Proximal gradient (forward backward splitting) methods for learning is an area of research in optimization and statistical learning theory which studies algorithms for a general class of convex regularization problems where the regularization penalty may not be differentiable. One such example is ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization (also known as Lasso) of the form min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 1 , where x i ∈ R d and y i ∈ R . {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{1},\quad {\text{ where }}x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}{\text{ and }}y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} .} Proximal gradient methods offer a general framework for solving regularization problems from statistical learning theory with penalties that are tailored to a specific problem application. Such customized penalties can help to induce certain structure in problem solutions, such as sparsity (in the case of lasso) or group structure (in the case of group lasso). == Relevant background == Proximal gradient methods are applicable in a wide variety of scenarios for solving convex optimization problems of the form min x ∈ H F ( x ) + R ( x ) , {\displaystyle \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}F(x)+R(x),} where F {\displaystyle F} is convex and differentiable with Lipschitz continuous gradient, R {\displaystyle R} is a convex, lower semicontinuous function which is possibly nondifferentiable, and H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is some set, typically a Hilbert space. The usual criterion of x {\displaystyle x} minimizes F ( x ) + R ( x ) {\displaystyle F(x)+R(x)} if and only if ∇ ( F + R ) ( x ) = 0 {\displaystyle \nabla (F+R)(x)=0} in the convex, differentiable setting is now replaced by 0 ∈ ∂ ( F + R ) ( x ) , {\displaystyle 0\in \partial (F+R)(x),} where ∂ φ {\displaystyle \partial \varphi } denotes the subdifferential of a real-valued, convex function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } . Given a convex function φ : H → R {\displaystyle \varphi :{\mathcal {H}}\to \mathbb {R} } an important operator to consider is its proximal operator prox φ : H → H {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }:{\mathcal {H}}\to {\mathcal {H}}} defined by prox φ ( u ) = arg min x ∈ H φ ( x ) + 1 2 ‖ u − x ‖ 2 2 , {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }(u)=\operatorname {arg} \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}\varphi (x)+{\frac {1}{2}}\|u-x\|_{2}^{2},} which is well-defined because of the strict convexity of the ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}} norm. The proximal operator can be seen as a generalization of a projection. We see that the proximity operator is important because x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a minimizer to the problem min x ∈ H F ( x ) + R ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}F(x)+R(x)} if and only if x ∗ = prox γ R ( x ∗ − γ ∇ F ( x ∗ ) ) , {\displaystyle x^{}=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}\left(x^{}-\gamma \nabla F(x^{})\right),} where γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} is any positive real number. === Moreau decomposition === One important technique related to proximal gradient methods is the Moreau decomposition, which decomposes the identity operator as the sum of two proximity operators. Namely, let φ : X → R {\displaystyle \varphi :{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } be a lower semicontinuous, convex function on a vector space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} . We define its Fenchel conjugate φ ∗ : X → R {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } to be the function φ ∗ ( u ) := sup x ∈ X ⟨ x , u ⟩ − φ ( x ) . {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}(u):=\sup _{x\in {\mathcal {X}}}\langle x,u\rangle -\varphi (x).} The general form of Moreau's decomposition states that for any x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} and any γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} that x = prox γ φ ( x ) + γ prox φ ∗ / γ ( x / γ ) , {\displaystyle x=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma \varphi }(x)+\gamma \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi ^{}/\gamma }(x/\gamma ),} which for γ = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma =1} implies that x = prox φ ( x ) + prox φ ∗ ( x ) {\displaystyle x=\operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }(x)+\operatorname {prox} _{\varphi ^{}}(x)} . The Moreau decomposition can be seen to be a generalization of the usual orthogonal decomposition of a vector space, analogous with the fact that proximity operators are generalizations of projections. In certain situations it may be easier to compute the proximity operator for the conjugate φ ∗ {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}} instead of the function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , and therefore the Moreau decomposition can be applied. This is the case for group lasso. == Lasso regularization == Consider the regularized empirical risk minimization problem with square loss and with the ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} norm as the regularization penalty: min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 1 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{1},} where x i ∈ R d and y i ∈ R . {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}{\text{ and }}y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} .