Patent Grant
10901702
This description relates to managing interfaces for sub-graphs in a dataflow graph.
Many software applications exist for processing data. Some of these software applications are specified as dataflow graphs. Dataflow graphs typically include a number of data processing components, which are interconnected by links, sometimes referred to as “flows.”
When a dataflow graph is being executed, data (e.g., a dataset) is received from a database or from some other data storage or data queueing system. The received data advances through the dataflow graph by propagating through the flows and into the components according to dependencies defined by the interconnection of the components and flows. Each component processes data that it receives according to a predetermined function associated with the component before providing the processed data as output data via a flow. At the output of the dataflow graph the processed data is, for example, stored in another data storage or data queueing system, provided to another downstream system, or presented to a user.
A developer of a dataflow graph generally specifies the graph by dragging blocks representing components onto a graphical working area (or “canvas”) provided by a graphical user interface and interconnecting the components with links representing data flows such that the dataflow graph implements a desired functionality. Once the developer is satisfied with his or her implementation of the dataflow graph, he or she can save the dataflow graph to storage for later use. In general, if the developer needs to alter the their implementation of the dataflow graph at a later time, he or she can cause the graphical user interface to read the saved dataflow graph from storage, make changes to the dataflow graph, and then re-save the modified dataflow graph to storage.
In some examples, one or more segments of a dataflow graph are themselves implemented using dataflow graphs, which are referred to as “sub-graphs.” In those examples, a sub-graph is part of the dataflow graph. Thus, to alter a sub-graph that is used within a given dataflow graph, the developer requests the system to read the dataflow graph from disk, thereby enabling the developer to open the dataflow graph in the graphical user interface. Then the developer would, within the same graphical user interface, open the sub-graph segment so that the sub-graph can be edited. The developer can make changes to the sub-graph, and then the developer causes the dataflow graph with the modified sub-graph to be together re-saved to storage, thereby embedding the changes to the sub-graph in the saved dataflow graph.
In one aspect, in general, a method for combining specifications of dataflow graphs includes receiving over an input device or port a plurality of dataflow graph specifications, including: a first dataflow graph specification (for a “sub-graph”) that specifies two or more components connected by links representing flows of data between components, including a first component and a second component, with at least one component representing a computation applied to data flowing into a port of the component, and at least one component representing a computation providing data flowing out of a port of the component, and a second dataflow graph specification (for a “container graph”) that specifies at least a third component, and at least one sub-graph interface, where the sub-graph interface includes at least one flow junction representing a connection between: (1) a flow of data outside the sub-graph interface to or from a port of the third component, and (2) a flow of data inside the sub-graph interface to or from a port of a component of the first dataflow graph specification. The method includes processing, using at least one processor, information including the first dataflow graph specification and the second dataflow graph specification, to generate a combined dataflow graph specification, the processing including: identifying an association between the sub-graph interface and the first dataflow graph specification, for at least a first flow junction on the sub-graph interface, determining a direction associated with transferring a value of a descriptor of a data or computational characteristic, and transferring a value of a descriptor of a data or computational characteristic from the first flow junction to a component specified by the first dataflow graph specification or a component specified by the second dataflow graph specification, according to the determined direction.
Aspects can include one or more of the following features.
The first dataflow graph specification includes at least one indicator that indicates that a descriptor associated with the first component is identical to a descriptor associated with the second component.
The determined direction corresponds to an inward transfer of a value of a first descriptor of a data or computational characteristic from the first flow junction on the sub-graph interface to the second component.
The first descriptor is provided to the first flow junction from the third component.
The first descriptor is provided to the first component from the second component.
The second dataflow graph specification includes at least one indicator that indicates that a descriptor associated with the third component is identical to a descriptor associated with the sub-graph interface.
The second dataflow graph specification includes at least one indicator that indicates that a descriptor associated with a fourth component is identical to a descriptor associated with the third component.
The determined direction corresponds to an outward transfer of a value of a first descriptor of a data or computational characteristic from the first flow junction on the sub-graph interface to the third component.
The first descriptor is provided to the first flow junction from the first component.
The first descriptor is provided to the fourth component from the third component.
The descriptor describes a data characteristic of data transferred between a port of the first component and a port of the second component.
The data characteristic includes a format of fields of records within the transferred data.
The descriptor describes a computational characteristic of a component of at least one of the first dataflow graph specification or the second dataflow graph specification.
The computational characteristic includes a degree of parallelism of execution of a computation represented by the component.
The first dataflow graph is encrypted.
The second dataflow graph is encrypted.
The two or more components of the first dataflow graph are distributed among a first plurality of sequentially executing phases in the first dataflow graph.
The second dataflow graph includes a plurality of components, the plurality of components and the sub-graph interface distributed among a second plurality of sequentially executing phases in the second dataflow graph.
Preparing the dataflow graph for execution includes determining a number of phases for inclusion in the dataflow graph based on the first plurality of sequentially executing phases and the second plurality of sequentially executing phases.
In another aspect, in general, software is stored in a non-transitory form on a computer-readable medium, for combining specifications of dataflow graphs, the software including instructions for causing a computing system to receive over an input device or port a plurality of dataflow graph specifications, including: a first dataflow graph specification that specifies two or more components connected by links representing flows of data between components, including a first component and a second component, with at least one component representing a computation applied to data flowing into a port of the component, and at least one component representing a computation providing data flowing out of a port of the component, and a second dataflow graph specification that specifies at least a third component, and at least one sub-graph interface, where the sub-graph interface includes at least one flow junction representing a connection between: (1) a flow of data outside the sub-graph interface to or from a port of the third component, and (2) a flow of data inside the sub-graph interface to or from a port of a component of the first dataflow graph specification; and process, using at least one processor, information including the first dataflow graph specification and the second dataflow graph specification, to generate a combined dataflow graph specification, the processing including: identifying an association between the sub-graph interface and the first dataflow graph specification, for at least a first flow junction on the sub-graph interface, determining a direction associated with transferring a value of a descriptor of a data or computational characteristic, and transferring a value of a descriptor of a data or computational characteristic from the first flow junction to a component specified by the first dataflow graph specification or a component specified by the second dataflow graph specification, according to the determined direction.
In another aspect, in general, a computing system for combining specifications of dataflow graphs includes an input device or port configured to receive a plurality of dataflow graph specifications, including: a first dataflow graph specification that specifies two or more components connected by links representing flows of data between components, including a first component and a second component, with at least one component representing a computation applied to data flowing into a port of the component, and at least one component representing a computation providing data flowing out of a port of the component, and a second dataflow graph specification that specifies at least a third component, and at least one sub-graph interface, where the sub-graph interface includes at least one flow junction representing a connection between: (1) a flow of data outside the sub-graph interface to or from a port of the third component, and (2) a flow of data inside the sub-graph interface to or from a port of a component of the first dataflow graph specification. The system includes at least one processor configured to process information including the first dataflow graph specification and the second dataflow graph specification, to generate a combined dataflow graph specification, the processing including: identifying an association between the sub-graph interface and the first dataflow graph specification, for at least a first flow junction on the sub-graph interface, determining a direction associated with transferring a value of a descriptor of a data or computational characteristic, and transferring a value of a descriptor of a data or computational characteristic from the first flow junction to a component specified by the first dataflow graph specification or a component specified by the second dataflow graph specification, according to the determined direction.
