Pre-Grant Publication Number: 20070162496
Please help the USPTO examine the application by evaluating the relevance of the publicly submitted prior art to the patent application.
Peer-to-Patent forwards the Top 10 most relevant prior art submissions and their annotations to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Review this prior art and click on the thumbs up (or down) to indicate whether this submission should be forwarded to the USPTO.
If you login then you can add an annotation by typing in the box at the bottom of the screen to comment on the relevance of the prior art to the claims of the patent application.
Review this prior art and click on the thumbs up (or down) to indicate whether this submission should be forwarded to the USPTO.
If you login then you can add an annotation by typing in the box at the bottom of the screen to comment on the relevance of the prior art to the claims of the patent application.
Prior Art Detail
Summary / Description
| Summary / Description | A paper describing an algorithm to diff XML documents. XML documents often represent a model of a complex system. |
Basic Information
| Type of Prior Art | Print Publication |
| Publication Title * | Detecting Changes in XML Documents |
| Author | Cobena, G.; Abiteboul, S.; Marian, A. |
| ISBN | 0-7695-1531-2 |
| Page Range | 41-52 |
| Medium | Journal article |
| Publication Date * | 2002 |
| URL | http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls... |
Notes / To Do
| Notes | |
Excerpt
Excerpt ... it considers, besides insertions, deletions and updates (standard in diffs), a move operation on subtrees that is essential in the context of XML. Intuitively, our diff algorithm uses signatures to match (large) subtrees that were left unchanged between the old and new versions. Such exact matchings are then possibly propagated to ancestors and descendants to obtain more matchings. It also uses XML specific information such as ID attributes. |
Relevance
Claims
1
A method for comparison of computer-based and data-processing models of a complex system, wherein a first model and a second model of the system are present, the models in each case model a system behaviour by way of predefined objects which represent activities and units within the system, and the method comprises the following steps:
comparing both models and determining predefined objects of the first and the second model, which objects are associated with one another in each case,
determining differences in attributes of predefined objects associated with one another, and
issuing the determined associations and differences to a user.
Relevance
This claim covers the basic idea of "diff-ing" two documents. In the
case of the prior art the xml tags represent the predefined objects that
are to be compared against. During the diff similarities in the objects
hierarchy is identified and then differences are found and outputted.
This claim covers the basic idea of "diff-ing" two documents. In the
case of the prior art the xml tags represent the predefined objects that
are to be compared against. During the diff similarities in the objects
hierarchy is identified and then differences are found and outputted.
Claim Chart
All
2
The method according to Claim 1, wherein on comparison of the first and second model, the predefined objects of the models are associated with one another on agreement of at least one of
an absolute identifier of the objects,
a qualified name in each case indicating and defining the objects under the designation of higher-order objects, and
a type description of the predefined objects.
Relevance
This paper describes using ID attributes defined in the DTD or labels to
use as qualified names as identifiers for the objects. From the paper: "It also takes advantage of specificities of XML such as ID attributes defined in the DTD, or the existence of labels."
This paper describes using ID attributes defined in the DTD or labels to
use as qualified names as identifiers for the objects. From the paper: "It also takes advantage of specificities of XML such as ID attributes defined in the DTD, or the existence of labels."
Claim Chart
All
10
The method according to Claim 1, wherein at least two models of the same system exist, a first model represents the system in a first condition and a second model the system in a second condition, and comprising the step of automatically determining actions for conveying the system from the first into the second condition is carried out.
Relevance
This claim is describing merging the changes from the second document to
the first document. The algorithm in the prior art describes the merging
the differences of two XML documents
This claim is describing merging the changes from the second document to
the first document. The algorithm in the prior art describes the merging
the differences of two XML documents
Claim Chart
All
12
The method according to Claim 1, wherein the first model represents the system at a first point in time or an actual condition, and the second model represents the system at a second point in time or a nominal condition.
Relevance
This is fairly broad and more or less describes any two models of a
complex system in more than one state. This would always be the case
when trying to compare two models.
This is fairly broad and more or less describes any two models of a
complex system in more than one state. This would always be the case
when trying to compare two models.
Claim Chart
All
