Contextual queries

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8983989
  • Patent Number
    8,983,989
  • Date Filed
    Friday, February 5, 2010
    14 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, March 17, 2015
    9 years ago
Abstract
Systems, methods, and computer-storage media for generating contextual queries are provided. The system includes a search engine to receive user queries and contexts, a query understanding component to generate a semantic representation of the query, and a data source command generator to transform the semantic representation into commands for multiple data sources. The data source command generator is connected to the query understanding component. The data source command generator selects data source commands based on lexical information associated with each data source.
Description
BACKGROUND

Conventional search engines receive queries from users to locate web pages having terms that match the terms included in the received queries. Conventionally, the search engines ignore the context and meaning of the user query and treat the query as a set of words. The terms included in the query are searched for based on frequency, and results that include the terms of the query are returned by the search engine.


Accordingly, conventional search engines return results that might fail to satisfy the interests of the user. The user attempts to reformulate the query by choosing words that are likely found in a document of interest. For instance, a user looking for stock information may enter a query for “PE Company A Stock.” The conventional search engine will treat each word separately and return documents having the term “Company A,” documents having the term “PE,” documents having the terms “stock,” and documents having any of the terms. The conventional search engine is unable to intelligently select documents in results that discuss the stock performance of Company A, a comparison of Company A to its competitor, and news about the management of Company A. The user must read the different documents in the results to determine whether any of the documents includes performance information.


SUMMARY

Embodiments of the invention relate to systems, methods, and computer-readable media for generating contextual queries. A search engine receives a query from a client device along with context information provided by applications utilized during the current search session. In turn, a query understanding component processes the context information and query to generate a semantic representation of the query. The semantic representation of the query is further processed by a data source command generator to select several data source commands based on lexical information associated with each data source. The data source commands are issued from the data source command generator to the data sources to return answers and results to the search engine in response to the user query and generated contextual queries.


This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the detailed description. 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 isolation to determine the scope of the claimed subject matter.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Illustrative embodiments of the invention are described in detail below with reference to the attached drawing figures, which are incorporated by reference herein, wherein:



FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary computing device in accordance with embodiments of the invention;



FIG. 2 is a network diagram illustrating exemplary components of a computer system configured to generate contextual queries in accordance with embodiments of the invention; and



FIG. 3 is a logic diagram illustrating a computer-implemented method for generating contextual queries in accordance with embodiments of the invention.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

This patent describes the subject matter for patenting with specificity to satisfy statutory requirements. However, the description itself is not intended to limit the scope of this patent. Rather, the inventors have contemplated that the claimed subject matter might also be embodied in other ways, to include different steps or combinations of steps similar to the ones described in this patent, in conjunction with other present or future technologies. Moreover, although the terms “step” and “block” may be used herein to connote different elements of methods employed, the terms should not be interpreted as implying any particular order among or between various steps herein disclosed unless and except when the order of individual steps is explicitly described.


As used herein the term “contextual query” refers to data commands that are used to access data sources and to retrieve information from the data sources based on the structure of the information included in the data source and the meaning of terms included in a query.


As used herein the term “component” refers to any combination of hardware, firmware, and software.


Embodiments of the invention provide contextual queries that allow a user to receive answers to the user query. The answers are collected from a large collection of content having structured data, semistructured data, and unstructured data. The contextual queries are generated by a computer system based on ontologies associated with the terms included in the query and applications that are utilized during a current search session. The contextual queries search a combination of structured, unstructured, and semistructured data for answers to the query.


For instance, answers for a user's finance queries are returned by a computer system using an ontology-driven understanding of the finance queries. The computer system may provide a finance application that enables users to obtain answers to natural language queries like “Companies with similar PE ratio as Company A,” “Company A operating income,” and “Company A and B valuation.” An ontology is used by the computer system to understand a number of key ratios that should be calculated using current data in response to the queries. The key ratios may include, among other things, “PE Ratio,” “Price-to-Sales ratio,” etc. The natural language queries and corresponding ontologies are used to generate a semantic representation. The finance application may transform the semantic representation to a SPARQL query that is issued to data sources, which include records that are traversed to return the answers. In turn, the finance application returns a comparison of these ratios and other valuation metrics for the companies A and B.


The computer system receives queries from a user. Also, the computer system receives contexts for one or more applications traversed during the current search session. Using one or more ontologies, the computer system understands the queries and contexts and generates semantic representations of the queries and the contexts of the applications in which a user formulates the query. Concepts, instances, properties, and relations are included in the semantic representation of the queries based on the taxonomy, templates, or definitions included in the ontologies. In one embodiment, the semantic representation is a graph of the query using the extracted concepts, instances, properties, and relations, etc. In turn, the semantic representation may be automatically transformed by the data source command generator into data source specific query languages to retrieve relevant information and answers to the query.



FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary computing device 100 in accordance with embodiments of the invention. The computing device 100 includes bus 110, memory 112, processors 114, presentation components 116, input/output (I/O) ports 118, input/output (I/O) components 120, and a power supply 122. The computing device 100 is but one example of a suitable computing environment and is not intended to suggest any limitation as to the scope of use or functionality of the invention. Neither should the computing device 100 be interpreted as having any dependency or requirement relating to any one or combination of components illustrated.


