Enterprise applications provide functionality for use by organizations. For example, one type of enterprise application allows users to locate product information within a product database. Another type of enterprise application allows users to create and edit various types of documents that have a bearing on the organization.
An application designer may seek to expand the functionality of an existing enterprise application. But some enterprise applications are designed in an insular manner, e.g., by incorporating functionality that is primarily designed to consume native data assets that are created and maintained by the organization. This characteristic may present challenges to the application designer in his or her effort to modify the enterprise application.
A data service system is described herein which receives system data assets (“raw data assets”) from at least one network-accessible system (e.g., a search system). For example, the raw data assets may correspond to query log data, Web content, social media data, shopping-related data, map-related data, etc. The data service system may process the raw data assets in various ways, to produce processed data assets. The data service system can then make the processed data assets available to enterprise applications. Each enterprise application can consume the processed data assets in different environment-specific ways. By virtue of this strategy, an enterprise application can leverage the rich data assets provided by a network-accessible system, even though these data assets can be considered “foreign” to the environment in which the enterprise application traditionally operates. Further, in some cases, the enterprise application can leverage these new data assets without extensive revisions to its existing framework.
Without limitation, the Detailed Description sets forth three illustrative examples of processing that may be performed by the data service system. In a first case, a synonym-generating data service module processes the raw data assets from the network-accessible system to provide synonym resources. An enterprise application can leverage the synonym resources to provide synonyms for specified terms associated with entities. In a second case, an augmentation data service module processes the raw data assets to provide augmentation resources. An enterprise application can use the augmentation resources to provide supplemental information, given specified seed information. In a third case, a spelling information data service module leverages the raw data assets to provide spelling-correction resources. An enterprise application can leverage the spelling-correction resources to provide spelling information for specified terms.
The above approach can be manifested in various types of systems, components, methods, computer readable storage media, data structures, articles of manufacture, and so on.
This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form; these concepts 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 to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.
The same numbers are used throughout the disclosure and figures to reference like components and features. Series 100 numbers refer to features originally found in
This disclosure is organized as follows. Section A describes an illustrative environment in which enterprise applications consume processed data assets, provided by a data service system. Section B describes illustrative algorithms for generating the processed data assets. Section C describes illustrative computing functionality that can be used to implement any aspect of the features described in Sections A and B.
As a preliminary matter, some of the figures describe concepts in the context of one or more structural components, variously referred to as functionality, modules, features, elements, etc. The various components shown in the figures can be implemented in any manner by any physical and tangible mechanisms, for instance, by software, hardware (e.g., chip-implemented logic functionality), firmware, etc., and/or any combination thereof. In one case, the illustrated separation of various components in the figures into distinct units may reflect the use of corresponding distinct physical and tangible components in an actual implementation. Alternatively, or in addition, any single component illustrated in the figures may be implemented by plural actual physical components. Alternatively, or in addition, the depiction of any two or more separate components in the figures may reflect different functions performed by a single actual physical component.
Other figures describe the concepts in flowchart form. In this form, certain operations are described as constituting distinct blocks performed in a certain order. Such implementations are illustrative and non-limiting. Certain blocks described herein can be grouped together and performed in a single operation, certain blocks can be broken apart into plural component blocks, and certain blocks can be performed in an order that differs from that which is illustrated herein (including a parallel manner of performing the blocks). The blocks shown in the flowcharts can be implemented in any manner by any physical and tangible mechanisms, for instance, by software, hardware (e.g., chip-implemented logic functionality), firmware, etc., and/or any combination thereof.
As to terminology, the phrase “configured to” encompasses any way that any kind of physical and tangible functionality can be constructed to perform an identified operation. The functionality can be configured to perform an operation using, for instance, software, hardware (e.g., chip-implemented logic functionality), firmware, etc., and/or any combination thereof.
The term “logic” encompasses any physical and tangible functionality for performing a task. For instance, each operation illustrated in the flowcharts corresponds to a logic component for performing that operation. An operation can be performed using, for instance, software, hardware (e.g., chip-implemented logic functionality), firmware, etc., and/or any combination thereof. When implemented by computing functionality, a logic component represents an electrical component that is a physical part of the computing functionality, however implemented.
The phrase “means for” in the claims, if used, is intended to invoke the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. No other language, other than this specific phrase, is intended to invoke the provisions of that portion of the statute.
The following explanation may identify one or more features as “optional.” This type of statement is not to be interpreted as an exhaustive indication of features that may be considered optional; that is, other features can be considered as optional, although not expressly identified in the text. Finally, the terms “exemplary” or “illustrative” refer to one implementation among potentially many implementations
A. Overview
This section will describe each of the principal components in turn. Starting at the top of the figure,
In a typical case, the search system 102 includes a search engine 110 that receives search queries from a plurality of users 112 via a communication conduit 114. The users 112, in one case, may correspond to members from the general public. The communication conduit 114 may correspond to a wide area network (such as the Internet), a local area network, etc. For each such query, the search engine 110 uses an index to identify items which match the query. In one case, the items may correspond to documents, websites, and other data that are stored in a distributed fashion over the Internet. The search engine 110 can use conventional mechanisms to crawl the Internet to identify the existence of available items.
The search engine 110 can store query log data in a data store 116. The query log data provides a historical record of the search actions performed by the users 112. For example, in one case, the query log data can list the queries that the users 112 have submitted. In addition, the query log data can optionally identify the documents that the users 112 have selected in response to the submission of their queries. For example, assume that a user enters the query “Space Needle Seattle.” In a conventional fashion, the search engine 110 can generate a list of items that match the query. The user may choose to “click on” one or more of the items in this list, or otherwise convey an interest in these items (e.g., by hovering over the items with a mouse device or the like). In response to these actions, the search engine 110 can store at least the following information: the query submitted by the user; a record of the items presented to the user in response to the query (i.e., the impressions); and items that the user selected after viewing the search results.
In addition, or alternatively, the search engine 110 can store information pertaining to network-accessible content that it discovers when crawling the Internet. In addition, or alternatively, the search engine 110 can store demographic information regarding the users who interact with the search engine 110. In addition, or alternatively, the search engine 110 can store information which characterizes the search habits of users. In addition, or alternatively, the search engine 110 can store information regarding the manner in which it has automatically reformulated the queries of the users 112, e.g., so as to correct presumed spelling errors in the queries, and so on.
For ease of reference, any information that the search system 108 stores may be regarded as search system data assets, or, more succinctly stated, raw data assets. The data assets are qualified raw in the sense that these assets have not yet been processed by the data service system 104; however, the raw data assets may potentially represent the outcome of processing performed by the search system 108. In general, the environment 100 can employ suitable policies to honor the privacy expectations of the users regarding the storage and use of personal information, as set forth in greater detail in Section C below.
The environment 100 may also include additional entities that provide data assets for use by the data service system 104. For example, another type of system (not shown) corresponds to a social network system. A social network system may store information that users post to their personal pages, messages exchanged by users, and so on. This kind of information may be referred to as social media data. Another type of system (not shown) corresponds to a shopping system. That system can provide information regarding items purchased by users, items viewed by the users (without purchasing of the items), and so on. This kind of information may be referred to as shopping-related data. Another type of system (not shown) corresponds to a navigation system which provides information regarding features in a geographic area, including the positions of users who traverse the geographic area. This kind of information may be referred to as map-related data. These examples are cited by way of illustration, not limitation.
For the above reason, the search systems 102 represent just one type of a broader category of information-rich network-accessible systems. Each such network-accessible system stores a relatively large amount of data assets by virtue of its interaction with a relatively large population of users via a wide area network. And that population is not confined to the members of any one organization. The raw data assets provided by the network-accessible system can be generically referred to as system data assets. Nevertheless, to facilitate and concretize the explanation, the environment 100 will be principally described below in the context of one or more search systems 102 which provides search system data assets.
The data service system 104 may include a search system interface module 118 for interacting with the search systems 102 via any communication conduit 120. The communication conduit 120 may represent any of wide area network (e.g., the Internet), a local area network, a point-to-point communication link, etc. The search system interface module 118 can receive the raw data assets using any protocol, such as on a push basis, a pull basis, or some combination thereof. For example, in a push strategy, the search systems 102 can independently forward the raw data assets to the data service system 104 on a periodic basis or any other basis. In a pull strategy, the search system interface module 118 can request the raw data assets from the search systems 102 on a periodic basis or any other basis. Any contractual relationship may govern this exchange. In some cases, the entity which administers at least some of the search systems 102 may differ from the entity which administers the data service system 104; in other cases, the entities may overlap at least in part.