In another aspect, in general, a computing system for combining specifications of dataflow graphs includes means for receiving a plurality of dataflow graph specifications, including: a first dataflow graph specification that specifies two or more components connected by links representing flows of data between components, including a first component and a second component, with at least one component representing a computation applied to data flowing into a port of the component, and at least one component representing a computation providing data flowing out of a port of the component, and a second dataflow graph specification that specifies at least a third component, and at least one sub-graph interface, where the sub-graph interface includes at least one flow junction representing a connection between: (1) a flow of data outside the sub-graph interface to or from a port of the third component, and (2) a flow of data inside the sub-graph interface to or from a port of a component of the first dataflow graph specification. The computing system includes means for processing information including the first dataflow graph specification and the second dataflow graph specification, to generate a combined dataflow graph specification, the processing including: identifying an association between the sub-graph interface and the first dataflow graph specification, for at least a first flow junction on the sub-graph interface, determining a direction associated with transferring a value of a descriptor of a data or computational characteristic, and transferring a value of a descriptor of a data or computational characteristic from the first flow junction to a component specified by the first dataflow graph specification or a component specified by the second dataflow graph specification, according to the determined direction.
Aspects can include one or more of the following advantages.
Among other advantages, the approaches to managing sub-graph interfaces, including dynamic linking of sub-graphs, facilitate code abstraction and re-use in dataflow graph development environments. Dynamic linking of a sub-graph into a subgraph interface involves delaying (e.g., until just before execution) the determination of which of multiple possible sub-graphs is to be used to implement the function associated with that sub-graph interface. Thus, a container graph (i.e., a dataflow graph that has one or more sub-graph interfaces) can be used as a template that can be re-used and customized. Template dataflow graphs can be shipped to customers. The customer can then supply graph logic that implements the sub-graph interfaces and customizes template dataflow graphs to the customer's needs and operational environment. Customers may include users of the customized dataflow graphs, and/or developers who provide customized dataflow graphs to other users.
Sub-graph interfaces provide the ability to make a dataflow graph generic across multiple implementations of the interface. Sub-graph interfaces provide the ability to develop graphs against the interface in advance of any implementation of the sub-graph interface. Sub-graph interfaces provide the ability to validate an implementation against the interface without a specific instance of use. Sub-graph interfaces provide the ability to differentiate the shipping location, permissions, encryption, or other attributes of the implementation of a sub-graph.
Some embodiments allow metadata in a container graph including a sub-graph interface to be derived from the implementation sub-graph associated with the sub-graph interface. Metadata may include, for example, a descriptor of data provided to or from a component (e.g., a record format), a computational characteristic of a component, or computing resources associated with a component. Advantageously, deriving metadata for the container graph from the implementation sub-graph makes the container graph configurable with respect to the type(s) of data emerging from or entering the implementation sub-graph. This can be especially useful when the implementation sub-graph is specified by a developer to read data having a specific record format and to pass the data to a predefined container graph for further processing. In some examples, the predefined container graph is specified by some other entity and may be read-only, encrypted or in some other way protected from being viewed and/or altered. In some examples, the implementation sub-graph may be read-only, encrypted or in some other way protected from being viewed and/or altered. Such a graph needs to be able to accommodate different types of record formats from the implementation sub-graph without requiring user intervention. Metadata in an implementation sub-graph associated with the sub-graph interface can also be derived from a container graph including that sub-graph interface, which may allow some flexibility in the use of an implementation sub-graph in different container graphs.
Developers can advantageously create and use libraries of implementations for sub-graph interfaces. Such libraries can serve to reduce development times and encourage code re-use.
Some embodiments allow for dependency analysis and introspection into sub-graph implementations of a sub-graph interface from a container graph.
A graphical user interface for developing container graphs can include graphical indications of multiple phases and how those phases apply to any sub-graph interfaces, which enables a developer to understand how different portions of the dataflow graph will be affected by those phases (e.g., which data flows will cross phase boundaries, causing the data traversing that data flow to be durably stored in a buffer).
A graphical user interface for developing sub-graph interfaces encourages developers to treat dynamically linked sub-graphs as subject to a strong abstraction barrier, requiring a sub-graph interface be developed separately from (and typically prior to) developing one or more sub-graph implementations, and in some examples, separately from (and typically prior to) developing a container graph.
Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the following description, and from the claims.
In some examples, the execution environment 104 reads data from the data source 102, processes the data by executing a dataflow graph on the data (e.g., by the graph execution module 112), and stores the processed data in a data storage system. Storage devices providing the data source 102 may be local to the execution environment 104, for example, being stored on a storage medium connected to a computer hosting the execution environment 104 (e.g., hard drive 108), or may be remote to the execution environment 104, for example, being hosted on a remote system (e.g., mainframe 110) in communication with a computer hosting the execution environment 104, over a remote connection (e.g., provided by a cloud computing infrastructure).
The graph execution module 112 uses the representation of the dataflow graph generated by the graph preparation module 106 to process the data provided by the data source 102. The output data may be stored back in the data source 102 or in a data storage system 116 accessible to the execution environment 104, or otherwise used. The data storage system 116 is also accessible to a development environment 118A in which a developer 120A is able to make changes to the specification of a dataflow graph within a user interface 121A. In this example there are multiple separate development environments for developing different dataflow graph specifications within separate user interfaces. For example, a first developer 120A develops a container graph 122A including a sub-graph interface 123 using a first user interface 121A of the development environment 118A. A second, possibly different developer 120B uses a second user interface 121B of a development environment 118B to develop an implementation sub-graph 122B to be loaded in a sub-graph interface 123 of the container graph 112A, the implementation sub-graph conforming to the sub-graph interface 123. In some examples, the development environment 118A or 118B is a system for developing applications as dataflow graphs that include vertices (representing data processing components or datasets) connected by directed links (representing flows of work elements, i.e., data) between the vertices. For example, such an environment is described in more detail in U.S. Publication No. 2007/0011668, titled “Managing Parameters for Graph-Based Applications,” incorporated herein by reference. A system for executing such graph-based computations is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,966,072, titled “EXECUTING COMPUTATIONS EXPRESSED AS GRAPHS,” incorporated herein by reference. Dataflow graphs made in accordance with this system provide methods for getting information into and out of individual processes represented by graph components, for moving information between the processes, and for defining a running order for the processes. This system includes algorithms that choose interprocess communication methods from any available methods (for example, communication paths according to the links of the graph can use TCP/IP or UNIX domain sockets, or use shared memory to pass data between the processes).
The execution module 104 can receive data from a variety of types of systems that may embody the data source 102, including different forms of database systems. The data may be organized as records having values for respective fields (also called “attributes” or “columns”), including possibly null values. When first reading data from a data source, the execution module 104 typically starts with some initial format information about records in that data source. In some circumstances, the record structure of the data source may not be known initially and may instead be determined after analysis of the data source or the data. The initial information about records can include, for example, the number of bits that represent a distinct value, the order of fields within a record, and the type of value (e.g., string, signed/unsigned integer) represented by the bits.