The computing device 100 typically includes a variety of computer-readable media. By way of example, and not limitation, computer-readable media may comprise Random Access Memory (RAM); Read Only Memory (ROM); Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EEPROM); flash memory or other memory technologies; CDROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical or holographic media; magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that may be used to encode desired information and be accessed by the computing device 100. Embodiments of the invention may be implemented using computer code or machine-useable instructions, including computer-executable instructions such as program modules, being executed by a computing device 100, such as a personal data assistant or other handheld device. Generally, program modules including routines, programs, objects, modules, data structures, and the like, refer to code that performs particular tasks or implements particular abstract data types. Embodiments of the invention may be practiced in a variety of system configurations, including distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote-processing devices that are linked through a communications network.


The computing device 100 includes a bus 110 that directly or indirectly couples the following components: a memory 112, one or more processors 114, one or more presentation components 116, input/output (I/O) ports 118, I/O components 120, and an illustrative power supply 122. The bus 110 represents what may be one or more busses (such as an address bus, data bus, or combination thereof). Although the various components of FIG. 1 are shown with lines for the sake of clarity, in reality, delineating various modules is not so clear, and metaphorically, the lines would more accurately be grey and fuzzy. For example, one may consider a presentation component 116 such as a display device to be an I/O component 120. Also, processors 114 have memory 112. Distinction is not made between “workstation,” “server,” “laptop,” “handheld device,” etc., as all are contemplated within the scope of FIG. 1.


The memory 112 includes computer-readable media and computer-storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. The memory may be removable, nonremovable, or a combination thereof. Exemplary hardware devices include solid-state memory, hard drives, optical-disc drives, etc. The computing device 100 includes one or more processors 114 that read data from various entities such as the memory 112 or I/O components 120. The presentation components 116 present data indications to a user or other device. Exemplary presentation components 116 include a display device, speaker, printer, vibrating module, and the like. The I/O ports 118 allow the computing device 100 to be physically and logically coupled to other devices including the I/O components 120, some of which may be built in. Illustrative I/O components 120 include a microphone, joystick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner, printer, wireless device, and the like.


A computer system that generates contextual queries includes a search engine, a query understanding component, and a data source command generator. The contextual queries are generated based on ontologies associated with a query provided by the client device and ontologies corresponding to applications that formulated the query. The search engine receives the query from the client device and context from the application. In turn, the search engine transmits answers to the contextual queries and results that include content corresponding to the query to a client device. The client device displays the results along with the answers.



FIG. 2 is a network diagram illustrating exemplary components of a computer system configured to generate contextual queries in accordance with embodiments of the invention. The computer system 200 has a client device 210, a network 220, search engine 230, data source command generator 240, and query understanding component 250.


The client device 210 is connected to the search engine 230 via network 220. In some embodiments, the client device 210 may be any computing device that is capable of web accessibility. As such, the client device 210 might take on a variety of forms, such as a personal computer (PC), a laptop computer, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a server, a CD player, an MP3 player, a video player, a handheld communications device, a workstation, any combination of these delineated devices, or any other device that is capable of web accessibility.


The client device 210 allows a user to enter queries. The client device 210 transmits the queries to the search engine 230. In certain embodiments, the client device 210 also transmits a context associated with an application used by the user to formulate the query. In other embodiments, the search engine 230 may provide the context. In turn, the client device 210 receives results that include answers. The client device 210 may also display the answers for the contextual queries and results for the queries to the users.


The network 220 connects the client device 210, search engine 230, data source command generator 240, and query understanding component 250. The network 220 may be wired, wireless, or both. The network 220 may include multiple networks, or a network of networks. For example, the network 220 may include one or more wide area networks (WANs), one or more local area networks (LANs), one or more public networks, such as the Internet, or one or more private networks. In a wireless network, components such as a base station, a communications tower, or even access points (as well as other components) may provide wireless connectivity in some embodiments. Although single components are illustrated for the sake of clarity, one skilled in the art will appreciate that the network 220 may enable communication between any number of client devices 210.


The search engine 230 is a server computer that provides results for queries received from client devices 210 and answers to contextual queries dynamically generated by the data source command generator 240. The search engine 230 is configured to receive user queries and application contexts. The search engine 230 returns results to the user queries and answers to the contextual queries. In some embodiments, the search engine 230 returns only answers to the contextual queries.


The data source command generator 240 is communicatively connected to the query understanding component 250. In one embodiment, the data source command generator 240 includes filters 242 and lexical information 244. The data source command generator 240 is configured to transform a semantic representation provided by the query understanding component 250 into contextual queries that are applied across multiple data sources using data source commands selected based on lexical information 244 associated with each data source. In one embodiment, the data sources include unstructured, structured, or semistructured data sources that are queried using one of: Structured Query Language (SQL), SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL), or textual keyword queries.


The filters 242 are configured to refine the semantic representation provided by the query understanding component 250. The filters 242 refine the semantic representation by augmenting the semantic representation based on information associated with a current query session. In one embodiment, the filter 242 includes domain, collaboration, geographic, temporal, task, and user. The domain filter may be identified based on application context. For instance, a user searching for stock may be interested in the finance domain or cooking domain. The data source command generator 240 may select one of these domains based on the other filters 242. For instance, the collaboration or community filters may indicate that the user is connected to cooking groups or finance groups. Based on the group associated with the user, the data source command generator 240 selects the relevant domain filter. For instance, a user in a finance community is likely interested in company stock. Accordingly, the domain filter may be set to finance. The geographic filter may include the current location of the user. For example, a user that is a British subject in England may issue the query, and the geographic filter may set to England by the computer system 200. The temporal filter may include the time frame for the query. If a date or time is not included in the query, the temporal filter may be set to the current 24-hour time period. The task filter may be selected based on the application used by the user or it may be inferred by the computer system 200. The task filter may include checking email, searching for content, editing a document, etc. The user filter may include profile attributes that override values selected for the other filters 242. For instance, a British subject user may specify in a profile that interests include U.S. stock. Accordingly, the geographic information for the stock query may be changed from England to United States of America. These values for the filters 242 are included in the semantic representation that is transformed to the contextual queries by the data source command generator 240.