The data service system 104 includes one or more data service modules (A, B, . . . n) that process the raw data assets to provide processed data assets. The data service system 104 stores the processed data assets in a data store 122. The processed data assets represent any kind of transformation of the raw data assets. To cite just one example, one type of data service module can process query log data to generate synonym resources. In one case, the synonym resources may correspond to final processing results. The final processing results may map a set of source terms to their corresponding synonyms. An enterprise application module can use the final results to discover the synonyms for one or more specified terms of interest. In addition, or alternatively, the synonym resources may correspond to intermediate processing results. The intermediate processing results can later be leveraged, based on a request from an enterprise application, to generate synonyms for one or more specified terms. In other words, in the latter case, the data service module does not generate the synonyms in advance of a request by the enterprise application, but provides the intermediate resources that can be used to generate the synonyms. In addition, or alternatively, the data service module and/or the enterprise application can perform additional post-request processing on the synonyms, such as fuzzy matching, etc. Section B provides additional details regarding representative types of processing that may be performed by the data service modules, and the processed data assets produced as a result thereof.
An enterprise interface module 124 allows the enterprise environments 106 to access the processed data assets. Additional detail will be set forth below regarding the manner in which an enterprise application may gain access to processed data assets (in connection with the description of
Any contractual relationship can govern access to the processed data assets by the enterprise environments 106. In one case, a subscription module 126 maintains subscriptions purchased or otherwise acquired by the various enterprise environments 106. Each subscription authorizes an enterprise environment to receive and consume processed data assets, under stated conditions. In connection therewith, the entity which administers the data service system 104 can offer plural levels of access rights at different respective costs.
In yet other cases, an application designer can design an enterprise application so that it has “hardwired” access to at least some of the processed data assets. Here, an enterprise environment has implicit right to access the processed data assets by virtue of the fact that it has purchased the enterprise application in question. The entity which administers the data service system 104 can rely on yet other strategies to grant access rights to its processed data assets.
The enterprise environments 106 can access the processed data assets through any communication conduit 128. For example, the communication conduit 128 may represent any of a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), a local area network, a point-to-point communication link, etc.
The entities 132 may interact with the enterprise applications via a communication conduit 134, such as a wide area network, a local area network, a point-to-point communication link, etc. For example, an enterprise application may be implemented by one or more servers within the enterprise environment 130. A user may operate any type of computer to interact with this enterprise application via, for instance, a local area network. In another case, the enterprise application may be implemented on a local computer, and the user can interact with the enterprise application via that computer. In another case, the enterprise application can be distributed between local and remote processing resources provided by the enterprise environment 130 (with respect to the location of the user who interacts with the enterprise application).
More generally stated, the functionality shown in
Advancing now to
In the implementation of
In the implementation of
As mentioned above, the processed data assets may represent final results or intermediate results, or some combination thereof. In the latter case, the enterprise application 202 may instruct the data service system 104 to perform additional on-demand processing based on intermediate processed data assets, given specified input information supplied by the enterprise application. In some implementations, the data service system 104 can even make on-demand processing requests to the search system 108. Alternatively, or in addition, the enterprise application 202 may itself perform additional processing based on the intermediate processed data assets provided by the data service system 104.
The scenarios depicted in
Block 408 further enumerates the two possibilities described above. In the first case, the processed data assets correspond to final results. Here, block 408 entails providing the final results to the enterprise application. In the second case, the processed data assets correspond to intermediate results. Here, block 408 entails: (1) Performing additional processing based on input received from the enterprise application, in conjunction with the intermediate results, to provide final results; and (2) Providing the final results to the enterprise application. Alternatively, or in addition, the enterprise application itself may transform the intermediate results into the final results. The nature of what constitutes “intermediate results” may vary for different application scenarios. Section B sets forth particular examples of what may constitute intermediate results in the context of three scenarios. Indeed, in one case, the processing performed in block 404 may correspond to just selecting a subset of raw data assets for storage in the data store 122, without transformation of the raw data assets.
According to another illustrative aspect, a user may rate the performance of the processed data assets provided by the data service system 104, and then forward that rating to the data service system 104. For example, the user can provide a like/unlike rating, a numerical score rating, etc. At least one data service module can then use the rating to modify the way it generates the processed data assets. For example, one type of data service module can generate synonyms based on one or more similarity thresholds; those thresholds define how liberal the data service module is in labeling a candidate string as a valid synonym of an input term. The data service module can adjust these thresholds based on feedback from the user, thereby making the matching operation performed by this data service module more or less restrictive.
According to another illustrative aspect, at least one data service module can provide a confidence value (or values) along with the processed data assets. Each confidence value reflects the extent to which the data service module deems the processed data assets to be valid results, such as valid synonyms, valid augmentation of seed information, valid spelling corrections, etc.
The data service system 104 can include yet other types of data service modules, although not shown in
For example, in a first case, the enterprise application can identify a group of original terms in a table or other source content. The enterprise application can then use the synonym resources to provide one or more synonyms for each original term. The enterprise application can then add the synonyms to the original table, to provide an augmented table.
In a second case, the enterprise application may correspond to search functionality used by the enterprise environment 130 to perform searches over a local database. The search functionality can identify an original term in a search query that a user has submitted. The search functionality can then use the synonym resources to determine one or more synonyms for the original search term. The search functionality can then perform a search over the database based on the original term together with the generated synonym(s). Still other applications are possible.
For example, in a first case, the enterprise application can identify a list of original entity names in any type of document or other source content. The enterprise application can then use the augmentation resources to provide supplemental information pertaining to the entity names. For example, suppose that the entity names correspond to company names. The enterprise application can leverage the augmentation resources to supply information pertaining to the locations, owners, etc. of the companies. The enterprise application can then add the supplemental information to the original document, to provide an enhanced document. Alternatively, or in addition, the enterprise application can use the supplemental information to correct any discovered inaccuracies in the original document.
In a second case, the enterprise application can identify at least one entity name within a document of any type, where that document belongs to a set of documents. For example, the document may correspond to an email in a repository of emails. The enterprise application can then use the augmentation resources to discover supplemental information regarding the entity name. The enterprise application can then use the original entity name in conjunction with the supplemental information to perform searches within the collection of documents. This allows the enterprise application to more thoroughly extract information regarding the entity name in question. Still other applications are possible.
In a first case, for example, the enterprise application can use the spelling information to alert a user to a misspelled term within a document that the user is created, editing, or reading. In a second case, the enterprise application can automatically correct a misspelled term in the document.
More specifically, assume that the enterprise application corresponds to a text processor or the like. Further assume that the text processor has access to its own native spelling-correction algorithm and associated spelling-correction dictionary. For instance, the native spelling-correction algorithm may use an edit distance metric or the like to identify a correctly spelled counterpart of a misspelled word. In the instant case, the text processor can rely on both the native spelling-correction algorithm and the spelling-correction resources (provided by the data service system 104) to identify and correct misspellings. Each strategy of spelling correction may have its respective advantages. For instance, the spelling-correction resources may be superior to the native spelling-correction algorithm in at least two instances. First, the text processor can leverage the spelling-correction resources to identify a correctly spelled word that is “far” from its corresponding misspelled word, in terms of edit distance (as in “YouTube” vs. “U-tube”). Second, the text processor can leverage the spelling-correction resources to provide a more up-to-date spelling-correction dictionary, compared to the native spelling-correction dictionary.
B. Illustrative Data Service Processes
The data service system 104 can incorporate a wide variety of algorithms to transform raw data assets into processed data assets. Without limitation, this section describes three representative algorithms.
B.1. Generating Synonym Resources
In general, the SGDSM 602 generates at least one synonym for the re (if possible) by drawing from a set of potential candidate strings Se, where se refers to an individual candidate string in the set Se. A synonym is a string, having one or more terms, which refers to the same entity e as re, but in a different manner than re.
In block 1002, the SGDSM 602 determines, using query log data, a set of documents D that have been selected in response to submitting re as a query. This set of documents is also referred to as aux(re). In block 1004, the SGDSM 602 determines, using the query log data, a set of queries that have been submitted and which have resulted in the selection of any of the documents in the set of documents D. This set of queries serves as a set of candidate strings Se.
Consider the example of
Returning to
In block 1008, the SGDSM 602 determines pseudo-documents for the documents in aux(re) and each aux(se). A pseudo-document (pdoc) for a document d contains a combination of all the terms associated with all of the queries that are linked to d. A query is linked to d when a user accesses d in response to submitting the query.
Returning to
In block 1012, the PDSAS 300 determines, for each se, a Scorepdsim (se→re) which measures the similarity of se with respect to re, and a Scorepdsim (re→se) which measures the similarity of re with respect to se. More formally stated, the similarity of a particular se to re can be computed by:
And the similarity of re to a particular se can be computed by:
In the first equation, the “pdocs” refers to those pdocs that are associated with the documents in the set aux(re). In the second equation, “pdocs” refers to the those pdocs that are associated with the documents in the set aux(se). The true synonyms of re can be determined, at least in part, by selecting candidate strings that have Scorepdsim(se→re) scores and Scorepdsim(re→se) scores that satisfy prescribed thresholds.