Referring to
Each of the components has one or more input ports for receiving input data and one or more output ports for providing output data. In general, each component applies a computation to the input data flowing into its input port(s) and provides the result of the computation as output via its output port(s). It is noted that in some examples, certain types of components may include only input ports or only output ports. The sub-graph interface includes one or more flow junctions, which define a point of connection between a flow in the container graph and the sub-graph associated with the sub-graph interface (as is described in further detail below). Each flow junction represents a connection (or “junction”) between a flow of data to or from a port on a component of the first dataflow graph and a flow of data to or from a port on a component of the second dataflow graph. The ports of the datasets and components and the flow junctions of the sub-graph interface are interconnected by flows 206A-206E, which define how data propagates between the datasets, components, and the sub-graph interface of the first dataflow graph 200.
Specifically, for the first dataflow graph 200 of
In the first dataflow graph 200, the first component 208A and the second component 208B are conventionally known dataflow graph components which implement functions such as sorting, joining, various data transformations, and so on.
The sub-graph interface 210 is a special type of node in a dataflow graph that allows for the management of the specification of a portion of the first dataflow graph 200 using dynamic linking of sub-graphs. In some examples, the sub-graph interface 210 receives a parameter input Ps 212 which includes a path to a second dataflow graph specification on disk. Just prior to execution of the first dataflow graph 200, the second dataflow graph is dynamically linked into the first dataflow graph 200, essentially taking the place of the sub-graph interface 210.
In general, in order for the dynamic linking of the second dataflow graph into the first dataflow graph 200 to be possible, the second dataflow graph must conform to an interface defined by the sub-graph interface 210. That is, the second dataflow graph must have ports that are connected to the flow junctions of the sub-graph interface. By forcing the second dataflow graph to conform to the sub-graph interface 210, it is known, without inspection of the second dataflow graph, that flows connected to the ports of the sub-graph interface 210 in the first dataflow graph 200 can be directly connected to the ports of the sub-graph interface 210 in the second dataflow graph, forming a single flow between the ports in the two dataflow graphs.
Referring to
The second dataflow graph 201 is configured to process data from the first and second flow junctions 204D, 204F specified by the sub-graph interface 210 using a number of components and to provide the resulting processed data as output to a third flow junction 204G defined by the sub-graph interface 210. Each of the components has one or more input ports for receiving input data and one or more output ports for providing output data. The ports of the components are interconnected by flows 206F-206I, which define how data propagates between the sub-graph interface 210 and the components of the second dataflow graph 201.
Specifically, for the second dataflow graph 201 of
It is noted that in some examples, the connections between the ports of the components in the second dataflow graph 201 and the flow junctions (i.e., 206F, 206G, 206I) are not conventional flows but are instead bindings (i.e., associations) or terminal connectors between the flow junctions and the ports. When the second dataflow graph 201 is linked into the first dataflow graph 200, the bindings or terminal connectors are stripped and the ports of the components in the second dataflow graph 201 are directly connected to the flows of the first dataflow graph 200.
Referring again to
To dynamically link the second dataflow graph 201 into the first dataflow graph 200, the graph preparation module 106 analyzes the parameter input Ps 212 provided to the sub-graph interface 210 to determine which implementation sub-graph stored on disk is associated with the sub-graph interface 210. The determined implementation sub-graph (e.g., the second dataflow graph 201) is loaded and instantiated and its parameters and ports are bound into the first dataflow graph 200 to form a combined dataflow graph. At least some of the flow junctions of the sub-graph interface are then analyzed to determine a direction of metadata propagation, which corresponds to a direction of transfer of a descriptor of data or a computational characteristic (i.e., metadata) associated with the flow junctions. In the process of metadata propagation, for the at least some flow junctions, a descriptor of data or a computational characteristic is transferred from that flow junction to a component or a port on a component in the first dataflow graph 200 or a component or a port on a component in the second dataflow graph 201, according to the determined direction. This process of metadata propagation is described in detail below.
Referring to
The combined dataflow graph 300 is executable by the graph execution module 112.
In dataflow graphs, in general, it is important that metadata associated with the ports of components in the dataflow graph and/or metadata associated with the components themselves is managed. As described above, in some examples, metadata includes a descriptor of data (e.g., a record format for a port including a sequence of fields and data types of records flowing into or out of a port) or a computational characteristic (e.g., a partitioning or a layout for a component). In some examples, metadata may include an amount of memory a component may use, which computing resources a component may use, sortedness, compression method, character set, binary representation (e.g., big-endian, little-endian), or data transformations.
Metadata management can be accomplished manually, automatically, or by using a combination of manual and automatic metadata management. For manual metadata management, metadata is supplied, for example, by a graph developer or by a graph user. For automatic metadata management, metadata is propagated from portions of the graph for which metadata has been explicitly defined (e.g., by a graph developer or by a graph user) metadata to portions of the graph for which metadata has not been explicitly defined. Metadata propagation is used when metadata for a given port or component is not directly supplied by a graph user or developer. In such a case, the metadata for the given port or component is derived from other ports or components in the graph. The term metadata propagation as is used herein refers to this derivation process.
In the first dataflow graph 200 of
The above described metadata propagation between the first output port 204A and the first input port 204B occurred over the first flow 206A in the same direction that data flows through the dataflow graph (i.e., from left to right). However, in some examples, metadata propagates over flows in a direction opposite to the direction that data flows through the dataflow graph. For example, the explicitly defined metadata associated with the third input port 204J of the output dataset 202C propagates over the fifth flow 206E to the fourth output port 204I of the second component 208B in a direction opposite to the direction that data flows over the fifth flow 206E.
In a conventional dataflow graph including conventional components and datasets this propagation of explicitly defined metadata through the dataflow graph results in all ports and components in the dataflow graph being associated with metadata. Any conflicts arising in metadata propagation are generally flagged for developer intervention. However, metadata propagation for dataflow graphs including a sub-graph interface is generally handled differently from metadata propagation for dataflow graphs including only conventional components. In particular, metadata may be propagated in two stages: an edit-time metadata propagation stage and a link-time metadata resolution stage.
Using this two stage approach, at edit-time, the developer of the container graph (i.e., the graph including a sub-graph interface) and the developer of the implementation sub-graph (i.e., the sub-graph which conforms to the sub-graph interface) that will be linked in place of the sub-graph interface do not need to be aware of each other's metadata. Without access to the propagation information, conventional metadata propagation would have no way of knowing whether metadata should be propagated in a direction “inward” into the implementation sub-graph (i.e., the container graph acts as a source of metadata for the implementation sub-graph) or in a direction “outward” from the implementation sub-graph (i.e., the container graph acts as a sink for metadata from the implementation sub-graph).
To facilitate metadata propagation in a dataflow graph including a sub-graph interface, each flow junction of the sub-graph interface specifies a direction of metadata propagation. Metadata is associated with the flow junction during the edit-time metadata propagation, and then the associated metadata is transferred from the flow junction at link-time according to the direction of metadata propagation. In some examples, the set of possible directions of metadata propagation includes “inward” propagation and “outward” propagation. The particular inward or outward value of the direction can be stored in the form of a Boolean variable that can be retrieved, for example, for such propagation or otherwise determining the indicated direction of metadata propagation.
