1. Field
This invention relates to methods and systems for aggregating data, and more specifically, to perturbing data, such as values in a table, so as to decrease the time it takes to aggregate data.
2. Description of Related Art
OLAP applications provide an analysis of data from a data warehouse. One step in providing this analysis may involve aggregating the data, such as into data cubes or data hypercubes. Unfortunately, the process of aggregating data can be relatively slow, and users may be kept waiting while an aggregation is being produced. There is, therefore, a need for a method that accelerating the process of aggregating data from a data warehouse or datamart.
The methods disclosed herein include methods for perturbing non-unique values. A method for perturbing the non-unique values may comprise finding the non-unique values in a data table. The method may further comprise perturbing the non-unique values to render unique values and using the non-unique values as an identifier for a data item.
A method for perturbing the non-unique values may comprise finding the non-unique values in a fact data table. In the method, the fact data table may be a retail sales dataset, a syndicated sales dataset, point-of-sales dataset, a syndicated causal dataset, an internal shipment dataset, and an internal financial dataset. In embodiments, the syndicated sales dataset may be a scanner dataset, an audit dataset, and a combined scanner-audit dataset. The method may further comprise perturbing the non-unique values to render unique values and using the non-unique values as an identifier for a data item.
A method for perturbing the non-unique values may comprise finding the non-unique values in a dimension data table. In the method, the dimension may be a hierarchy, a category, a data segment, a time, a venue, geography, demography, a behavior, a life stage, and a consumer segment. The method may further comprise perturbing the non-unique values to render unique values and using the non-unique values as an identifier for a data item.
A method for perturbing the non-unique values may comprise associating an availability condition with a data perturbation action. The availability condition may be used to assess permission to perform the data perturbation action. In the method and system, the availability condition may be based on a statistical validity, a sample size, permission to release data, qualification of an individual to access the data, the type of data, the permissibility of access to combinations of the data, and a position of the individual within an organization. The method may further comprise permitting the data perturbation action when the data perturbation action is not forbidden by the availability condition. Further, the method may comprise finding the non-unique values in a data table, perturbing the non-unique values to render unique values, and using the non-unique values as an identifier for a data item.
These and other systems, methods, objects, features, and advantages of the present invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description of the preferred embodiment and the drawings. Capitalized terms used herein (such as relating to titles of data objects, tables, or the like) should be understood to encompass other similar content or features performing similar functions, except where the context specifically limits such terms to the use herein.
The invention and the following detailed description of certain embodiments thereof may be understood by reference to the following figures:
An aspect of the present invention involves an OLAP application producing an aggregation of data elements from one or more tables, such as fact tables and/or dimension tables, wherein the aggregation includes at least one non-aggregated dimension. Unlike a fixed OLAP cube structure, this non-aggregated dimension may be queried dynamically. The dimension may be associated with hierarchical, categorical information. In embodiments, a fact table may encompass a Cartesian product or cross join of two source tables. Thus, the fact table may be relatively large. In some embodiments, one of the source tables may itself consist of a fact table (e.g., a database table comprising tuples that encode transactions of an enterprise) and the other source table may consist of a projection table (e.g., a database table comprising tuples that encode projections related to the enterprise). In any case, the aggregation may comprise a data cube or data hypercube, which may consist of dimensions drawn from the fact table of which the aggregation is produced, wherein the dimensions of the fact table may be associated with the fact table's columns.
In applications, a user of the OLAP application may engage the application in a data warehouse activity. This activity may comprise processing a query and producing an analysis of data. This data may reside in an aggregation that the OLAP application produces. The size and/or organization of the aggregation may result in a relatively long query processing time, which the user may experience during the data warehouse activity.
An aspect of the present invention may be to reduce the query processing time that the user experiences. One approach to reducing this query processing time may involve a pre-computing step. This step may involve pre-calculating the results of queries to every combination of information category and/or hierarchy of the aggregation. Alternatively or additionally, this step may involve pre-aggregating data so as to avoid the cost of aggregating data at query time. In other words, the OLAP application may utilize computing time and data storage, in advance of the user's data warehouse activity, to reduce the query processing time that the user experiences.
