Patent Grant
9733993
Computing technology has revolutionized the way we work, play, and communicate. Computing functional is obtained by a device or system executing software or firmware. The typical paradigm for application preparation is that the application is drafted well in advance of its use, and the functionality of the patent application is relatively predetermined.
There are some exceptions to the predetermined functionality. For instance, patches may be made to software application in order to provide repair of previously unknown bugs in the software. Furthermore, updates to software applications may be provided in order to add new functionality to the software application. In some cases, software may be configured and customized for a particular user. However, the application itself defines how far it can be customized. Users can also affect applications by providing commercial feedback on software performance. However, it can take years before user feedback is properly incorporated into an application.
The subject matter claimed herein is not limited to embodiments that solve any disadvantages or that operate only in environments such as those described above. Rather, this background is only provided to illustrate one exemplary technology area where some embodiments described herein may be practiced.
At least some embodiments described herein relate to mechanisms for sharing an application in response to one or more detected environmental events (such as user input). The mechanism operates multiple applications, and maintaining a registry of endpoint interface entities. The endpoint interface entities may include hardware entities or hardware entities in association with environmental criteria. For each of at least some of the applications, the mechanism identifies at least one endpoint interface entity that is to interface with the endpoints of at least a portion of the application. The selected endpoint interface entity is then allowed to interface with the application (or the portion). In some embodiments, the application is a transformation chain having endpoints.
This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.
In order to describe the manner in which the above-recited and other advantages and features can be obtained, a more particular description of various embodiments will be rendered by reference to the appended drawings. Understanding that these drawings depict only sample embodiments and are not therefore to be considered to be limiting of the scope of the invention, the embodiments will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings in which:
At least some embodiments described herein relate to mechanisms for sharing an application in response to one or more detected environmental events (such as user input). The mechanism operates multiple applications, and maintaining a registry of endpoint interface entities. The endpoint interface entities may include hardware entities or hardware entities in association with environmental criteria. For each of at least some of the applications, the mechanism identifies at least one endpoint interface entity that is to interface with the endpoints of at least a portion of the application. The selected endpoint interface entity is then allowed to interface with the application (or the portion). In some embodiments, the application is a transformation chain having endpoints.
First, the concept of transformation chains will be described with respect to
The Transformation Chain Application
The principles described herein operate using a transformation chain. A transformation chain is an interconnected set of nodes that each may represent data sources and/or data targets. There are links between the nodes, each link representing a transformation. For any given link, the associated transformation receives copies of values of one or more data sources situated at an input end to the link, and generates and provides resulting values at one or more data targets located at the output end of the link. For any given transformation, when a value at one or more of the data sources at its input end changes, the transformation is automatically reevaluated, potentially resulting in changes in value(s) of one or more data targets at the output end of the transformation.
In one embodiment, regardless of how complex the transformation chain is, the transformations may be constructed from declarative statements expressing equations, rules, constraints, simulations, or any other transformation type that may receive one or more values as input and provide resulting one or more values as output. An example of a transformation chain is a spreadsheet program, where any of the cells can be a data source or a data target. An equation (i.e., a transformation) may be associated with any cell to cause that cell to be a data target where results of the equation are placed.
As an example only,
For instance,
While the example transformation chain 300 includes just two links, transformation chains may be quite complex and involve enumerable nodes and associated links connecting those enumerable nodes. The principles described herein may operate regardless of the complexity of the transformation chains.
The example transformation chains 400A through 400D are relatively simple in order to avoid obscuring the broader principles described herein with an overly complex example. That said, the principles described herein apply regardless of how complex the transformation chain, and regardless of the number of transformation chains and associated devices that are within the environment and forming the compound application.
In the notation of
Throughout
For instance, element 401B in transformation chain 400A represents a dependency with node 401B in the transformation chain 400B. The dependency element 401B is bordered with dashed lines, and all links leading to or from that dependency element 401B are marked with an “X” since at this stage, the transformation chain 400A is not joined with the transformation chain 400B. Element 401C in transformation chain 400A represents a dependency with node 401C in transformation chain 400C. Element 401D in transformation chain 400A represents a dependency with node 401D in transformation chain class 400D.
On its own, the transformation chain instance 400A can function as an application. For example, a copy of a value or copies of values from data source 401A may be used to form a transformed result as a value or values of data target 404A. Furthermore, a copy of a value or copies of values from data sources 401A and 402A may be transformed to result in a value or values of data target 403A. If the transformation chain instance 400A is on its own, the transformations leading to and from the elements 401B, 401C and 401D are not evaluated.
The transformation chain 400B includes three nodes 401B, 402B and 403B. However, the transformation chain 400B also includes dependency elements 401A, 402A, 401C and 403C that reference a node in a different transformation chain. Again, the transformation chain instance 400B may operate independently as a single application. For example, a copy of a value or copies of values from data source 401B may be provided through a transformation to generate a resulting value or values for data target 402B. A copy of a value or copies of values from the data source 402B may be provided through a transformation to generate a resulting value or values for data target 403B.
Though the transformation chain instances 400A and 400B may operate independently,
The transformation chain 400C includes three nodes 401C, 402C and 403C. However, the transformation chain 400C also includes dependency elements 403A, 401B and 403B that reference a node in a different transformation chain. Again, the transformation chain instance 400C may operate independently as a single application. For example, a copy of a value or copies of values from data source 401C may be provided through a transformation to generate a resulting value or values for data target 402C. Likewise, a copy of a value or copies of values from the data source 401C may also be provided through a transformation to generate a resulting value or values for data target 403C.
Though transformation chain instances 400A and 400C may operate independently,
The transformation chain 400D includes two nodes 401D and 402D. However, the transformation chain 400D also includes a single dependency element 403A referencing a node in a different transformation chain class 400A. Again, instances of the transformation chain class 400D may operate independently as a single application. For instance, a copy of a value or copies of values from data source 401D may be provided through a transformation to generate a resulting value or values for data target 402D.
Though transformation chain instances 400A and 400D may operate independently,
Note that
Accordingly, given the transformation chains 400A, 400B, 400C and 400D in the environment, there are 8 possible compound applications that may be formed (corresponding to the transformation chains of
Any of the nodes of a transformation chain may have zero or more input endpoints where inputs are received from an endpoint interface entity, and zero or more output endpoints where outputs are provided to an endpoint interface entity. In this description and in the claims, an “endpoint interface entity” is defined as a hardware entity and zero of more environmental criteria. In the case of there being zero environmental criteria associated with an endpoint interface entity, the endpoint interface is simply a hardware entity (such as a device or computing system). In the description and in the claims, “a hardware entity” refers to any single or combination of physical items that have the capability to potentially interface with an endpoint. For instance, a hardware entity that provides input or receives input might be a data store, or a location in a data store, a user device, a microphone or microphone array, a camera or camera array, three-dimensional sensors, image recognizers, or the like. If the hardware entity and corresponding one or more environmental criteria together define an endpoint interface entity, then the hardware entity is indeed the endpoint interface entity so long as the environmental criteria are satisfied. However, if the environmental criteria cease to be satisfied, then the hardware entity would lose its status as an endpoint interface entity.
In this description, the terms “endpoint interface entity” and “hardware entity” may frequently be used interchangeably on the assumption that if the endpoint interface entity does have environmental criteria, that those criteria remain satisfied in that case. Furthermore, when the term “environmental criteria” is mentioned with respect to a hardware entity or an endpoint interface entity, the environmental criteria for the hardware entity becoming the endpoint interface entity may be different than the environment criteria for the hardware entity ceasing to be the endpoint interface entity. Thus, there may be some hysteresis built into the environmental criteria to avoid rapid changes in whether or not a particular hardware entity qualifies as a particular endpoint interface entity.