3.1.1 Inward Metadata Propagation
When a flow junction on the sub-graph interface is declared as having a metadata propagation direction of “inward,” metadata propagation in the container graph supplies a metadata definition via the flow connected to the flow junction (and eventually to a port connected to a flow (or binding) in the implementation sub-graph).
That is, in the container graph, edit-time metadata propagation treats the flow junction as a metadata sink. In particular, edit-time metadata propagation in the container graph propagates metadata between conventional components in the container graph using conventional metadata propagation as is described above. When metadata is propagated to a flow junction on a sub-graph interface with an “inward” metadata propagation direction, the metadata can propagate no further. This metadata is maintained at the flow junction until the implementation sub-graph is linked into the container graph and link-time metadata resolution can be performed (as is described below).
In the implementation sub-graph, edit-time metadata propagation treats the flow junction having an “inward” metadata propagation direction as a metadata source. However, in the case of the implementation sub-graph, the actual metadata value at the flow junction on the sub-graph interface is unknown (since it is only available from the container graph at link-time). Thus, in order to perform edit-time propagation for the implementation sub-graph, a placeholder value is assigned for the metadata at the flow junction and is propagated through the implementation sub-graph using conventional metadata propagation as is described above. The placeholder value is resolved when the implementation sub-graph is linked into the container graph and link-time metadata resolution is performed.
During the link-time metadata resolution stage, with the implementation sub-graph linked into the container graph, the metadata that was maintained at the flow junction with an “inward” metadata propagation direction is transferred into the implementation sub-graph and to the appropriate ports of the components of the implementation sub-graph. In some examples, link-time metadata resolution resolves the placeholder value at the flow junction in the implementation sub-graph by simply replacing the placeholder value with the metadata value that was maintained at the corresponding flow junction in the container graph.
In some examples, “inward” metadata propagation is the default, and is appropriate even when the graph container the sub-graph interface will always be supplying an explicit metadata definition.
3.1.2 Outward Metadata Propagation
When a flow junction on the sub-graph interface is declared as having a metadata propagation direction of “outward,” metadata propagation in the implementation sub-graph supplies a metadata definition for the flow junction to the container graph.
That is, in the container graph, edit-time metadata propagation treats the flow junction as a metadata source even though an edit-time definition for the metadata is not present (since the definition is only available from the implementation sub-graph at link-time). In particular, edit-time metadata propagation in the container graph propagates metadata between conventional components in the container graph using conventional metadata propagation as is described above. When metadata is propagation is performed on a flow junction on the sub-graph interface having a metadata propagation direction of outward, a placeholder value is assigned for the metadata at the flow junction and the placeholder value is propagated through the container graph using conventional metadata propagation.
In the implementation sub-graph, edit-time metadata propagation treats the flow junction having an “outward” metadata propagation direction as a metadata sink. In particular, edit-time metadata propagation in the implementation sub-graph propagates metadata between conventional components in the container graph using conventional metadata propagation as is described above. When metadata is propagated to a flow junction on the sub-graph interface having an “outward” metadata propagation direction, the metadata can propagate no further. This metadata is maintained at the flow junction until the implementation sub-graph is linked into the container graph and link-time metadata resolution can be performed (as is described below).
During the link-time metadata resolution stage, with the implementation sub-graph linked into the container graph, the metadata that was maintained at the flow junction with an “outward” metadata propagation direction is transferred out to the container graph and to the appropriate ports of the components of the container graph. In some examples, link-time metadata resolution identifies the placeholder value at the flow junction in the container sub-graph and simply replaces the placeholder value with the metadata value that was maintained at the flow junction in the implementation sub-graph.
In some examples, the developer is not allowed to explicitly define the metadata for a flow junction with an “outward” metadata propagation direction.
Referring to
Very generally, the sub-graph interface 224 acts as a strict prototype to which any sub-graph implementations of the sub-graph interface 224 and any container graphs that include the sub-graph interface 224 must conform. As such, the outside of the sub-graph interface 224 in the graphical user interface 220 can be thought of as a placeholder for a separately developed container graph and the inside of the sub-graph interface 224 in the graphical user interface can be thought of as a placeholder for a separately developed sub-graph implementation.
The flow junctions 226, 228 are disposed on the boundary of the sub-graph interface 224 and act as a bridge, connecting a flow of data to or from a port of a component outside of the sub-graph interface 224 (e.g., a flow of data from a port of a component in a container graph) and a flow of data to or from a port of a component inside of the sub-graph interface 224 (i.e., a flow of data to a port of a component in a sub-graph implementation). In
Each of the input flow junctions 226 is associated with a direction (i.e., inward or outward) of propagation of a descriptor of data and/or a computational characteristic (i.e., metadata). As is described above, the direction of propagation determines whether the metadata propagated through the input flow junction 226 is provided by a container graph or a sub-graph implementation. If the direction of propagation for the input flow junction 226 is outward, the input flow junction 226 defines the record format of data passing through the input flow junction 226 and the layout of components attached to the input flow junction 226.
Similarly, each of the output flow junctions 228 is associated with a direction (i.e., inward or outward) of propagation of a descriptor of data and/or a computational characteristic (i.e., metadata). As is described above, the direction of propagation determines whether the metadata propagated through the output flow junction 228 is provided by a container graph or a sub-graph implementation. If the direction of propagation for the output flow junction 228 is outward, the output flow junction 228 defines the record format of data passing through the output flow junction 228 and the layout of components attached to the output flow junction 228.
In some examples, a developer can add flow junctions 226, 228 by right clicking on the boundary of the sub-graph interface 224 and selecting an “Add Input Flow Junction” or an “Add Output Flow Junction” menu item from a right click menu. In other examples, the graphical user interface 220 includes a special tool for adding flow junctions to the sub-graph interface 224. Similarly, flow junctions can be removed from the sub-graph interface 224 using a right click menu option or a specialized tool.
The one or more links 229 between the input and output flow junctions 226, 228 are indicative of relationships between data descriptors of data or computational characteristics (i.e., metadata) associated with the input flow junctions 226 and data descriptors of a data or computational characteristics (i.e., metadata) associated with the output flow junctions 226. In
In some examples, a developer can create links 229 between the input and output flow junctions 226, 228 by clicking on a first flow junction of a first type (e.g., an input flow junction) and drawing a line on the inside of the sub-graph interface 224 from the first flow junction to a second flow junction of a second type (e.g., an output flow junction), thereby connecting the two flow junctions using the line.
Referring to
The flow junctions list control 234 displays a list of all flow junctions, categorized into an input flow junction category 248 and an output flow junction category 250. A developer can select one or more of the flow junctions from the flow junctions list control 234 for configuration. The developer can then configure the selected flow junctions using the controls 238, 240, 242, 244, 246 in the propagation control section 236. In particular, the developer can select whether the direction of record format metadata propagation for the selected flow junctions is inward or outward using the record format metadata propagation direction control 238. The developer can select whether the direction of layout metadata propagation for the selected flow junctions is inward or outward using the layout metadata propagation direction control 240. The developer can select a name of a layout parameter associated with the selected flow junctions using the layout association control 242. The developer can specify whether the selected flow junctions are allowed to fan-in or fan-out using the ‘can fan’ control 244. The developer can specify whether the selected flow junctions are required by the sub-graph interface using the required control 246.