The lexical information component 244 is a part of the data source command generator 240. The lexical information component 244 is used to select data sources that should receive the contextual queries. The data sources having lexical information similar to the terms of the contextual query are selected to receive the contextual query. In one embodiment, the lexical information component 244 stores lexical information associated with ontologies and the data sources that store the content that is traversed by the search engine. In some embodiments text mining is performed on each data source by the computer system to select lexical information associated with each data source that is stored in the lexical information component 244.


In turn, the data source command generator 240 generates contextual queries that are issued against the selected data sources. The semantic representation of the query may be further processed to select appropriate commands for the selected data sources. The lexical information component 244, ontologies 252, and rules 254 are accessed to identify methods for each data source that access or compute relevant information from data sources based on the semantic description of concepts, properties, and relations included in the semantic representation.


The query understanding component 250 is configured to store ontologies 252 that identify the query type and context type. The query understanding component 250 also provides rules 254 associated with items in the ontologies 252 that expand a semantic representation and identify methods that access or compute relevant information from data sources based on a semantic description of concepts, properties, and relations expressed in the ontologies 252. For instance, the query type may identify one or more input types and one or more output types, where the input and output types correspond to concepts, instances, properties, or relations in a query ontology or a context ontology.


The query understanding component 250 is configured to generate the semantic representation of the query and context. The query ontology and context ontology may be used by the query understanding component 250 to generate a graph of the semantic representation based on the uniform resource identifiers (URIs) associated with the each concept, instance, etc., included in the ontologies 252. The semantic representation is conditioned by the appropriate context rules of the user query and application context.


In one embodiment, the graph is a semantic query representation (SQR) that is formatted in extensible markup language (XML). The SQR may include the following nodes: query type (QT), Context (CXT), and Display (DSP) templates. For instance, a natural language query for Company A may have the following SQR <QT: Instance Profile: Company; Instance Type: Stock; Instance URI: Company A> <CXT: Natural Language, Finance> <DSP: Company Name, Symbol, News>.


Depending on the data source, the semantic query representation is translated into data source-specific queries to retrieve relevant answers and information from those data sources. In the semantic representation, QT is a formal representation of a hierarchy of the different types of queries an application can expect from its users. Each QT is qualified by a set of input and output parameters that facilitate extensions to other parts of the ontology. CXT is a formal representation of a hierarchy of the different types of contexts in which the user query can be captured and interpreted. CXT can be explicitly identified by the applications a user interacts to issue their queries or implicitly derived from the query text. Each CXT identifies the conditions and criteria for interpreting concepts, instances, etc., in a given query. The CXT may either expand or disambiguate the concepts, instances, etc. included in the semantic query representation. The semantic graph is structured according to QT and CXT templates associated with the query type in the query-type ontology and the context type in the context-type ontology and lexical information associated with each data source.


The ontologies 252 include words or phrases that correspond to content in the data sources. Each ontology 252 includes a taxonomy for a domain and the relationship between words or phrases in the domain. The domains may include medicine, art, computers, etc. In one embodiment, the ontologies 252 also store the query type and context type. The query type identifies the type and structure of textual user queries. For instance, the query type may include natural language, structured, in-line command, etc. The context type identifies and organizes the different types of contexts in which queries can be expressed. For instance, the context may include search engine, email application, finance application, etc. The ontology 252 is associated with rules 254. The rules may be referenced in the semantic query representation using a URI corresponding to the appropriate rule.


The rules 254 identify the concepts, instances, properties, and relations across a number of domains. In certain embodiments, the rules 254 may define methods or functions that are used to compute results from data included in the data sources. For instance, the rules 254 may include comparators, mathematical functions, statistical functions, or other heuristics. In other embodiments, the rules 254 may also be associated with functions identified in the commands available for the data sources.


In an embodiment, answers are transmitted to a client device based on contextual queries that are dynamically generated from queries received from a user of the client device. The computer system may execute a computer-implemented method for dynamically generating contextual queries based on ontologies corresponding to the query and application traversed by the user when formulating the query.



FIG. 3 is a logic diagram illustrating a computer-implemented method for generating contextual queries in accordance with embodiments of the invention. The method initializes in step 310 when the computer system is connected to a network of client devices.


In step 320, the computer system receives a user query and application context. The context is provided by an application that the user operates during the current query session. In step 330, the computer system generates a semantic representation of the query using domain ontologies. The computer system determines a query and context type using query and context ontologies. The structure for the semantic representation is derived from a template associated with a query type included in the query ontology or context type included in the context ontology.


The semantic representation is refined using filters associated with each domain traversed in a current query session, in step 340. The filters augment the semantic representation with criteria associated with one or more applications operated by the user during the current query session request. In step 350, the computer system selects one or more data source commands to issue against data sources having content associated with terms in the query. In certain embodiments, the data sources include structured data sources, unstructured data sources, and semistructured data sources. The structured data sources are queried using one of: Structured Query Language (SQL) or SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL). The unstructured or semistructured data sources are queried using textual keyword queries. The method terminates in step 360.