} The ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization problem is sometimes referred to as lasso (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator). Such ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization problems are interesting because they induce sparse solutions, that is, solutions w {\displaystyle w} to the minimization problem have relatively few nonzero components. Lasso can be seen to be a convex relaxation of the non-convex problem min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 0 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{0},} where ‖ w ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}} denotes the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm", which is the number of nonzero entries of the vector w {\displaystyle w} . Sparse solutions are of particular interest in learning theory for interpretability of results: a sparse solution can identify a small number of important factors. === Solving for L1 proximity operator === For simplicity we restrict our attention to the problem where λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} . To solve the problem min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + ‖ w ‖ 1 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\|w\|_{1},} we consider our objective function in two parts: a convex, differentiable term F ( w ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 {\displaystyle F(w)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}} and a convex function R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} . Note that R {\displaystyle R} is not strictly convex. Let us compute the proximity operator for R ( w ) {\displaystyle R(w)} . First we find an alternative characterization of the proximity operator prox R ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{R}(x)} as follows: u = prox R ( x ) ⟺ 0 ∈ ∂ ( R ( u ) + 1 2 ‖ u − x ‖ 2 2 ) ⟺ 0 ∈ ∂ R ( u ) + u − x ⟺ x − u ∈ ∂ R ( u ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}u=\operatorname {prox} _{R}(x)\iff &0\in \partial \left(R(u)+{\frac {1}{2}}\|u-x\|_{2}^{2}\right)\\\iff &0\in \partial R(u)+u-x\\\iff &x-u\in \partial R(u).\end{aligned}}} For R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} it is easy to compute ∂ R ( w ) {\displaystyle \partial R(w)} : the i {\displaystyle i} th entry of ∂ R ( w ) {\displaystyle \partial R(w)} is precisely ∂ | w i | = { 1 , w i > 0 − 1 , w i < 0 [ − 1 , 1 ] , w i = 0. {\displaystyle \partial |w_{i}|={\begin{cases}1,&w_{i}>0\\-1,&w_{i}<0\\\left[-1,1\right],&w_{i}=0.\end{cases}}} Using the recharacterization of the proximity operator given above, for the choice of R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} and γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} we have that prox γ R ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}(x)} is defined entrywise by ( prox γ R ( x ) ) i = { x i − γ , x i > γ 0 , | x i | ≤ γ x i + γ , x i < − γ , {\displaystyle \left(\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}(x)\right)_{i}={\begin{cases}x_{i}-\gamma ,&x_{i}>\gamma \\0,&|x_{i}|\leq \gamma \\x_{i}+\gamma ,&x_{i}<-\gamma ,\end{cases}}} which is known as the soft thresholding operator S γ ( x ) = prox γ ‖ ⋅ ‖ 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle S_{\gamma }(x)=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma \|\cdot \|_{1}}(x)} . === Fixed point iterative schemes === To finally solve the lasso problem we consider the fixed point equation shown earlier: x ∗ = prox γ R ( x ∗ − γ ∇ F ( x ∗ ) ) . {\displaystyle x^{}=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}\left(x^{}-\gamma \nabla F(x^{})\right).} Given that we have computed the form of the proximity operator explicitly, then we can define a standard fixed point iteration procedure. Namely, fix some initial w 0 ∈ R d {\displaystyle w^{0}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , and for k = 1 , 2 , … {\displaystyle k=1,2,\ldots } define w k + 1 = S γ ( w k − γ ∇ F ( w k ) ) . {\displaystyle w^{k+1}=S_{\gamma }\left(w^{k}-\gamma \nabla F\l
DaVinci (software)
DaVinci was a development tool produced by Incross, which aimed at creating HTML5 mobile applications and media content. It included a jQuery framework and a JavaScript library that enabled developers and designers to craft web applications designed for mobile devices with a user experience similar to native applications. Business applications, games, rich media content, such as HTML5 multi-media magazines, advertisements, and animation, may be produced with the tool. DaVinci was based on standard web technology – including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. == Features == DaVinci comprised DaVinci Studio and DaVinci Animator, which handled application programming and UI design. The tool had a WYSIWYG authoring environment. Open-source libraries, such as KnockOut, JsRender/JsViews, Impress.js, and turn.js, were included in the tool. Other open-source frameworks could also be integrated. The Model View Controller (MVC) and Data Binding in JavaScript could be handled through DaVinci's Data-Set Editor. In this mode, view components and model data could be visually bound, which allowed users to create web applications with server-integrated UI components without coding. Additionally, DaVinci included an N-Screen editor, which automatically adjusted designs and functionalities to fit the screen sizes of various devices, including smartphones, tablet PCs, and TVs. == DaVinci and jQuery == In collaboration with the jQuery Foundation, DaVinci played a significant role in hosting the first jQuery conference in an Asian district, which took place on November 12, 2012, in Seoul, South Korea. The conference showcased how DaVinci could be utilized in application development demonstrations.