Examples of environmental criteria will now be provided with the understanding that the principles described herein are not limited to any particular environment criteria. One environmental criterion might be that the hardware entity has an associated identified user or identified group of users. For instance, if a given user or group of users is using a hardware entity, then the hardware entity may become an endpoint interface entity. If another user or group of users is using the hardware entity, then perhaps the hardware entity does not act as an endpoint interface entity. Other examples of environmental criteria might include the position, vantage point, or orientation of a user or group of users within an environment and/or with respect to a hardware entity, the position of an audio source in the environment, background noise levels, whether an audio signature is present, whether a security zone surrounding the environment has been violated, whether an individual has fallen in the environment, the temperature of the environment, the available network connections in the environment, a lighting level and/or configuration, a time of day or week or month or year, and so on for any imaginable environmental criteria.
As an example, a mounted flat panel display having multiple viewers oriented to be able to see the flat panel display might be an appropriate endpoint interface device, but if there is but a single viewer, and the node has input endpoints, perhaps a touchscreen device in the hands of the single viewer might be the better endpoint interface device for a given endpoint. As a second example, suppose that there was output was being displayed on a television, and a security system is activated, the activation of the security system might be an environmental criteria that causes some or all of the information displayed on the television to be obscured, or perhaps even cause the television to stop being an endpoint interface entity, and thus disconnect from the application.
The general concept of the transformation chains has been described with respect to
Transformation Chain Supporting Architecture
In accordance with the principles described herein, an architecture is described in which transformation chains may be combined incrementally forming dynamically changing functions at runtime, thereby changing the concept of what an application is. With the benefit of reading this description, transformation chains are like molecules floating within an environment, and with the proper impetus, such molecules combine resulting in a compound that operates differently from its constituent parts. For instance, given the right impetus, two hydrogen molecules may combine with an oxygen atom to formulate a molecule of water. While liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen cannot be consumed by humans, liquid water can and must be consumed by human beings. Thus, the principles described herein allow molecules of transformation chains to be joined dynamically and incrementally to formulate customized applications that provide customized functionality that is suitable to the impetus experienced. Such applications may be so customized that there may be times that a particular application is only constructed once.
The principles described herein also allow a delegator endpoint interface entity to delegate power to another delegate endpoint interface entity to interface with certain endpoints, without the delegator endpoint interface entity giving up control of how the delegate endpoint interface affects the transformation chain instance. Accordingly, the principles described herein also allow a transformation chain to be safely split.
Through atomic and molecular composition, a seemingly infinite variety of animate and inanimate objects, and entire worlds, have formed. Currently, there are only 115 known elements in the periodic table of the elements from which an infinite variety of animate and inanimate objects throughout the universe are composed. Using only a limited number of transformation chains, that may be combined in certain ways, there is a substantially limitless variety of applications of a substantially limitless variety of functions that may be generated in a universe of possible applications. Accordingly, the principles described herein describe a new organic paradigm in incrementally building application and sharing split applications to suit the very present circumstances. Furthermore, the principles described herein allow for the careful tracking of credentials of which endpoint interface entity may interact with which endpoint of which nodes of which transformation chains, and allows for temporary, or even permanent delegation of such credentials to other endpoint interface entities. Accordingly, a wide variety of collaboration scenarios are enabled in such an organic application environment.
The runtime architecture also includes a supporting architecture 920 that includes modules and components that operate outside of the observable universal canvas 910, to ensure the appropriate formation, combination, sharing, operation, and extinguishing of the transformation chain instances. The supporting architecture 920 itself can receive input and provide output at represented by bi-directional arrow 921. The supporting architecture 920 may also provide access to services as represented by bi-directional arrow 922. The supporting architecture 920 also interacts with the universal canvas 910 as represented by the bi-directional arrow 923 for purposes of instantiating transformation chains, combining transformation chain instances, altering transformation chain instances, enforcing credentialed use of the transformation chain instances by appropriate endpoint interface entities, extinguishing transformation chain instances, and the like.
The precise physical platform on which the universal canvas 910 is run is not critical. In fact, there can be great flexibility and dynamic change in the physical platform on which the universal canvas 910 is operated. Some nodes of some transformation chains may be operated by one physical platform (such as a device, endpoint interface entity, system, or cloud, while other nodes operate another physical platform). In one embodiment, the universal canvas 910 operates in a cloud computing environment, such as a private cloud, a hybrid cloud, or a public cloud. As an example, the universal campus may be within a local network, in a peer-to-peer computing network, in a cloud computing environment, in any other network configuration, or in any combination of the above. Even so, as previously mentioned, the universal canvas interfaces with the physical world through the endpoints of the various nodes of the transformation chain instances.
Likewise, the supporting architecture 920 may be operated in any computing environment, in peer-to-peer computing network, in a local network, any other network configuration, or in any combination of these. In the case where the transformation chain instances within the universal campus 910 operate fully or primarily, or even party in a cloud computing environment, it may be this same cloud computing environment that operates the supporting architecture.
In this description and the following claims, “cloud computing” is defined as a model for enabling on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services). The definition of “cloud computing” is not limited to any of the other numerous advantages that can be obtained from such a model when properly deployed.
For instance, cloud computing is currently employed in the marketplace so as to offer ubiquitous and convenient on-demand access to the shared pool of configurable computing resources. Furthermore, the shared pool of configurable computing resources can be rapidly provisioned via virtualization and released with low management effort or service provider interaction, and then scaled accordingly.
A cloud computing model can be composed of various characteristics such as on-demand self-service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity, measured service, and so forth. A cloud computing model may also come in the form of various service models such as, for example, Software as a Service (“SaaS”), Platform as a Service (“PaaS”), and Infrastructure as a Service (“IaaS”). The cloud computing model may also be deployed using different deployment models such as private cloud, community cloud, public cloud, hybrid cloud, and so forth. In this description and in the claims, a “cloud computing environment” is an environment in which cloud computing is employed.
The supporting environment 920 includes a number of modules 930. One of the modules 930 is a summoning module 931 that interprets input and in response determines that a class of a transformation chain is to be instantiated. For instance, the input may be received directly from input (from arrow 921) to the supporting environment 920 or via input from a transformation chain instance running in the universal canvas 910 itself. Input that may be received from either source will be referred to herein as “general input”. Summoning criteria are used for recognizing that certain general input is to result in a transformation chain instance being created. Summoning criteria may be also any environmental criteria at all. For instance, the summoning criteria may take into account not just verbal conversations, or explicit user input directed at a hardware entity, but may also take into consideration other environmental factors. For instance, whether a particular user is sitting down, moving away, looking somewhere, being near a device with a touch screen, and so forth, may also be environmental criteria used as summoning criteria for summoning an instance of a transformation chain class to be created within the universal canvas 910.
The modules 930 also includes a chain class module 932 that instantiates transformation chain instances in response to determinations made by the summoning module 931 and/or in response to general input.
The modules 930 also includes a chain class maintenance module 933 that maintains a copy of each transformation chain class. The chain class maintenance module 933 may add to the library of available transformation chain classes in response to a determination made by the summonsing module 931 and/or in response to general input. Thus, the chain class maintenance module may maintain a registry of transformation chain classes. For instance, the chain class maintenance module 933 might merge classes along their appropriate points of dependency, or perhaps create a transformation chain class that represents a redacted or truncated version of a pre-existing transformation chain class. Some transformation chain classes may be created temporarily, whilst others may have more lasting persistence. Furthermore, authentication and authorization may be imposed so as to restrict which entities may instantiate transformation chains of certain classes.