In block 1302, the SGDSM 602 generates a set of documents D that have been selected in response to submission of re as a query. In block 1304, the SGDSM 602 determines Se, the set of queries that have been submitted which have resulted in selection of the documents in D. These blocks correspond to the same initial operations performed in
In block 1306, the SGDSM 602 determines auxiliary information aux(re), which corresponds to words in queries which are nearby re. In block 1308, the SGDSM 602 determines auxiliary information aux(se) for each se, which corresponds to words in queries which are nearby se.
Returning to
In other words, the symmetrical Scoreqcsim information is proportional to the number of context words in aux(se) that overlap with the context words in aux(re), in relation to the total number of words in both aux(se) and aux(re).
In some cases, the SGDSM 602 can identify a final set of synonyms for re based on a combination of the processing set forth in
In some implementations, the SGDSM 602 can perform all of the operations identified in
In other implementations, the SGDSM 602 can perform part of the processing shown in
Other algorithms for generating synonyms are described in at least the following co-pending and commonly assigned applications: U.S. application Ser. No. 12/235,635, filed on Sep. 23, 2008, entitled “Generating Synonyms Based on Query Log Data,” naming the inventors of Stelios Paparizos, et al.; U.S. Ser. No. 12/465,832, filed on May 14, 2009, entitled “Identifying Synonyms of Entities Using Web Search,” naming the inventors of Surajit Chaudhuri, et al.; U.S. Ser. No. 12/478,120, filed on Jun. 4, 2009, entitled “Identifying Synonyms of Entities Using a Document Collection,” naming the inventors of Surajit Chaudhuri, et al.; and U.S. Ser. No. 13/487,260, filed on Jun. 4, 2012, entitled “Robust Discovery of Entity Synonyms Using Query Logs,” naming the inventors of Tao Cheng, et al. Each of these applications is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Any of the algorithms described in these applications can be used to implement aspects of the SGDSM 602.
B.2. Generating Augmentation Resources
In block 1502, the ADSM 604 receives candidate tables from the search system 108. For example, the search system 108 identifies the candidate tables by “crawling” a wide area network (such as the Internet) to identify table-like resources pertaining to entities. The search system 108 can use any technique to perform this task. For example, the search system 108 can feed features associated with web content into a trained classifier. The classifier can process the features to pick out tables that pertain to entities.
In block 1502, the ADSM 604 can generate one or more indexes for the candidate tables. These indexes provide an efficient mechanism for comparing characteristics of a query table Q with each candidate table.
In block 1504, the ADSM 604 builds a directed table similarity graph. The table similarity graph includes a set of nodes V associated with the respective candidate tables. The table similarity graph also includes a set of edges E that connect the candidate tables together. Each edge, connecting a particular source node u to a particular target node v, is associated with a similarity weight αuv. That weight reflects the degree of similarity between the two candidate tables associated with the nodes u and v, respectively.
The ADSM 604 can use any technique to derive the edge weights. For example, the ADSM 604 can use a schema-matching technique to compare any first candidate table with a second candidate table, corresponding to two nodes in the table similarity graph. More specifically, the ADSM 604 can identify a collection of features which characterize the similarity (and dissimilarity) between the first candidate table and the second candidate table. The ADSM 604 can then feed the features into a trained classifier. The classifier can process the features to generate a score which reflects the overall similarity of the first candidate table to the second candidate table. Without limitation, the ADSM 604 can leverage any characteristics of the candidate tables in defining the features, such as: attributes values, attribute heading names, etc. within a candidate table itself; the context associated with the candidate table (corresponding to the words in a page in which the candidate table appears); the URL associated with the page in which the candidate table appears; the size of the candidate table, and so on.
In block 1506, the ADSM 604 computes and stores a Personalized PageRank (PPR) vector for each candidate table. More formally stated, the PRR vector of a node v, with respect to a source node u, denoted by πu(v), is defined as the solution to the following equation:
In this equation, αw,v represents the weight on a particular edge in the table similarity graph between nodes w and v, δu(v)=1 iff u=v, and 0 otherwise, and E refers to a defined probability value (e.g., the teleport probability). The set of PPR values πu(v) for all nodes v with respect to node u is referred to as the PPR vector of node u. The ADSM 604 can use any technique to generate the PPR vectors, such as the MapReduce technique, the Power Iteration technique, etc.
In block 1510, the ADSM 604 computes seed tables associated with the query table Q. With respect to the example of
The ADSM 604 also computes a direct matching score SDMA(T) for each seed table. This score is computed by determining the number of attribute values in the first column of the query table Q which are also found in the first column of the seed table. The ADSM 604 then divides this number by the number of attribute values that are found in either the query table Q or the seed table, whatever is smaller. For example, the table T1 has a SDMA score of 0.25 because it has one match with the query table Q, and this match is divided by 4 (the number of entries in the table T1).
In block 1512, the ADSM 604 computes a preference vector {right arrow over (β)}. Each element of the preference vector {right arrow over (β)} corresponds to a particular candidate table in the table similarity graph, but only elements corresponding to the seed tables have non-zero values. In one implementation, the preference value βv for a particular seed table corresponds to its SDMA score, divided the sum of the SDMA scores for all the seed tables. For example, the preference value βv for the table T1 is 0.25/1.25.
In block 1514, the ADSM 604 computes Topic-Sensitive PageRank (TSP) scores based on the PPR vectors (provided in block 1508) and the preference vector {right arrow over (β)} (provided in block 1512). In one approach, the TSP of a node v (corresponding to a particular candidate table in the graph), for a preference vector {right arrow over (β)}, can be computed based on:
The ADSM 604 uses the TSP scores of the candidate tables to pick out the tables that are considered sufficiently similar to the query table Q. That is, the ADSM 604 can identify a candidate table as relevant if its TSP score is above a prescribed threshold. The output of block 1504 is a set of relevant candidate tables.
Note that the above-described technique can even identify candidate tables that are indirectly related to the query table Q. For example, with reference to
In block 1516, the ADSM 604 can analyze the relevant candidate tables (identified in block 1514) to determine the missing attribute values in the query table Q, such as the missing attribute values in the “Brand” column of the query table Q. One such technique will be described below with reference to the attribute value “S70,” which appears in the first column of the query table Q. To estimate the brand attribute value for this entry, the ADSM 604 first identifies relevant candidate tables which include the attribute value “S70,” and which also list a corresponding brand attribute value for this entry. For instance, table T1 identifies the brand attribute value for “S70” as “ABC Corp.,” while T3 identifies the brand attribute value for “S70” as “Jag123 Co.” Overall, this operation identifies a set of matching branch attribute values and associated scores. The score of each attribute value corresponds to the SDMA score of the table with which it is associated; that is, for instance, the score of the attribute value “ABC Corp.” corresponds to the SDMA score associated with table T1.
Next, the ADSM 604 can use any fuzzy matching technique to group the entries in the set of matching attribute values into one or more groups. The ADSM 604 can then pick a representative attribute value for each group, e.g., corresponding to the centroid of the group. The score associated with a representative attribute value corresponds to any kind of aggregation of the scores associated with other members of its group. Finally, the ADSM 604 can pick the representative attribute value having the highest score. In the simple case of
In some implementations, the ADSM 604 can perform all of the operations identified in
In other implementations, the ADSM 604 can perform part of the processing shown in
Other algorithms for generating supplemental information by mining Internet data assets are described in at least the following co-pending and commonly assigned application: U.S. application Ser. No. 13/413,179, filed on Mar. 6, 2012, entitled “Entity Augmentation Service from Latent Relational Data,” naming the inventors of Kris K. Ganjam, et al. This application is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. The algorithms described therein can be used to implement aspects of the ADSM 604.
B.3. Generating Spelling-Correction Resources
In block 1702, the SIDSM 606 identifies query-modification pairs in query log data. Each query-modification pair represents an original query submitted by a user, followed by a modification of that original query.
More specifically, the query-modification pairs may include at least two classes of query reformulations. A first class corresponds to two queries manually submitted by a user. That is, the user may have entered a first query that includes a misspelled term. The search system 108 may alert the user to the misspelling by providing poor search results, and/or by proposing a correctly-spelled counterpart to the user's first query. In response to these prompts, the user may submit a second query which corrects the spelling error in the first query. The SIDSM 606 can designate a particular pair of queries as a potential reformulation pairing by determining whether the textual similarity between the first query and the second query satisfies a prescribed threshold. In some instances, the second query immediately follows the first query, but it need not.