Another approach to reducing the query processing time that the user experiences may involve perturbing values in a fact table so that all values within a particular column of the fact table are unique. Having done this, an aggregating query may be rewritten to use a relatively fast query command. For example, in a SQL environment, with unique values in a particular column of a fact table, a SQL DISTINCT command may be used, instead of a relatively slow SQL CROSS JOIN command, or the like. This rewriting of fact table values may reduce the query processing time that it takes to execute the aggregating query, optionally without the relatively costly step of pre-aggregating data.
An aspect of the present invention may be understood with reference to the following example, which is provided for the purpose of illustration and not limitation. This example deals with queries that provide flexibility with respect to one dimension, but it will be appreciated that the present invention supports flexibility with respect to more than one dimension. Given a sales fact table (sales fact) including venue, item, and time dimensions and a projection fact table (projection) including venue, time, and venue group dimensions, and given that each sales fact in the fact table contains actual sales data and each fact in the projection table contains a projection weight to be applied to actual sales data so as to produce projected sales information, then the following query may produce a projected sales calculation and perform a distribution calculation. (In OLAP, a distribution calculation may happen when two fact tables are used to scope each other and one table has a higher cardinality than the other.):
SELECT
venue_dim_key,
item_dim.attr1_key,
sum (distinct projection.projectedstoresales),
sum (projection.weight*salesfact.sales)
FROM salesfact, projection, item_dim, time_dim
WHERE (
GROUP BY venue_dim_key, item_dim.attr1_key
This example query adds up projected store sales for the stores that have sold any item in category 9886 during a relevant time period. Assuming that the data in the projection fact table is perturbed so that the values in projection.projectedstoresales are unique, the expression sum (distinct projection.projectedstoresales) is sufficient to calculate the total projected sales for all of the stores that have sold any of those items during the relevant period of time.
As compared with operating on data that is not perturbed (an example of this follows), it will be appreciated that perturbing data in advance of querying the data provides this improved way to scrub out the duplications. This appreciation may be based on the observation that it is likely that multiple salesfact rows will be selected for each store. In tabulating the projected store sales for the stores that have any of the selected items sold during the relevant time period, each store should be counted only once. Hence the combination of first perturbing the data and then using the distinct clause. Moreover, if overlapping venue groups have the same stores, the above query also works. It follows that analogous queries may work with multiple time periods, multiple product attributes, and multiple venue groups. Such queries will be appreciated and are within the scope of the present disclosure.
In contrast if the data is not perturbed and so it is not guaranteed that the values in projection.projectedstoresales are unique, then the following sequence of queries may be required:
First:
CREATE TABLE store_temp AS SELECT
projection.venue_dim_key,
projection.time_dim_key,
item_dim.attr1_key,
min(projectedstoresales)
FROM salesfact, projection, item_dim, time dim
WHERE (
GROUP BY time_dim_key, venue_dim_key, item_dim.attr1_key
Second, apply a measure to calculate the distribution itself:
Finally, an additive part of the measure is required:
SELECT sum (projection.weight*salesfact.sales)
FROM salesfact, projection, item_dim, time_dim
WHERE (
GROUP BY venue_dim_key, item_dim.attr1_key
DROP TEMP TABLE store_temp
It will be appreciated that join explosions can result in the temporary table store_temp when a lot of attribute combinations are required for the query. For example, increasing the number of time periods, product attributes, and/or venue groups will multiply the number of records in the temporary table. Conversely, the perturbed data join of the present invention is not affected by this problem since both dimensions can be processed as peers even though the projection table has no key for the item dimension.
Referring to
In an embodiment, this logical process 100 may speed up affected queries by allowing for a SQL DISTINCT clause to be used, instead of an extra join that would otherwise be needed to resolve the identical column values. In an embodiment, this process 100 may make it possible to use leaf-level data for hierarchical aggregation in OLAP applications, rather than using pre-aggregated data in such applications.