A merging module 934 merges instances of transformation chains to be operated in the universal canvas 910 in an appropriate way given the dependencies of the transformation chains. Such merging occurs in response to determinations made by the summoning module 931 and/or in response to other general input. The merging criteria may also be any general environment criteria. Again, the merging criteria may take into account not just verbal conversations, or explicit user input directed at a hardware entity, but may also take into consideration other environmental factors that are deemed appropriate for the merging to occur.
An endpoint interface entity registry module 935 maintains a registry of all possible endpoint interface entities (hardware entities and potentially associated user criteria), as well as which endpoint interface entities are presently active and available given a particular instantiated transformation chain operating within the universal canvas 910.
An environmental module 936 detects when endpoint interface entities become active or inactive for a given instantiated transformation chain operating within the universal canvas 910. For instance, the environmental module 936 might detect when an initiating set of environment criteria for a hardware entity of a particular endpoint interface entity begin to be met resulting in the endpoint interface entity being available for the application (for interacting with the endpoints of the application). Likewise, the environment module 936 might detect when a terminating set of one or more environmental criteria for the hardware entity of the particular entity is met resulting in the endpoint interface entity no longer being available for the application.
An endpoint matching module 937 determines which active endpoint interface entities for an instantiated transformation chain are capable of and credentialed to provide input for each input endpoint of that transformation chain that is capable of receiving input from the physical world, and determining a proper form of the input given that endpoint interface entity. The endpoint matching module 937 also determines which active endpoint interface entities for an instantiated transformation chain are capable of and credentialed to receive output for each output endpoint of the transformation chain that is capable of presenting output into the physical world.
The modules 930 includes a presentation module 938 that, when there are multiple eligible endpoint interface entities that are capable of providing input into an input endpoint, decides which endpoint interface entity is to provide that input, and potentially decides that multiple endpoint interface entities are capable of providing input into that input endpoint. Furthermore, when there are multiple eligible endpoint interface entities that are capable of rendering output from an output endpoint, the presentation module 938 decides which endpoint interface entity is to provide that input, and potentially decides which of multiple endpoint interface entities are to render the output received from the output endpoint.
The presentation module 938 also decides whether any restrictions are to be imposed when a particular endpoint interface module provides input to an input endpoint of a transformation chain. The presentation module 938 may also decide whether there are any restrictions that are to be imposed when a particular endpoint interface module renders output from an output endpoint of a transformation chain. When that output is visualizations, the presentation module 938 may decide how visualized information is to be formatted and/or laid out on the display of the endpoint interface entity.
The modules 930 also includes a delegation module 939 that allows and facilitates credentialed endpoint interface entity to delegate power to a delegee endpoint interface entity with respect to receiving output from or providing input to particular endpoints of a transformation chain instance. As such, delegation module 939 facilitates splitting of transformation chain application, thereby allowing dynamic movement into and out of collaborative scenarios. There may be other modules within the modules 930 as represented by the ellipses 940.
Transformation Chain Operation
Having now described transformation chain applications, and an architecture that facilitates operation of transformation chain applications with respect to
The dynamic building of transformation chain instances will now be described. In accordance with the principles described herein, transformation chains may be combined incrementally and with ease of effort forming dynamically changing functions at runtime. Transformation chains are like molecules floating within an environment, and with the proper impetus, such molecules combine resulting in a compound that operates differently from its constituent parts. Thus, the principles described herein allow instances of transformation chains to be joined dynamically and incrementally to formulate customized applications that provide customized functionality that is suitable to the impetus experienced.
As a concrete example, suppose that there is a transformation chain that extracts received orders from a database. A verbal command to “show me my orders” by a sales representative might instantiate that transformation chain class, filter by the user that stated the verbal command, and visualize the filtered list or orders. A subsequent join instruction might be “Fetch me my customers”, which might then cause another transformation chain to automatically join with the prior transformation chain to match customers with orders, and visualize the orders by customers. The user might then state “add order exceptions for customers” causing perhaps yet another transformation chain to join the existing transformation chain aggregation, and/or cause input to be made to an existing node of the current aggregation of transformation chains. At each stage, the user may determine based on the current state of the aggregated transformation chain what is lacking, and state or input further joining instructions, from which yet other transformation chains may be join in the growing customized application chain. In essence, the application is built as the user thinks and expresses intuitively what he or she wants, and the application is built in a manner that is sensitive to the environment.
Responsive to the detected environment event(s), the transformation class corresponding to the input is selected (act 1002). For instance, the summoning module 931 or the chain class module 932 may select which of the available transformation chain classes (maintained by the chain class maintenance module 923) corresponds to the detected environmental event(s).
An instance of the transformation chain class is then created (act 1003). For instance, the chain class module 932 might instantiate an instance of the identified transformation chain class. When instantiating the transformation chain class, the endpoint interface entity matching module 937 may provide appropriate credentials to one or more appropriate endpoint interface entities so that such entities are credentialed to receive output from and/or provide input to one or more endpoints of the transformation chain instance.
Optionally, the instance may then be operated (act 1004). For instance, in
As part of this operation (act 1004), the environmental module 936 detects which of the registered endpoint interface entities are active for the given instantiated transformation chain. Furthermore, the endpoint interface entity matching module 937 determines which active endpoint interface entity endpoints for the instantiated transformation chain should provide input for each endpoint of each node of the transformation chain that is capable of receiving input from the physical world, and what forms of input are acceptable. Furthermore, the endpoint interface entity matching module 937 determines which active endpoint interface entities for the instantiated transformation chain should receive output for each output endpoint of each node of the transformation chain that is capable of realizing (e.g., visualizing, rendering, sounding, storing, actuating, and the like) output into the physical world.
At some point, further environmental event(s) are detected (such as user input) which directs that an instance of another transformation chain class is to be combined with an existing transformation chain instance. Accordingly,
As an example, a transformation chain instance may be combined with the instance created in method 1000, or perhaps may be combined with an instance of a transformation chain created by a previous performance of the method 1100 of FIG. 11. Although not required, the instance to which the transformation chain instance is to be joined may have previously operated as an application already. Thus, the method 1100 may be repeatedly performed in order to build a sophisticated and customized transformation chain in response to various detected environmental events.