The search system 108 may also apply algorithms to automatically correct a user's misspelled query. Thus, for a second class of query-modification pairs, the user again manually inputs his or her first query; but the second query corresponds to an automated reformulation of the first query that is performed by the search system 108. The user may or may not be aware of this reformulation.
In block 1704, the SIDSM 606 can use any appropriate technique to pick out instances of valid spelling corrections within the query-modification pairs. For example, the SIDSM 606 can employ a trained classifier to perform this task. That classifier can accept features which characterize each member of a query-modification pair, as well as differences between the members. The classifier can also take into account the frequency at which a particular query-modification pair occurs in the query log data (where a query-modification pair having a high frequency is more likely to correspond to a valid spelling correction.) This operation yields a spelling correction dictionary. That is, each entry of the spelling correction dictionary maps a presumably misspelled term to its corrected counterpart.
In block 1706, the SIDSM 606 can store the spelling correction dictionary provided in block 1704. In some cases, this spelling correction dictionary constitutes the spelling-correction resources described in Section A. Alternatively, or in addition, an enterprise application can access and utilize any of the intermediate results produced by the SIDSM 606; these too can be considered spelling-correction resources for consumption by the enterprise application.
C. Representative Computing Functionality
The computing functionality 1900 can include volatile and non-volatile memory, such as RAM 1902 and ROM 1904, as well as one or more processing devices 1906 (e.g., one or more CPUs, and/or one or more GPUs, etc.). The computing functionality 1900 also optionally includes various media devices 1908, such as a hard disk module, an optical disk module, and so forth. The computing functionality 1900 can perform various operations identified above when the processing device(s) 1906 executes instructions that are maintained by memory (e.g., RAM 1902, ROM 1904, or elsewhere).
More generally, instructions and other information can be stored on any computer readable medium 1910, including, but not limited to, static memory storage devices, magnetic storage devices, optical storage devices, and so on. The term computer readable medium also encompasses plural storage devices. In all cases, the computer readable medium 1910 represents some form of physical and tangible entity.
The computing functionality 1900 also includes an input/output module 1912 for receiving various inputs (via input modules 1914), and for providing various outputs (via output modules). One particular output mechanism may include a presentation module 1916 and an associated graphical user interface (GUI) 1918. The computing functionality 1900 can also include one or more network interfaces 1920 for exchanging data with other devices via one or more communication conduits 1922. One or more communication buses 1924 communicatively couple the above-described components together.
The communication conduit(s) 1922 can be implemented in any manner, e.g., by a local area network, a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), etc., or any combination thereof. The communication conduit(s) 1922 can include any combination of hardwired links, wireless links, routers, gateway functionality, name servers, etc., governed by any protocol or combination of protocols.
Alternatively, or in addition, any of the functions described in the preceding sections can be performed, at least in part, by one or more hardware logic components. For example, without limitation, the computing functionality can be implemented using one or more of: Field-programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs); Application-specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs); Application-specific Standard Products (ASSPs); System-on-a-chip systems (SOCs); Complex Programmable Logic Devices (CPLDs), etc.
In closing, the functionality described herein can employ various mechanisms to ensure the privacy of user data maintained by the functionality. For example, the functionality can allow a user to expressly opt in to (and then expressly opt out of) the provisions of the functionality. The functionality can also provide suitable security mechanisms to ensure the privacy of the user data (such as data-sanitizing mechanisms, encryption mechanisms, password-protection mechanisms, etc.).
Further, the description may have described various concepts in the context of illustrative challenges or problems. This manner of explanation does not constitute an admission that others have appreciated and/or articulated the challenges or problems in the manner specified herein.
Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5297039 | Kanaegami et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5418948 | Turtle | May 1995 | A |
5469355 | Tsuzuki | Nov 1995 | A |
5717913 | Driscoll | Feb 1998 | A |
5805911 | Miller | Sep 1998 | A |
5926808 | Evans et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
6006225 | Bowman et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012055 | Campbell et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6098034 | Razin et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6128613 | Wong et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6137911 | Zhilyaev | Oct 2000 | A |
6269368 | Diamond | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6278967 | Akers | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6363377 | Kravets et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6370527 | Singhal | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6377945 | Risvik | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6510406 | Marchisio | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6571240 | Ho et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6675159 | Lin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6697818 | Li et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6711577 | Wong et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6804677 | Shadmon et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6876963 | Miyahira et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
7024624 | Hintz | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7080068 | Leitermann | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7149746 | Fagin et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7254530 | Klavans et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7254774 | Cucerzan et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7293003 | Horton | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7296011 | Chaudhuri et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7330811 | Turcato et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7340466 | Odom et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7346490 | Fass et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7440941 | Borkovsky et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7483829 | Murakami et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7526425 | Marchisio et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7552112 | Jhala et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7617202 | Brill et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7627548 | Riley et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7634462 | Weyand et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7636714 | Lamping et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7707047 | Hasan et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7778817 | Liu et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7809548 | Mihalcea et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7860853 | Ren et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877343 | Cafarella | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7890526 | Brewer et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7917355 | Wu et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7958489 | Meijer et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7890521 | Grushetskyy et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8239751 | Rochelle et al. | Aug 2012 | B1 |
8332333 | Agrawal | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8417713 | Blair-Goldensohn et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8429099 | Perkowitz et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8577907 | Singhal et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8954422 | Hasan | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9323811 | Hasan | Apr 2016 | B2 |
20010042080 | Ross | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020103793 | Koller et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123882 | Mohammed | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020169755 | Framroze et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178005 | Dusan | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030004716 | Haigh et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033288 | Shanahan et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030120651 | Bernstein et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030195877 | Ford et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040254920 | Brill et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050021324 | Brants et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050060312 | Curtiss et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060337 | Chou et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060643 | Glass et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050080613 | Colledge et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086592 | Polanyi et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050114322 | Melman | May 2005 | A1 |
20050149494 | Lindh et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050216443 | Morton et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216444 | Ritter et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060026128 | Bier | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060031207 | Bjarnestam et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060069589 | Nigam et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060089927 | Bandyopadhyay et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060136405 | Ducaltel et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060195421 | Kilroy | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206306 | Cao et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218136 | Surakka et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060271353 | Berkan | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060253427 | Wu et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070011154 | Musgrove et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011183 | Langseth et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070038663 | Colando | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070043723 | Bitan et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070073745 | Scott et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070094285 | Agichtein et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070100823 | Inmon | May 2007 | A1 |
