonly used term for online services that store, transfer or manipulate data with a high level of confidentiality, where the data is only accessible to the data's owner (the client), and not to the service provider. However, unlike "end-to-end encryption", the term "zero-knowledge" does not imply any specific threat model or security notion, and its use is commonly frowned-upon by the security community. The term "zero-knowledge" was popularized by backup service SpiderOak, which later switched to using the term "no knowledge", acknowledging that the previous terminology was not technically accurate. == Disadvantages == Most cloud storage services keep a copy of the client's password on their servers, allowing clients who have lost their passwords to retrieve and decrypt their data using alternative means of authentication; but since zero-knowledge services do not store copies of clients' passwords, if a client loses their password then their data cannot be decrypted, making it practically unrecoverable. Most of the most used cloud storage services, such as Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive or iCloud, are also able to furnish access requests from law enforcement agencies for similar reasons; zero-knowledge services, however, are unable to do so, since their systems are designed to make clients' data inaccessible without the client's explicit cooperation. A query language, also known as data query language or database query language (DQL), is a computer language used to make queries in databases and information systems. In database systems, query languages rely on strict theory to retrieve information. A well known example is the Structured Query Language (SQL). == Types == Broadly, query languages can be classified according to whether they are database query languages or information retrieval query languages. The difference is that a database query language attempts to give factual answers to factual questions, while an information retrieval query language attempts to find documents containing information that is relevant to an area of inquiry. Other types of query languages include: Full-text. The simplest query language is treating all terms as bag of words that are to be matched with the postings in the inverted index and where subsequently ranking models are applied to retrieve the most relevant documents. Only tokens are defined in the CFG. Web search engines often use this approach. Boolean. A query language that also supports the use of the Boolean operators AND, OR, NOT. Structured. A language that supports searching within (a combination of) fields when a document is structured and has been indexed using its document structure. Natural language. A query language that supports natural language by parsing the natural language query to a form that can be best used to retrieve relevant documents, for example with Question answering systems or conversational search. == Examples == Attempto Controlled English is a query language that is also a controlled natural language. AQL is a query language for the ArangoDB native multi-model database system. .QL is a proprietary object-oriented query language for querying relational databases; successor of Datalog. CodeQL is the analysis engine used by developers to automate security checks, and by security researchers to perform variant analysis on GitHub. Contextual Query Language (CQL) a formal language for representing queries to information retrieval systems such as web indexes or bibliographic catalogues. Cypher is a query language for the Neo4j graph database. DMX is a query language for data mining models. Datalog is a query language for deductive databases. F-logic is a declarative object-oriented language for deductive databases and knowledge representation. FQL enables you to use a SQL-style interface to query the data exposed by the Graph API. It provides advanced features not available in the Graph API. Gellish English is a language that can be used for queries in Gellish English Databases, for dialogues (requests and responses) as well as for information modeling and knowledge modeling. Gremlin is an Apache Software Foundation graph traversal language for OLTP and OLAP graph systems. GraphQL is a data query language developed by Facebook as an alternate to REST and ad-hoc webservice architectures. HTSQL is a query language that translates HTTP queries to SQL. ISBL is a query language for PRTV, one of the earliest relational database management systems. Jaql is a functional data processing and query language most commonly used for JSON query processing. JPQL is a query language defined as part of Jakarta Persistence (used in Java applications to make queries to a relational DB using entity objects instead of DB tables). jq is a functional programming language often used for processing queries against one or more JSON documents, including very large ones. JSONiq is a declarative query language designed for collections of JSON documents. KQL (Kusto Query Language), a query language by Microsoft used in Azure Data Explorer LDAP is an application protocol for querying and modifying directory services running over TCP/IP. LogiQL is a variant of Datalog and is the query language for the LogicBlox system. M Formula language, a mashup query language used in Microsoft's Power Query. MQL is a cheminformatics query language for a substructure search allowing beside nominal properties also numerical properties. MDX is a query language for OLAP databases. N1QL is a Couchbase's query language finding data in Couchbase Servers. Object Query Language OCL (Object Constraint Language). Despite its name, OCL is also an object query language and an OMG standard. OPath, intended for use in querying WinFS Stores. Poliqarp Query Language is a special query language designed to analyze annotated text. Used in the Poliqarp search engine. PQL is a special-purpose programming language for managing process models based on information about scenarios that these models describe. PRQL PRQL (Pipelined Relational Query Language) is a modern language for transforming data. Consists of a curated set of orthogonal transformations, which are combined together to form a pipeline. PTQL based on relational queries over program traces, allowing programmers to write expressive, declarative queries about program behavior. QUEL is a relational database access language, similar in most ways to SQL. RDQL is a RDF query language. SMARTS is the cheminformatics standard for a substructure search. SPARQL is a query language for RDF graphs. SQL is a well-known query language and data manipulation language for relational databases. XQuery is a query language for XML data sources. XPath is a declarative language for navigating XML documents. YQL is an SQL-like query language created by Yahoo!. Search engine query languages, e.g., as used by Google. or BingOpenSMILE
Principles for a Data Economy
Zero-knowledge service
Query language