In some examples, the flow junction configuration tab 230 of the sub-graph interface properties user interface 232 can be accessed by the developer right clicking on the sub-graph interface and selecting a properties item from a right click menu.
In some examples, the graphical user interface 220 of
The following sections provide examples of metadata propagation for the dataflow graphs of
5.1 Record Format Metadata Propagation
Referring to
While the graph developer is editing the first dataflow graph 200, edit-time record format metadata propagation is performed on the first dataflow graph 200. In particular, the record format A is propagated from the second output port 204C of the first input dataset 202A to the first flow junction 204D of the sub-graph interface 210 via the second flow 206B. Since the first flow junction 204D has a metadata propagation direction of “inward,” the record format A is not propagated any further and is maintained at the first flow junction 204D for later use in the link-time metadata resolution stage.
The record format B is propagated from the first output port 204A of the second input dataset 202B to the first input port 204B of the first component 208A via the first flow 206A where the record format B is associated with the first input port 204B. The edit-time metadata propagation process determines that the first component 208A does not apply any transformation to the metadata and therefore propagates the record format B through the component and associates it with the third output port 204E of the first component 208A.
The record format B is then propagated from the third output port 204E of the first component 208A to the second flow junction 204F of the sub-graph interface 210 via the third flow 206C. Since the second flow junction 204F has a metadata propagation direction of “inward,” the record format B is not propagated any further and is maintained at the second flow junction 204F for later use in link-time metadata resolution.
The record format C is then propagated from the third input port 204J of the output dataset 202C to the fourth output port 204I of the second component 208B via the fifth flow 206E where the record format C is associated with the fourth output port 204I.
Since the third flow junction 204G of the sub-graph interface 210 has a metadata propagation direction of “outward,” the metadata associated with the flow junction is unknown at edit-time in the first dataflow graph 200 and is expected to be provided by the implementation sub-graph at link-time. For this reason, a placeholder record format TBD1 is temporarily associated with the third flow junction 204G. The placeholder record format TBD1 is propagated to the second input port 204H of the second component 208B via the fourth flow 206D where it is temporarily associated with the second input port 204H. The placeholder is maintained at the third flow junction 204G and the second input port 204H until link-time metadata resolution resolves the actual value of TBD1 and associates the actual value as the metadata for the third flow junction 204G and the second input port 204H.
Referring to
As is described above, the second dataflow graph 201 conforms to the sub-graph interface 210 (i.e., the sub-graph interface included in the first dataflow graph 200). For this reason, the metadata propagation directions of the ports of the sub-graph interface 210 are the same in the second dataflow graph 201 as they were in the first dataflow graph 200. That is, the first flow junction 204D of the sub-graph interface 210 and the second flow junction 204F of the sub-graph interface 210 both have a metadata propagation direction of “inward” and the third flow junction 204G of the sub-graph interface has a metadata propagation direction of “outward.”
Since the first flow junction 204D has a metadata propagation direction of “inward,” the metadata associated with the port is unknown at edit-time in the second dataflow graph 201 and is expected to be provided by the container graph (i.e., the first dataflow graph 200) at link-time. For this reason, a placeholder record format TBD2 is temporarily associated with the first flow junction 204D. The placeholder record format TBD2 is propagated to the fifth input port 204M of the fourth component 208D via the seventh flow 206G where it is temporarily associated with the fifth input port 204M. The placeholder is maintained at the first flow junction 204D and the fifth input port 204M until link-time metadata resolution resolves the actual value of TBD2 and associates the actual value as the metadata for the fifth input 204M.
Similarly, since the second flow junction 204F has a metadata propagation direction of “inward,” the metadata associated with the port is unknown at edit-time in the second dataflow graph 201 and is expected to be provided by the container graph (i.e., the first dataflow graph 200) at link-time. For this reason, a placeholder record format TBD3 is temporarily associated with the second flow junction 204F. The placeholder record format TBD3 is propagated to the fourth input port 204K of the third component 208C via the sixth flow 206F where it is temporarily associated with the fourth input port 204K. The edit-time metadata propagation process then determines that the third component 208C does not apply any transformation to the metadata and therefore propagates the record format TBD3 through the component and associates it with the fifth output port 204L of the third component 208C. TBD3 is then propagated to the sixth input port 204N of the fourth component 208D via the eighth flow 206H where it is temporarily associated with the sixth input port 204N.
The placeholder TBD3 is maintained at the second flow junction 204F and at the three ports 204K, 204L, 204N until link-time metadata resolution resolves the actual value of TBD3 and associates the actual value as the metadata for the ports.
The record format E is propagated from the sixth output port 204O of the fourth component 208D to the third flow junction 204G of the sub-graph interface 210 via the ninth flow 206I. Since the third flow junction 204G has a metadata propagation direction of “outward,” the record format F is not propagated any further and is maintained at the third flow junction port 204G for later use in link-time metadata resolution.
Referring to
In particular, the first flow junction 204D is analyzed and it is determined that the first flow junction 204D has a metadata propagation direction of “inward.” It is then determined that the first flow junction 204D is associated with defined metadata record format A in the first dataflow graph 200 and with placeholder metadata TBD2 in the second dataflow graph 201. The link-time metadata resolution stage associates all ports associated with TBD2 in the second dataflow graph 201 (i.e., the fifth input port 204M) with record format A.
The second flow junction 204F is analyzed and it is determined that the second flow junction 204F has a metadata propagation direction of “inward.” It is then determined that the second flow junction 204F is associated with defined metadata record format B in the first dataflow graph 200 and with placeholder metadata TBD3 in the second dataflow graph 201. The link-time metadata resolution stage associates all ports associated with TBD3 in the second dataflow graph 201 (i.e., the fourth input port 204K, the fifth output port 204L, and the sixth input port 204N) with record format B.
The third flow junction 204G is analyzed and it is determined that the third flow junction 204G has a metadata propagation direction of “outward.” It is then determined that the third flow junction 204G is associated with defined metadata record format E in the second dataflow graph 201 and with placeholder metadata TBD1 in the first dataflow graph 200. The link-time metadata resolution stage associates all ports associated with TBD1 in the first dataflow graph 200 (i.e., the second input port 204H) with record format E.
As a result of the above-described edit-time metadata propagation and link-time metadata resolution processes, all of the ports in the combined dataflow graph 300 are associated with valid record format metadata.
5.2 Layout Metadata Propagation
Referring to
Referring now to
While the graph developer is editing the first dataflow graph 200, edit-time layout metadata propagation is performed on the first dataflow graph 200. Since layout metadata for the first component 208A is not explicitly defined, it is expected that its layout metadata will be propagated from the second flow junction 204F which is associated with the first layout metadata parameter having a metadata propagation direction of “outward.” However, the layout metadata associated with the second flow junction 204F is unknown at edit-time in the first dataflow graph 200 and is expected to be provided by the implementation sub-graph at link-time. For this reason, placeholder layout metadata TBD1 is propagated to and temporarily associated with the first component 208A. The placeholder layout metadata is maintained at the first component 208A until link-time metadata resolution resolves the actual value of TBD1 and associates that actual value as the layout metadata for the first component 208A.
