http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/20070162496/activity The invention relates to a method for comparing computer-based and data-processing models of a complex system, with a first model and a second model of the system, whereby the models reflect a model of a system behavior by means of predefined objects which represent activities and units within the system. The inventive method comprises the steps of comparing the models and destination of corresponding respective predefined objects of the first and second model, detecting differences in attributes of corresponding predefined objects and outputting the differences to a user. The use of predefined objects, i.e. of objects that pertain to a known set of types, enables a more efficient comparison of models than in unstructured models. en-us Comparison of models of a complex system The following suggestions are for my students and others who may be interested. Strategy suggestion 1: I think we should look for art with a publication date well before March 19, 2003. I do not know why the priority date of September 15, 2005 is listed here. However, the version of this application on the USPTO website cites a foreign (Swiss) application with the March 19, 2003 priority. See also http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2004083983 for the international filing. If we can, let's find art with clear priority over this earlier date. Strategy suggestion 2: There are many formalisms that have been developed over the years for modeling complex systems. The Transaction Level Modeling framework for electronics design automation as suggested by Lou looks like a good example. Others include Petri nets, finite state machines, UML statecharts, abstract state machines and so on. I think a good search strategy to address [[claim 1]] would then be to search for articles, patents and book chapters that refer to any such formalism with a keyword matching "compar*" or "diff*" in the title or abstract. Google scholar and ACM digital library would be good to use. Any references found should suffice to address [[claim 1]] provided that the comparison involves a predefined library of component types (objects) and their attributes. Strategy suggestion 3: I suspect there will be many art items that address claim 1, so we should move on to select those items that are include the elements of additional claims. Most importantly, I think that we should focus on prior art that involves hierarchical models with comparison carried out at different levels of abstraction as identified in [[claim 5]]. Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:27:58 -0700 http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/20070162496/discussion Comparison of models of a complex system This is exactly what 'transaction based verification' does in EDA. Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:34:34 -0700 http://www.peertopatent.org/patent/20070162496/discussion