Does anyone know of a solution or strategy for parsing and translating recurring events in any given language?
I've got some code that sort of works, but I'm having trouble even wrapping my brain around a solid approach.
By "parse" you mean free-form text in any language?
That is nearly impossible to do. The problem is, you can describe that in many ways (even in English, right?). Put inflection in the picture and...
You would need some kind of cognitive system, that is you would need to employ machine learning. Theoretically speaking you'll be interested in only few ontologies but getting translated versions of them might not be too easy (I have seen a presentation of such web service but I believe it was more academic work and the service is not publicly available).
Taking these facts into account, I can suggest (unless you really must parse free form text, i.e. sent via email or something) that you create a form where people can actually choose recurring frequency and options (i.e. ignore holidays, etc.). It is still uneasy task but...
There are various libraries which can parse RRULE's in several languages.
RRULE Libraries
C - libical
Python - python-dateutil
Ruby - ice_cube
Javascript - google-caja or rrule
Java - iCal4j
PHP - when
As for strategies, take a look at the standard here which provides architectural pseudo-code for abstracting rrule data.
Related
Non-optimization question about CPLEX Studio....
So you make your awesome OPL model in CPLEX Studio and it brilliantly solves your amazeballs problem.
Suppose you wanted to allow other users to access this model in a nice user friendly way: Basically, specify some simple parameters in a simple user interface (without having to edit code etc), then, output the solution in some arbitrary way you coded up like an Excel file, HTML report, or whatever.
1) What are the options for a user interface, without adding in too much other technology?
(eg. I currently have a Java program doing exactly this, but I'd rather not rely on Java code / programmers / compiling / hosting source code etc)
2) What are the options for triggering some user friendly output, eg. in a standard format like Excel, some HTML report you coded up, or maybe just triggering a Python script, etc?
(eg. I currently render them in a Java FX application on grids, charts and HTML windows, I would prefer something more lightweight and accessible, like Python etc, HTML5 output)
3) In industry, what is the typical role of CPLEX in a production environment: Is it just called by an external application (Java/.NET etc), or is CPLEX Studio used more actively?
Embed the optimisation model in wider business applications using Java, C#, Python, C++, whatever. Make it just part of the normal business systems that people use. It is just software. Make it so that the users really appreciate that the new software actually benefits them each time they use it. Make it easier to use the model than to not use it. Hide the model inside other software. Probably never even mention optimisation to your end users.
The best model in the world that could deliver amazing benefits will actually achieve nothing of practical value if it doesn't actually get used.
If your target audience or users have to do extra stuff or perform extra steps to use your model, then it will likely not get used very much and may wither and die. If they have to learn new applications etc to use it, it probably won't get used by most people.
By making your model part of their normal day-to-day processes, it will get used, and the practical benefits will come.
I have implemented and support a number of live optimisation applications in several large companies, making decisions that directly affect billions of pounds/dollars of products/revenues per year. Almost all of them have the real optimisation models totally hidden from the users, most of whom have no idea of optimisation or CPLEX; the software in their business systems just works.
There are many options. You may write the model with an algebraic modeling language (AML) like OPL or a general purpose language. (GPL)
If you use OPL then you may call your model from many GPL like C++, Java, Python ...
Or you could plug that model in an existing application.
You could call OPL from Excel or DSX Python Notebook as can be read at https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/topic?id=306f3ded-33b8-4d9a-8568-b4288aa64265&ps=25
See the survey I mentioned in 1.
Some users use CPLEX OPL IDE in order to make decisions and simulations
Other use Decision Optimization Centre : https://www.ibm.com/us-en/marketplace/ibm-decision-optimization-center
Finally, some write new applications from zero or plug the model into an existing application.
Can anyone recommend a good option to translate websites into Spanish? We tried using the Google translate plugin but the translation was so rough (very inaccurate, bordering on embarrassing the company) we had to hire a company to refine the translation so that it was much more accurate which makes for an extremely inefficient process for updating the site moving forward.