Referring to
In embodiments, a permission to perform a data perturbation action may be based on the availability condition. A process may permit the data perturbation action if the data perturbation action is not forbidden by the availability condition.
In embodiments, the data table may be a fact data table. In embodiments, the fact data table may encompass a Cartesian product or cross join of two source tables. Therefore, the fact table may be relatively large.
In embodiments, the fact data table may be a retail sales dataset. In other embodiments, the fact data table may be a syndicated sales dataset.
In embodiments, the syndicated sales dataset is a scanner dataset.
In embodiments, the syndicated sales dataset is an audit dataset.
In embodiments, the syndicated sales dataset is a combined scanner-audit dataset.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be a point-of-sale data.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be a syndicated causal dataset.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be an internal shipment dataset.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be an internal financial dataset.
In embodiments, the data table may be a dimension data table. In an embodiment, the dimension may a hierarchy.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be a category.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be a data segment.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be a time.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be a venue.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be geography.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be demography.
In an embodiment, the fact data table may be a behavior.
In another embodiment, the fact data table may be a life stage.
In yet another embodiment, the fact data table may be a consumer segment.
The elements depicted in flow charts and block diagrams throughout the figures imply logical boundaries between the elements. However, according to software or hardware engineering practices, the depicted elements and the functions thereof may be implemented as parts of a monolithic software structure, as standalone software modules, or as modules that employ external routines, code, services, and so forth, or any combination of these, and all such implementations are within the scope of the present disclosure. Thus, while the foregoing drawings and description set forth functional aspects of the disclosed systems, no particular arrangement of software for implementing these functional aspects should be inferred from these descriptions unless explicitly stated or otherwise clear from the context.
Similarly, it will be appreciated that the various steps identified and described above may be varied, and that the order of steps may be adapted to particular applications of the techniques disclosed herein. All such variations and modifications are intended to fall within the scope of this disclosure. As such, the depiction and/or description of an order for various steps should not be understood to require a particular order of execution for those steps, unless required by a particular application, or explicitly stated or otherwise clear from the context.
The methods or processes described above, and steps thereof, may be realized in hardware, software, or any combination of these suitable for a particular application. The hardware may include a general-purpose computer and/or dedicated computing device. The processes may be realized in one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, embedded microcontrollers, programmable digital signal processors or other programmable device, along with internal and/or external memory. The processes may also, or instead, be embodied in an application specific integrated circuit, a programmable gate array, programmable array logic, or any other device or combination of devices that may be configured to process electronic signals. It will further be appreciated that one or more of the processes may be realized as computer executable code created using a structured programming language such as C, an object oriented programming language such as C++, or any other high-level or low-level programming language (including assembly languages, hardware description languages, and database programming languages and technologies) that may be stored, compiled or interpreted to run on one of the above devices, as well as heterogeneous combinations of processors, processor architectures, or combinations of different hardware and software.
Thus, in one aspect, each method described above and combinations thereof may be embodied in computer executable code that, when executing on one or more computing devices, performs the steps thereof. In another aspect, the methods may be embodied in systems that perform the steps thereof, and may be distributed across devices in a number of ways, or all of the functionality may be integrated into a dedicated, standalone device or other hardware. In another aspect, means for performing the steps associated with the processes described above may include any of the hardware and/or software described above. All such permutations and combinations are intended to fall within the scope of the present disclosure.
While the invention has been disclosed in connection with the preferred embodiments shown and described in detail, various modifications and improvements thereon will become readily apparent to those skilled in the art. Accordingly, the spirit and scope of the present invention is not to be limited by the foregoing examples, but is to be understood in the broadest sense allowable by law.