Similarly, layout metadata for the second component 208B is not explicitly defined. However, edit-time layout metadata propagation can analyze the configuration of the output dataset 202C which is connected to the fourth output port 204I of the second component 208B to infer the layout metadata for the second component 208B. In the example of
Metadata propagation then propagates the 2× layout metadata from the second component 208B to the third flow junction 204G. Since the third flow junction 204G is associated with the second layout metadata parameter having a metadata propagation direction of “inward,” the layout metadata 2× is not propagated any further and is maintained at the third flow junction 204G for later use in link-time metadata resolution.
It is noted that since a file, which already has layout metadata, is connected to the first flow junction 204D in the first dataflow graph 200, no layout metadata propagation occurs through the first flow junction 204D.
Referring to
Since the second flow junction 204F is associated with the first layout metadata parameter having a metadata propagation direction of “outward,” the 1× layout metadata for the third component 208C is propagated to the second flow junction 204F where it is maintained for later use in the link-time metadata resolution stage.
Since the layout metadata for the fourth component 208D is not explicitly defined, it is expected that its layout metadata will be propagated from the third flow junction 204G which is associated with the second layout metadata parameter having a metadata propagation direction of “inward.” However, the layout metadata associated with the third flow junction 204G is unknown at edit time in the second dataflow graph 201 and is expected to be provided by the container graph at link-time. For this reason, placeholder layout metadata TBD2 is propagated to and temporarily associated with the fourth component 208D. The placeholder layout metadata is maintained at the fourth component 208D until link-time metadata resolution resolves the actual value of TBD2 and associates that actual value as the layout metadata for the fourth component 208D.
Referring to
In particular, the first layout metadata parameter associated with the second flow junction 204F is analyzed and it is determined that the second flow junction 204F has a metadata propagation direction of “outward.” It is then determined that the second flow junction 204F is associated with explicitly defined layout metadata (i.e., 1×) in the second dataflow graph 201 and with placeholder layout metadata TBD1 in the first dataflow graph 200. The link-time metadata resolution stage associates all components associated with TBD1 in the first dataflow graph 200 (i.e., the first component 208A) with layout metadata 1×.
The second layout metadata parameter associated with the third flow junction 204G is analyzed and it is determined that the third flow junction 204G has a metadata propagation direction of “inward.” It is then determined that the third flow junction 204G is associated with placeholder layout metadata TBD2 in the second dataflow graph 201 and with explicitly defined layout metadata (i.e., 2×) in the first dataflow graph 200. Link-time metadata resolution associates all components associated with TBD2 in the second dataflow graph 201 (i.e., the fourth component 208D) with layout metadata 2×.
As a result of the above-described edit-time metadata propagation and link-time metadata resolution processes, all of the components in the combined dataflow graph 300 are associated with valid layout metadata.
In some of the examples described above, metadata propagation is described as an operation which copies explicitly defined metadata associated with a given port, terminal, or component to another port, terminal, or component which is has undefined metadata. The copied metadata is then associated with the other port, terminal, or component.
However, in some examples, rather than copying metadata, metadata propagation uses pointers to indicate associations between ports, terminals, or components with explicitly defined metadata and those with undefined metadata. For example, a given port with undefined metadata may have a metadata pointer which metadata propagation assigns to explicitly defined metadata associated with another, different port. At link-time no further propagation occurs. Instead, the pointer resolves causing the explicitly defined metadata to be associated with the other, different port.
In some examples, a given sub-graph interface can be associated with a library of implementation sub-graphs which conform to the sub-graph interface. A graph developer who places the sub-graph interface into a container graph can then easily choose from any of the implementation sub-graphs in the library during development.
In some examples, use of the sub-graph interfaces described above facilitates abstraction of code. For example, a given implementation of a sub-graph interface may exist in only one place on disk but may be used in many container graphs. Changes made to the implementation on disk affect the functionality of all of the container graphs where the implementation is used without requiring any modification to the container graphs.
In some examples, certain implementation sub-graphs are encrypted such that unauthorized users can not inspect the contents of the sub-graphs. In such examples, the sub-graph interface is capable of linking the encrypted implementation sub-graphs. In some examples, certain container graphs are encrypted such that unauthorized users can not inspect the contents of the container graphs.
In some examples, each flow junction of a graph interface includes one or more of the following properties: a label, a dataflow direction, an indication of whether the flow junction fan-in or fan-out, an indication of whether the flow junction is required, a metadata propagation direction, and a name of an associated layout metadata parameter.
In some examples, a designer of a sub-graph interface can specify a rule defining a metadata relationship between two or more flow junctions of the sub-graph interface. For example, the sub-graph interface designer can specify that an input flow junction and an output flow junction have the same metadata.
In some examples, the sub-graph interface can be implemented such that it supports multi-phase sub-graph implementations. Very-generally, a multi-phase graph is a graph which has its components separated into two or more “phases” which execute sequentially in a predefined order. For example, a multi-phase graph may include three phases: a first phase, a second phase, and a third phase, each including one or more components. In operation, the components of the second phase do not begin processing data until the components of the first phase complete their processing. Similarly, the components of the third phase do not begin processing data until the components of the second phase complete their processing.
To accommodate dynamic sub-graphs with multiple phases, the sub-graph interface includes a parameter that allows the designer of the sub-graph interface to specify whether the sub-graph interface is single phase or multi-phase. In the case that the sub-graph interface is specified as multi-phase, the designer does not need to specify a fixed number of phases for the sub-graph interface.
An example of requirements for implementations of a sub-graph interface that has been specified as multi-phase include the following requirements. Any implementation of the sub-graph interface must have all components connected to the input ports (or flow junctions) of the sub-graph interface in a single phase, (pi. Furthermore, any implementation of the sub-graph interface must have all components connected to the output ports (or flow junctions) of the sub-graph interface in a single phase, φo>φi where φo is the maximum phase in the implementation. Implementations of the sub-graph interface may have any number of phases that are purely internal to the sub-graph implementation.
When a container graph including a multi-phase sub-graph interface is being edited, the phase at the output of the sub-graph implementation is temporarily assumed to be its input phase+1. This is sufficient for graph developers to determine when downstream components will be in the same phase. However the edit-time phases are not necessarily the same as the run-time phases.
When the implementation sub-graph is bound in place of the sub-graph interface, the overall phase information for the combined graph is updated as follows:
If φi, the input phase in the sub-graph implementation, is not 0 then some number m>0 of the internal phases occur before the first input phase in the sub-graph implementation. These “pre-phases” of the sub-graph implementation are useful, for example, for creating a lookup file to be used in the main input processing. In this case, if I<φi, the global phase of all components may need to be incremented so that the m pre-phases can be run at positive phase numbers in the combined dataflow graph. This can carried out in a phase by phase manner, incrementing by the maximum of the pre-phases of all sub-graph implementations in the starting phase I (before the adjustment), propagating the phase deltas downstream, and iterating for the next phase.