20070192085 | Roulland et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203929 | Bolivar | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070233656 | Bunescu et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070239742 | Saha et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080016040 | Jones et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080021898 | Hoglund | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080077570 | Tang et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080087725 | Liu | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091660 | Jang et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080097941 | Agarwal | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080109416 | Williams | May 2008 | A1 |
20080147618 | Bauche | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154873 | Redlich et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080195601 | Ntoulas et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080275694 | Varone | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080275837 | Lambov | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090044095 | Berger et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090144609 | Liang et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090222434 | Fothergill | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090281970 | Mika et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090282012 | Konig et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090319500 | Agrawal et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090327223 | Chakrabarti et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100004925 | Ah-Pine et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100082657 | Paparizos et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100106677 | Yu | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100121702 | Steelberg et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100250598 | Brauer et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100280821 | Tiitola | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100293179 | Chaudhuri et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100313258 | Chaudhuri et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110029513 | Morris | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110071965 | Long et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110106807 | Srihari et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110125776 | Roshen et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110196670 | Dang et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110213796 | Kiyota et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225133 | Manu | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110282856 | Ganti et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110302179 | Agrawal | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110307485 | Udupa et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120011115 | Madhavan et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120036123 | Hasan | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120117078 | Morton et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120150838 | Yin et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120191642 | George | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120259890 | Danesuk et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130166573 | Vaitheeswaran et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130232129 | Cheng et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130238621 | Ganjam et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130346421 | Wang et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140058722 | Sun et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20160012036 | Sun et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101354707 | Jan 2009 | CN |
101785000 | Jul 2010 | CN |
102193970 | Sep 2011 | CN |
102306144 | Jan 2012 | CN |
102609407 | Jul 2012 | CN |
102609407 | Jul 2012 | CN |
9740452 | Oct 1997 | WO |
0229627 | Apr 2002 | WO |
2006123918 | May 2006 | WO |
2008141583 | Nov 2008 | WO |
2013133985 | Sep 2013 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Cheng, et al., “Entity Synonyms for Structured Web Search,” retrieved at <<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5963679>>, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Issue 99, Jul. 28, 2011, pp. 1-15. |
“Microsoft Research TechFest 2012: Projects,” retrieved at <<http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/events/techfest2012/projects.aspx>>, retrieved on Apr. 10, 2012, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, 7 pages. |
Cheng, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/606,481, “Robust Discovery of Entity Synonyms using Query Logs,” filed Mar. 5, 2012, 61 pages. |
Ganjam, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/413,179, “Entity Augmentation Service from Latent Relational Data,” filed Mar. 6, 2012, 54 pages. |
Cheng, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/487,260, “Robust Discovery of Entity Synonyms Using Query Logs,” filed Jun. 4, 2012, 61 pages. |
Yakout, et al., “InfoGather: Entity Augmentation and Attribute Discovery by Holistic Matching with Web Tables,” Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Management of Data, May 2012, pp. 97-108. |
“Enterprise Software,”, retrieved on Jun. 19, 2012, Wikipedia article, 3 pages. |
Mann, et al., “Unsupervised Personal Name Disambiguation,” retrieved at <<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= 10.1.1.10.7097&rep=rep1&type=pdf>>, Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, vol. 4, 2003, 8 pages. |
Mihalcea, et al., “Wikify! Linking Documents to Encyclopedic Knowledge,” retrieved at <<http://www.cse.unt.edu/-rada/papers/mihalcea.cikm07.pdf>>, Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2007, 9 pages. |
Mihalcea, Rada, “Unsupervised Large-Vocabulary Word Sense Disambiguation with Graph-based Algorithms for Sequence Data Labeling,” retrieved at <<http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/H/H05/H05-1052.pdf>>, Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP), Oct. 2005, pp. 411-418. |
Milne, et al., “Learning to Link with Wikipedia,” retrieved at <<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.148.3617&rep=rep1&type=pdf>>, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2008, 10 pages. |
Nadeau, et al., “Unsupervised Named-Entity Recognition: Generating Gazetteers and Resolving Ambiguity,” retrieved at <<http://cogprints.org/5025/1/NRC-48727.pdf>>, Proceedings of 19th Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Jun. 7, 2006, pp. 266-277. |
Sarmento, et al., “An Approach to Web-scale Named-Entity Disambiguation,” accessible at <<http://sigarra.up.pt/feup/publs_pesquisa.show_publ_file?pct_gdoc_id=68610.>>, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition, 2009, 15 pages. |
Wang, et al., “Targeted Disambiguation of Ad-hoc, Homogeneous Sets of Named Entities,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, Apr. 2012, pp. 719-728. |
Booth et al., “Query Sentences as Semantic (Sub) Networks”, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, 6 pages. |
Smeaton, et al., “Experiments on Incorporating Syntactic Processing of User Queries into a Document Retrieval Strategy,” Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1988, pp. 31-51. |
Agrawal, “Mining Association Rules Between Sets of Items in Large Databases,” Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, May 1993, 10 pages. |
Aho, et al., “Efficient String Matching: An Aid to Bibliographic Search,” Communications of the ACM CACM, vol. 18, Issue 6, Jun. 1975, pp. 333-340. |
Arasu, et al., “Efficient Exact Set-Similarity Joins,” retrieved at <<http://www.vldb.org/conf/2006/p918-arasu.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Sep. 2006, pp. 918-929. |
Kasliwal, et al., “Text Mining in Biomedical Literature,” retrieved at <<http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/˜sourabh/seminar/final/seminar_report>>, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India, 27 pages. |
Bohn, Christian, “Extracting Named Entities and Synonyms from Wikipedia for use in News Search,” retrieved at <<http://daim.idi.ntnu.no/masteroppgaver/IME/IDI/2008/4290/masteroppgave.pdf>>, Master of Science in Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Computer and Information Science, Jun. 2008, 95 pages. |
Chakrabarti, et al., “An Efficient Filter for Approximate Membership Checking,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Jun. 2008, pp. 805-817. |
Chandel, et al., “Efficient Batch Top-k Search for Dictionary-based Entity Recognition,” retrieved at <<http://www.it.iitb.ac.in/˜sunita/papers/icde06b.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering, IIT Bombay, 10 pages. |
Chaudhuri, et al., “A Primitive Operator for Similarity Joins in Data Cleaning,” retrieved at <<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1617373&isnumber=33902>>, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE 2006), 2006, 12 pages. |
Cheng, et al., “EntityRank: Searching Entities Directly and Holistically,” retrieved at <<http://www-forward.cs.uiuc.edu/pubs/2007/entityrank-vldb07-cyc-jul07.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Sep. 2007, 12 pages. |
Cohen, et al., “Exploiting Dictionaries in Named Entity Extraction: Combining Semi-Markov Extraction Processes and Data Integration Methods,” retrieved on at <<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/˜wcohen/postscript/kdd-04-csmm.pdf>>, Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data mining, Aug. 2004, 10 pages. |
Koudas, et al., “Record Linkage: Similarity Measures and Algorithms,” retrieved at <<http://disi.unitn.it/˜p2p/RelatedWork/Matching/aj_recordLinkage_06.pdf>>, presentation dated Sep. 23, 2006, 130 pages. |
Ganti, et al., “Entity Catergorization Over Large Document Collections,” retrieved at <<http:// acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Aug. 2008, pp. 274-282. |
Gligorov, et al., “Using Google Distance to Weight Approximate Ontology Matches,” retrieved at <<http://www.cs.vu.nl/˜frankh/postscript/BNAIC07-WWW07.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2007, 2 pages. |