All documents referenced herein are hereby incorporated by reference.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/020,740 filed Jan. 28, 2008, which claims the benefit of U.S. Pat. App. No. 60/886,798 filed on Jan. 26, 2007. The entire content of each of these applications is hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3660605 | Rees | May 1972 | A |
4047157 | Jenkins | Sep 1977 | A |
4884264 | Servel et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
4908761 | Tai | Mar 1990 | A |
5041972 | Frost | Aug 1991 | A |
5446878 | Royal | Aug 1995 | A |
5548749 | Kroenke et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5596331 | Bonaffini et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5675662 | Deaton et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5726914 | Janovski et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5737494 | Guinta et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5758257 | Herz et al. | May 1998 | A |
5819226 | Gopinathan et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832509 | Mortis et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5884305 | Kleinberg et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5912887 | Sehgal | Jun 1999 | A |
5915036 | Grunkin et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5966695 | Melchione et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974396 | Anderson et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5978788 | Castelli et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6073112 | Geerlings | Jun 2000 | A |
6098033 | Richardson et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6163774 | Lore et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6233573 | Bair et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6282544 | Tse et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6401070 | McManus et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6523025 | Hashimoto et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6556974 | D'alessandro | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6636862 | Lundahl et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6642946 | Janes et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6662192 | Rebane | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6708156 | Gonten | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6920461 | Hejlsberg et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6928434 | Choi et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6965886 | Govrin et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7010523 | Greenfield et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7027843 | Cromer | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7043492 | Neal et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7107254 | Dumais et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7133865 | Pedersen et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7177855 | Witkowski et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7191183 | Goldstein | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7239989 | Kothuri | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7269517 | Bondarenko | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7333982 | Bakalash et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7360697 | Sarkar et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7376573 | Costonis et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7430532 | Wizon et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7469246 | Lamping | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7490052 | Kilger et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7493308 | Bair et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7499908 | Elnaffar et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7523047 | Neal et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7577579 | Watarai et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7606699 | Sundararajan et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7672877 | Acton et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7747617 | Bair et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7800613 | Hanrahan et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7870031 | Bolivar | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7870039 | Dom et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7873529 | Kruger et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7949639 | Hunt et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8041741 | Bair et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8160984 | Hunt et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
20010034679 | Wrigley | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010044758 | Talib et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020004390 | Cutaia et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020067593 | Milan | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078018 | Tse et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078039 | Cereghini et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020091681 | Cras et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099597 | Gamage et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099598 | Eicher, Jr. et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099692 | Shah et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020116213 | Kavounis et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123945 | Booth et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020161520 | Dutta et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020169657 | Singh et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020186818 | Arnaud et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194145 | Boucher et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004779 | Rangaswamy et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018513 | Hoffman et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030028417 | Fox | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030028424 | Kampff et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030036270 | Yu et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046120 | Hoffman et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030046121 | Menninger et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065555 | von Gonten et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030083925 | Weaver et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030083947 | Hoffman et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030088474 | Hoffman et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030088565 | Walter et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093340 | Krystek et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030126143 | Roussopoulos et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149586 | Chen et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030158703 | Lumme et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030158749 | Olchanski et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030171978 | Jenkins et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030177055 | Zimmerman, Jr. et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030200129 | Klaubauf et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030210278 | Kyoya et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030228541 | Hsu et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233297 | Campbell | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040030593 | Webster et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040107205 | Burdick et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040193683 | Blumofe | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040210562 | Lee et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040220937 | Bickford et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040225670 | Cameron et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050039033 | Meyers et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050043097 | March et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050060300 | Stolte et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050065771 | Chen et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050149537 | Balin et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050187977 | Frost | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050197883 | Kettner et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050197926 | Chinnappan et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216512 | Dor | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050237320 | Itoh et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240085 | Knoell et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240577 | Larson et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050246307 | Bala | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267889 | Snyder et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060009935 | Uzarski et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060028643 | Gottlieb et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060080141 | Fusari et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060080294 | Orumchian et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060164257 | Giubbini | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060206485 | Rubin et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060212413 | Rujan et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218157 | Sourov et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060259358 | Robinson et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060282339 | Musgrove et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070028111 | Covely | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070061185 | Peters et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070118541 | Nathoo | May 2007 | A1 |
20070160320 | McGuire et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174290 | Narang et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070203919 | Sullivan et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070276676 | Hoenig et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080033914 | Cherniack et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080059489 | Han et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077469 | Philport et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080147699 | Kruger et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162302 | Sundaresan et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080168027 | Kruger et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080168028 | Kruger et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080168104 | Kruger et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080228797 | Kenedy et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080256028 | Kruger et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080256275 | Hofstee et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080263000 | West et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080263065 | West | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080270363 | Hunt et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080276232 | Aguilar et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288209 | Hunt et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288522 | Hunt et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288538 | Hunt et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288889 | Hunt et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294372 | Hunt et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294583 | Hunt et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294996 | Hunt et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080319829 | Hunt