In summary, contextual queries allow a user to traverse multiple data sources using information built into ontologies associated with a query provided by a user and ontologies associated with applications utilized to generate the query. For instance, a user may send a query to a search engine, which returns a number of results. In addition, the search engine may also provide answers associated with contextual queries formulated from the user query.


For instance, answers for a user's finance queries are returned by the computer system using an ontology-driven understanding of the finance queries. The computer system may provide a finance application that enables users to obtain answers to natural language queries like “Companies with similar PE ratio as Company A,” “Company A operating income,” and “Company A and B valuation.” The latter query processing may use the ontology to understand valuation includes a number of key ratios that should be calculated using current data. The key ratios may include, among other things, “PE Ratio,” “Price-to-Sales ratio,” etc. In turn, the finance application returns a comparison of these ratios and other valuation metrics for the companies A and B. The natural language queries and corresponding ontologies are used to generate a semantic representation. The finance application may transform the semantic representation to a SPARQL query that is issued to data sources, which include records that are traversed to return the answers.


The computer system receives a query: “MSFT higher PE” from a user and application context: “finance” and “natural language” from the finance application. The computer system identifies the finance ontology and natural language ontology. In turn, the query is transformed using a linguistic interpretation to “MSFT higher/high-1 PE.” The finance ontology may be used to further transform the semantic representation using mathematical operators and the definition for PE ratio. The semantic representation is transformed to “MSFT higher/high-1 Comparator PE.” The computer system may apply a number of filters to refine the semantic representation. In an embodiment, the semantic representation is a query graph generated using the ontologies. The filters include domain, collaboration, community, geographic, temporal, task, and user interests. After applying these filters, the computer system transforms the query to “Ticker MSFTUS/Ticker higher greater-1PE/PE ratio Date: today.” In turn the semantic representation is converted to data source commands. The computer system may issue the following: “Ticker.PeRatio>MSFTQUS.PERatio&&Date=today.” This data source command is sent to multiple data sources to locate the answers.


Many different arrangements of the various components depicted, as well as components not shown, are possible without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. Embodiments of the invention have been described with the intent to be illustrative rather than restrictive. It is understood that certain features and subcombinations are of utility and may be employed without reference to other features and subcombinations and are contemplated within the scope of the claims. Not all steps listed in the various figures need be carried out in the specific order described.