The detected environment events of act 1101 may be an expressed instruction to join. For instance, the user might have a user interface that allows explicit selection of a desired application chain class to be instantiated. Alternatively, the detected environment events of act 1101 may simply be an implicit indication that two transformation chain instances should be joined. For instance, the detected environment events might be any activity, such as particular speech, that is consistent with the joining of two instances of different transformation chain classes. Such input could include gestures, requests, and the like. For instance, as previously mentioned, a sales representative might state “fetch me my customers” in the context of the representatives corresponding orders already being visualized. The system may even guess at what transformation chain the user might want based on history and current context. In that case, the user establishing the current context could be the environmental event(s) that cause the new transformation chain to be instantiated that the system guesses may be desired at some future point. For instance, perhaps the system knows that when in a particular conversation the users keep talking about a particular order, the system might join transformation chain instances used to acquire that order in anticipation of showing that order. Whatever form the joining environment event(s) takes, the summoning module 931 of
The method 1100 then includes determining, from the further detected environmental event(s), that an instance of one transformation chain class is to be joined with an instance of another transformation chain class (act 1102). For instance, as described above, there are class-level restrictions in which the transformation chain class author expressly makes it possible, at least under some conditions, for instances of two transformation chain classes to be joined. For instance, the dependency elements of
However, there may also be instance-level authorization. As an example, the act 1002 may involve consulting a set of one or more rules defining one or more conditions for joining an instance of the first transformation chain class and the second transformation chain class. This set of rules may be dynamic and change over time. For instance, the joining logic may learn over time that certain gestures or other user activity is, or is not, indicative of a user intent or anticipated future user intent to combine such instances. Accordingly, the supporting architecture may observe a history associated with each of multiple users in order to, over time, more accurately predict user intention, depending on a history of a particular user, or group of users, and thereby formulate an appropriate set of summoning and merging criteria. The act 1102 may be performed by, for instance, by the chain class module 932 with reference to the transformation chain classes known to the class maintenance module 933. The endpoint interface entity matching module 937 may reevaluate which endpoint interface entities have credentials to interface with which endpoints of the composite aggregated transformation chain instance.
The author of a transformation chain class might also express restrictions at the granularity of a single dependency. For instance, in the dependence element 401B of transformation chain class 400A, the author might express that joining is authorized on that dependency element only if the transformation chain into which it is joined does not include an identified transformation chain class authored by a competitor. The author might also control data that is flowed out of the transformation chain to another joined transformation chain by writing restrictions or conditions into the transformation that would bridge the dependency itself (e.g., between nodes 401A and dependency element 401B).
However, even though transformation chain classes may interoperate, that does not mean that the user wants their particular instance of that transformation chain class to join with other instances of other transformation chain classes. After all, the data itself (e.g., the instance state) might be sensitive to the user. Accordingly, the method also may include determining that instances of different transformation chain classes are to be joined.
The joining criteria for authorizing two instance of different transformation chain classes to join may include one or more of the following: whether or not the user is on a meeting attendee list, a relationship (e.g., family, social network friend, or the like) of users of the various devices, a communication capability (e.g., near field) between the devices, a proximity of the respective devices (e.g., in the same conference room), the request of the users, of the like. For instance, the joining criteria might include some business criteria such as the associated users of the instances are on the same team. As another example, one device might be a kiosk in a retail space or hotel, where a customer uses the kiosk and a shop assistant or concierge can automatically use their device to join their transformation chain with that of the kiosk to thereby interact with the customer using the compound application. Conditions may be applied to the joining criteria. For instance, a bellhop's device might be able to join a customer's application if the concierge is not around (perhaps detected by the concierge not actively using the pairable application to join with that of customers, or being off network).
In some embodiments, the first transformation chain class used to instantiate the first of the two instances to be joined may be derived from an existing transformation chain class. As an example, the first transformation chain class may be the same as the first transformation chain class, except with one or more nodes of the transformation chain removed.
In response to the act of determining that the two instances are to be joined (act 1102), the two instances are joined (act 1103), so as to establish connections across one or more flow dependencies of the instance, thereby creating new avenues for data flow, and new application functionality. For instance, this joining may be accomplished by the merging module 934. The joined instance may thereafter be operated (act 1104).
In one embodiment, the instances themselves are directed joined without defining any new combined transformation chain classes. For instance,
In other embodiments, the transformation chain classes themselves are aggregated to define a new combined class, and an instance of that aggregated class is instantiated to thereby accomplish act 1103. The combined instance may exist temporarily, may be kept for the benefit of a limited number of one or more users, or may even be added to the library of transformation chain classes that are available for more widespread use. For instance,
As an example only, perhaps method 1000 or act 1201A of method 1200A might be employed to create an instance of a transformation chain of
Now suppose that environmental event(s) are detected that suggest combination of instances of transformation chains of
Now suppose that environmental events are detected that suggests combination of instances of transformation chains of
Having now described the general principles of transformation chains, the environment in which they may operate, and their principles of aggregation, this description will now address how a delegator endpoint interface entity having credentials on a transformation chain instance may delegate power to a delegee endpoint interface entity to receive output from particular endpoint(s) and/or provided input to particular endpoint(s). Accordingly, application splitting and sharing is made possible in this organic universal canvas of transformation chain instances.
As illustrated in
In the initial state 1300A of
Now suppose that the application represented by the transformation chain 1300A is to be split. That is, suppose that the first endpoint interface entity provides interaction or input suggesting that a transformation chain instance representing a portion of the larger transformation chain instance 1300A is to be created. There may be several reasons for performing such a split. One reason might be simply because the first endpoint interface entity is to use another instance of just that portion of the larger transformation chain class. Another reason might be to delegate input and/or output privileges associated with one, some, or all of the endpoints of those nodes that are part of the portion to another endpoint interface entity. In other words, the first endpoint interface entity assigns the portion of the transformation chain, at least temporarily, to the second endpoint interface entity. A redaction and share gesture may be used to express this intent to delegate. For instance, a user might cross over a certain portion of the user interface (indicating that the target endpoint interface entity is not to have the ability to view or input into those fields), and then indicate a share gesture.
In any case, interaction and/or environmental event(s) are detected that are representative of splitting an instance of a smaller class off of the larger transformation chain class (act 1401), thereby initiating the method 1400 of
In the embodiment 1500A of
In the embodiment 1500B of
In the embodiment 1500C of
In the embodiment 1500D of
Note that there need be no change to the instance of the transformation chain 1300 that is in state 1300A from the perspective of the first endpoint interface entity. In that case, whatever endpoints are created for nodes 1305 and 1306 for the second endpoint interface entity may simply be cloned endpoints. During operation, if a cloned input endpoint received inconsistent input from both the first endpoint interface entity and the second interface entity, merging criteria may resolve the inconsistency. For instance, perhaps inconsistencies are resolved in favor of the delegating endpoint interface entity. Merging operations may be provided by, for instance, the delegation module 939 of
In an alternative embodiment, a remainder instance may be created that represents a logical remainder when the portion instance 1300B is subtracted from the larger instance 1300A, and thus no endpoint are cloned at all. For instance, in the case of
In operation, the delegation module 939 may allow the first endpoint interface entity to maintain control or supervision over the actions of the second endpoint interface entity in interacting with the portion 1300B of the transformation chain 1300A. For instance, the second endpoint interface entity may be credentialed through the first endpoint interface with respect to the portion 1300B such that data flows to and from the instance of the portion transformation class 1300B are approved by and/or channeled through the remainder of the transformation chain 1300A controlled by the first endpoint interface entity. Furthermore, the access of the second endpoint interface entity to data (such as a data service) is strictly controlled. Data for nodes that are not within the portion transformation chain class are provided via the approval of the first endpoint interface entity.
The larger transformation chain instance 1601A is similar to the transformation chain 1300A of
The portion transformation chain instance 1601B is similar to the portion transformation chain 1300B of
The proxy service 1610 provides a point of abstraction whereby the second endpoint interface entity 1621B may not see or interact with the nodes 1301 through 1304 of the larger transformation chain instance 1601A, nor may the second endpoint interface entity 1621B interface with any of the endpoints of the nodes 1305 and 1306 that are assigned to the first endpoint interface entity 1621A. As an example, the proxy service 1610 may be established by the delegation module 939 of
The proxy service 1610 keeps track of which endpoints on node 1305 are assigned to each node 1305A and 1305B, and which endpoints on node 1306 are assigned to each node 1306A and 1306B. When the proxy service 1610 receives input transformations from the larger transformation chain (e.g., node 1301), the proxy service 1610 directs the transformation to each of the nodes 1305A and 1305B as appropriate, depending on which values are affected by the input transformations. Furthermore, when output transformations are provided by the nodes 1305A and 1305B to the node 1301, the proxy service 1610 merges the outputs and provides the merged transformations to the node 1301. For the perspective of the node 1301, it is as though the node 1301 is interacting with node 1305, just as the node 1301 did prior to application splitting. Accordingly, performance and function are preserved, while enabling secure application splitting, by maintaining appropriate information separation between the first and second endpoint interface entities 1621A and 1621B. Such merging of output transformations and splitting of input transformations are performed by component 1611 of the proxy service 1610.