We're in health insurance, so the language we're translating is very specialized in nature and needs to be accurate for our members. To make it even more complicated, the Google Translate plugin happens instantly, so the translation is live before we have a chance to refine it before users can see it. In other words, there's no way to refine the translation before you make the content visible to users in the production environment. This is a legal regulatory requirement for Covered California and the Affordable Care Act, so it has to be a top notch implementation.
Short of a proxy solution that intercepts the content before it hits the production site or a separate site coded in Spanish, I'm not sure what other solutions exist if any. Ideas? The separate site solution is also problematic because it requires a bilingual staff and it doubles the work because both environments have to mirror each other exactly at all times.
Recommendations? Ideas? Any suggestions based on experience are most welcome!
Hire developer - he will describe all you need. You will never do it by your own. If you already have - hire new one, he will know how to do it. Question is very spiciefied but any (let's take for example php) php-engine (framework) or even custom php-engine can be updated the way you want.
Preview before upload to public? Easy! Change by moderator|admin values of translations? Easy! Main thing that each sentence (or even paragraph) you will describe by your own... I don't want describe all mechanism of it - hire developer and he will do all you need. $)
This is not so much a technical question but still part of the development cycle.
I'm having to word all of my dialog boxes in this program I am working on and I was trying to get a good handle on the best practices for making text for the average end user to comprehend.
I have three core principles I could think of
Keep it short - yet long enough to explain thoroughly
Avoid personal remarks such as "keep in mind", "just so you know", etc
Call an apple an apple - If a concept is highly technical do not dumb it down with another word that doesn't fully encapsulate the idea.
Are these good principles to go by and/or is there something better to add.
There are various platform specific guidelines, e.g.
Microsoft WUXI --- Dialog text
Apple
The things I would add:
consistency - keep style and tone consistent throughout the application.
consistency - use the same names for concepts and elements of your app
drop everyting you can live without - explanations belong to online help, don't pack the dialog to tight, leave room.
Use simple words. Not all of your users are native english speakers.
Use present tense, active voice
Avoid exclamation marks
Avoid multiple exclamation marks
Yes, I believe those are great principles to go off of, but one more thing you may want to look for and be encouraged to do, is if it is highly technical and there is a way to get the same point across without using words most people wont get, consider using them, not everybody knows everything
Together with another developer, I have embarked on a journey to create a hosted 'CRM Style' application that will cater to enterprise level businesses. These businesses will be accessing our application remotely and so the hosted nature of the application will require certain features. For example, to guarantee a level of professional service the following things must be true:
internationalization requires multiple languages and presentation of date/time for various timezones and locales
transactional capability for batch processing of tasks and rollback capabilities
security concerns for keeping data safe and remote invocations secure from attack
etcetera, the list goes on and on
Due to these concerns and my role as the developer most responsible for the server side development, I am very interested in the choices I make early on. Regarding timezones and languages for example, are there issues related to my choice of database or data fields? Do I choose to use a UTC timestamp or date field throughout the application and if so is there a standard format for that? Also, regarding different languages, am I supposed to ensure the data is stored in the database as UTF-8 or unicode?
I really want to avoid laying down the infustructure of the system only to discover later that a fundamental decision was incorrect or not big enough, wide enough, smart enough, etc. Can someone point me in the right direction regarding these basic 'early' decisions?
EDIT _ Ok I appreciate the broad responses and now I see my question was a little too non-specific. I'd like to focus on the more specific elements that WERE present in the question, such as how to choose the proper format for storing a UTC Date/Time or how to save my text data (do I specify a UTF format?)
If you are targeting enterprise CRM, then you will need a very high level of customizability and integrations with all kinds of systems. You will make mistakes in the design. Your only hope is to isolate each little piece of the code so that you can have a chance of fixing it later.
In short, basic software engineering principles are your best bet.
What you are discussing is called a multi-tenant application wherein you have the same code base used by multiple customers (tenants) with logical or physical separation of data. Remember the fundamental rule of development: flexibility is relational to complexity. The more flexible you make the system, the more complicated it will be.