Claims
  • 1. A computer-implemented method to generate contextual queries, the method comprising: receiving a user query and context, wherein the context is provided by one or more applications that the user operates during the current query session;generating a semantic representation of the query using domain ontologies, wherein the domain ontologies identify filters, concepts, and relations in a number of categories;refining the semantic representation using filters associated with each domain traversed in a current query session, wherein some filters augment the semantic representation with criteria of the one or more applications operated by the user during the current query session; andselecting one or more data source commands to issue against data sources having content associated with terms in the query based on the context and the semantic representation.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a query and context type using query and context ontologies.
  • 3. The method of claim 2, wherein structure for the semantic representation is derived from a template associated with a query type included in the query ontology.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the data source includes structured data sources, unstructured data sources, and semistructured data sources.
  • 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the structured data sources are queried using one of: Structured Query Language (SQL) or SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL).
  • 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the unstructured or semistructured data sources are queried using textual keyword queries.
  • 7. The method of claim 4, wherein the data source commands are selected based on lexical information associated with each data source.
  • 8. The method of claim 1, wherein some filters include mathematical operators that are associated with the one or more applications operated by the user.
  • 9. The method of claim 1, wherein application contexts for the one or more applications are selected from the domain ontologies when generating the semantic query representation.
  • 10. One or more computer readable media, not a signal per se, configured to perform a method to process queries, the method comprising: receiving a user query and context, wherein the context is provided by one or more applications that the user operates during the current query session;generating a semantic representation of the query using domain ontologies;refining the semantic representation using filters associated with each domain traversed in a current query session, wherein some filters augment the semantic representation with criteria of the one or more applications operated by the user during the current query session; andselecting one or more data source commands to issue against a data source having content associated with terms in the query.
  • 11. The media of claim 10, further comprising: determining a query and context type using query and context ontologies.
  • 12. The media of claim 11, wherein structure for the semantic representation is derived from a template associated with a query type included in the query ontology.
  • 13. The media of claim 10, wherein the data source includes structured data sources, unstructured data sources, and semistructured data sources.
  • 14. The media of claim 13, wherein the structured data sources are queried using one of: Structured Query Language (SQL) or SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL).
  • 15. The media of claim 13, wherein the unstructured or semistructured data sources are queried using textual keyword queries.
  • 16. The media of claim 10, wherein some filters include mathematical operators that are associated with the one or more applications operated by the user during the session.
  • 17. The media of claim 10, wherein application contexts for the one or more applications are selected from the domain ontologies when generating the semantic query representation.
  • 18. A computer system having processors and memories configured to generate contextual queries, the system further comprising: a search engine configured to receive user queries and contexts;a query understanding component configured to store ontologies that identify the query type and application type, the query type identifies one or more input types and one or more output types, wherein the input and output types correspond to concepts, instances, properties, or relations in a domain ontology or an application ontology; anda data source command generator communicatively connected to the query understanding component, wherein the data source command generator is configured to transform a semantic representation provided by the query understanding component into contextual queries that are applied across multiple data sources using data source commands selected based on lexical information associated with each data source.
  • 19. The computer system of claim 18, wherein the ontologies provide rules that expand the semantic query representation and identify methods that access or compute relevant information from data sources based on a semantic description of concepts, properties, and relations expressed in the ontologies.
  • 20. The computer system of claim 18, wherein the data sources include unstructured, structured, or semistructured data sources and are queried using one of: Structured Query Language (SQL), SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL), or textual keyword queries.
US Referenced Citations (180)
Number Name Date Kind
5748974 Johnson May 1998 A
5835087 Herz et al. Nov 1998 A
6038560 Wical Mar 2000 A
6154213 Rennison et al. Nov 2000 A
6256031 Meijer et al. Jul 2001 B1
6510406 Marchisio Jan 2003 B1
6556983 Altschuler et al. Apr 2003 B1
6567805 Johnson May 2003 B1
6675159 Lin et al. Jan 2004 B1
6681218 Zou Jan 2004 B1
6859800 Roche Feb 2005 B1
6868525 Szabo Mar 2005 B1
6871202 Broder Mar 2005 B2
6968332 Milic-Frayling et al. Nov 2005 B1
7085771 Chung et al. Aug 2006 B2
7089226 Dumais et al. Aug 2006 B1
7152031 Jensen et al. Dec 2006 B1
7153137 Altenhofen Dec 2006 B2
7167866 Farnham Jan 2007 B2
7171424 Barsness et al. Jan 2007 B2
7213205 Miwa et al May 2007 B1
7225407 Sommerer May 2007 B2
7249018 Ross et al. Jul 2007 B2
7275061 Kon et al. Sep 2007 B1
7292243 Burke Nov 2007 B1
7321883 Freedy et al. Jan 2008 B1
7350138 Swaminathan et al. Mar 2008 B1
7376670 Badt et al. May 2008 B2
7421450 Mazzarella et al. Sep 2008 B1
7448047 Poole Nov 2008 B2
7496830 Rubin Feb 2009 B2
7505985 Kilroy Mar 2009 B2
7565627 Brill Jul 2009 B2
7577646 Chien Aug 2009 B2
7636779 Hayashi et al. Dec 2009 B2