et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006156 | Hunt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090006309 | Hunt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090006490 | Hunt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090006788 | Hunt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090012971 | Hunt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090018891 | Eder | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090018996 | Hunt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090055445 | Liu et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090070131 | Chen | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083306 | Sichi et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090132541 | Barsness et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090132609 | Barsness et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090150248 | Anttila et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20100070333 | Musa | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100094882 | Lee | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20120173472 | Hunt et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO-0180137 | Oct 2001 | WO |
WO-03001428 | Jan 2003 | WO |
WO-2008092147 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO-2008092147 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO-2008092147 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO-2008092149 | Jul 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Bronnenberg, B. T. et al., “Unobserved Retailer Behavior in Multimarket Behavior”, Joint Spatial Dependence in Market Shares and Promotional Variables, Marketing Science, 20, 3, ABI/INFORM Global Summer 2001 , pp. 284-299. |
Guadagni, P. M. et al., “A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data”, Marketing Science, vol. 2, No. 3 Summer 1983 , 203-238 pgs. |
Colliat, George , “OLAP, relational, and multidimensional database systems”, George Colliat, OLAP, relational, and multidimensional database systems, ACM SIGMOD Record, v.25 n.3, p. 64-69, Sep. 1996, 64-69. |
Kimball, Ralph et al., “Why decision support fails and how to fix it”, Ralph Kimball, Kevin Strehlp, Why decision support fails and how to fix it, ACM Record, v.24 n.3, p. 92-97, Sep. 1995, 92-97. |
“Do household scanner data provide representative inferences from brand choices: a comparison with store data”, S Gupta. p. Chintagunta. A Kaul , DR Wittink—Journal of Marketing Nov. 1996, pp. 383-398. |
Inderpa, S. M. et al., “Maintenance of data cubes and summary tables in a warehouse”, Proceedings of the 1997 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, Tucson, Arizona, United States May 11-15,, p. 100-111. |
Swait, J. et al., “Enriching Scannel Panel Models with Choice Experiments”, Marketing Science,22(4); ABI/INFORM Global Fall 2003 , 442-460 pgs. |
“Combining sources of preference data”, Hensher, D. et al., Journal of Econometrics 89 (1999) Elsevier 1999 , pp. 197-221. |
web.archive.org, , “Our Mission”, PMGBenchmarking.com Sep. 18, 2000 , pp. 1. |
Zadrozny, Bianca et al., “Second International Workshop on Utility-Based Data Mining”, Workshop Chairs Bianca Zadrozny, Gary Weiss, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky. Held in conjuctionwith the KDD conference, Aug. 20, 2006, Copyright 2006 by the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc (AMC) Aug. 20, 2006, 81 pages. |
“Webcasts”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Jun. 8, 2002, pp. 1-2. |
web.archive.org, , “Measure Your Performance”, PMGBenchmarking.com Jun. 7, 2002, pp. 1-3. |
Intl Searching Authority, , “International Search Report”, for US Patent Application No. PCT/US2008/052195, mailed on Jun. 25, 2008, 8 pages. |
“Signals of Performance”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Jun. 2, 2002, pp. 1-2. |
“The Performance Measurement Group Rolls out Product Development Benchmarking Series Online”, PRTM Press release Jun. 11, 1999, 1-2. |
PRTM Press Release, “New Survey Addresses Product and Marketing Management”, May 21, 1999, 1 of 1. |
Greenberg, Ken et al., “Using Panels to Understand the Consumer”, Ken Greenberg, Vice President, Marketing, ACNielsen Homescan, US, Published May 2006. pp. 1-3. |
Chaudhuri, Surajit et al., “An overview of data warehousing and OLAP technology”, Surajit Chaudhuri, Umeshwar Dayal, An overview of data warehousing and OLAP technology, ACM SIGMOD Record, v.26 n. 1, p. 65-74, Mar. 1997, 65-74. |
PRTM Press Release, “Fujitsu and PRTM/PMG Announce Supply-Chain Benchmarking and Consulting Collaboration in Japan”, Mar. 1, 1999, 1 of 1. |
PRTM Press Release, “High Tech Management Consultants PRTM Launch Online Benchmarking Company”, Mar. 1, 1999, pp. 1-2. |
Dan, Briody , “Matching Customer Buying Patterns online and offline poses challenges for Retailers”, May 29, 2000, p. 36. |
Acxiom Bureau Services Brochure 2009, pp. 1-9. |
Abilitec Product Brochure pp. 108 2008, pp. 1-8. |
Fangyan, R et al., “Spatial Hierarchy and OLAP-Favored Search in Spatial Data Warehouse”, Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Workshop on Data Warehousing and OLAP 2003, pp. 48-55. |
Malhotra, N et al., “Marketing research in the new millennium: Emerging issues and trends”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning vol. 19, No. 4. 2001, 216-235 Pgs. |
“Parameter bias from unobserved effects in the multinomiallogit model of consumer choice”, Abramson, C. et al.,—Journal of Marketing Research vol. XXXVII, Nov. 2000, pp. 410-426 2000, pp. 410-426. |
web.archive.org, “Supply-Chain Management Benchmarking Series—Tips & Slips”, vol. 4: Subscriber Site Navigation, PMGBenchmarking.com, vol. 4: Subscriber Site Navigation Feb. 8, 2011, pp. 1-11. |
“SAP Partnership—Product Offerings and Credentials”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Feb. 8, 2001, 1. |