RE: UTC
For a CRM application that stores things like when calls were made and when meetings took place, I would definitely store all those in UTC and let the user set their local timezone. However, you might run into dates which are timezone agnostic and for those, I would store whatever date was entered.
RE: Unicode
Yes, I would use Unicode for all user-entered data. However, that will not get you localization. If for a single company for example, you have a user in Hong Kong entering text in Chinese and user in Amsterdam entering text in Dutch, you are not going to get automatic translation. Things like dates and number formats can be localized, but raw text like names used in drop lists and such can be a chore to localize.
As you have not mentioned what you think about the issue, you may find my answer or parts of it rather basic.
If you don't need to, don't use a low-level language. I'd use python usually for the first version of a CRM application (with the hope that it would be good enough for the next versions), but this decision depends also on the domain community.
Try to write the minimal code on your own, instead relying on the third-party libraries. People may disagree on this, but I would write the code myself as the last option. But the next point is important.
When selecting a library/framework to use, make sure the party behind it is going to last, the library is stable and the software license suits you needs.
Other general rules apply: focus on the customer, use continuous integration/testing, etc., use good software practices like logging etc.
Nothing is ever stored as "unicode" because this is an abstract concept. Unicode is always stored in some kind of unicode transformation format (UTF) (well or UCS but I never saw that used somewhere). The most commonly used UTF is UTF-8 but I suggest to use what is native/default to your platform. wikipedia
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I ask about the pattern, not framework. This is kind of follow-up to a question on UI auto-generation.
Do you believe in the concept of UI auto-generation from metadata?
What kind of problems can be approached this way?
The question arose when I've created a small library to support my student projects, which generates interactive CLI in runtime based on object's metadata. And I think CLI it generates is quite decent.
On the other extreme is the Naked Objects Framework, which is rather universal, but UI it generates is horrible, IMO.
It's clear, every problem is specific and needs specific UI, but maybe there are several classes of problems where auto-generation is acceptable?
Yes, I believe the concept of metadata-based auto-generated applications is very sound - mainly because it drastically reduces development time and improves code quality by reducing the massive redundancy you have in most applications where each domain data field is represented in the database, in the model, in the UI, and often also several times in various mapping layers.
I think the future is auto-generated apps that can be modified wherever necessary. Currently, this is AFAIK not really possible; for example, Rails only allows you to fully customize the UI when you use static scaffolding, which basically means code generation, i.e. many further changes in the domain model are then not automatically represented in the UI because the duplication has happened when the code was generated.
I believe the first framework that manages to combine complete auto-generation with complete modifiability afterwards will become the de-facto development standard to a previously unknown degree. Though most likely we'll get there in small steps so that there will not be such a single dominating framework.
Take a look at JMatter, which is a rather better-looking implementation of Naked Objects.
http://www.jmatter.org
There is also Chris Muller's work on MAUI, and Lukas Renggli's work on Magritte (both Squeak /Smalltalk)
We have lots of generated UI in the configuration part of our apps. All those lists that are around forever and changed once in a blue moon by a system administrator.
I find that most applications with a database back-end tend to have a bad design from an OO and NO perspective, as already shown in the NO book by Pawson and Matthews.
Re: qn #1 ... Do you believe in the concept of UI auto-generation from metadata? ... I'm definitely going to answer 'yes' to your first question, being one of the committers to the Naked Objects (Java) framework and writing a book on DDD + NO.
The question mentions metadata. I think this is key to NO being able to succeed. In the latest version (which will be going beta in Feb) the metamodel has been opened up so that it is very extensible, either so you can write your domain model following your own programming conventions/annotations, or, potentially so that more sophisticated viewers can look for their own metadata to provide more sophisticated views. (For example, consider that if an object implemented a Location interface then it is displayed in a google maps).
Regarding qn #2 ... what kind of problems can be approached this way ... we've always said that NO is more suitable for "sovereign applications" (transactional, operational systems ones used internally within an organization) to "transient applications" (like an airport kiosk, say). An NO GUI does require that the user is familiar with the domain, otherwise they won't know what they are looking at.