In some examples, the above adjustment algorithm may result in gaps in the phase numbering of components in a sub-graph implementation (e.g., if there were other sub-graph implementations with internal phases in the same input phase as the sub-graph implementation). For example, consider two sub-graph implementations in an input phase 0: A, with 2 internal phases; and B, with one internal phase. The phase of the next downstream components of A and B is at least 1, since they are multi-phase graph implementations. The max of the internal phase counts is 2, and so the adjusted global output phase of both A and B is be 3. This means B will include a phase gap—its input phase will be 0, its only purely internal phase will be 1, but its output phase will be 3. Such a phase gap is not detrimental to the operation of the dataflow graph.
In some examples, purely internal phases of multiple sub-graph implementations in the same input phase, I, will overlap with each other. This can be problematic due to resource constraints and it is preferable that the sub-graph implementation has a private space of internal phases. For this reason, it is possible to allow a sub-graph implementation to opt out of sharing its internal phases with other sub-graph implementations. This can be done, for example, using a local parameter on the on the sub-graph implementation (e.g., named private_internal_phasing) that can be resolved to a Boolean value. When true, the computation of M in step 1 above is altered to be the sum of the internal phases of the sub-graph implementations at input phase I with private_internal_phasing set to True, added to the maximum of the internal phase count of the remaining sub-graph implementations at input phase I.
In some examples, the sub-graph interface may not have any flow terminals, but may still be useful for allowing a user to define different sets of resources (e.g., lookup files) to be used by a particular container graph, depending on which sub-graph implementation is loaded.
In some examples, the sub-graph interface is implemented by using a simple textual specification of the interface rather than by using a graphical user interface.
In some examples, the implementation of a sub-graph interface is simplified using a “wizard” style graphical user interface. For example, the wizard style graphical user interface would lead a user through the implementation of the sub-graph interface by asking a series of questions and automatically generating the sub-graph interface based on the user's answers. In one example, the wizard style graphical user interface includes a number of pages including but not limited to a pre-flight check page (i.e., an introduction page), a file names and locations page, a parameter definition page, a flow junction definition and metadata propagation page, a layout metadata page, and a summary page.
The approaches for managing sub-graphs and sub-graph interfaces described above can be implemented, for example, using a programmable computing system executing suitable software instructions or it can be implemented in suitable hardware such as a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or in some hybrid form. For example, in a programmed approach the software may include procedures in one or more computer programs that execute on one or more programmed or programmable computing system (which may be of various architectures such as distributed, client/server, or grid) each including at least one processor, at least one data storage system (including volatile and/or non-volatile memory and/or storage elements), at least one user interface (for receiving input using at least one input device or port, and for providing output using at least one output device or port). The software may include one or more modules of a larger program, for example, that provides services related to the design, configuration, and execution of dataflow graphs. The modules of the program (e.g., elements of a dataflow graph) can be implemented as data structures or other organized data conforming to a data model stored in a data repository.
The software may be provided on a tangible, non-transitory medium, such as a CD-ROM or other computer-readable medium (e.g., readable by a general or special purpose computing system or device), or delivered (e.g., encoded in a propagated signal) over a communication medium of a network to a tangible, non-transitory medium of a computing system where it is executed. Some or all of the processing may be performed on a special purpose computer, or using special-purpose hardware, such as coprocessors or field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or dedicated, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs). The processing may be implemented in a distributed manner in which different parts of the computation specified by the software are performed by different computing elements. Each such computer program is preferably stored on or downloaded to a computer-readable storage medium (e.g., solid state memory or media, or magnetic or optical media) of a storage device accessible by a general or special purpose programmable computer, for configuring and operating the computer when the storage device medium is read by the computer to perform the processing described herein. The inventive system may also be considered to be implemented as a tangible, non-transitory medium, configured with a computer program, where the medium so configured causes a computer to operate in a specific and predefined manner to perform one or more of the processing steps described herein.
A number of embodiments of the invention have been described. Nevertheless, it is to be understood that the foregoing description is intended to illustrate and not to limit the scope of the invention, which is defined by the scope of the following claims. Accordingly, other embodiments are also within the scope of the following claims. For example, various modifications may be made without departing from the scope of the invention. Additionally, some of the steps described above may be order independent, and thus can be performed in an order different from that described.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/561,435, filed on Dec. 5, 2014, which claims priority to U.S. Application Ser. No. 61/912,057, filed on Dec. 5, 2013, and to U.S. Application Ser. No. 62/031,388, filed on Jul. 31, 2014, the entire contents of each of which are incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3662343 | Goldstein et al. | May 1972 | A |
| 3662401 | Collins et al. | May 1972 | A |
| 4228496 | Katzman et al. | Oct 1980 | A |
| 4922418 | Dolecek | May 1990 | A |
| 4972314 | Getzinger et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
| 5050068 | Dollas | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5127104 | Dennis | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5276899 | Neches | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5280619 | Wang | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5301336 | Kodosky | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5323452 | Dickman et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5333319 | Silen | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5357632 | Pian et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5495590 | Comfort et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5504900 | Raz | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5630047 | Wang | May 1997 | A |
| 5692168 | McMahan | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5701400 | Amardo | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5712971 | Stanfill et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5745778 | Alfieri | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5799266 | Hayes | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5802267 | Shirakihara et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5805462 | Poirot et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5857204 | Lordi et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5899988 | Depledge | May 1999 | A |
| 5923832 | Shirakihara et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5924095 | White | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5930794 | Linenbach et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5933640 | Dion | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5950212 | Anderson et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5966072 | Stanfill | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5999729 | Tabloski, Jr. et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6006242 | Poole et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6012094 | Leyman | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6014670 | Zamanian et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6016516 | Horikiri | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6032158 | Mukhopadhyay et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6038558 | Powers et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044211 | Jain | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044374 | Nesamoney et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044394 | Cadden et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6088716 | Stanfill et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6145017 | Ghaffari | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6173276 | Kant et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6208345 | Sheard et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6256637 | Venkatesh et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6259988 | Galkowski et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6272650 | Meyer et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6301601 | Helland | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6314114 | Coyle et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6324437 | Frankel et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6330008 | Razdow et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6332212 | Organ et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6339775 | Zamanian et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6400996 | Hoffberg et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6401216 | Meth et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6437796 | Sowizral et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
| 6449711 | Week | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6480876 | Rehg et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
| 6496961 | Gupta et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
| 6538651 | Hayman et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6584581 | Bay et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6608628 | Ross et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6611862 | Reisman | Aug 2003 | B2 |
| 6640244 | Bowman-Amuah | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6651234 | Gupta et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6654907 | Stanfill et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6658464 | Reisman | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6715145 | Bowman-Amuah | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6728879 | Atkinson | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6760903 | Morshed et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6813761 | Das et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6816825 | Ashar et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6832369 | Kryka et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6848100 | Wu et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
| 6879946 | Rong et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6975628 | Johnson | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 7062483 | Ferrari et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7082604 | Schneiderman | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7085426 | August | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7103597 | McGovern | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7103620 | Kunz et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7130484 | August | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7137116 | Parkes et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7164422 | Wholey, III | Jan 2007 | B1 |
| 7165030 | Yi et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7167850 | Stanfill | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7316001 | Gold et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7356819 | Ricart et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
| 7398514 | Ulrich et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7412658 | Gilboa | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7417645 | Beda et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7457984 | Kutan | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7467383 | Inchingolo et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7505975 | Luo | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7577628 | Stanfill | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7594220 | Kodosky et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7636699 | Stanfill | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7716630 | Wholey et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7756940 | Sagawa | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7840949 | Schumacher et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7870556 | Wholey et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7877350 | Stanfill et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7930339 | Tobita et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7979479 | Staebler et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 8281297 | Dasu et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8286176 | Baumback et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
