Patent Grant
8930348
The present invention relates to processing XML data, and in particular, processing XML related operations on shared XML data.
The approaches described in this section are approaches that could be pursued, but not necessarily approaches that have been previously conceived or pursued. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated, it should not be assumed that any of the approaches described in this section qualify as prior art merely by virtue of their inclusion in this section.
The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a widely accepted standard for data and documents in the computer industry. XML describes and provides structure to a body of data, such as a file or data packet. The XML standard provides for tags that delimit sections of a XML entity referred to as XML elements. The following XML document A illustrates the components of an XML document.
XML elements are delimited by a start tag and a corresponding end tag. For example, segment A contains the start tag <b> and the end tag </b> to delimit an element. The data between the elements is referred to as the element's content. The name of the element delimited by <b> and the end tag </b> is b and is thus referred to herein as element b or just b.
An element's content may include the elements value, one or more attributes, and one or more elements. Element a contains two elements b and d. An element that is contained by another element is referred to as a descendant of that element. Thus, elements b and d are descendants of element a. An element's attributes are also referred to as being contained by the element.
Database servers that store XML documents perform various XML related operations on the XML documents using XML query languages, such as XQuery/XPath. XML Query Language (“XQuery”) and XML Path Language (“XPath”) are important standards for a query language, which can be used in conjunction with SQL to express a large variety of useful queries. XPath is described in XML Path Language (XPath), version 1.0(W3C Recommendation 16 Nov. 1999), which is incorporated herein by reference.
One benefit of storing XML documents in a database system is that XML allows multiple applications to perform operations using the same XML documents. This requires that the XML data be general enough to be understood by all applications that share XML documents. However, in many cases, there is a need to include application specific information in the XML document. Application specific information is data contained within the XML document that is only used, needed, and/or recognized by less than all applications for which the XML document is being maintained or made accessible.
Including application specific information in a shared XML document poses a significant problem because multiple applications are using the same XML document and not all of the applications can identify, handle, and recognize the application specific information. For purposes of explanation consider the following XML document:
Consider two applications that share the XML document Article1.xml. Application 1 is responsible for displaying the article content and Application 2 is a tool for searching the article content. Application 1 inserted the following formatting information into Article1.xml: <fmt:justified>, <fmt:italic>, and <fmt:bold>. The formatting information is useless to Application 2, which performs search queries on the Article content. When Application 2 requests to return all article titles for articles written by Jonathan, Application 2 may use in an XPath query a path expression like ‘/Articles/Title and/Articles/Author’. The formatting information inserted by Application 1 poses two significant problems for path expression evaluation.
The first problem is that the path expression leading to the Title and Author elements changes with the addition or deletion of formatting information. The second problem occurs when formatting information is introduced into the leaf nodes of the XML document. If formatting information is added into the leaf nodes, they no longer remain leaf nodes and hence, text-search on the value of that node changes. For, example in the above document, a search for articles where author name matches “John Jonathan Doe” will not return the above document due to the formatting information contained in the Author node.
In addition, the problems described above involving path expression also hinders the ability and benefit of creating an index on XML documents that contain application specific information.
Based on the foregoing, there is a clear need to develop approaches for isolating nodes within a shared collection of XML documents and perform path operations with the XML data as if those nodes are not present.
The present invention is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation, in the figures of the accompanying drawings and in which like reference numerals refer to similar elements and in which:
In the following description, for the purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of various embodiments of the invention. It will be apparent, however, that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form in order to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the present invention.
A mechanism is provided for detecting and disregarding specified nodes contained in shared XML documents. The mechanism may be used regardless of the format and data structures used to store the actual XML data (the “base structures”). For example, the actual XML data can reside in structures within or outside of a database, in any form, such as CLOB (character LOB storing the actual XML text), O-R (object-relational structured formed according to a schema, such as an XML schema), or BLOB (binary LOB storing some binary form of the XML).
The techniques described herein involve a mechanism for specifying and determining one or more nodes within XML documents to ignore and performing operations on the XML documents as if the nodes are not present. In one embodiment, a mechanism is provided by which a user may specify the criterion that determine which subset of nodes in XML documents are to be ignored from path expression evaluations.