“Supply-Chain Management Benchmarking Series—Tips & Slips, vol. 3: Plan Survey FAQ's”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Feb. 8, 2001, 1-6. |
web.archive.org, “Supply-Chain Management Benchmarking Series vol. 2”, PMGBenchmarking.com Feb. 8, 2001, pp. 1-3. |
“SAP Partnership—a research note published by AMR on the PMG/SAP Alliance”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Feb. 10, 2001, p. 1 of 1. |
web.archive.org, “SAP Partnership—Continuous Performance Assessments”, PMGBenchmarking.com, Continuous Performance Assessments Feb. 10, 2001, pp. 1. |
“SAP Partnership—Peformance Snapshots”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Feb. 10, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Missing price and coupon availability data in scanner panels: Correcting for the self selection bias in choice model parameters”, Erdem, T. et al., Journal of Econometrics 89 (1999) 1999—Elsevier, pp. 177-196. |
“Commercial use of UPC scanner data”, Industry and academic perspectives, Bucklin, et al. Marketing Science, 1999. vol. 18, No. 3, 1999, pp. 247-273 1999, pp. 247-273. |
Kim, Byung-Do et al., “Purchase frequency, sample selection, and price sensitivity: The heavy-user bias”, Marketing Letters 5:1 (1994). 1994 Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 57-67. |
Qian, J et al., ““Optimally Weighted Means in Stratified Sampling””, amstat.org 1994, pp. 863-866. |
Mccullock, R. et al., “An Exact Likelihood Analysis of the Multinomial Probit Model”, Journal of Econometrics,vol. 64 1994, pp. 207-240. |
Baron, S. et al., “The Challenges of Scanner Data”, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 46, No. 1 1994, 50-61 pgs. |
Bucklin, Randolph E. et al., “Brand choice, purchase incidence, and segmentation: An integrated modeling”, Journal of Marketing Research 1992—jstor.org, 16 pages. |
Shilakes, Christopher C. et al., Enterprise Information Portals, Merrill Lynch, Enterprise Software Team Nov. 16, 1998, 64 pages. |
“Product Development Benchmarking Series”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Dec. 6, 2000, 1-2. |
web.archive.org, “SAP Partnership”, PMGBenchmarking.com Dec. 6, 2000, p. 1 of 1. |
“Supply-Chain Management Benchmarking Series”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Dec. 6, 2000, pp. 1-2. |
“Supply-Chain Management and Product Development Benchmarking Series”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Dec. 5, 2000, pp. 1-2. |
“Supply Chain Letter”, Web.archive.org, supply-chain.org Dec. 5, 1998, pp. 1-12. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,305, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 13, 2011”, Dec. 13, 2011, 11 Pgs. |
Kamakura, Wagner A. et al., “Statistical Data Fusion for Cross-Tabulation”, University of Pittsburgh, University of Groningen, SOM theme B: Marketing and Networks Mar. 12, 1996, 34 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,740, Non-Final Office Action mailed Nov. 26, 2012”, Nov. 26, 2012, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,740 Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 10, 2011”, Nov. 10, 2011, 14 Pgs. |
Renard, Y , “Singular perturbation approach to an elastic dry friction problem with non monotone coefficient”, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, LVIII, No. 2:303-324, 2000 Apr. 11, 1997, 27 pages. |
web.archive.org, “Questions frequently asked by development professionals considering a subscriptions to the Product Development Benchmarking Series”, PMGBenchmarking.com Oct. 6, 2000, pp. 1-4. |
Intl Searching Authority, , “International Search Report”, for US Patent Application No. PCT/US2008/052187, mailed on Oct. 30, 2008, 8 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,786, Final Office Action mailed Oct. 29, 2012”, Oct. 29, 2012, 14 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/418,518, Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 25, 2012”, 37 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,786, Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 20, 2011”, 15 pages. |
“SAP and PMG Introduce Industry-specific Key Performance Indicators for Supply-Chain Operations”, PRTM Press Release Jan. 31, 2000, pp. 1-2. |
PRTM Press Release,, “University of Michigan/OSAT and the Performance Measurment Group Launch a new Benchmarking Initiative for the Automotive Industry”, Jan. 21, 2000 , pp. 1-2. |
“Improving performance and cutting costs”, Strategic Direction, v16n1 Jan. 2000, pp. 1-4. |
“Industry standard benchmarking program”, SAP Press release Jan. 20, 2000, 1 of 1. |
“Benchmarking Studies by PRTM”, Web.archive.org, prtm.com Jan. 17, 1998, pp. 1-4. |
Dimensions: Executive Summary, “The Performance Measurement Group”, Jul. 2000, pp. 1-4. |
“Supply-Chain Management Benchmarking Series vol. 1”, Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com Feb. 8, 2001, pp. 1-5. |
“A framework for evaluating privacy preserving data mining algorithms”, [PDF] from aau.dk,E Bertino, IN Fovino . . . —Data Mining and Knowledge . . . ,2005—Springer, pp. 121-154. |
“Access control: Policies, models, and mechanisms”, P. Samarati, SC de Vimercati—. . . of Security Analysis and Design, 2001—Springer, 405 pages. |