Han, et al., “Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques,” retrieved on at <<http://www.ir.iit.edu/˜dagr/DataMiningCourse/Spring2001/BookNotes/4lang.pdf>>, slide presentation, Intelligent Database Systems Research Lab, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada, Jun. 17, 2001, 5 pages. |
Hu, Wen-Chu, “ApproxSeek: Web Document Search Using Approximate Matching,” retrieved at <<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=F776964F00B448D5445A84C3528F0E83?doi=10.1.1.44.8602&rep=rep1&type=pdf>>, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computer Science and Informatics, Sep. 1999, 5 pages. |
Manning et al., Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing, The MIT Press, 1999. |
Michelson et al., “Mining Heterogeneous Transformations for Record Linkage”, IIWeb, pp. 68-73, AAAI Press, 2007. |
Lafferty et al., “Conditional Random Fields: Probalistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data”, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 282-289, 2001. |
Lin, Dekang, “Automatic Retrieval and Clustering of Similar Words”, Proceedings of the 17th international Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 768-774, 1998. |
“Notice of Allowance,” dated Apr. 7, 2015, From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, 16 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance,” dated Jan. 21, 2014, From U.S. Appl. No. 13/487,260, 5 pages. |
Hipp, et al., “Algorithms for Association Rule Mining—A General Survery and Comparison”, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newletter vol. 2 Issue 1, Jun. 2000, pp. 58-64. |
“Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 15, 2015,” filed Apr. 15, 2015, From U.S. Appl. No. 13/413,179, 23 Pages. |
“Supplemental EP Search Report Rule 61,” dated Mar. 4, 2015, From European Patent Application No. 13757813.4, 3 pages. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” dated Apr. 10, 2012, From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, 16 pages. |
“Final Office Action,” dated Sep. 19, 2012, From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, 18 pages. |
“Final Office Action,” dated Oct. 7, 2011, From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, 14 pages. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” dated May 23, 2011, From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, 19 pages. |
“Final Office Action,” dated Oct. 21, 2013, From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, 20 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance and Examiner's Amendment”, dated Jun. 6, 2013, From U.S. Appl. No. 12/478,120, 12 pages. |
“Final Office Action,” dated Feb. 27, 2012, From U.S. Appl. No. 12/478,120, 18 pages. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” dated Nov. 3, 2011, From U.S. Appl. No. 12/478,120, 9 pages. |
“Response to the Nov. 3, 2011 Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/478,120, filed Feb. 3, 2012 |
Pasquie, et al., Efficient Mining of Association Rules Using Closed Itemset Lattices, 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd., pp. 25-46. |
Notice of Allowability dated Aug. 18, 2016 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 14 pages. |
Notice of Allowability dated Nov. 18, 2016 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, 20 pages. |
Corrected Notice of Allowability dated Dec. 22, 2016 from U.S. Appl. No. 121779,964, 6 pages. |
Notice of Allowability dated Dec. 29, 2016 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 11 pages. |
Notice of Allowability dated Feb. 17, 2017 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, 6 pages. |
Response filed Oct. 4, 2016 to the Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 4, 2016 from U.S. Appl. No. 14/864,430, 10 pages. |
Final Office Action dated Oct. 26, 2016 from U.S. Appl. No. 14/864,430, 33 pages. |
Response dated Aug. 29, 2016 to the First Office Action dated Apr. 13, 2016 from Chinese Patent Application No. 201380013249.X, 18 pages. |
Second Office Action dated Dec. 1, 2016 from Chinese Patent Application No. 201380013249.X, 7 pages. |
Response dated Sep. 3, 2013 to Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 2, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/413,179, 15 pages. |
Final Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/413,179, 31 pages. |
Response filed Jun. 5, 2014 to Final Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/413,179, 19 pages. |
Notice of Allowance and Examiner Initiated Interview Summary dated Jun. 17, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/413,179, 16 pages. |
Examination Report dated Mar. 11, 2015 from European Patent Application No. 13757813.4, 4 pages. |
Response dated Apr. 8, 2015 to the Examination Report dated Mar. 11, 2015 from European Patent Application No. 13757813.4, 17 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 12, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 14 pages. |
Applicant Initiated Interview Summary dated Dec. 18, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 3 pages. |
Response dated Dec. 23, 2013 to Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 12, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 14 pages. |
Final Office Action dated Feb. 3, 2014 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 12 pages. |
Response dated Apr. 30, 2014 to Final Office Action dated Feb. 3, 2014 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 13 pages. |
Applicant Initiated Interview Summary dated May 1, 2014 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 3 pages. |
Notice of Allowance and Examiner Initiated Interview Summary dated Aug. 20, 2014 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 22 pages. |
Correction Notice of Allowability dated Feb. 27, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 3 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 18, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 9 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jul. 2, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 5 pages. |
Requirement for Restriction/Election dated Apr. 25, 2014 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,473, 6 pages. |
Response dated Aug. 25, 2014 to Requirement for Restriction/Election dated Apr. 25, 2014 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,473, 10 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 11, 2014 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,473, 13 pages. |
Amendment and Response dated Dec. 11, 2014 to Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 11, 2014 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,473, 13 pages. |
Notice of Allowance and Examiner Initiated Interview dated Jan. 14, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,473, 11 pages. |
Amendment and Response dated Apr. 14, 2015 to Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 14, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,473, 10 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 12, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,473, 6 pages. |
Amendment and Response dated Aug. 12, 2015 to Non-Final Office Action dated May 12, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,473, 10 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 26, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,473, 8 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 13, 2014 from PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2013/055500, 12 pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion dated Feb. 24, 2015 from PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2013/055500, 9 pages. |
Cohen, et al., “Learning to Match and Cluster Large High-Dimensional Data Sets for Data Integration”, In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Jul. 23-26, 2002, 6 pages. |
Sarawagi, Sunita, “Models and Indices for Integrating Unstructured Data with a Relational Database”, In Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Discovery in Inductive Databases, Sep. 20, 2004, 10 pages. |
Schallehn, et al., “Efficient Similarity-based Operations for Data Integration”, In Journal of Data & Knowledge Engineering, vol. 48, Issue 3, Aug. 12, 2003, 27 pages. |
Berlin, et al., “TupleRank: Ranking Discovered Content in Virtual Databases”, In Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Next Generation Information Technologies and Systems, Jul. 4-6, 2006, 15 pages. |
Madhavan, et al., Corpus-based Schema Matching, 21st International Conference on Data Engineering, Apr. 5-8, 2005, 12 pages. |
Venetis, et al., “Recovering Semantics of Tables on the Web”, Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 4, Issue 9, Jun. 2011, 10 pages. |
Ganjam, et al., “InfoGather: Entity Augmentation and Attribute Discovery by Holistic Matching with Web Tables”, SIGMOD '12, May 20-24, 2012, Scottsdale AZ, 12 pages. |
Bahmani, et al., “Fast Personalized Pagerank on Mapreduce”, In SIGMOD, Jun. 12-16, 2011, Athens, Greece, 12 pages. |
Ghani, et al., “Text Mining for Product Attribute Extraction”, SIGKDD Explorations, vol. 8, Issue 1, Jun. 2006, 8 pages. |
Bernstein, et al., Generic Schema Matching, Ten Years Later. In VLDB Endowment, vol. 4, No. 11, 2011, 7 pages. |
Cafarella, et al., Data Integration for the Relational Web. VLDB, Aug. 24-28, 2009, Lyon, France, 12 pages. |
Cafarella, et al., Webtables: Exploring the Power ofTables on the Web, PVLDB, 2008, 12 pages. |
Cafarella, et al., “Uncovering the Relational Web”, In WebDB, Jun. 13, 2008, Vancouver, Canada, 6 pages. |
Doan, et al., “Reconciling Schemas of Disparate Data Sources: A Machine-Learning Approach”, In ACM SIGMOD, May 21-24, 2001, 12 pages. |
Elsayed, et al., “Pairwise Document Similarity in Large Collections with Mapreduce”, In ACL, Jun. 2008, 4 pages. |
Gupta, et al., “Answering Table Augmentation Queries from Unstructured Lists on the Web”, Proc. VLDB Endowment, Aug. 24-28, 2009, Lyon France, 12 pages. |
He, et al., “Statistical Schema Matching Across Web Query Interfaces”, In SIGMOD 2003, Jun. 9-12, 2003, San Diego, CA, 12 pages. |
He, et al., “Seisa: Set Expansion by Iterative Similarity Aggregation”, In WWW, Mar. 28-Apr. 1, 2011, Hyderabad, India, 10 pages. |
Limaye, et al., “Annotating and Searching Web Tables Using Entities, Types and Relationships”, VLDB Endowment, vol. 3, No. 1, 2010, 10 pages. |
Madhavan, et al., “Generic Schema Matching with Cupid”, 27th VLDB Conference, 2001, Roma, Italy, 10 pages. |
Page, et al., The Pagerank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Technical Report, Stanford InfoLab, 1998, 17 pages. |
Rahm, et al., “A Survey of Approaches to Automatic Schema Matching”, The VLDB Journal, 2001, 24 pages. |
Yin, et al., “Facto: A Fact Lookup Engine Based on Web Tables”, In WWW, Mar. 28-Apr. 1, 2011, Hyderabad, India, 10 pages. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion”, dated Jun. 26, 2013, From PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2013/027203, 10 pages. |