The proxy service 1610 may also include a recording module 1620 that evaluates inputs and outputs made to endpoints in each of the nodes 1305A, 1305B, 1306A and 1306B, and records such inputs and outputs. The recording module 1612 also may record the resulting transformations made between nodes. Such recordings are made into a store 1613. A replay module 1613 allows the actions to be replayed. That may be particular useful if the portion transformation chain is assigned to another (i.e., a third) endpoint interface entity later on and a user of that third endpoint interface entity wants to see what was done. That third endpoint interface may come up to speed with what happened during the tenure of the second endpoint interface entity with the portion transformation chain. Another reason to replay might be to check, and approve, commit, or ratify some action. For instance, imagine an order editing scenario where a number of users are seeking to postpone or move back some deliveries. A first user might ask a second user to help with this. However, the first user does not want the second user to edit the order in a way that causes permanent side effects (e.g., some shipping slot gets released and some now slot gets booked due to a service call). The first user might want to replay what the second user did, and if the first user like was she sees, then accept and commit the actions taken. Here, the replay mechanism additionally simulates the side effecting service calls for the second users. Then, on replay, the first user may cause those service calls to be bound to the actual services. The proxy service 1610 further ensures that the limited credentials of the second endpoint interface entity are enforced. For instance, endpoints on the nodes 1305B and 1306B may not receive proprietary data owned by the first endpoint interface entity from a service, and likewise may not change such proprietary data, at least not without the consent of the first endpoint interface entity.
The splitting of transformation chain instances as described herein allows for a wide variety of scenarios. For instance, by only allowing output endpoints to be cloned in the portion transformation chain provided to the second endpoint interface entity, and retaining input and output endpoints with the first endpoint interface entity, the second endpoint interface entity may have a shared view on what the first endpoint interface entity is doing. Of course, the first endpoint interface entity may restrict which output endpoints are provided in the portion transformation chain, and thus such view sharing can even be restricted. Furthermore, collaborative and co-use scenarios are enabled by dividing input endpoints between the first and second endpoint interface entities. Several instances and versions of a portion transformation chain may be split off of the main transformation chain to allow such scenarios across more than two endpoint interface entities. Each split may have an associated proxy service that maintains proper information separation and functioning of the transformation chain.
Now suppose that the user provides a selection user interaction with respect to the user interface 1700, or more specifically provides a selection user interaction with respect to the orders object 1710. Such selection user interaction might include a gesture. For instance, in the state 1700A, the user has circled (with gesture 1720) the orders object 1710. This results in selection of the orders object.
In
In
For each of the applications, the content of box 1810 is performed. Specifically, at least one endpoint interface entity selected from the endpoint interface registry is identified (act 1811) as to interface with the application (or a portion thereof). This selection may include determining that the identified endpoint interface entity is credentialed to interface (or correspond) with the application (or the portion thereof). As part of this identification, it is determined that the environmental event(s) (if any) are satisfied with respect to the endpoint interface entity (act 1821). For instance, in
The identified endpoint interface entity is then allowed (act 1812) to interface with the application (or the portion thereof). In other words, within the scope of the application (or the portion thereof), the identified endpoint interface entity is permitted to interface with the corresponding application endpoints within that scope. In the case of a split application, in which different endpoint interface entities are to interface with different portions of the application, the delegation module 939 operates as described above.
In the event that there are multiple endpoint interface entities that are available for a given application, the identification of an appropriate endpoint interface entity (act 1811) might also include determining that 1) an output endpoint for rendering at the hardware entity of the identified endpoint interface entity is efficiently perceivable to at least one (a plurality of) user that satisfies(y) the user criteria of the identified endpoint interface entity, or has some specific characteristic helpful or required to complete a portion of a user's task intent or delivery the appropriate action in response to some implicit event in the environment, and 2) does not conflict with at least one other output endpoint rendered at the hardware entity so as to adversely affect perception of at least one user that satisfies the user criteria. Similarly, the identification of an appropriate endpoint interface entity (act 1811) might also include determining that 1) an input endpoint for inputting at the hardware entity of the identified endpoint interface entity is capable of receiving input from at least one (a plurality of) active endpoint interface entities, or has some specific characteristic helpful or required to complete a portion of a user's task intent or delivery the appropriate action in response to some implicit event in the environment; and 2) an input endpoint for inputting at the hardware entity of the identified endpoint interface entity does not conflict with at least one other input endpoint rendered at the hardware entity so as to adversely affect ability to input of at least one user that interfaces with another endpoint interface entity. Through these determinations with respect to all input and output endpoints of the application, an appropriate distribution of interfacing may be determined.
When the application is thereafter operated (act 1903), various interaction is performed at the endpoints. The presentation module 938 tailors the interaction (act 1904) of the hardware entities with the endpoints by, for each endpoint, restricting the interaction capability of the endpoint perhaps according to the input and output hardware capabilities of the hardware entities. For instance, if an object is to be displayed on a large display that has no touch input, a prompt to “touch here” to perform some function may be removed, whereas if the object is being displayed on a touch screen, that prompt may be present. If information is being displayed via a particular output endpoint on a high fidelity display, perhaps more detail may be displayed on the high fidelity display as compared to, for instance, a watch having a smaller display. Thus, the interaction capability of an endpoint may be restricted. In other words, the input to an endpoint may be restricted according to capabilities of the hardware entity, and output from an endpoint may be restricted according to capabilities of the hardware entity.
Furthermore, restrictions may be made depending on detection of environmental event(s) associated with a hardware entity. For instance, if most users are further away from the display, less detail might be displayed in favor of enlargement of visualizations. The rules for determining how to restrict an endpoint may be based on at least in part on 1) the interaction capabilities of the hardware entities, 2) anticipated interference in the capabilities of the hardware entities 3) a position of one or more users with respect to at least one or more of the hardware entities; and 4) a control of one or more users with respect to one or more of the hardware entities.
One benefit of the split application configuration described with respect to
If, during this monitoring (act 2001), data flow is detected (“Yes” in decision block 2010), the data flow is recorded (act 2011), and the method returns to continue monitoring (act 2001). If, during this monitoring (act 2001), interactions between the second hardware entity and the second portion of the application are detected (“Yes” in decision block 2020), the interactions are recorded (act 2021), and the method returns to continue monitoring (act 2001). At times when there are no data flows detected (“No” in decision block 2010) and no interactions detected (“No” in decision block 2020), the monitoring simply continues as long as the application is split.
The recordings are made in a manner that they can be replayed (e.g., by the second hardware entity that is assigned to the second portion of the application) or reassigned (e.g., from the second hardware entity to a third hardware entity).
In another scenario, the first endpoint interface entity may reassign the split portion of the application from the second endpoint interface entity to a third endpoint interface entity, without the first endpoint interface entity having to redo the communication, and being able to take advantage of what input the second endpoint interface entity was able to provide.