“Achieving privacy preservation when sharing data for clustering[PDF] from pp.ua S Oliveira”, Secure Data Management, 2004, Springer, pp. 67-82. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/783,323, Notice of Allowance mailed Oct. 6, 2010”, 15 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/783,323, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 28, 2010”, 155 pages, 2 attachments. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/927,502, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2009”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/927,528 , Non-Final Office Action mailed Nov. 30, 2009”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/927,550, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2009”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/927,565, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 9, 2009”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,740, Final Office Action mailed Oct. 27, 2010”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,740 Notice of Allowance mailed Jun. 7, 2013”, 11 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,740, Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar. 30, 2011”, 8 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,740, Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar. 30, 2011”, 18 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,786, Non-Final Office Action mailed May 11, 2010”, 15 Pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,227, Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 4, 2011”, 26 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,263, Non Final Office Action mailed Jul. 22, 2009”, 27 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,268, Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar. 26, 2010”, 12 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,495, Notice of Allowance mailed Mar. 24, 2011”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,495, Non-Final Office Action mailed May 26, 2010”, 15 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,916, Final Office Action mailed Aug. 1, 2013”, 20 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,916, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 25, 2011”, 40 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/022,667 Final Office Action mailed Dec. 19, 2011”, 14 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/022,667 Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar. 14, 2013”, 15 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/022,667, Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 8, 2011”, 17 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,200, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 24, 2009”, 32 Pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,284, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 24, 2009”, 17 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,294, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 25, 2009”, 13 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,305, Non-Final Office Action mailed Aug. 18, 2010”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,310, Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep. 22, 2010”, 19 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,400, Non-Final Office Action mailed Aug. 11, 2010”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 13/418,518 Notice of Allowance mailed Mar. 19, 2013”, 13 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/783,323, Final Office Action mailed May 8, 2009”, 22 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/927,515, Non-Final Office Action mailed Feb. 17, 2010”, 10 Pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/020,786, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 1, 2011”, 10 Pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,227, Final Office Action mailed Dec. 2, 2011”, 18 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,227, Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep. 26, 2013”, 26 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,495, Final Office Action mailed Feb. 16, 2011”, 14 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,916, Final Office Action mailed Mar. 13, 2012”, 15 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,916, Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 12, 2013”, 22 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,294, Final Office Action mailed Mar. 10, 2010”, 14 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,305, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2011”, 14 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,310, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 26, 2011”, 16 pages. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/023,400 , Final Office Action mailed Apr. 6, 2011”, 10 pages. |
Lohse, G L. et al., “Consumer buying behavior on the Internet: Findings from panel data.”, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn,edu/pdfs/793.pdf, 32 pages. |
Chaudhuri, S. et al., “Database technology for decision support systems”, Chaudhuri, S.; Dayal, U.; ganti, V.; , “Database technology for decision support systems,” Computer, vol. 34, No. 12, pp. 48-55, Dec. 2001, pp. 48-55. |
Kong, E B. et al., “Error-Correcting Output Coding Corrects Bias and Variance”, http:/citeseer.nj.nec.com/kong95errorcorrecting.html, 9 pages. |
“On the design and quantification of privacy preserving data mining algorithms[PDF] from utdallas.”, edu D Agrawal. . . —Proceedings of the twentieth ACM SIGMOND—. . . ,2001—dl.acm.org, pp. 247-255. |
“Personalized privacy preservation[PDF] from sabanciuniv.edu X”, Xiao . . . —Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD international . . . ,2006—dl.acm.org, pp. 229-240. |
“Protecting Consumer Data in Composite Web Services[Pdf] from rmit.edu.au”, C Pearce, P Bertok . . . —Security and Privacy in the Age of . . . , 2005—Springer, pp. 1-16. |
“Secure computer system: Unified exposition and multics interpretation”, DE Bell, LJ La Padula—1976 DTIC Document, 133 pages. |
“State-of-the-art in privacy preserving data mining”, [PDF] from sigmod.org Vs Verykios, E Bertino, in Fovino . . . —ACM Sigmod . . . ,2004—dl.acm.org, pp. 50-57. |
“The applicability of the perturbation based privacy preserving data mining for real-world data[PDF] from utdallas.edu L Liu, M”, Kantarcioglu . . . —Data & Knowledge Engineering, 2008—Elsevier, pp. 5-21. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140032269 A1 | Jan 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60886798 | Jan 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12020740 | Jan 2008 | US |
Child | 13947216 | US |