7657518 Budzik et al. Feb 2010 B2
7657546 Goodwin et al. Feb 2010 B2
7668813 Baeza-Yates Feb 2010 B2
7676485 Elfayoumy et al. Mar 2010 B2
7694212 Fikes et al. Apr 2010 B2
7707201 Kapur et al. Apr 2010 B2
7739104 Berkan et al. Jun 2010 B2
7743360 Venolia Jun 2010 B2
7809705 Dom et al. Oct 2010 B2
7809717 Hoeber et al. Oct 2010 B1
7818315 Cucerzan et al. Oct 2010 B2
7849080 Chang et al. Dec 2010 B2
7860853 Ren et al. Dec 2010 B2
7870117 Rennison Jan 2011 B1
7921107 Chang et al. Apr 2011 B2
7921108 Wang et al. Apr 2011 B2
7921109 Parikh et al. Apr 2011 B2
7934161 Denise Apr 2011 B1
7937340 Hurst-Hiller et al. May 2011 B2
7958115 Kraft Jun 2011 B2
7966305 Olsen et al. Jun 2011 B2
7970721 Leskovec et al. Jun 2011 B2
8015006 Kennewick et al. Sep 2011 B2
8024329 Rennison Sep 2011 B1
8051104 Weissman et al. Nov 2011 B2
8086600 Bailey et al. Dec 2011 B2
8090713 Tong et al. Jan 2012 B2
8090724 Welch et al. Jan 2012 B1
8108385 Kraft et al. Jan 2012 B2
8122016 Lamba et al. Feb 2012 B1
8122017 Sung et al. Feb 2012 B1
8126880 Dexter et al. Feb 2012 B2
8150859 Vadlamani et al. Apr 2012 B2
8176041 Harinarayan et al. May 2012 B1
8229900 Houle Jul 2012 B2
8260664 Vadlamani et al. Sep 2012 B2
8326842 Vadlamani et al. Dec 2012 B2
8386509 Scofield et al. Feb 2013 B1
8447760 Tong et al. May 2013 B1
8706709 Ahuja et al. Apr 2014 B2
20020049738 Epstein Apr 2002 A1
20020062368 Holtzman et al. May 2002 A1
20030078913 McGreevy Apr 2003 A1
20030177112 Gardner Sep 2003 A1
20030217052 Rubenczyk Nov 2003 A1
20040003351 Sommerer Jan 2004 A1
20040015483 Hogan Jan 2004 A1
20040030741 Wolton Feb 2004 A1
20040169688 Burdick Sep 2004 A1
20050022114 Shanahan et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050055341 Haahr Mar 2005 A1
20050080775 Colledge Apr 2005 A1
20050125219 Dymetman et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050125400 Mori et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050132297 Milic-Frayling Jun 2005 A1
20050149510 Shafrir Jul 2005 A1
20050198011 Barsness et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050203924 Rosenberg Sep 2005 A1
20050257894 Biagiotti Nov 2005 A1
20050268341 Ross Dec 2005 A1
20060004732 Odom Jan 2006 A1
20060005156 Korpipaa Jan 2006 A1
20060036408 Templier et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060069589 Nigam et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060069617 Milener Mar 2006 A1
20060074870 Brill et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060106793 Liang May 2006 A1
20060116994 Jonker Jun 2006 A1
20060117002 Swen Jun 2006 A1
20060122979 Kapur et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060242147 Gehrking Oct 2006 A1
20060248078 Gross et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060287919 Rubens Dec 2006 A1
20060287983 Krauss et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070011155 Sarkar Jan 2007 A1
20070011649 Venolia Jan 2007 A1
20070038601 Guha Feb 2007 A1
20070094256 Hite Apr 2007 A1
20070136246 Stenchikova et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070150515 Brave et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070174255 Sravanapudi Jul 2007 A1
20070226198 Kapur Sep 2007 A1
20070294200 Au Dec 2007 A1
20080010311 Kon et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080033932 DeLong Feb 2008 A1
20080033982 Parikh et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080059508 Lu et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080082477 Dominowska et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080104061 Rezaei May 2008 A1
20080104071 Pragada May 2008 A1
20080133482 Anick et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080133488 Bandaru et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080133585 Vogel Jun 2008 A1
20080208824 Curtis et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080235203 Case Sep 2008 A1
20080243779 Behnen et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080256061 Chang Oct 2008 A1
20080270384 Tak Oct 2008 A1
20080288641 Messer et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080313119 Leskovec et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090024962 Gotz Jan 2009 A1
20090055394 Schilit et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090083261 Nagano Mar 2009 A1
20090089312 Chi et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090100037 Scheibe Apr 2009 A1
20090119261 Ismalon May 2009 A1
20090119289 Gibbs et al. May 2009 A1
20090125505 Bhalotia May 2009 A1
20090157419 Bursey Jun 2009 A1
20090157676 Shanbhag Jun 2009 A1
20090164441 Cheyer Jun 2009 A1
20090234814 Boerries Sep 2009 A1
20090240672 Costello Sep 2009 A1
20090241065 Costello Sep 2009 A1
20090254574 De et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090299853 Jones et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100005092 Matson Jan 2010 A1
20100010913 Pinckney et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100023508 Zeng Jan 2010 A1
20100042619 Jones et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100049682 Chow Feb 2010 A1
20100070484 Kraft et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100106485 Lu et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100131085 Steelberg May 2010 A1
20100138402 Burroughs et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100223261 Sarkar Sep 2010 A1
20100332500 Pan et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110040749 Ceri et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110047148 Omoigui Feb 2011 A1
20110047149 Vaananen Feb 2011 A1
20110055189 Effrat et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110055207 Schorzman et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110125734 Duboue et al. May 2011 A1
20110131157 Iyer et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110131205 Iyer et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110145232 Chang et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110179024 Stiver et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110196737 Vadlamani et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110196851 Vadlamani et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110196852 Srikanth et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110231395 Vadlamani et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110264655 Xiao et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110264656 Dumais et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110307460 Vadlamani et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120130999 Jin et al. May 2012 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (18)
Number Date Country
1535433 Oct 2004 CN
101124609 Feb 2008 CN
101137957 Mar 2008 CN
101356525 Jan 2009 CN
101364239 Feb 2009 CN