In response to the move request (act 2201), a third endpoint interface entity 2330 is permitted to interact with the second portion 2321 of the application (act 2202), and the recorded information 2323 is provided to the third endpoint interface entity 2330 (act 2203). This transfer of control and recorded information regarding the second portion of the application from the second endpoint interface entity to the third endpoint interface entity is represented by arrow 2340 in
Formatting of displayed information becomes challenging in this environment due to the many degrees of freedom that could affect how information is formatted and laid out. For instance, the application itself may grow and be split, as previously described, and thus the application itself may change dynamically over even a short period of time. This affects the number and nature of the output endpoints that result in visualizations. Furthermore, there may be multiple hardware entities rendering visualizations of an application, each with varying capability to display. In addition, changing environmental conditions may change the availability of a hardware entity to render information. For instance, due to enforcement of user criteria, changing conditions may cause endpoint interface entities to dynamically become available and unavailable.
Examples of triggers that might change the layout include, but are not limited to, 1) the first application changes to a second application due to growth or splitting of the application, 2) a change in allocation of output between multiple displays, 3) a change in users of the display, 4) a change in position of one or more users with respect to the display, 5) a change in control of one or more users with respect to the display, 6) a change in authorization of one or more users with respect to the display or the information displayed.
Rather than simply applying to layout, the method 2400 of
Accordingly, a robust and organic application model has been described on the basis of transformation chains. The concept of transformation chains was first described with respect to
Computing System Description
Computing systems are now increasingly taking a wide variety of forms. Computing systems may, for example, be handheld devices, appliances, laptop computers, desktop computers, mainframes, distributed computing systems, or even devices that have not conventionally been considered a computing system. In this description and in the claims, the term “computing system” is defined broadly as including any device or system (or combination thereof) that includes at least one physical and tangible processor, and a physical and tangible memory capable of having thereon computer-executable instructions that may be executed by the processor. The memory may take any form and may depend on the nature and form of the computing system. A computing system may be distributed over a network environment and may include multiple constituent computing systems.
As illustrated in
In the description that follows, embodiments are described with reference to acts that are performed by one or more computing systems. If such acts are implemented in software, one or more processors of the associated computing system that performs the act direct the operation of the computing system in response to having executed computer-executable instructions. For example, such computer-executable instructions may be embodied on one or more computer-readable media that form a computer program product. An example of such an operation involves the manipulation of data. The computer-executable instructions (and the manipulated data) may be stored in the memory 2504 of the computing system 2500. Computing system 2500 may also contain communication channels 2508 that allow the computing system 2500 to communicate with other message processors over, for example, network 2510.
The computing system 2500 also may potentially include output rendering components, such as displays, speakers, lights, actuators, or the like. The computing system 2500 may also include input components, such as a keyboard, pointer device (such as a mouse or tracking pad), voice recognition devices, and possibly also physical sensors (e.g., thermometers, global positioning systems, light detectors, compasses, accelerometers, and so forth).
Embodiments described herein may comprise or utilize a special purpose or general purpose computer including computer hardware, such as, for example, one or more processors and system memory, as discussed in greater detail below. Embodiments described herein also include physical and other computer-readable media for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions and/or data structures. Such computer-readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer system. Computer-readable media that store computer-executable instructions are physical storage media. Computer-readable media that carry computer-executable instructions are transmission media. Thus, by way of example, and not limitation, embodiments of the invention can comprise at least two distinctly different kinds of computer-readable media: computer storage media and transmission media.
Computer storage media includes RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other storage medium which can be used to store desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer.
A “network” is defined as one or more data links that enable the transport of electronic data between computer systems and/or modules and/or other electronic devices. When information is transferred or provided over a network or another communications connection (either hardwired, wireless, or a combination of hardwired or wireless) to a computer, the computer properly views the connection as a transmission medium. Transmissions media can include a network and/or data links which can be used to carry desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer. Combinations of the above should also be included within the scope of computer-readable media.
Further, upon reaching various computer system components, program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures can be transferred automatically from transmission media to computer storage media (or vice versa). For example, computer-executable instructions or data structures received over a network or data link can be buffered in RAM within a network interface module (e.g., a “NIC”), and then eventually transferred to computer system RAM and/or to less volatile computer storage media at a computer system. Thus, it should be understood that computer storage media can be included in computer system components that also (or even primarily) utilize transmission media.
Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which, when executed at a processor, cause a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions. The computer executable instructions may be, for example, binaries or even instructions that undergo some translation (such as compilation) before direct execution by the processors, such as intermediate format instructions such as assembly language, or even source code. Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the described features or acts described above. Rather, the described features and acts are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims.
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the invention may be practiced in network computing environments with many types of computer system configurations, including, personal computers, desktop computers, laptop computers, message processors, hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, mobile telephones, PDAs, pagers, routers, switches, and the like. The invention may also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computer systems, which are linked (either by hardwired data links, wireless data links, or by a combination of hardwired and wireless data links) through a network, both perform tasks. In a distributed system environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
Accordingly, the principles described herein provide a new application paradigm in which compound and customized applications may be built dynamically as the need arises by the users themselves based on input from the user.
The present invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. The described embodiments are to be considered in all respects only as illustrative and not restrictive. The scope of the invention is, therefore, indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description. All changes which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5596702 | Stucka et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5632034 | O'Farrell | May 1997 | A |
| 5884083 | Royce | Mar 1999 | A |
| 6005548 | Latypov et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6009410 | LeMole et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6061644 | Leis | May 2000 | A |
| 6351843 | Berkley et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6442476 | Poropat | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6536037 | Guheen et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6662199 | Flight et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6708329 | Whitehill et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6820135 | Dingman et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6917963 | Hipp et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 6950850 | Leff et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6988271 | Hunt | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6993751 | Bhansali | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 7047518 | Little et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7082576 | Shahine et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7171655 | Gordon et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7251778 | Hill et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
| 7269794 | Martinez et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
| 7275241 | Choi | Sep 2007 | B2 |
| 7417644 | Cooper et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7433956 | Zhao et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7458029 | Agrawala et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7506324 | Thiagarajan et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7509374 | Trinh et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7519959 | Dmitriev | Apr 2009 | B1 |
| 7536635 | Racovolis et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7539982 | Stuart | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7543269 | Krueger et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7552428 | Stoodley et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7558748 | Ehring et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7664813 | Pettit et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7698430 | Jackson | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7702729 | Johanson et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7721223 | Ben-Shachar et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7730446 | Anonsen | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7765470 | Epstein | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7779429 | Neil et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7814171 | Blegen et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7818729 | Plum et al. | Oct 2010 | B1 |
| 7853938 | Melhelm et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7908594 | Varanasi et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7917534 | Demiroski et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7926029 | Stoyen | Apr 2011 | B1 |
| 7930432 | Blaszczak | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7937685 | Weil et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7954084 | Arcaro et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7984426 | Loff | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 7991916 | Meek et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8014308 | Gates et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8019770 | Hartsook et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