What's missing still is sophisticated viewers, of course. You are right about the NO GUI, it is definitely low fidelity (though the .NET version is a big improvement, see recent infoq.com article). On the Java side there is a sister project called scimpi.org that has a lot of promise though... it provides a basic web GUI for free but lets you hand-craft web pages as necessary and incrementally. I'm also working on an Eclipse RCP GUI that'll work similarly.
The other thing to add to this though is that the NO approach has value (I believe) even if you choose to write a custom GUI and/or presentation layer. That is, you can use it as a design tool for building a very solid pojo domain layer, and then skin it as you will. Trouble is that NO was never originally sold in those terms, so most will see the NO pattern as an all-or-nothing affair.
Dan
One way to look at this is to consider the difference between the user interface you get from something like Toad or MySQL Browser, where the user interface is directly constructed from the tables and their associated meta data, and the user interface that a skilled designer would develop for the actual application. IF there not too disimilar then it should be fairly low hanging fruit for an auto-generation framework.
As you say there are classes of problems which will work quite well with this kind of auto generation and some which wouldn't. To my mind the key things are how well the implementation model (or portion thereof) which you are exposing in the user interface maps to the conceptual model of the user. Secondly how well can the behavior of the application can be expressed through a limited set of user interface components (assuming this is a general purpose UI generation framework).
This article "Universal Model of a User Interface" may be of interest .
I think the idea of automatically generated UIs has a lot of potential especially for your average form-and-table layout database user interface. However, even there a human needs to be in the loop, having the ability to override the output without it being overwritten with the next regeneration.
I suspect automatically generated UIs would be more successful today if interaction designers were more involved in developing the generation algorithms. My impression is that historically the creators of these systems don’t know what kinds of UI-related metadata to include or how to use it. Specifying labels, value ranges, formats, and orders for fields is a start, but more high level information is needed. Sufficient modeling of the tasks and user roles in particular tends to be lacking, along with some basic style-guide-level principles for UI.
Oracle’s Designer 2000, for example, was on the right track in including not only the entities and relations in the model, but also the tasks in the form of a functional hierarchy. Then they blew it by misapplying this metadata (e.g., assuming that depth is always preferred to breadth) and including fundamental flaws when generating the UI (e.g., only one primary window can be opened at a time). The result was IUs that were not even consistent with Oracle’s own Applications User Interface Standards.
Getting a basic UI up quickly that lets the customer try out the system and create test data must be of value. Naked Objects frameworks can help for the “boot strapping” even if you have to have replace it with “hand crafted” UI before you ship.
In most system I have worked on, there have been lots of simple housekeeping tables. All these tables need a UI to edit and view them etc. There is also great value in these simple editors being consistent. Here a naked Objects framework could save a lot of time, even if the main “day to day” UI is “hand crafted”
I have seen a couple of failed projects (cases where I was brought in as a rather expensive consultant to help architect the replacement) which used the "naked objects" approach (not the framework, AFAIK) - all with simply atrocious UIs, and worked replacing a lot of the UI on one project which, in its original incarnation, had a similar approach (the entire application was a tree of objects accessed through context menus and property sheets - this was NetBeans 2.0 circa 1998 - IDE as a giant hierarchical JavaBean).
The bottom line is, your users don't care about your architecture, they care about getting what they need to do done in the most comprehensible-to-mere-mortals set of interactions you can come up with. If that happens to align with your architecture, you are having a lucky day - but it really is serendipity. Trying to force users to care (or even know) about your architecture is a recipe for software nobody wants to use.
Code generally needs to be designed around two not-always-compatible goals:
Maintainability - people who didn't write the code can understand the code
Stability and performance - i.e. the activities the code asks the computer to physically do are both possible, and can be completed within a reasonable time frame
The abstractions and code structures that it makes sense to create to meet those two goals very, very rarely map exactly to user interface elements of any sort. Sometimes you can get away with it - barely - if your audience is technical. But even there, you are likely to please more users with at least a "presentation layer" adapter layer on top of the architecture that makes sense for programmers and machines.