Loser et al., “Augmenting Tables by Self-Supervised Web Search,” in Enabling Real-Time Business Intelligence, 4th International Workshop, BIRTE 2010, LNBIP 84, pp. 84-99, 2011. |
Feldman et al., “Self-supervised Relation Extraction from the Web,” F. Esposito et al. (Eds.): ISMIS 2006, LNAI 4203, pp. 755-764, 2006. |
Banko et al, “Open Information Extraction from the Web”, Commun. ACM 51, 12 (Dec. 2008), pp. 68-74. |
Urbanski et al., “Entity Extractions from the Web with WebKnox,” V. Snasel et al. (Eds.): Advances in Intelligent Web Mastering—2, AISC 67, pp. 209-218. |
“Response to the Feb. 27, 2012 Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/478,120, filed Jun. 27, 2012. |
“Preliminary Report on Patentability”, From PCT Application No. PCT/US2013/027203 dated Sep. 9, 2014. |
First Office Action dated Jun. 22, 2016 from China Patent Application No. 201380044316.4, 9 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, dated Dec. 11, 2014, 16 pages. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, dated Feb. 16, 2011, 13 pages. |
“Response to the Feb. 16, 2011 Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, filed Jul. 18, 2011, 27 pages. |
“Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, dated Oct. 25, 2011, 16 pages. |
“Response to the Oct. 25, 2011 Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, filed Jan. 27, 2012, 23 pages. |
“Advisory Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, dated Feb. 6, 2012, 3 pages. |
“Response to the Oct. 25, 2011 Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, filed Mar. 25, 2012, 29 pages. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, dated Nov. 18, 2013, 12 pages. |
“Response to the Nov. 18, 2013 Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, filed Feb. 17, 2014, 14 pages. |
“Supplemental Amendment,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, filed Mar. 11, 2014, 10 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, dated May 23, 2014, 16 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, dated Aug. 29, 2014, 16 pages. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, dated Apr. 29, 2015, 26 pages. |
“Response to the May 23, 2011 Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, filed Aug. 16, 2011, 17 pages. |
“Response to the Oct. 7, 2011 Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, filed Dec. 22, 2011, 17 pages. |
“Response to the Sep. 19, 2012 Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, filed Dec. 18, 2012, 19 pages. |
“Response to the Jun. 13, 2013 Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, filed Jul. 30, 2013, 26 pages. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/465,832, dated Jun. 13, 2013. |
“Response to the Nov. 3, 2011 Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/478,120, filed Feb. 3, 2012, 15 pages. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 13/487,260, dated Mar. 7, 2013, 10 pages. |
“Response to the Mar. 7, 2013 Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 13/487,260, filed Aug. 6, 2013, 15 pages. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Oct. 17, 2013 From U.S. Appl. No. 13/487,260, 11 pages. |
Zhai, et al., ““A Study of Smoothing Methods for Language Models Applied to Ad Hoc Information Retrieval,”” Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in InformationRetrieval, 2001, accessible at <<http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/irchallenges/smooth.pdf>>, 9 pages. |
Graupmann, ““Concept-Based Search on Semi-Structured Data Exploiting Mined Semantic Relations,”” EDBT2004 Workshops, LNCS 3268, Eds. W. Lindner et al., Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, accessible at <<http://www.springerlink.com/content/p7fw8dk70v2x8w4a/fulltext.pdf>>, pp. 34-43. |
Cohen, et al., ““XSEarch: A Semantic Search Engine for XML,”” Proceedings of the 29th VLDB Conference, Berlin, Germany, 2003, accessible at <<http://www.vldb.org/conf/2003/papers/S03P02.pdf>>, 12 pages. |
Chklovski, et al., “VERBOCEAN: Mining the Web for Fine-Grained Semantic Verb Relations,” Proceedings of EMNLP 2004, 2004, accessible at <<http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/acl2004/emnlp/pdf/Chklovski.pdf>>, 8 pages. |
Chang, et al., ““Structured Databases on the Web: Observations and Implications,”” ACM SIGMOD Record archive, vol. 33, Issue 3, 2004, accessible at <<http://eagle.cs.uiuc.edu/pubs/2004/dwsurvey-sigmodrecord-chlpz-aug04.pdf>>, 10 pages. |
Craswell, et al., ““Random Walks on the Click Graph,”” Proceedings of the 30th Annual International ACM SIGIRConference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2007, accessible at <<http://research.microsoft.com/users/nickcr/pubs/craswell_sigir07.pdf>>, 8 pages. |
Fuxman, et al., ““Using the Wisdom of the Crowds for Keyword Generation,”” Proceeding of the 17th InternationalConference on World Wide Web, 2008, accessible at <<http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1370000/1367506/p61fuxman.pdf?key1=1367506&key2=7612479121&coll=&dl=ACM&CFID=592564&CFTOKEN=87519440>>, pp. 61-70. |
Malekian, et al., ““Optimizing Query Rewrites for Keyword-Based Advertising,”” ACM Conference on ElectronicCommerce (EC), Chicago, Illinois, Jul. 8-12, 2008, accessible at <<http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1390000/1386793/p10-malekian.pdf?key1=1386793&key2=8852479121&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=593354&CFTOKEN=82835948>>,pp. 10-19. |
Miller, George A., ““Wordnet: A Lexical Database for English,”” Communications of the ACM, vol. 38, No. 11, Nov. 1995, accessible at <<http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/220000/219748/p39-miller.pdf?key1=219748&key2=0502389121&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=604516&CFTOKEN=66566361>>, pp. 39-41. |
Strube, et al., ““Wikirelate! Computing Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia,”” AAAI Press, 2006, accessible at<<http://www.dit.unitn.it/˜p2p/RelatedWork/Matching/aaai06.pdf>>, 6 pages. |
Turney, Peter D., ““Mining the Web for Synonyms: PMI-IR versus LSA on TOEFL,”” Lecture Notes in ComputerScience, 2167, 2001, accessible at <<http://cogprints.org/1796/1/ECML2001.ps>>, 12 pages. |
Wen, et al., ““Clustering User Queries of a Search Engine,”” Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on WorldWide Web, 2001, accessible <<http://research.microsoft.com/users/jrwen/jrwen_files/publications/QC-WWW10.pdf>>,pp. 162-168. |
Baeza-Yates, et al., “Extracting Semantic Relations from Query Logs,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Aug. 12-15, 2007, pp. 76-85. |
“PageRank,” retrieved at <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank>>, Wikipedia article, retrieved on Sep. 11, 2008, 5 pages. |
Arasu, et al., “PageRank Computation and the Structure of the Web: Experiments and Algorithms,” retrieved at <<http://www2002.org/CDROM/poster/173.pdf>>, Proceedings of the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference, 2002, 5 pages. |
Bhattacharya, et al., “Collective Entity Resolution in Relational Data,” retrieved at <<http://linqs.cs.umd.edu/basilic/web/Publications/2007 /bhattacharya:tkdd07 /bhattacharya-tkdd.pdf>>, ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol. 1, No. 1, 2007, 35 pages. |
Brin, et al., “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine,” retrieved at <<http://www.cs.panam.edu/˜creilly/courses/CSCI6175-F11/papers/Brin-1998.pdf>>, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on World Wide Web 7, 1998, 20 pages. |
Bunescu, et al., “Using Encyclopedic Knowledge for Named Entity Disambiguation,” retrieved at <<http://www.cs.utexas.edu/-ml/papers/encyc-eacl-06.pdf>>, Proceeding of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, 2006, 8 pages. |
Chakaravarthy, et al., “Efficiently Linking Text Documents with Relevant Structured Information,” retrieved at <<http://www.vldb.org/conf/2006/p667-chakaravarthy.pdf>>, VLDB '06, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, 2006, pp. 667-678. |
Watanabe, et al., “A Graph-based Approach to Named Entity Categorization in Wikipedia Using Conditional Random Fields,” retrieved at <<http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/D/D07/D07-1068.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, Jun. 2007, pp. 649-657. |
Cucerzan, Silviu, “Large-Scale Named Entity Disambiguation Based on Wikipedia Data,” retrieved at <<http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/D/D07/D07-1074.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language, 2007, pp. 708-716. |
Dill, et al., “SemTag and Seeker: Bootstrapping the Semantic Web Via Automated Semantic Annotation,” retrieved at <<http://what.csc.villanova.edu/-cassel/901 OSemanticWeb/SemTag%20and%20Seeker%20Bootstrapping%20the%20semantic%20web%20via%20automated%20semantic%20annotation.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2003, 9 pages. |
Gale, et al., “One Sense Per Discourse,” retrieved at <<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=8EA215CDO7B134CA243A22FF6DDA2871?doi=10.1.1.178.2723&rep=rep1 &type=pdf», Proceedings of the Workshop on Speech and Natural Language, 1992, pp. 233-237. |
Gentile, et al., “Graph-based Semantic Relatedness for Named Entity Disambiguation,” retrieved at <<http://staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk/people/J.Iria/iria_s3t09.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Software, Services and Semantic Technologies (S3T), Oct. 2009, 8 pages. |
Gooi, et al., “Cross-Document Coreference on a Large Scale Corpus,” retrieved at <<http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/hlt-naacl2004/main/pdf/177 _Paper.pdf>>, in HLT-NAACL, 2004, 8 pages. |
Han, et al., “Collective Entity Linking in Web Text: A Graph-Based Method,” retrieved at <<http://www.nlpr.ia.ac.cn/2011papers/gjhy/gh133.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Jul. 2011, pp. 765-774. |
Han, et al., “Named Entity Disambiguation by Leveraging Wikipedia Semantic Knowledge,” retrieved at <<http://avss2012.org/cip/ZhaoJunPublications/paper/CIKM2009.NED.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2009, 10 pages. |
Hoffart, et al., “Robust Disambiguation of Named Entities in Text,” retrieved at <<http://aclweb.org/anthol ogy-new/D/D11/D11-1072.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Jul. 2011, pp. 782-792. |
Kulkarni, et al., “Collective Annotation of Wikipedia Entities in Web Text,” retrieved at <<http://www.cc.gatech.edu/-zha/CSE8801 /query-annotation/p457-kulkarni.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data mining, 2009, pp. 457-465. |
Cheng, et al., “Fuzzy Matching of Web Queries to Structured Data,” retrieved at <<htlp://ieeexplore.ieee.org>>, 2010 IEEE 26th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Mar. 2010, pp. 713-716. |
