Embodiments of the invention relate generally to computer software application, and more specifically to common data object formats for such applications.
Various business entities, such as companies, store information electronically in furtherance of their business needs. These companies may have extensive databases of information that include customer tables, supplier tables, employee tables, and so on. The structure of the database system (schemas) and the data object format (DOF) of each database may be customized to help meet the business needs of the company. For example, an automotive manufacturer may organize information about its customers in a way that is very different from the way that an online bookstore may organize information about its customers. Even within a single company, that company may use many different application programs that employ very different schemas and DOFs. For example, a customer relationship management application program may use a DOF that is very different from the DOF used by an accounting program. The use of customized DOFs by a company and by applications within the company has the advantage that it allows information to be modeled in a way that is appropriate for the business needs of the company. Unfortunately, because of this diversity in the DOFs, it is not easy for the company to share its information with other companies or for applications to share their information.
The inter-exchange of information between applications of different business entities or even between different applications of the same business entity can be problematic due to the variation in DOFs between applications.
For example, a business entity may use a proprietary billing system. If the business entity decides to integrate a number of related applications from each of several software vendors, a translation mechanism may have to be created and implemented between the underlying billing system and each related application. This is because each application from a different software vendor may have a unique, or substantially different, DOF. Moreover, fill integration of the multiple applications may require creation and implementation of a translation mechanism between each of the related applications as well.
A change in the underlying billing system may necessitate recreating and implementing such translation mechanisms.
Various attempts have been made to define standard data models so that information can be more easily shared between companies and applications. For example, the Open Applications Group has designed a standard data model that can be used by companies and applications when sharing information. A problem with such data models is that they did not provide effective ways to model relationships between various parties, such as a person or a company. In addition, if a company or an application developer wants to customize the standard data model, the customized data model may not be compatible with future upgrades of the standard data model. It would be desirable to have a data model that would more effectively model relationships and facilitate the upgrading of customizations of the data model.
Overview
Embodiments of the invention provide methods and data structures for the effective and efficient synchronization or inter-exchange of invoice information between business applications employing disparate DOFs. For one embodiment, a DOF is provided that allows for relationships between entities, also referred to as invoices, to be modeled as attributes of an entity and for customization of the DOF in a manner that facilitates upgrading of the DOF. For one embodiment, the invoice DOF is provided in a common software language (i.e., software specification). In one embodiment, the common DOF defines an invoice class that includes multiple data types and the relationships between the data types of the invoice class. The relationships may include basic elements of invoice DOFs from various business applications.
For one embodiment, a method is provided for efficient synchronization or inter-exchange of invoice information between business applications using different invoice DOFs. For such an embodiment, invoice information from each of several business applications is translated to a common DOF. The invoice information, in the common DOF, is then inter-exchanged among the several business applications. Each application has only to translate the invoice information from the common DOF to the application-specific DOF of the respective business application.
In the following description, numerous specific details are set forth. However, it is understood that embodiments of the invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known circuits, structures and techniques have not been shown in detail in order not to obscure the understanding of this description.
Reference throughout the specification to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the present invention. Thus, the appearance of the phrases “in one embodiment” or “in an embodiment” in various places throughout the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment. Furthermore, the particular features, structures, or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments.
Moreover, inventive aspects lie in less than all features of a single disclosed embodiment. Thus, the claims following the Detailed Description are hereby expressly incorporated into this Detailed Description, with each claim standing on its own as a separate embodiment of this invention.
Process
For one embodiment, essential elements may be determined so as to achieve a specified level of compatibility with the DOFs of various extant business applications.
At operation 110 a common DOF for the invoice information is created. For one embodiment, the common DOF includes the determined essential elements. For various alternative embodiments, the common DOF may include some or all of the determined essential elements as well as other elements. The common DOF is created in a common format that may be selected based upon the extent to which the format is interoperable with various business applications. For one embodiment, the common DOF is created in extensible markup language (XML) format that allows application designers to create customized tags that enable the transmission, validation, and interpretation of data between applications.