101432719 May 2009 CN
2003032292 Feb 1991 JP
2005165958 Feb 1993 JP
2008235185 Sep 1996 JP
2005-165416 Jun 2005 JP
2009252145 Oct 2009 JP
10-0837751 Jun 2008 KR
01-50330 Jul 2001 WO
2007113546 Oct 2007 WO
2007143109 Dec 2007 WO
2008027503 Mar 2008 WO
2009117273 Sep 2009 WO
2010148419 Dec 2010 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (90)
Entry
Kiryakov et al., “Semantic Annotation, Indexing, and Retrieval”, Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, Elsevier, vol. 2, No. 1, Dec. 1, 2004, pp. 58-73.
Chirita et al., “Personalized Query Expansion for the Web”, SIGIR 2007 Proceedings, Jul. 23-27, 2007 pp. 7-14.
International Search Report and Written opinion in PTC/US2011/021210 mailed Aug. 19, 2011.
Tony Veale and Yanfen Hao, “A context-sensitive framework for lexical ontologies”, The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 23:1, 101-115, Cambridge University Press, Published Date: 2007, United Kingdom, http://afflatus.ucd.ie/Papers/ContextAndLexicalOntologies.pdf.
Thomas Strang, Claudia Linnhoff-Popien, and Korbinian Frank, “CoOL: A Context Ontology Language to enable Contextual Interoperability”, IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Published Date: 2003, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=BC65BEE5025FB518404AF16988E46489?doi=10.1.1.5.9505&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
“Google Wonder Wheel, Google Wonder Wheel Explained”, Google Inc., Published Date: 2009, http://www.googlewonderwheel.com/.
“Cuil—Features”, Cuil, Inc., Published Date: 2010, http://www.cuil.com/info/features/.
“Kosmix: Your Guide to the Web”, Kosmix Corporation, Published Date: 2010, http://www.kosmix.com/corp/about.
Hao Liang, et al., “Translating Query for Deep Web Using Ontology”, 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Published Date: 2008, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04722650.
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/700,980 mailed Nov. 25, 2011.
Bade, Korinna, et al, An Architecture for the Development of Context Adaptive Retrieval Systems, Published Feb. 14, 2006, http://www.springerlink.com/content/jk3wj13251rh6581/fulltext/.pdf.
Batko, Michal, et al., “On Scalability of the Similarity Search in the World of Peers,” May 29-Jun. 1, 2006, 12 pages, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Scalable Information Systems, Hong Kong http://www.nmis.isti.cnr.it/falchi/publications/Falchi-2006-Infoscale.pdf.
Broder, Andrei, et al., A Semantic Approach to Contextual Advertising, Published Jul. 23-27, 2007, http://fontoura.org/papers/semsyn.pdf.
Chirita, Paul-Alexandru, et al., Personalized Query Expansion for the Web, Published Jul. 27, 2007, http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/120000011277746/p7-chirita.pdf?key1=1277746&key2=8684409521&coll=GUIDE&CFID=63203797&CFTOKEN=28379565.
Fisher, Brian, et al., “CZWeb: Fish-Eye Views for Visualizing the World-Wide Web”, Published 1997, 5 pages, http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?cluster=3988401955906218135&hl=en&as—sdt=2000.
Gjergji Kasneci, “Searching and Ranking in Entity-Relationship Graphs”—Published Date: Dec. 23, 2009, http://domino.mpi-inf.mpg.de/intranet/ag5/ag5publ. nsf/6a06bf33407d587ec12565dd006fb8de/2c25044ad8d088fdc125763b003d5810/$FILE/gjergji—kasneci—phd.pdf.
Gjergji Kasneci, et al., “NAGA: Searching and Ranking Knowledge”—Published Date: Mar. 2007, http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/˜ramanath/nagatr.pdf.
Gonen, Bilal, “Semantic Browser”, Aug. 2006, 42 pages, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.83.9132&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Havre, Susan, et al., “Interactive Visualization of Multiple Query Results,” 2001, 8 pages, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.2850&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Hearst, Marti A., “Ch. 10, Information Visualization for Search Interfaces”, 2009, 65 pages, Search User Interfaces, http://searchuserinterfaces.com/book/sui—ch10—visualization.html.
International Search Report and Written Opinion PCT/US2011/021596, mailed Aug. 29, 2011.
International Search Report and Written Opinion PCT/US2011/021597, mailed Sep. 23, 2011.
Jonker, David, et al., “Information Triage with TRIST”, May 2005, 6 pages, 2005 Intelligence Analysis Conference, Washington DC, Oculus Info, Inc., http://www.oculusinfo.com/papers/Oculus—TRIST—Final—Distrib.pdf.
Kiryakov, et al., “Semantic Annotation, Indexing, and Retrieval” Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, Elsevier, vol. 2, No. 1, Dec. 1, 2004, pp. 49-79.
Kosara, Robert, et al., “An Interaction View on Information Visualization”, 2003, 15 pages, The Eurographics Association, http://www.cs.uta.fi/˜jt68641/infoviz/An—Interaction—View—on—Information—Visualization.pdf.
Kules, Bill, et al., Catergorizing Web Search Results into Meaningful and Stable Categories Using Fast-Feature Techniques, Published Jun. 15, 2006, http://hcil.cs.umd.edu/trs/2006-15/2006-15.pdf.
Leopold, Jennifer, et al., “A Generic, Functionally Comprehensive Approach to Maintaining an Ontology as a Relational Database”, 2009, pp. 369-379, World Academy of Science, vol. 52, http://www.akademik.unsri.ac.id/download/journal/files/waset/v52-58-oaj-unsri.pdf.
Mateevitsi, Victor, et al., “Sparklers: An Interactive Visualization and Implementation of the Netflix recommandation algorithm”, retrieved Apr. 7, 2010, 5 pages, http://www.vmateevitsi.com/bloptop/.
Nguyen, Tien N., “A Novel Visualization Model for Web Search Results,” Sep./Oct. 2006, pp. 981-988, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12, No. 5, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4015455.
Osinski, Stanislaw, An Algorithm for Clustering of Web Search Results, Published Jun. 2003, http://project.carrot2.org/publications/osinski-2003-lingo.pdf.
Rajaraman, Anand, Kosmix: Exploring the Deep Web Using Taxonomies and Categorization, Published 2009, http://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/debull/A09June/anand—deepweb1.pdf.
Roberts, Jonathan C., et al.,“Visual Bracketing for Web Search Result Visualization”, 2003, 6 pages, Seventh International Conference on Information Visualization, IEEE Computer Society,http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1217989.
“Smith, Kate A., et al., ““Web Page Clustering using a Self-Organizing Map of User Navigation Patterns””, Published 2003, pp. 245-256, Decision Support Systems, vol. 35, Elsevier Science, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.4.5185&rep=rep1&type=pdf”.
“Smith, Michael P., et al., ““Providing a User Customisable Tool for Software Visualisation at Runtime,”” Published 2004, 6 pages, University of Durham, United Kingdom, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.60.4013&rep=rep1&type=pdf”.