XML documents are represented as a hierarchy of nodes that reflects the XML documents hierarchical nature. The structure of an XML document establishes parent-child relationships between the nodes within the XML document. A hierarchy of nodes is composed of nodes at multiple levels. Each node at a level below the top level is a child node of one or more of the parent nodes at the level above. Nodes at the same level are siblings. A node that has no parent node linked to it is the root node, and a node that has no child nodes linked to it is a leaf node. The “path” for a node in an XML document reflects the series of parent-child links, starting from a “root” node, to arrive at the particular node.
For the purpose of explanation, consider the following XML document:
The path to the “User” node in po1.xml is /PurchaseOrder/Actions/Action/User, since the “User” node is a child of the “Action” node, the “Action” node is a child of the “Actions” node, and the “Actions” node is a child of the “PurchaseOrder” node. PurchaseOrder is the root node.
For the purpose of explanation, examples shall be given hereafter with reference to the following XML document:
According to one embodiment, a mechanism is provided by which a user may specify criteria that specifies nodes of XML documents that are to be ignored during query evaluation. Specifically, a user may register criteria in the form of XML tags that identify nodes of an XML document that are to be excluded from query evaluation.
In one embodiment of the invention, the techniques described herein are used to specify and determine nodes within an XML document that correspond to Application specific information. By isolating the nodes corresponding to the application specific information, applications that do not use or recognize the application specific information can ignore and handle the XML documents as if those nodes are not present.
According to one embodiment, an initial registration of the nodes to ignore can be specified at the time a query is submitted. Alternatively, the nodes to ignore can be specified beforehand for an entire application. The user specifies the excluded nodes by identifying which tags of the XML document are “futile” to a particular query (hereinafter referred to as futile-tags). The one or more futile-tags are used to exclude fragments of XML documents that are known to be useless from a query standpoint.
For example, in Article1.xml the tag </fmt:italic> provides document formatting information. The formatting tag may only be useful to an application that displays the document content. For an application that runs a search on Article1.xml to return all article titles for articles written by Jonathan the formatting tags are useless and hinder the evaluation of the XPath query /Articles/Title and/Articles/Author.
By ignoring specified nodes from XML documents, multiple applications can use the same XML document and perform XPath expression evaluation even when the XML document contains portions of information only applicable to another application. Accordingly, in the above example, both the formatting application and the searching application can use the same XML document Article1.xml without the problems imposed by the formatting information.
According to one embodiment, futile-tags are specified based on a namespace. For example, in Article1.xml the tag </fmt:justified> has a namespace “fmt” indicating it is a formatting namespace. The user may specify that all tags in that namespace are considered futile and should be ignored when performing a query.
For example, in the XML document Article1.xml, assume that Application 1 has inserted the various formatting tags <fmt:justified>, <fmt:italic>, and <fmt:bold> throughout the XML document. If the formatting tags are useless to Application 2 the user can indicate that for Application 2 that “fmt” tag namespace tags are futile-tag for query evaluation.
In addition to using namespaces to indicate futile-tags, a user may also specify specific tags corresponding to nodes of the XML document that are to be excluded from query evaluation.
In yet another embodiment, query evaluation supports the building of indexes on XML data. When indexes are built and used for query evaluation, a registration of the nodes to ignore is specified at the time of index creation. The indexes will be built excluding the nodes to ignore as indicated by the futile-tags; no nodes corresponding to a futile-tag are added to the indexes
In one embodiment, an application query that has one or more futile-tags indicated performs the query evaluation as if those tags were never present in the XML documents. Specifically, a query engine will ignore the nodes within the XML document indicated by the futile-tags when evaluating the query.
In one embodiment, the query engine constructs an in-memory representation of the XML document before processing the query. When the in-memory representation is constructed, the XML document is parsed and each node indicated by a futile tag is excluded from the in-memory representation of the XML document. Upon completion of the in-memory representation, the query is evaluated based on the in-memory representation, thereby evaluating the query as if the excluded nodes were never in the original XML document.
In another embodiment of the invention, the query engine performs streaming-XPath query evaluation. Streaming XPath evaluation performs the query evaluation based directly on the original XML document. No index or in-memory representation of the XML document is used in streaming XPath evaluation. When streaming XPath evaluation is used, the query engine itself will determine and exclude nodes based on the specified futile-tags during the XPath evaluation.
In yet another embodiment of the invention, the query engine employs indexes on XML documents to perform the query evaluation. When the query engine uses an index, it is preferable that the futile tags are specified at the time of index creation. Providing the futile tags at the time of index creation allows any futile tags within current and future XML documents to be ignored at the time they are inserted into the index. When the query engine evaluates the query using the indexes the excluded nodes, will not appear in the indexes and thus, the query is executed as if the excluded nodes where never in the original XML document.