At operation 115 the invoice information from a plurality of business applications having different invoice DOFs is translated into the common DOF. That is, for each application, the invoice information in an application-specific DOF is translated into the common DOF.
At operation 120 the invoice information in the common DOF is exchanged between two or more of the business applications. At this point a business integration server completes the translation of the invoice information in the common DOF to the application-specific DOF for each respective business application as described below.
System
In accordance with one embodiment of the invention, each of the business systems implements a translation mechanism to translate invoice information, in an application-specific DOF, into a common DOF. The invoice information in the common DOF may then be inter-exchanged between the business systems through the universal business application network. A business integration server then translates the invoice information from the common DOF into a particular application-specific DOF for a respective business system as described more fully below in reference to
The architecture of the universal business application network allows new business applications that access legacy business systems to be developed with minimum customization. The legacy business systems can be provided by a single business organization or by different business organizations. The universal business application network also allows the business applications to exchange invoice information using an invoice common DOF. In one embodiment, the universal business application network uses the XML and Web services standards.
As discussed above, the common DOF may include the definition of various invoice-related objects. The objects may be defined using standard object definition tools such as an XML schema definition tool. The transformation store contains transformations for translating information received from the business systems to the common DOF, and vice versa. For example, an invoice object may include a globally unique identifier for each person. A transformation for a business system that does not use globally unique identifiers may need to access an identification server to determine the globally unique identifier for each invoice. The transformations may be specified as a computer program, an XML Stylesheet Language Transform (“XSL T”), etc. The business process store contains the business processes that have been defined. A business process may be specified as a script, a process flow, an executable program, etc. In one embodiment, the business processes are defined using the Web Services Flow Language (“WSFL”). The business processes orchestrate a sequence of steps across multiple applications provided by the business systems to achieve a business objective. The business process controller coordinates the execution of the business processes. The business process controller may instantiate objects and invoke functions of the objects in accordance with the various business processes. The business process controller may also initiate the execution of business processes based on predefined conditions and events. For example, the business process controller may launch a certain business process each time an alert is received. Although not shown, the business integration network may provide a standard library of business routines that may be invoked by the business processes. For example, a standard business routine might be to identify whether two invoice objects represent the same individual or to apply business rules to various objects and take the appropriate action as defined by those rules. The business integration server may also include various tools to facilitate the development of business processes. These tools may aid in the development of transformations, the defining of common objects, and the writing of process flows.
Data Structure
The common DOF may include basic elements of invoice DOFs from various business applications. For example, the common DOF may include a common identification object, invoice base data, pricing data, shipping data, and list of invoice line item details among its base element set. Additionally, for alternative embodiments, the common DOF may include such elements as related business unit, list of related parties, related invoice type, related invoice plan, related inventory location, related price list, related payment terms, list of payment methods, list of payments, and list of comments.
In one embodiment, the common DOF defines a hierarchy of the data elements for describing an invoice. The common DOF may define data elements that are complex. A complex data element is a data element that comprises data sub-elements. For example, a payment method element may be a complex data element that includes card payment, cash payment, and finance account payment data sub-elements.
The id data element may be a unique identifier of a party. The customData data element initially contains no data elements, but custom data elements can be added by defining data elements in the CustomDataType as described below.
Embodiments of the invention provide a common DOF for invoice information that can be used as an intermediate DOF during translation of invoice information from one application-specific DOF to another.
For one embodiment, the common DOF may contain a custom data element at various places within the hierarchy of data elements that allow a customer to put in more attributes. A custom data element is of a custom data element type. The custom data element type initially defines no data elements. The data model can be customized by defining custom data elements for the custom data element type. For example, the data elements relating to the relationship of an invoice may have a custom data element through which data elements relating to the history of previously related invoices can be defined. Because the custom data elements are defined at various places within the hierarchy, the customizations of the data model can be associated with related data elements within the hierarchy.