DIKW pyramid
The DIKW pyramid (also known as the knowledge pyramid or information hierarchy) is a model describing relationships between data, information, knowledge and wisdom sometimes also stylized as a chain, refer to models of possible structural and functional relationships between a set of components—often four, data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. The concept has roots predating the 1980s. In the latter years of that decade, interest in the models grew after explicit presentations and discussions, including from Milan Zeleny, Russell Ackoff, and Robert W. Lucky. Subsequent important discussions extended along theoretical and practical lines into the coming decades. While debate continues as to actual meaning of the component terms of DIKW-type models, and the actual nature of their relationships—including occasional doubt being cast over any simple, linear, unidirectional model—even so they have become very popular visual representations in use by business, the military, and others. Among the academic and popular, not all versions of the DIKW-type models include all four components (earlier ones excluding data, later ones excluding or downplaying wisdom, and several including additional components (for instance Ackoff inserting "understanding" before and Zeleny adding "enlightenment" after the wisdom component). In addition, DIKW-type models are no longer always presented as pyramids, instead also as a chart or framework (e.g., by Zeleny), as flow diagrams (e.g., by Liew, and by Chisholm et al.), and sometimes as a continuum (e.g., by Choo et al.). == Short description == As Rowley noted in 2007, the DIKW model "is often quoted, or used implicitly, in definitions of data, information and knowledge in the information management, information systems and knowledge management literatures, but [as of that date] there ha[d] been limited direct discussion of the hierarchy". Reviews of textbooks and a survey of scholars in relevant fields indicate that there was not a consensus as to definitions used in the model as of that date, and as reviewed by Liew in that year, even less "in the description of the processes that transform components lower in the hierarchy into those above them". Zins work, published in 2007—from studies in 2003-2005 that documented "130 definitions of data, information, and knowledge formulated by 45 scholars", published in 2007—to suggest that the data–information–knowledge components of DIKW refer to a class of no less than five models, as a function of whether data, information, and knowledge are each conceived of as subjective, objective (what Zins terms, "universal" or "collective") or both. In Zins' usage, subjective and objective "are not related to arbitrariness and truthfulness, which are usually attached to the concepts of subjective knowledge and objective knowledge". Information science, Zins argues, studies data and information, but not knowledge, as knowledge is an internal (subjective) rather than an external (universal–collective) phenomenon. == Representations == === Graphical representation === DIKW is a hierarchical model often depicted as a pyramid, sometimes as a chain, with data at its base and wisdom at its apex (or chain-beginning and -end). Both Zeleny and Ackoff have been credited with originating the pyramid representation, although neither used a pyramid to present their ideas. According to Wallace, Debons and colleagues may have been the first to "present the hierarchy graphically". Many variations of the DIKW-type pyramid have been produced. One, in use by knowledge managers in the United States Department of Defense, attempts to show the DIKW progression to enable effective decisions and consequent activities supporting shared understanding throughout defense organizations, as well as supporting management of risks associated with decisions. DIKW-type hierarchical information paradigms have also been represented as two-dimensional charts, and as flow diagrams, where relationships between the components may be presented less hierarchically, with defining aspects of the relationships, feedback loops, etc. === Computational representation === Intelligent decision support systems are trying to improve decision making by introducing new technologies and methods from the domain of modeling and simulation in general, and in particular from the domain of intelligent software agents in the contexts of agent-based modeling. The following example describes a military decision support system, but the architecture and underlying conceptual idea are transferable to other application domains: The value chain starts with data quality describing the information within the underlying command and control systems. Information quality tracks the completeness, correctness, currency, consistency and precision of the data items and information statements available. Knowledge quality deals with procedural knowledge and information embedded in the command and control system such as templates for adversary forces, assumptions about entities such as ranges and weapons, and doctrinal assumptions, often coded as rules. Awareness quality measures the degree of using the information and knowledge embedded within the command and control system. Awareness is explicitly placed in the cognitive domain. By the introduction of a common operational picture, data are put into context, which leads to information instead of data. The next step, which is enabled by service-oriented web-based infrastructures (but