“Tvarozek, Michal, et a., ““Improving Semantic Search via Integrated Personalized Faceted and Visual Graph Navigation””, Published Date: 2008, 12 pages, http://www2.fiit.stuba.sk/˜bielik/publ/abstracts/2008/sofsem2008navigation.pdf”.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, “The Effect of Loading Parameters on Fatigue of Composite Laminates: Part IV Information Systems”—Published Date: Dec. 2000, http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar00-48.pdf.
“Volnyansky, Ilya, ““Curse of Dimensionality in the Application of Pivot-based Indexes to the Similarity Search Problem””, Published May 2009, 56 pages, University of Ottawa, Canada, http://arxiv.org/PS—cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.2141v1.pdf”.
Wang, Xuerui, et al., A Search-Based Method for Forecasting Ad Impression in Contextual Advertising, Published Apr. 20-24, 2009, http://www.cs.umass.edu/˜xuerui/papers/forecasting—www2009.pdf.
Wartena, Christian, et al., Topic Detection by Clustering Keywords, Published Sep. 5, 2008, http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/webis/research/workshopseries/tir-08/proceedings/18—paper—655.pdf.
“Yngve, Gary, ““Visualization for Biological Models, Simulation, and Ontologies””, Published Aug. 2007, 152 pages, University of Washington, http://sigpubs.biostr.washington.edu/archive/00000232/01/gary-thesis-final.pdf”.
Zoltan Gyongyi, et al., “Questioning Yahoo! Answers”—Published Date: Apr. 22, 2008, http://infolab.stanford.edu/˜zoltan/publications/gyongyi2008questioning.pdf.
International Search Report and Written Opinion PCT/US2011/020908 mailed Sep. 28, 2011.
Non Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/700,980 mailed Nov. 25, 2011.
Non Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/701,330 mailed Dec. 21, 2011.
Non Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/727,836, mailed Jan. 6, 2012.
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/795,238, mailed Dec. 11, 2012.
Non Final Office Action, mailed Mar. 26, 2012, in U.S. Appl. No. 12/796,753.
Final Office Action, mailed Aug. 6, 2012, In U.S. Appl. No. 12/796,753.
Notice of Allowance, mailed Aug. 24, 2012, in U.S. Appl. No. 13/406,941.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 13/406,941, mailed Jul. 30, 2012.
Non Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/797,375, mailed Sep. 13, 2012.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. 12/727,836 mailed Apr. 16, 2012, 14 pages.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. 12/700,980, mailed May 10, 2012, 24 pages.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/701,330, mailed Jun. 21, 2012, 14 pages.
NonFinal Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/795,238 mailed Jul. 5, 2012, pp. 1-16.
Chris Halaschek, Boanerges Aleman-Meza, I. Budak Arpinar, and Amit P. Sheth, 2004, Discovering and ranking Semantic Associations Over a Large RDF Metabase. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International conference on Very large data bases—vol. 30 (VLDB '04), vol. 30. VLDB Endowment, pp. 1317-1320.
Non Final OA mailed Jan. 10, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/727,836.
Non Final OA mailed Jan. 27, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/796,753.
Non Final OA mailed Dec. 30, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/797,375.
Non Final Office Action, mailed Nov. 1, 2013, in U.S. Appl. No. 12/795,238.
Final Office Action mailed Sep. 9, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/569,460.
Non Final Office Action, mailed Sep. 25, 2013, in U.S. Appl. No. 12/700,980.
First OA mailed Oct. 29, 2013 in CN Application No. 201180008423.2.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar. 27, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/569,460, 25 pages.
Final Office Action mailed Jun. 5, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/797,375 13 pages.
China 1st Office Action dated Jun. 7, 2013 in CN Application No. 201180008397.3, 5 pages.
China State Intellectual Property Office Search Report dated May 30, 2013 in CN Application 201180008397.3, 2 pages.
Chinese OA mailed Apr. 3, 2014 in CN Application No. 201180008423.2.
Australian Search Information Statement (SIS) in Application No. 2011213263 dated Apr. 10, 2014. 5 pages.
Chinese Office Action dated Feb. 24, 2014 in Application No. 201180008397.3, 3 pages.
Chinese Office Action dated Feb. 18, 2014 in Application No. 201180008411.x with Search Report dated Feb. 7, 2014, 9 pages.
Australian Office Action dated Feb. 21, 2014 in Application No. 2011213263, 4 pages.
Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 11, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/700,980, 9 pages.
Final Office Action dated Apr. 28, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/727,836, 22 pages.
Chinese Office Action dated May 19, 2014 in Application No. 201180008427.0, 9 pages.
Chinese Search Report dated Apr. 8, 2014 in Application No. 201180008427.0, 2 pages.
Notice of Allowance dated May 23, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/700,980, 8 pages.
Japanese Office Action dated Jun. 10, 2014 in Application No. 2012-551987, 7 pages.
Final Office Action dated Apr. 23, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/795,238, 20 pages.
Final Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/797,375, 22 pages.
NPL: Kwok et al., “Scaling Question Answering to the Web,” University of Washington, Nov. 13, 2000; 21 pages.
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 11, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/727,836, 13 pages.
Chinese Search Report dated Aug. 4, 2014 in Application No. 201180008397.3, 2 pages.
Chinese Office Action dated Aug. 12, 2014 in Application No. 201180008397.3, 3 pages.
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 24, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/796,753, 30 pages.
Final Office Action dated May 30, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/796,753, 29 pages.
Notice of Allowance Received in Japan Patent Application No. 2012-551987, Mailed Date: Oct. 21, 2014, 3 pages (w/o English Translation).
Chinese Office Action dated Oct. 30, 2014 with Search Report dated Oct. 22, 2014 in Chinese Application No. 201180008411.X, 12 pages.
Chinese Office Action dated Nov. 3, 2014 in Chinese Application No. 201180008423.2, 6 pages.
Chinese Office Action dated Nov. 26, 2014 with Search Report dated Nov. 17, 2014 in Chinese Application No. 201110071760.8, 12 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20110196852 A1 Aug 2011 US