In one embodiment, each of the types of an invoice specifies a custom data element for that type. For example, the related party data element may be defined as the related party data type. If so, the data type can be customized by adding data elements to the definition of the related party data type. The definition may be stored in a file that is separate from the file in which the data type is defined. A portion of an XML schema that defines the custom data a related party is
where “custom” specifies a file that contains the definition of Related Party Data Type, which may be
At operation 510 the schema for the types of custom data is retrieved and opened. The schema may be stored in an XML schema file that contains the definition for each type of custom data.
At operation 515 the tags relating to the custom data type of interest are located and the custom data elements are added to the tags.
At operation 520, the custom data schema with the newly defined data elements added to the custom data type is closed.
Embodiments of the invention include various operations. Many of the methods are described in their most basic form, but operations can be added to or deleted from any of the methods without departing from the basic scope of the invention.
It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the data structure and operations of embodiments of the invention may be stored upon or embodied in machine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause a general-purpose or special-purpose processor or logic circuits programmed with the instructions to perform specific operations.
Alternatively, the operations of embodiments of the invention may be performed by a combination of hardware and software. Embodiments of the present invention may be provided as a computer program product that may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, which may be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process according to various embodiments of the invention present may be provided as a computer program product that may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, which may be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process according to various embodiments of the invention. Likewise, embodiments of the invention present may be provided as data structures stored upon a machine-readable medium. Such machine-readable medium may include, but are not limited to, floppy diskettes, optical disks, CD-ROMs, and magneto-optical disks, ROMs, RAMS, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnet or optical cards, flash memory, or other type of media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions. Moreover, the invention may also be downloaded as a computer program product, wherein the program may be transferred from a remote computer to a requesting computer by way of data signals embodied in a carrier wave or other propagation medium via a communication cell (e.g., a modem or network connection).
The computers (e.g., universal business application network computer and business systems computer) may include a central processing unit, memory, input devices (e.g., keyboard and pointing devices), output devices (e.g., display devices), and storage devices (e.g., disk drives) The memory and storage devices may be computer-readable media that may contain instructions that implement the security system. In addition, the data structures and message structures may be stored or transmitted via a data transmission medium, such as a signal on a communications link.
From the foregoing, it will be appreciated that although specific embodiment of technology have been described herein for purposes of illustration, various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention. For example, the class definitions that have been described using XML schema can be equivalently described using other class definition tools such as a C class. The classes described can be instantiated in memory and be initialized with information. Therefore, while the invention has been described in terms of several embodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention is not limited to the embodiments described, but can be practiced with modification and alteration within the spirit and scope of the appended claims. The description is thus to be regarded as illustrative instead of limiting.
This application is related to, and hereby claims the benefit of provisional application No. 60/451,984 which was filed Mar. 4, 2003.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4714995 | Materna et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
| 5220500 | Baird et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5311438 | Sellers et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5349643 | Cox et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5416917 | Adair et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5446880 | Balgeman et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5566332 | Adair et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5646862 | Jolliffe et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5699527 | Davidson | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5708828 | Coleman | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5724575 | Hoover et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5727158 | Bouziane et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5742588 | Thornberg et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5758355 | Buchanan | May 1998 | A |