Chen, et al., “A Query Substitution-Search Result Refinement Approach for Long Query Web Searches,” retrieved at <<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5286069>>, Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies, Sep. 15, 2009, pp. 245-251. |
Jain, et al., “Domain-Independent Entity Extraction from Web Search Query Logs,” retrieved at <<http://www.marcopennacchiotti.com/pro/publications/WWW_2011_2.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, Mar. 28, 2011, pp. 63-64. |
Chaudhuri, et al., “Robust and Efficient Fuzzy Match for Online Data Cleaning,” retrieved at <<http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/75996/bm_sigmod03.pdf>>, SIGMOND 2003, 2003, pp. 313-324. |
Minjuan, et al., “Pseudo-Relevance Feedback Driven for XML Query Expansion,” retrieved at <<http://www.aicit.org/jcit/ppl/JCIT0509_15.pdf>>, Journal of Convergence Information Technology, vol. 5, No. 9, Nov. 2010, pp. 146-156. |
Pasca, Marius, “Weakly-Supervised Discovery of Named Entities Using Web Search Queries,” retrieved at <<http://www.acm.org>>, Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Nov. 2007, pp. 683-690. |
Kim, et al., “A comparison of collocation-based similarity measures in query expansion,” Information Processing and Management, No. 35, 1999, pp. 19-30. |
Schenkel, et al., “Efficient Top-k Querying over Social-Tagging Networks,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Jul. 2008, 8 pages. |
Tsoukalas, et al., “PLEDS: A Personalized Entity Detection System Based on Web Log Mining Techniques,” retrieved at <<http://www2.fas.sfu.ca/pub/cs/techreports/2008/CMPT2008-06.pdf>>, WAIM, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Web-Age Information Management, Jul. 2008, pp. 1-23. |
Peters, et al., “Folksonomy and Information Retrieval,” retrieved at <<http://wwwalt.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/infowiss/admin/public_dateien/files/1/1194344432asist_am07.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 70th ASIS&T Annual Meeting, vol. 44, 2007, 33 pages. |
Chirita, et al., “PTAG: Large Scale Automatic Generation of Personalized Annotation TAGs for the Web,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org >>, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, May 2007, pp. 845-854. |
Chaudhuri, et al., “Exploiting Web Search to Generate Synonyms for Entities,” retrieved at <<http://www2009.org/proceedings/pdf/p151.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, Apr. 2009, pp. 151-160. |
Chaudhuri, et al., “Mining Document Collections to Facilitate Accurate Approximate Entity Matching,” retrieved at <<http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/2/vldb09-315.pdf>>, Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 2, No. 1, Aug. 2009, 12 pages. |
Agrawal, et al., “Exploiting web search engines to search structured databases,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, Apr. 2009, pp. 501-510. |
Agrawal, et al., “Scalable Ad-hoc Entity Extraction from Text Collections,” retrieved at <<http://www.acm.org>>, Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment VLDB Endowment, vol. 1, Issue 1, Aug. 2008, pp. 945-957. |
Baroni, et al., “Using cooccurrence statistics and the web to discover synonyms in a technical language,” retrieved at <<http://clic.cimec.unitn.it/marco/publications/lrec2004/syn_lrec_2004.pdf>>, Proceedings of the LREC 2004, 2004, 4 pages. |
Dong, et al., “Reference Reconciliation in Complex Information Spaces,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 2005, pp. 85-96. |
“Distributional hypothesis,” retrieved at <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributional_hypothesis>>, retrieved on Mar. 1, 2011, Wikipedia online encyclopedia excerpt, 2 pages. |
Isard, et al., “Dryad: Distributed Data-Parallel Programs from Sequential Building Blocks,” retrieved at <<http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/63785/eurosys07.pdf>>, EuroSys 2007, 2007, 14 pages. |
Jones, et al., “Generating Query Substitutions,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2006, pp. 387-396. |
Mei, et al., “Query suggestion using hitting time,” retrieved at <<http://ACM.org>>, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Oct. 2008, pp. 469-477. |
Navarro, Gonzalo, “A Guided Tour to Approximate String Matching,” retrieved at <<http://ACM.org>>, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 33, Issue 1, Mar. 2001, pp. 31-88. |
Guo, et al., “Named Entity Recognition in Query,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Jul. 2009, pp. 267-274. |
Pantel, et al., “Web-Scale Distributional Similarity and Entity Set Expansion,” retrieved at <<http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D/D09/D09-1098.pdf>>, Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Aug. 2009, pp. 938-947. |
Sarkas, et al., “Structured Annotations of Web Queries,” retrieved at <<http://acm.org>>, Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Management of Data, Jun. 2010, pp. 771-782. |
Egenhofer, M.J., et al., “Determining Semantic Similarity Among Entity Classes from Difference Ontologies”, IEEE Transactions on Knowldege and Data Engineering, vol. 15, No. 2, Mar. 1, 2003, pp. 442-456. |
Voluntary Amendment Filed Feb. 28, 2015 From People's Republic of China Patent Application No. 201380013249.X, 8 Pages. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” dated Jan. 15, 2015, From U.S. Appl. No. 13/413,179, 42 Pages. |
Han et al., “Mining Frequent Patterns without Candidate Generation” Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international Conference on Management of Data, pp. 1-12, 2000. |
Klapaftis, et al., “Google & WordNet based Word Sense Disambiguation”, Workshop on Learning & Extending Ontologies Bonn Germany, Aug. 2005, 5 pages. |
Kowalski, et al., “Information Storage and Retrieval Systesm”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, 36 pages. |
Ananthanarayanan et al., “Rule Based Synonyms for Entity Extraction from Noisy Text”, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Analytics for Noisy Unstructured Text Data, pp. 31-38, 2008. |
Appelt et al., “Introduction to Information Extraction Technology”, Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Tutorial, 1999. |
Arasu et al., “Transformation-Based Framework for Record Matching” Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 40-49, 2008. |
Arasu et al.,“Learning String Transformations from Examples”, Proceedings of the Publication of Very Large Database Endowment, pp. 2(1):514-525, 2009. |
Chaiken et al., “Scope: Easy and Efficient Parallel Processing of Massive Data Sets”, Proceedings of Very Large Database Endowment, pp. 1(2):1265-1276, 2008. |
Dagan et al., “Contextual Word Similarity and Estimation from Sparse Data”, Computer Speech and Language, 9:123-152, 1993. |
Dean et al., “MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters”, Communications of the ACM—50th Anniversary Edition, vol. 51 Issue 1, pp. 107-113, Jan. 2008. |
Examiner-Initiated Interview Summary dated Nov. 16, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 2 pages. |
Artiles et al., “WePS-3 Evaluation Campaign: Overview of the Web People Search Clustering and Attribute Extraction Tasks”, Proceedings of CLEF 2010, 15 pages. |
Graupmann, Jens, “Concept-Based Search on Semi-structured Data Exploiting Mined Semantic Relations,” EDBT2004 Workshops, LNCS 3268, Eds. W. Lindner et al., Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 34-43, 10 pages. |
Notice on the First Office Action dated Apr. 13, 2016 from China Patent Application No. 201380013249.X, 15 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 5, 2016 from U.S. Appl. No. 14/864,430, 15 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated May 16, 2016 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/531,493, 35 pages. |
Aymerich et al., “Automatic Extraction of Entries for a Machine Translation Dictionary Using Bitexts,” Machine Translation Summit XI, Sep. 10, 2007, 7 pages. |
Bellahsene et al., “Schema Matching and Mapping,” Springer, 2011, 326 pages. |
Haveliwala, Taher H., “Topic-Sensitive PageRank,” WWW 2002, May 7-11, 2002, Honolulu, Hawaii, 10 pages. |
Nie et al., “Unknown Word Detection and Segmentation of Chinese using Statistical and heuristic Knowledge,” Communications of COLIPS, 1995, vol. 5, No. 1-2, 11 pages. |
Rodriguez et al., “Determining Semantic Similarity among Entity Classes from Different Ontologies,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 15, Issue 2, Mar. 1, 2003, pp. 442-456, 15 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 2, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/413,179, 30 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated May 22, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,635, 16 pages. |
Requirement for Restriction/Election dated Sep. 12, 2011 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/478,120, 6 pages. |
Response dated Oct. 12, 2011 to Requirement for Restriction/Election dated Sep. 12, 2011 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/478,120, 4 pages. |
Applicant Initiated Interview dated Oct. 30, 2012 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, 3 pages. |
Applicant Initiated Interview dated Mar. 21, 2014 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, 3 pages. |
Examiner Initiated Interview dated Mar. 24, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, 2 pages. |
Response dated Jul. 21, 2015 to Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 29, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, 11 pages. |
Chaudhuri, et al., “Mining the Web to Facilitate Fast and Accurate Approximate Match”, Proceedings of WWW2009, Apr. 20-24, 2009, pp. 1-10. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, dated Feb. 14, 2012, 14 pages. |
“Response to the Feb. 14, 2012 Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, filed Jun. 11, 2012. |
“Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, dated Aug. 27, 2012. |
“Response to the Aug. 27, 2012 Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, filed Nov. 1, 2012. |
“Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, dated Nov. 19, 2013. |
“Response to the Nov. 19, 2013 Non-Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, filed Feb. 18, 2014. |
“Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, dated Jun. 3, 2014. |
“Response to the Jun. 3, 2014 Final Office Action,” From U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, filed Oct. 2, 2014. |
Voluntary Amendment dated Jul. 1, 2015 from China Patent Application No. 201380044316.4, 10 pages. |
Notice of Allowance and Examiner Initiated Interview Summary dated Nov. 6, 2015 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,964, 17 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130346464 A1 | Dec 2013 | US |