| 8036140 | Rao et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8042094 | Napoli | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8060544 | Werner et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8060553 | Mamou et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8060857 | Biggerstaff | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8079023 | Chen | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8082517 | Ben-Shachar et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8085281 | Hines et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8161463 | Johnson et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8171398 | Hosotsubo | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8191080 | Goring et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8209674 | Meijer et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8214768 | Boule et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8214799 | Haselden | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8233887 | Whitney et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8253649 | Imai et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8255156 | Ravenscroft et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8255889 | Stefansson et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8332828 | Vargas | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8365156 | Sollich | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8402379 | Barak | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8407605 | Go et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8438533 | Fritzsche et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
| 8456654 | Kelly et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8464208 | Feigen | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8464337 | Mathew et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8479202 | Hogan et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8489474 | Crook et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8495580 | Gowri | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8505002 | Yehia et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8516454 | Mizrachi et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8527970 | Luecke | Sep 2013 | B1 |
| 8528000 | Schumacher et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8531451 | Mital et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8533661 | Nucci et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8583413 | Elaasar | Nov 2013 | B2 |
| 8600446 | Chiang et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8607206 | Freeman et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8615551 | Balandin et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8635521 | Fleishman et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
| 8635537 | Kan et al. | Jan 2014 | B1 |
| 8650384 | Lee et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
| 8654952 | Wang et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
| 8667130 | Shuster | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8669939 | Underkoffler et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8689191 | Dolby | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8707278 | Balakrishnan et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8707287 | Raundahl Gregersen et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8779971 | Wellington | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8786517 | Lewin et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8812601 | Hsieh et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8832676 | Mahajan et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8850045 | Berg et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8892850 | Archer et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8914733 | Chai et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8928582 | Senanayake et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 8954229 | Park | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 8965349 | Kieft et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 8990779 | Schalk | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 9003010 | Saparoff | Apr 2015 | B1 |
| 9003298 | Hoke et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 9015659 | Raundahl Gregersen | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 9032377 | Mizrachi et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
| 9396698 | Mital et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
| 9424309 | Ramachandra et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
| 20020165993 | Kramer | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020169851 | Weathersby et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20030229685 | Twidale | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040078760 | Melhem et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040216096 | Messer et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20050041784 | Timmins et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050132045 | Hornback et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138151 | Lam et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050177676 | Karatal et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050251339 | Araki et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060031779 | Theurer et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060089990 | Ng et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060239234 | Rao et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20070011008 | Scarano et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070038929 | Miyazawa | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070067440 | Bhogal et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070078953 | Chai et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174291 | Cooper et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070180362 | Hunt et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070271332 | Joshi et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070288850 | Fletcher et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070294626 | Fletcher et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080072211 | Rothman et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20090094544 | Savage | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090100178 | Gonzales et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090267780 | Van Hoff | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20100058205 | Vakil et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100083212 | Fritzsche et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131868 | Chawla et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100246571 | Geppert et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100251031 | Nieh et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100306670 | Quinn et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100306738 | Verma et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100312817 | Steakley | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110055309 | Gibor et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110078103 | Teng et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110078560 | Weeldreyer et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099496 | Baek et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110119576 | Aumann | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110119603 | Peltz et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110154209 | Fan et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110197124 | Garaventa | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110202909 | Meijer et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110228922 | Dhara et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110265003 | Schubert et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110289455 | Reville et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20120030632 | McRae et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120110009 | Kraft et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120144288 | Caruso et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120159472 | Hong et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120185100 | Strohbach et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120197728 | Luna et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120204180 | Santoli et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20130047079 | Kroeger et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130055113 | Chazin et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130111360 | Kodama et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130117715 | Williams et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130178970 | Cachapa | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130212487 | Cote | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130212504 | Zalewski et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130212703 | Ramesh et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130219263 | Abrahami | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130219303 | Eriksson et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282532 | Shihadah et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130297696 | Alexandrov et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130311327 | Tehrani et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20140007103 | Nachum et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140089888 | Bhaskara et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140096110 | Charters et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140181800 | Johansson et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140201155 | Vijayan et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140215356 | Brander et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140218343 | Hicks et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140223281 | Bocanegra Alvarez | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140229858 | Bleker et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140245140 | Brown et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140250193 | Goncalves et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140280580 | Langlois et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140282106 | Smith et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140289640 | Poornachandran et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140304594 | Pittenger et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140304663 | Mishra | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140304718 | Gambardella et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140306964 | Reddish et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140310619 | Fickenwirth et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140310697 | Reddish et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140359478 | Thakur et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150036848 | Donaldson | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150067536 | Leorin et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150070263 | Murillo et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150081684 | Lewis | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150261543 | Lahteenmaki | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150363581 | Ranadive | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160094429 | Richards et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20170003862 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170003940 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170003943 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170003944 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170004021 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170004116 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170005897 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170005970 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170010590 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170010673 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170010758 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170010789 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170011011 | Mital et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0475581 | Mar 1992 | EP |