| 5764543 | Kennedy | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5806075 | Jain et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5930156 | Kennedy | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5930764 | Melchione et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5953710 | Fleming | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5970490 | Morgenstern | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5983194 | Hogge et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6032136 | Brake et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6053947 | Parson | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6167380 | Kennedy et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6178418 | Singer | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6182053 | Rauber et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6216130 | Hougaard et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6226649 | Bodamer et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6233566 | Levine et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6236997 | Bodamer et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6275812 | Haq et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6336124 | Alam et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6341289 | Burroughs et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6343275 | Wong | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6377952 | Inohara et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6385620 | Kurzius et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6434567 | De La Huerga | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6463430 | Brady et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6556950 | Schwenke et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6569207 | Sundaresan | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6591260 | Schwarzhoff et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6631382 | Kouchi et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6668253 | Thompson et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6681223 | Sundaresan | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6738975 | Yee et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6754679 | Oheda | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6778651 | Jost et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6792431 | Tamboli et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| 6826542 | Virgin et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6826568 | Bernstein et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
| 6828963 | Rappoport | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6883004 | Bahl et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6889260 | Hughes | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6898783 | Gupta et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6912719 | Elderon et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6944514 | Matheson | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6947947 | Block et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 6961760 | Li et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6996776 | Makely et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7013485 | Brown et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7043687 | Knauss et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7062540 | Reddy et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7065499 | Seth et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7085729 | Kennedy et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7093200 | Schreiber et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7099350 | Peterson | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7111010 | Chen | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7111077 | Starkovich et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
| 7124112 | Guyan et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
| 7133882 | Pringle et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
| 7139766 | Thomson et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7143100 | Carlson et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7162540 | Jasen et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7257594 | Tamboli et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7257820 | Fischer et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7287041 | Barnes-Leon et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7337192 | Stark et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7349861 | Fischer et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
| 7370009 | Notani et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
| 7412404 | Tenorio | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 7680818 | Fan et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 20010011245 | Duhon | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010051907 | Kumar et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020007343 | Oyama et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020019765 | Mann et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020023004 | Hollander et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020035431 | Ell | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020035488 | Aquila et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020040313 | Hunter et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020040339 | Dhar et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020085020 | Carroll, Jr. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020095456 | Wensheng | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020116234 | Nagasawa | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020123983 | Riley et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020133510 | Lau | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138582 | Chandra et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020169863 | Beckwith et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020169867 | Mann et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020174417 | Sijacic et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020178077 | Katz et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184085 | Lindia et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184148 | Kahn et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020188513 | Gil et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020188538 | Robertson et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030014440 | Bussert et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030018502 | Rodriguez | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030023580 | Braud et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030033437 | Fischer et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030071852 | Stimac | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030097642 | Arai et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030110104 | King et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030131018 | Godoy et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030163597 | Hellman et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030163603 | Fry et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030229529 | Mui et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040002982 | Ersek