not yet operationally used), is the use of models and simulations for decision support. Simulation systems are the prototype for procedural knowledge, which is the basis for knowledge quality. Finally, using intelligent software agents to continually observe the battle sphere, apply models and simulations to analyze what is going on, to monitor the execution of a plan, and to do all the tasks necessary to make the decision maker aware of what is going on, command and control systems could even support situational awareness, the level in the value chain traditionally limited to pure cognitive methods. == History == Danny P. Wallace, a professor of library and information science, explained that the origin of the DIKW pyramid is uncertain: The presentation of the relationships among data, information, knowledge, and sometimes wisdom in a hierarchical arrangement has been part of the language of information science for many years. Although it is uncertain when and by whom those relationships were first presented, the ubiquity of the notion of a hierarchy is embedded in the use of the acronym DIKW as a shorthand representation for the data-to-information-to-knowledge-to-wisdom transformation.Many authors think that the idea of the DIKW relationship originated from two lines in the poem "Choruses", by T. S. Eliot, that appeared in the pageant play The Rock, in 1934: === Knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom === In 1927, Clarence W. Barron addressed his employees at Dow Jones & Company on the hierarchy: "Knowledge, Intelligence and Wisdom". === Data, information, knowledge === In 1955, English-American economist and educator Kenneth Boulding presented a variation on the hierarchy consisting of "signals, messages, information, and knowledge". However, "[t]he first author to distinguish among data, information, and knowledge and to also employ the term 'knowledge management' may have been American educator Nicholas L. Henry", in a 1974 journal article. === Data, information, knowledge, wisdom === Other early versions (prior to 1982) of the hierarchy that refer to a data tier include those of Chinese-American geographer Yi-Fu Tuan and sociologist-historian Daniel Bell.. In 1980, Irish-born engineer Mike Cooley invoked the same hierarchy in his critique of automation and computerization, in his book Architect or Bee?: The Human / Technology Relationship. Thereafter, in 1987, Czechoslovakia-born educator Milan Zeleny mapped the components of the hierarchy to knowledge forms: know-nothing, know-what, know-how, and know-why. Zeleny "has frequently been credited with proposing the [representation of DIKW as a pyramid ]... although he actually made no reference to any such graphical model." The hierarchy appears again in a 1988 address to the International Society for General Systems Research, by American organizational theorist Russell Ackoff, published in 1989. Subsequent authors and textbooks cite Ackoff's as the "original articulation" of the hierarchy or otherwise credit Ackoff with its proposal. Ackoff's version of the model includes an understanding tier (as Adler had, before him), interposed between knowledge and wisdom. Although Ackoff did not present the hierarchy graphically, he has also been credited with its representation as a pyramid. In 1989, Bell Labs veteran Robert W. Lucky wrote about the four-tier "information hierarchy" in the form of a pyramid in his book Silicon Dreams. In the same year as Ackoff presented his a
Metadata controller
Metadata controller (or MDC) is a storage area network (SAN) technology for managing file locking, space allocation and data access authorization. This is needed when several clients are given block level access to the same disk volume, data storage sharing. MDCs are only used on high-end servers. These are never found on user computers. In the absence of MDC over a SAN there is no possible way of ensuring privacy of the stored data. This controller can also play its role as a sharing device in case the administrators allow other servers to access certain blocks in a particular SAN. The access granted to the servers is of different levels. Some times it may happen that the server is not able to see a block or make changes in it in case of a locked file. This is caused by grant of low level access. If different clients on SAN happen to know each other, access may be granted to shift a certain block from one server to another. This allows the recipient server to use the block and make changes in it. MDCs work as enzymes. They require certain types of SANs and networks to work properly. If a controller is connected to the right network it will boost its output. In case of wrong connection i.e. with the incorrect network, it will decrease its performance.
Run-to-completion scheduling
Run-to-completion scheduling or nonpreemptive scheduling is a scheduling model in which each task runs until it either finishes, or explicitly yields control back to the scheduler. Run-to-completion systems typically have an event queue which is serviced either in strict order of admission by an event loop, or by an admission scheduler which is capable of scheduling events out of order, based on other constraints such as deadlines. Some preemptive multitasking scheduling systems behave as run-to-completion schedulers in regard to scheduling tasks at one particular process priority level, at the same time as those processes still preempt other lower priority tasks and are themselves preempted by higher priority tasks.