In
Creating an XML index and using the XML index to answer XPath queries is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/884,311, entitled XML INDEX FOR ACCESSING XML DATA, filed on Jul. 2, 2004 which is incorporated herein by reference.
Computer system 300 may be coupled via bus 302 to a display 312, such as a cathode ray tube (CRT), for displaying information to a computer user. An input device 314, including alphanumeric and other keys, is coupled to bus 302 for communicating information and command selections to processor 304. Another type of user input device is cursor control 316, such as a mouse, a trackball, or cursor direction keys for communicating direction information and command selections to processor 304 and for controlling cursor movement on display 312. This input device typically has two degrees of freedom in two axes, a first axis (e.g., x) and a second axis (e.g., y), that allows the device to specify positions in a plane.
The invention is related to the use of computer system 300 for implementing the techniques described herein. According to one embodiment of the invention, those techniques are performed by computer system 300 in response to processor 304 executing one or more sequences of one or more instructions contained in main memory 306. Such instructions may be read into main memory 306 from another computer-readable medium, such as storage device 310. Execution of the sequences of instructions contained in main memory 306 causes processor 304 to perform the process steps described herein. In alternative embodiments, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement the invention. Thus, embodiments of the invention are not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and software.
The term “computer-readable medium” as used herein refers to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 304 for execution. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, and transmission media. Non-volatile media includes, for example, optical or magnetic disks, such as storage device 310. Volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as main memory 306. Transmission media includes coaxial cables, copper wire, and fiber optics, including the wires that comprise bus 302. Transmission media can also take the form of acoustic or light waves, such as those generated during radio-wave and infra-red data communications.
Common forms of computer-readable media include, for example, a floppy disk, a flexible disk, hard disk, magnetic tape, or any other magnetic medium, a CD-ROM, any other optical medium, punchcards, papertape, any other physical medium with patterns of holes, a RAM, a PROM, and EPROM, a FLASH-EPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge, a carrier wave as described hereinafter, or any other medium from which a computer can read.
Various forms of computer readable media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to processor 304 for execution. For example, the instructions may initially be carried on a magnetic disk of a remote computer. The remote computer can load the instructions into its dynamic memory and send the instructions over a telephone line using a modem. A modem local to computer system 300 can receive the data on the telephone line and use an infra-red transmitter to convert the data to an infra-red signal. An infra-red detector can receive the data carried in the infra-red signal and appropriate circuitry can place the data on bus 302. Bus 302 carries the data to main memory 306, from which processor 304 retrieves and executes the instructions. The instructions received by main memory 306 may optionally be stored on storage device 310 either before or after execution by processor 304.
Computer system 300 also includes a communication interface 318 coupled to bus 302. Communication interface 318 provides a two-way data communication coupling to a network link 320 that is connected to a local network 322. For example, communication interface 318 may be an integrated services digital network (ISDN) card or a modem to provide a data communication connection to a corresponding type of telephone line. As another example, communication interface 318 may be a local area network (LAN) card to provide a data communication connection to a compatible LAN. Wireless links may also be implemented. In any such implementation, communication interface 318 sends and receives electrical, electromagnetic or optical signals that carry digital data streams representing various types of information.
Network link 320 typically provides data communication through one or more networks to other data devices. For example, network link 320 may provide a connection through local network 322 to a host computer 324 or to data equipment operated by an Internet Service Provider (ISP) 326. ISP 326 in turn provides data communication services through the world wide packet data communication network now commonly referred to as the“Internet” 328. Local network 322 and Internet 328 both use electrical, electromagnetic, or optical signals that carry digital data streams. The signals through the various networks and the signals on network link 320 and through communication interface 318, which carry the digital data to and from computer system 300, are exemplary forms of carrier waves transporting the information.
Computer system 300 can send messages and receive data, including program code, through the network(s), network link 320, and communication interface 318. In the Internet example, a server 330 might transmit a requested code for an application program through Internet 328, ISP 326, local network 322, and communication interface 318.
The received code may be executed by processor 304 as it is received, and/or stored in storage device 310, or other non-volatile storage for later execution. In this manner, computer system 300 may obtain application code in the form of a carrier wave.