et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040015515 | Beisiegel et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040034661 | Barron et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040039576 | He et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040093351 | Lee et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040122826 | Mackie | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040128188 | Leither et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162773 | Del Rey et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040199536 | Barnes-Leon et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040215503 | Allpress et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040249854 | Barnes-Leon et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050021383 | Fliess et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050021391 | Lu et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091249 | Hanson et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160361 | Young | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050197880 | Walsh et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20060271446 | Barnes-Leon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070033531 | Marsh | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070203710 | Habichler et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208577 | Barnes-Leon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208878 | Barnes-Leon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214020 | Srinivasan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214063 | Kahlon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214064 | Kahlon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214065 | Kahlon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070225949 | Sundararajan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070226037 | Garg et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070226049 | Muralitharan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070226093 | Chan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250408 | Leon et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250419 | Kumar et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2001 256308 | Sep 2001 | JP |
| WO 0143031 | Jun 2001 | WO |
| WO 0388759 | Nov 2001 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| XML/EDI Group. “Guidlines for using XML for Electronic Data Interchange.” Presented at XML One—San Jose Sep./Oct. 2001. Downloaded from http://web.archive.org/web/20040413182700/http://www.xmledi-group.org/. |
| NPL—XML—Schema—CE, XML 1.0 Standard, 2003. Downloaded on Aug. 31, 2009 from http://www.w3schools.com/Schema/schema—intro.asp?output=print, 2 pages, http://www.w3schools.com/Schema/schema—complex.asp?output=print, 3 pages, and http://www.w3schools.com/Schema/schema—complex—empty.asp?output=print, 2 pages. |
| “Cross Access Introduces SERIESfour; Offers Native, Fast, Scalable Legacy Data Connectivity for Data Marts, ERP Applications,” PR Newswire; New York; Jan. 18, 1999; pp. 1-3. Downloaded from http://proquest.umit.com. |
| Hardwick, Martin, David L. Spooner, Rom Rando, and K.C. Morris, “Sharing Manufacturing Information in Virtual Entetprises;” Communication of the ACM; vol. 39, No. 2; Feb. 1996; pp. 46-54. Downloaded from http://delivery.acm.org. |
| Kappelhoff, Ralph, “Integration of ERP to the Final Control Elements;” ISA Transactions; 1998; vol. 36, No. 4; pp. 229-238. Downloaded from http://www.sciencedirect.com. |
| Nori, Anil K. et al., “Bringing Objects to the Mainstream,” Compcon Proceedings, IEEE San Jose, California, Feb. 23-26, 1997, pp. 136-142. |
| PTC: Siebel Systems and PTC create strategic alliance to leverage entriched ifnormation across product development, sales and service; Combination of Siebel eBusiness Applications and PTC Collaborative Product Development solutions to deliver competitive advantage, M2 Presswire, Conventry: Jan. 24, 2002, 3 pages (retrieved from ProQuest.com). |
| Wilson, J.R., “Aerospace Looks for Lift from e-commerce,” Intervia, Geneva, Jul./Aug. 2001; vol. 56, Issue 655, 6 pages (retrieved from ProQuest.com). |
| “Extract simplifies file conversion” Software Markets, Dec. 2, 1991. Retrieved via Dialog on Aug. 16, 2010. |
| “Fortis Investments Implements Unified Employee Management System Across 12 Countries” (Business Wire, Jul. 2004). |
| Cover Pages “Siebel's Universal Application Network” Apr. 8, 2002 downloaded from xml.coverpages.org May 6, 2010. |
| Cover Pages “Siebel Announces Success with Universal Application Network (UAN)” Apr. 21, 2004 downloaded from xml.coverpages.org May 6, 2010. |
| Michael Kay, Editor “XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 2.0 W3C Working Draft 2 May 2003” downloaded from http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xslt20-20030502/ May 6, 2010. |
| Eric Gropp “Transforming XML Schemas” Jan. 15, 2003, downloaded from xml.com May 6, 2010. |
| Sonic Software Corporation, Power Schemas With Stylus Studio™ Jan. 2004. |
| Walter J. Savitch, Java an Introduction to Computer Science & Programming, 2000, p. 478. |
| Routledge et al., UML and XML Schema, 2002, pp. 1-10. |
| Walter J. Savitch, Java an Introduction to Computer Science & Programming, 2000, pp. 458-467. |
| Walter J. Savitch, Java an Introduction to Computer Science & Programming, 2000, p. 1. |
| NPL—XML—Schema—CE.pdf, A tutorial published by the SML governing body of w3.org regarding the use of SML Schemas and Complex Data Elements. Downloaded on Jun. 10, 2009 from http://www.w3schools.com/Schema/schema—intro.asp? and http://www.w3schools.com/Schema/schema—complex.asp? and http://www.w3.schools.com/Schema/schema—complex—empty.asp?;7 pages. |
| Ohlhorst, Frank J., “ScanSoft's OmniForm Fills Bill for Forms-Driven Customers,” CRN; Jericho: Feb. 17, 2003, Issue 1033; p. 51 (I page). |
| Seminerio, Maria, “Job Agencies Will Hire HR-XML—Protocol Promises a Lingua Franca for Resumes;” eWeek; Jan. 1, 2001; vol. 18, Issue I; p. 45. |
| Anonymous; CambridgeDocs Releases xDoc SML Converter; Information Today; Mar. 1, 2001; vol. 20, Issue 3; p. 49. |
| Anonymous; “HR-XML Consortium Sponsors Panel Discussion/Demonstrates Draft Protocol at IHRIM Conference and Expo;” Business Wire; Jun. 28, 2000; 4 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20070265944 A1 | Nov 2007 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60451984 | Mar 2003 | US |