Knowledge as a service
Knowledge as a service (KaaS) is a computing service that delivers information to users, backed by a knowledge model, which might be drawn from a number of possible models based on decision trees, association rules, or neural networks. A knowledge as a service provider responds to knowledge requests from users through a centralised knowledge server, and provides an interface between users and data owners. KaaS is one of several cloud computing-dependent business models in which computer resources are sold on an on-demand and pay-as-you-use basis. == Overview == At the International Semantic Web Conference 2019, it was described how knowledge can be made live and evolve on the web allowing users to learn directly from elaborated knowledge, now appearing in the form of knowledge graphs. KaaS appear when knowledge graphs are accessed via services This is opposed to DaaS which might "compute large volumes of data; integrate and analyzes that data; and publish it in real-time, using Web service APIs" (from Data as a Service) where the KaaS is able to exploit context - both the context of the user in relation to their information requests of the KaaS (where and when they make the request) and also the context of the information in relation to some objective or purpose of the users either understood by the KaaS automatically or indicated to it by the user. == Differentiating knowledge from data == Conceptual models that make such a differentiation such as the so-called DIKW pyramid have existed for perhaps more than 40 years (see a 1974 journal article about this) however definitions are not stable and universally accepted (see the discussion about the conceptualizations of DIKW within the DIKW Wikipedia article that question value of wisdom). The knowledge component of DIKW is generally agreed to be an elusive concept which is difficult to define, however Rowley 2007, in a well known student textbook differentiated knowledge from data by stating that knowledge is "defined with reference to information" and that it contains more than just facts but also "beliefs and expectations". In relation to knowledge graphs, knowledge may be additional content they provide over and above pure data which is the definition of the categories, properties and relations between the concepts, data and entities that substantiate one, many or all domains of discourse (see the definition of Ontology). The ability to represent "beliefs and expectations", or other forms of not so straightforwardly explicit knowledge is an on-going area of improvement in information sciences (see Tacit knowledge) and, with relation to KaaS, the establishment of recent informatics mechanics to do so it critical to the legitimacy of KaaS as it is differentiated from just value-added DaaS. Knowledge graphs' ability to represent context via the definition of the categories, properties and relations between the concepts, data and entities that substantiate one, many or all domains of discourse that they provide (see the definition of Ontology) has led to the idea that supplying access to KNs might be a required competency of a KaaS. == Delivery of knowledge == Much service-delivered content is dependent on a session to provide much of the context that the user (client) needs to understand answers to questions. For example, using current HTTP internet protocols, a GET request to retrieve information identified by a URI, such as a web page, a client (a human or a machine) may have access information supplied automatically to enable that client to bypass paywalls or other content access controls. Such context, in this case about the client's information access allowances, can alter the information provided. In a logical extension to this internet protocols example, a server would receive from the client, either manually or automatically, a full context which would be information about the situation the client is in and this would allow the server to best interpret the client's request. Current internet protocols allow for formats, languages and related preferences to be expressed by clients but make no mention of what a client already knows and what they may understand. The recent Content Negotiation by Profile proposes additions to both the HTTP internet protocols and related services that allow clients to also request information - a response from the server - that accords with an identified information model. This then allows clients to indicate not just formats and languages that they understand (technically that they prefer) but also domains of discourse that that do, which is a step towards comprehensive client context provision.
Enterprise information system
An Enterprise Information System (EIS) is any kind of information system which improves the functions of enterprise business processes through integration. This means typically offering high quality service, dealing with large volumes of data and capable of supporting some large and possibly complex organization or enterprise. An EIS must be able to be used by all parts and all levels of an enterprise. The word enterprise can have various connotations. Frequently the term is used only to refer to very large organizations such as multi-national companies or public-sector organizations. However, the term may be used to mean virtually anything, by virtue of it having become a corporate-speak buzzword. == Purpose == Enterprise information systems provide a technology platform that enables organizations to integrate and coordinate their business processes on a robust foundation. An EIS is currently used in conjunction with customer relationship management and supply chain management to automate business processes. An enterprise information system provides a single system that is central to the organization that ensuring information can be shared across all functional levels and management hierarchies. An EIS can be used to increase business productivity and reduce service cycles, product development cycles and marketing life cycles. It may be used to amalgamate existing applications. Other outcomes include higher operational efficiency and cost savings. Financial value is not usually a direct outcome from the implementation of an enterprise information system. == Design stage == At the design stage the main characteristic of EIS efficiency evaluation is the probability of timely delivery of various messages such as command, service, etc. == Information systems == Enterprise systems create a standard data structure and are invaluable in eliminating the problem of information fragmentation caused by multiple information systems within an organization. An EIS differentiates itself from legacy systems in that it is self-transactional, self-helping and adaptable to general and specialist conditions. Unlike an enterprise information system, legacy systems are limited to department-wide communications. A typical enterprise information system would be housed in one or more data centers, would run enterprise software, and could include applications that typically cross organizational borders such as content management systems.