| 1677239 | Jul 2006 | EP |
| 2592506 | May 2013 | EP |
| WO 2004013784 | Feb 2004 | WO |
| WO 2008135459 | Nov 2008 | WO |
| 2013097896 | Jul 2013 | WO |
| 2013182159 | Dec 2013 | WO |
| 2014032089 | Mar 2014 | WO |
| 2014158128 | Oct 2014 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Office Action dated Jun. 10, 2016 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,153. |
| Begel, Andrew, “CrystalBoard: A Transparent Shared Whiteboard”, Retrieved on: Jul. 9, 2015 Available at: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/abegel/cs294/cs294-paper.html. |
| Begole, et al., “Flexible Collaboration Transparency: Supporting Worker Independence in Replicated Application-Sharing Systems”, In Journal of ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 6, Issue 2, Jun. 1999, pp. 95-132. |
| Datta, et al., “Proxy-Based Acceleration of Dynamically Generated Content on the World Wide Web: An Approach and Implementation”, In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Jun. 4, 2002, pp. 97-108. |
| Ai, et al., “Spatial Relation Abstract in Map Generalization Process”, In Proceedings of the 9th ACM international symposium on advances in geographic information systems, Nov. 9, 2001, 11 pages. |
| Fritzsche, et al., “Model Transformation Chains in Model-Driven Performance Engineering: Experiences and Future Research Needs”, In Proceedings of Modellierung, Mar. 24, 2010, pp. 213-220, 8 pages. |
| Fritzsche, et al., “Systematic Usage of Embedded Modelling Languages in Automated Model Transformation Chains”, In Proceedings of First International Conference Software Language Engineering, Sep. 29, 2008, 4 pages. |
| Liu, et al., “UI Portals: Sharing Arbitrary Regions of User Interfaces on Traditional and Multi-User Interactive Devices”, In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing and 9th International Conference on Autonomic & Trusted Computing, Sep. 4, 2012, pp. 957-962. |
| Markarian, et al., “Seamless Interaction Among Heterogeneous Devices in Support for Co-located Collaboration”, In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Groupware: Design, Implementation, and use, Sep. 6, 2006, 16 pages. |
| Nimphius, et al., “Building Customizable Oracle ADF Business Applications with Oracle Metadata Services (MDS)”, In Oracle White Paper, Jun. 2010, 57 pages. |
| Qaddoura, Fareed, “Dynamic Website and Data Engine Generators for Distributed Enterprise/Business Architectures”, In Thesis, Dec. 2004, 84 pages. |
| Richa, et al., “Towards Testing Model Transformation Chains Using Precondition Construction in Algebraic Graph Transformation”, In Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages & Systems, Sep. 29, 2014, 10 pages. |
| Schlatter, Tania, “Designing Personalized, Dynamic web Applications with ATG”, Published on: Oct. 21, 2002 Available at: http://www.nimblepartners.com/share/atg—design—process.pdf. |
| Schwabe, et al., “Cohesive Design of Personalized Web Applications”, In Journal of IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 6, Issue 2, Mar. 2002, pp. 34-43. |
| Shi, et al., “Finger Gesture Interaction on Large Tabletop for Sharing Digital Documents Among Multiple Users”, In Proceedings of First IEEE International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing, Jul. 31, 2008, pp. 8-13. |
| Shurtz, S. Richard, “Application Sharing from Mobile Devices with a Collaborative Shared Display”, In Thesis and Dissertations Brigham Young University, Jun. 5, 2014, 106 pages. |
| Sripradha, et al., “Dynamic Resource Management Using Gesture-Based User Interface”, In Proceedings of 20th Annual International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communications, Sep. 19, 2014, 6 pages. |
| Stille, et al., “A2DL—An Adaptive Automatic Display Layout System”, In Proceedings of Third Annual Symposium Human on Interaction with Complex Systems, Aug. 25, 1996, pp. 243-250. |
| Stirbu, Vlad, “A RESTful Architecture for Adaptive and Multi-device Application Sharing”, In Proceedings of First International Workshop on RESTful Design, Apr. 26, 2010, 4 pages. |
| Vanhooff, et al., “Towards a Transformation Chain Modeling Language”, In Proceedings 6th International Workshop Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation, Jul. 17, 2006, 10 pages. |
| Vanhooff, et al., “UniTI: A Unified Transformation Infrastructure”, In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Sep. 30, 2007, 15 pages. |
| Wang, et al., “PLA-based Runtime Dynamism in Support of Privacy-Enhanced Web Personalization”, In Proceedings of 10th International Software Product Line Conference, Aug. 21, 2006, 10 pages. |
| Zee, et al., “Application of geographical concepts and spatial technology to the Internet of Things”, Retrieved on: Jul. 9, 2015 Available at: http://dspace.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/47951/2013-33.pdf? |
| “Application Transformation”, Published on: May 4, 2014, Available at: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/business-solutions/application-transformation-overview.html. |
| “Configuring the Display of Portal Content”, Published on: Jul. 6, 2013 Available at: https://help.sap.com/saphelp—nw73/helpdata/en/3f/4e286c29d3475ca4ebdaedac6f9ede/frameset.htm. |
| Deploying Multiple-Instance Applications, Retrieved on: Apr. 29, 2015, Available at: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc779351(v=ws.10).aspx. |
| “Pexpect—Spawn child applications and control them automatically.”, Published on: Oct. 21, 2013 Available at: http://www.bx.psu.edu/˜nate/pexpect/pexpect.html. |
| Bergstein, “Object-Preserving Class Transformations”, ACM, pp. 299-313, 1991. |
| McGachey et al. “Classifying Java Class Transformations for Pervasive Virtualized Access”, ACM, pp. 75-84, 2009. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/041211 mailed Sep. 13, 2016. |
| Office Action dated Aug. 26, 2016 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,143. |
| Office Action dated Aug. 29, 2016 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,141. |
| Second Written Opinion Received for PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/040233, Mailed Date: Jan. 11, 2017, 10 Pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,144, Feb. 27, 2017, Notice of Allowance. |
| Office action dated Feb. 28, 2017 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,151. |
| Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 12, 2017 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,153. |
| Sascha Hunold et al., “Transformation of Legacy Software into Client/Server Applications through Pattern-based Rearchitecturing”, 2008. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/041212 mailed Sep. 19, 2016. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/040234 mailed Sep. 14, 2016. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/040595 mailed Oct. 13, 2016. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/040239 mailed Oct. 7, 2016. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/040240 mailed Oct. 13, 2016. |
| Korkhov et al. “VLAM-G: Interactive Data Driven Workflow Engine for Grid-Enabled Resources”, Scientific Programming, vol. 15, No. 3, Jan. 2007. |
| Lin et al. “Service-Oriented Architecture for VIEW: A Visual Scientific Workflow Management System”, Services Computing, 2008. |
| Zhang et al. “CloudWF: A Computational Workflow System for Clouds Based on Hadoop” Dec. 2009, Cloud Computing, pp. 393-404. |
| Fei et al. “A Dataflow-Based Scientific Workflow Composition Framework” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 5, No. 1, Jan. 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,153, Nov. 8, 2016, Office Action. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/041215 dated Oct. 13, 2016. |
| Teamviewer “Manual TeamViewer 6.0-9947c” Dec. 1, 2010, retrieved Aug. 23, 2016, p. 50. |
| Nishizawa et al. “A Small Extension to Java for Class Refinement”, ACM, pp. 160-165, 2008. |
| Etien et al. “Chaining Model Transformations”, ACM, pp. 9-14, 2012. |
| Fuad et all. “Similarity Mapping of Software Faults for Self-Healing Applications”, ACM, pp. 1-4, 2010. |
| Weidendorfer et al. “Performance Optimization by Dynamic Code Transformation”, ACM, pp. 1-2, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,158, Dec. 2, 2016, Office Action. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,143, Dec. 23, 2016, Notice of Allowance. |
| Office Action dated Jan. 26, 2017 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 14/794,749. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/040233 mailed Sep. 22, 2016. |
| Bhardwaj et al. “ECC: Edge Cloud Composites” 2014 2nd IEEE International Conference on Mobile Cloud Computing, Services, and Engineering, IEEE, Apr. 8, 2014, pp. 38-47. |
| Fujii et al. “Semantics-Based Context-Aware Dynamic Service Composition” ACM Transactions on Autonomous Adoptive System, vol. 4, No. 2, May 1, 2009. |
| Pering et al. “Enabling Pervasive Collaboration with Platform Composition” May 11, 2009, Pervasive Computing, Spimger Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 184-201. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/040232 mailed Sep. 20, 2016. |
| Troche “Refactoring with Eclipse: Eclipse Provides a Collection of Refactoring Features” Oct. 1, 2004. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/040231 mailed Sep. 23, 2016. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/040238 mailed Sep. 28, 2016. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/041213 mailed Oct. 11, 2016. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/040235 mailed Oct. 10, 2016. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/041214 mailed Oct. 12, 2016. |
| Yie, et al., “Realizing Model Transformation Chain Interoperability”, In Journal Software and Systems Modeling, Feb. 1, 2012, 21 pages. |
| Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 20, 2017 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,143. |
| Feinerer et al, “Class Diagrams with Equated Association Chains”, IEEE, pp. 209-216, 2013. |
| Yu et al., “A Feature-Driven Approach to Automated Class Diagram Construction”, ACM, pp. 1-9, 2015. |
| Vignaga et al., “Transforming System Operations' Interactions into a Design Class Diagram”, ACM, pp. 993, 997, 2007. |
| Magalhaes et al., “A Model Driven Transformation Development Process for Model to Model Transformation”, ACM, pp. 3-12, 2016. |
| Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 25, 2017 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,141. |
| 2nd Written Opinion issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/040240 dated Apr. 20, 2017. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability issued in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2016/041211 dated May 15, 2017. |
| Dibon Pierre et al: “Ubiquitous Widgets: Designing Interactions Architecture for Adaptive Mobile Applications”, Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), May 20, 2013, pp. 331-336. |
| 2nd Written Opinion issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/040595 mailed May 3, 2017. |
| 2nd Written Opinion issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/041215 mailed Mar. 16, 2017. |
| 2nd Written Opinion issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/041212 dated Jun. 6, 2017. |
| Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/040231, Mailed Date: May 22, 2017, 5 Pages. |
| “Second Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2016/041213”, Mailed Date: May 29, 2017, 5 Pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/791,158, filed Jun. 2, 2017, Office Action. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20170004022 A1 | Jan 2017 | US |