In the foregoing specification, embodiments of the invention have been described with reference to numerous specific details that may vary from implementation to implementation. Thus, the sole and exclusive indicator of what is the invention, and is intended by the applicants to be the invention, is the set of claims that issue from this application, in the specific form in which such claims issue, including any subsequent correction. Any definitions expressly set forth herein for terms contained in such claims shall govern the meaning of such terms as used in the claims. Hence, no limitation, element, property, feature, advantage, or attribute that is not expressly recited in a claim should limit the scope of such claim in any way. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.
This application claims benefit and priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 as a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/442,106, filed May 25, 2006, which is related to U.S. Pat. No. 7,885,980, filed on Apr. 10, 2006, the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. The applicant(s) hereby rescind any disclaimer of claim scope in the parent application(s) or the prosecution history thereof and advise the USPTO that the claims in this application may be broader than any claim in the parent application(s).
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5210686 | Jernigan | May 1993 | A |
| 5295261 | Simonetti | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5369763 | Biles | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5404513 | Powers et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5410691 | Taylor | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5454101 | Mackay et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5467471 | Bader | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5524240 | Barbara et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5530849 | Hanushevsky et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5544360 | Lewak et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5546571 | Shan et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5568640 | Nishiyama et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5643633 | Telford et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5680614 | Bakuya et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5701467 | Freeston | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5724577 | Exley et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5734887 | Kingberg et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5838965 | Kavanagh et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5842212 | Ballurio et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5870590 | Kita et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5878415 | Olds | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5917492 | Bereiter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5921582 | Gusack | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5964407 | Sandkleiva | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5974407 | Sacks | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5987506 | Carter et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6003040 | Mital et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6038563 | Bapat et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6055544 | DeRose et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6061684 | Glasser et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6101500 | Lau | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6111578 | Tesler | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6112209 | Gusack | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6128610 | Srinivasan et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6141655 | Johnson et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6154741 | Feldman | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6182121 | Wlaschin | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6189012 | Mital et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6192273 | Igel et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6192373 | Haegele | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6199195 | Goodwin et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6208993 | Shadmon | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6236988 | Aldred | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6263332 | Nasr et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6269380 | Terry et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6279006 | Shigemi et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6279007 | Uppala | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6298349 | Toyoshima et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6330573 | Salisbury et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6343287 | Kumar et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6356920 | Vandersluis | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6366934 | Cheng et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6370537 | Gilbert et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6427123 | Sedlar | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6470344 | Kothuri et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6487546 | Witkowski | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6496842 | Lyness | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6519597 | Cheng et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6539398 | Hannan et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6549916 | Sedlar | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6571231 | Sedlar | May 2003 | B2 |
| 6604100 | Fernandez et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6609121 | Ambrosini et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6636845 | Chau et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
| 6643633 | Chau et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6662342 | Marcy | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6684227 | Duxbury | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6697805 | Choquier et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6704739 | Craft et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
| 6704747 | Fong | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6708186 | Claborn et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6718322 | Brye | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6725212 | Couch et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6754661 | Hallin et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6772350 | Belani et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6785673 | Fernandez et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6801224 | Lewallen | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6826553 | DaCosta et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6826727 | Mohr et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6836778 | Manikutty et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6836857 | Ten-Hove et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6920457 | Pressmar | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 6964025 | Angiulo et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6996571 | McConnell | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7031956 | Lee et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7043488 | Baer et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7096224 | Murthy et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7139746 | Shin et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7162485 | Gottlob et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7171404 | Lindblad et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7171407 | Barton et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7216127 | Auerbach | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7287023 | Fan et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7315852 | Balmin et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7366735 | Chandrasekar et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7370061 | Chakraborty et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7499915 | Chandrasekar et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7685145 | Bruno et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 20010049675 | Mandler et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020056025 | Qiu et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020078068 | Krishnaprasad et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020116371 | Dodds et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020133484 | Chau et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020143512 | Shamoto et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020152267 | Lennon | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020156811 | Krupa | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184188 | Mandyam et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184401 | Kadel et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020188613 | Chakraborty et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030004937 | Salmenkaita et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030009361 | Hancock et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030065659 | Agarwal et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030078906 | Ten-Hove et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030093672 | Cichowlas | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030101194 | Rys et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030131051 | Lection et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030140311 | Lemon et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030172135 | Bobick et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030177341 | Devillers | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030182624 | Large | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030212662 | Shin et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030212664 | Breining et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040010752 | Chan et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040043758 | Sorvari et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040044659 | Judd et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040064466 | Manikutty et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040068494 | Tozawa et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040088320 | Perry | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040103105 | Lindblad et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040148278 | Milo et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040149278 | Lin | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040167864 | Wang et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040176958 | Salmenkaita et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040205551 | Santos | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040220912 | Manikutty et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040225680 | Cameron et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040230667 | Wookey | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040267760 | Brundage et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050038688 | Collins et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050050016 | Stanoi et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050050058 | Jain et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050050092 | Jain et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091188 | Pal et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050097084 | Balmin et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050108630 | Wasson et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050120031 | Ishii | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050187897 | Pawar et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050228792 | Chandrasekaran et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050228818 | Murthy et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050229158 | Thusoo et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050257201 | Rose et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050289125 | Liu et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060080345 | Murthy et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060129584 | Hoang et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20070239681 | Krishnaprasad et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250527 | Murthy et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1241589 | Sep 2002 | EP |
| WO0049533 | Aug 2000 | WO |
| WO0142881 | Jun 2001 | WO |
| WO0159602 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO0161566 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO03027908 | Jul 2003 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| European Patent Office, “Communication pursuant to Article 94 (3) EPC”, European Patent Application No. 05732473.3-1225, dated Feb. 4, 2008, 4 pages. |
| Draper, Denise, “Mapping Between XML and Relational Data”, dated Feb. 6, 2004, retrieved from the internet on Aug. 17, 2004, Http://www.awprofessional.com/articles/printerfriendly.asp?p-169590. |
| Diao, Y. et al., Path Sharing and Predicate Evaluation for High Performance XML Filtering, ACM Transactions on Database Systems dated 2003, pp. 467-516. |
| Diao, Y. et al., “Yfilter: Efficient and Scalable Filtering of XML Documents”, IEEE dated 2002, 2 pages. |
| Daniel C. Zilio et al., “DB2 Advisory: An Optimizer Smart Enough to Recommend Its Own Indexes”, dated 2000, IEEE, pp. 101-110. |
| Cormen et al., “Introduction to Algotithms”, MIT Press, dated 2001, 2nd Edition, 4 pages. |
| Cooper, Brian F. et al., “A Fast Index for Semistructured Data”, Proc of the International Conference on Very Large Databases, dated 2001, pp. 341-350. |
| Claims in European patent application No. 2005800186273.9, dated Oct. 2007, 3 pages. |
| “Communication Pursuant to Article 96(2) EPC”, EP Application No. 02799692.5, dated Jan. 18, 2006, 5 pages. |
| Cheng, Josephine et al., IBM DB2 XML Extender, IEEE, ICDE, '00 Conference, San Diego, dated Feb. 2000, 128 pages. |
| Kudrass, Thomas, “Management of XML Documents Without Schema in Relational Database Systems”, Information and Software Technology, vol. 44, No. 4, dated Mar. 31, 2002, pp. 269-275. |
| Chakraborty, Krishnendu, “The XML Garbage Collector”, The Source for Developers, Sun Developer Network Site XP-002297849, dated Mar. 2002. |
| Chae, Mi-OK et al., “Design and Implementation of an Object-Oriented Multimedia DBMS Tightly Couple with Information Retrieval Functions”, Dated Feb. 15-18, 1999, abstract. |
| Braga, Daniele et al., “A Graphical Environment to Query XML Data with Query”, Proc. Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE '03), dated 2003, IEEE, 10 pages. |
| Bourret R., et al. “A Generic Load/Extract Utility for Data Transfer Between XML Documents and Relational Databases, ”Proc. Second International Workshop, IEEE, dated Jun. 8-9, 2000, pp. 134-143. |
| “Written Opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority” International Preliminary Examining Authority, Application No. PCT/US2005/020795, dated May 31, 2006, 5 pages. |
| Notification of Transmittial of the International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority, application No. PCT/US2005/011762. |
| “Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority”, Application No. PCT/US2005/011763, dated Aug. 1, 2005, 12 pages. |
| Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Reoprt and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, Application No. PCT/US2005/020802. |
| Notification of Transmittal of the International Search and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, Application No. PCT/US2005/020795, dated Sep. 27, 2005, 13 pages. |
| “Notification of Transmittal of the International Preliminary Report of Patentability”, International Preliminary Examining Authority, Application No. PCT/US2005/020795, dated Aug. 7, 2006, 10 pages. |
| Claims in European patent application No. 05732473.3-1225, dated Feb. 2008 3 pages. |
| Myllymaki, Jussi, “Effective Web Data Extraction with Standard XML Technologies”, WWW10, dated May 1-5, 2001, pp. 689-696. |
| Zhang, Wansong et al., “An Encoding Scheme for Indexing XML Data”, E-Commerce and E-Service, dated 2004, pp. 526-529. |
| Yoshikawa, Masatoshi et al., “Xrel: A Path-Based Approach to Storage and Retrieval of XML Documents Using Relational Databases”, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, dated 2001, pp. 110-141. |
| W3C, XML Path Language (Xpath Version 1.0, W3C Recommendation, dated Nov. 16, 1999, Copyright 1999, retreived on Aug. 16, 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath. |
| W3C, “XML Fragment Interchange”, W3C Working Draft, dated Jun. 30, 1999, 17 pages. |
| W3C, “XML Fragment Interchange”, W3C Candidate Recommendation, dated Feb. 12, 2001, 16 pages. |
| Vorthman, S. et al., “Beyond Schemas, Schema Adjuncts and the Outside World”, Markup Languages, Online, vol. 2, No. 3, Jun. 2000, pp. 1-8. |
| Vion-Dury, Jean-Yves, “Xpath on left and right sides of rules: toward compact XML tree rewriting through node patterns”, dated 2003, ACM Press 19-25. |
| State Intellectual Property Office of P.R.C, Notification of the First Office Action, European patent application No. 200580018623.9, dated Oct. 12, 2007, 9 pages. |
| Shankar Pal et al., “Indexing XML Data Stored in a Relational Datbase” Proceedings of the 30th VLDB Conference dated 2004, 12 pages. |
| Schmidt et al., “Why and How to Benchmark XML Databases”, SIGMOND Record, vol. 3, No. 3, dated Sep. 2001, pp. 27-32. |
| Helmer, S. et al., “Optimized Translations of Xpath into Algebraic Expressions Parameterized by Programs Containing Navigational Primitives”, IEEE, dated 2002, 10 pages. |
| Noser, Hansrudi et al., “Dynamic 3D Visualization of Database Defined Tree Structures On The WWW By Using Rewriting Systems”, dated 2000, IEEE, pp. 247-254. |
| Jonah, Kevin, Databases Tag Along with XML (online), dated Jul. 1, 2002, retrieved on Aug. 17, 2004, http://www.gen.com/21—17/guide/19148-1.html 3 pages. |
| Michell, Nancy, “Data Shredding, Updating the Status Bar, and More”, retrieved online Aug. 17, 2004, Http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/03/03/WebQA/6 pages. |
| McHugh, Jason et al., “Query Optimization for XML”, Proc. Of the 25th VLDB Conference dated 1999, pp. 315-326. |
| McHugh, Jason et al., “Indexing Semistructured Data”, Stanford Science Department, 1998, pp. 1-21. |
| Manolescu, Dragos, Review of Metadata solutions: using metamodels, repositories, XML and enterprise portals to generate information on demand by Adrienne Tannenbaum, dated Mar. 2003, AMC, p. 38. |
| MacKenzie, David et al., “Findings Files”, GNU Findutils Version 4.1.2, Nov. 1994, 38 pages. |
| MacKenzie et al., “Findings Files”, FindUtils, Version 4.1.2, Source Code, GNU.org, dated Nov. 1997, source files, code. C, 22 pages. |
| M. Stonebraker, “The Case for Partial Indexes”, dated 1989, 8 pages. |
| Lo et al., “XAS: A System for Accessing Componentized, Virtual XML Documents”, IEEE, dated 2001 493-502. |
| Lehman, Mike, “From XML to Storage and Back” retrieved on Aug. 17, 2004 from online, http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/03-mar/o23xml.html, 8 pages. |
| Zisman et al., “Using XML to Build Consistency Rules for Distributed Specifications”, Proc. Of the Tenth International Workshop, IWSD '00, IEEE, dated 2000, 8 pages. |
| Peng, Feng et al., “Xpath queries on streaming data”, dated 2003, ACM Press, pp. 431-442. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20130318109 A1 | Nov 2013 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 11442106 | May 2006 | US |
| Child | 13953582 | US |