| 8396886 | Tsimelzon et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8566641 | Douros et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8661154 | Farver et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
| 8667329 | Douros et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8706667 | Stanfill et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8875145 | Atterbury et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
| 9158797 | Stanfill et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
| 9274926 | Larson et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9507682 | Buxbaum et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9753751 | Atterbury et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
| 9886319 | Wakeling et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
| 10108521 | Buxbaum et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
| 10180821 | Larson et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
| 10657134 | Gadodia et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
| 20010055019 | Sowizral et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020080181 | Razdow et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087921 | Rodriguez | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091747 | Rehg et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091748 | Rehg et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107743 | Sagawa | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020111876 | Rudraraju et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020129340 | Tuttle | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020147745 | Houben et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184616 | Chessell et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030004771 | Yaung | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030016246 | Simpson et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030023413 | Srinivasa | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030033432 | Simpson et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030091035 | Craddock et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030126240 | Vosseler | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030204804 | Petri et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040006745 | Van Heldan et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040041838 | Adusumilli et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040073529 | Stanfill | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040093559 | Amaru et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040098452 | Brown et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040107414 | Bronicki et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040111469 | Manion et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040148373 | Childress et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040177099 | Ganesh et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040205726 | Chedgey et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040207665 | Mathur | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040210831 | Feng et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040225657 | Sarkar | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040260590 | Golani et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050021689 | Marvin et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050033720 | Verma et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050034112 | Stanfill | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050039176 | Fournie | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050059046 | Labrenz et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086360 | Mamou et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050087743 | Mamou et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050097515 | Ribling | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050097561 | Schumacher et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050102325 | Gould et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050102670 | Bretl et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050114778 | Branson et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050144277 | Flurry et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050144596 | McCullough et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149935 | Benedetti | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050172268 | Kuturiano et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050177531 | Bracewell | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050193056 | Schaefer et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216421 | Barry et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050240621 | Robertson et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050262470 | Gavrilov | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050289527 | Illowsky et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060011668 | Massey | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060047895 | Rowan et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085462 | Todd | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060095722 | Biles et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060098017 | Tarditi et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060130041 | Pramanick et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190105 | Hsu | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060206872 | Krishnaswamy | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060282474 | MacKinnon | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060294150 | Stanfill | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060294459 | Davis et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070011668 | Wholey | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070022077 | Stanfill | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070027138 | Jordis et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070035543 | David et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070094211 | Sun et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118839 | Berstis et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070139441 | Lucas et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143360 | Harris et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070150429 | Huelsman et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174185 | McGovern | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070179923 | Stanfill | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198971 | Dasu | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070239766 | Papaefstathiou et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070271381 | Wholey | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070271562 | Schumacher et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070279494 | Aman et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070285440 | MacInnis et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070294150 | Jung et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080049022 | Sherb et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080126755 | Wu et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080134138 | Chamieh | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172674 | Yee et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080244524 | Kelso | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080250049 | Chakra et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080288608 | Johnson | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080288856 | Goranson | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080294615 | Furuya et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090030863 | Stanfill et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090064147 | Beckerle et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090083313 | Stanfill et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090106214 | Jain et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090106440 | Srinivasan et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090113196 | Jan et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090182728 | Anderson | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090193391 | Miller et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090193417 | Kahlon | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090224941 | Kansal et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090235267 | McKinney et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090245426 | Ramaker et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090313625 | Sharoff | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090327196 | Studer et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100042976 | Hines | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070955 | Kahlon | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100169137 | Jastrebski et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100174694 | Staebler et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100180344 | Malyshev et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100211953 | Wakeling et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100218031 | Agarwal et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100281462 | Festa | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100281488 | Krishnamurthy et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20110078500 | Douros et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110093433 | Stanfill et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110154183 | Burns | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110179014 | Schechter et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110246955 | Ohtsuka | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110302164 | Krishnamurthy et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110307897 | Atterbury | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120023508 | Flores et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120036498 | Akirekadu et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120054255 | Buxbaum | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102029 | Larson et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120151419 | Kent et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120216176 | Gaikwad et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120222017 | Hinkle | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120233599 | Valdiviezo Basauri et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120266074 | Bhoovaraghavan et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120284255 | Schechter et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20130124392 | Achanta | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130167241 | Siman | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130239089 | Eksten | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130290928 | Johnson | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20140068566 | Coronado et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140095444 | Deshmukh et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140143760 | Buxbaum | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140351233 | Crupi et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20150160926 | Larson et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150160927 | Stevens et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150169332 | Fisher | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2014262225 | Dec 2014 | AU |
| 1707481 | Dec 2005 | CN |
| 1783132 | Jun 2006 | CN |
| 1794220 | Jun 2006 | CN |
| 1965296 | May 2007 | CN |
| 101702942 | May 2010 | CN |
| 102012862 | Apr 2011 | CN |
| 103069385 | Apr 2013 | CN |
| 0834810 | Apr 1998 | EP |
| 3287896 | Feb 2018 | EP |
| 64-013189 | Jan 1989 | JP |
| H01-094431 | Apr 1989 | JP |
| 06-236276 | Aug 1994 | JP |
| H08-106540 | Apr 1996 | JP |
| 08-278892 | Oct 1996 | JP |
| 08-305576 | Nov 1996 | JP |
| 63-231613 | Sep 1998 | JP |
| 11-184766 | Jul 1999 | JP |
| 2000-010788 | Jan 2000 | JP |
| 2000-089955 | Mar 2000 | JP |
| 2000-99317 | Apr 2000 | JP |
| 2000-514219 | Oct 2000 | JP |
| 2001-022571 | Jan 2001 | JP |
| 2002-229943 | Aug 2002 | JP |
| H05-134886 | Jun 2005 | JP |
| 2005-317010 | Nov 2005 | JP |
| 2006-504160 | Feb 2006 | JP |
| 2006-133986 | May 2006 | JP |
| 2006-268409 | Oct 2006 | JP |
| 2008-544423 | Dec 2008 | JP |
| 2008-547134 | Dec 2008 | JP |
| 2010-108073 | May 2010 | JP |
| 2013-513864 | Apr 2013 | JP |
| 2013-528884 | Jul 2013 | JP |
| 2014-157510 | Aug 2014 | JP |
| WO 9800791 | Jan 1998 | WO |
| WO 2002011344 | Feb 2002 | WO |
| WO 2005001687 | Jan 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005086906 | Sep 2005 | WO |
| WO 2008124319 | Oct 2008 | WO |
| WO 2009039352 | Mar 2009 | WO |
| WO 2011008734 | Jan 2011 | WO |
| 2012027560 | Mar 2012 | WO |
| 2014011708 | Jan 2014 | WO |
| WO 2014041673 | Mar 2014 | WO |
| WO 2014193943 | Dec 2014 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| “RASSP Data Flow Graph Design Application Note.” International Conference on Parallel Processing, Dec. 2000, Retrieved from Internet www.atl.external.lmco.com/projects/rassp/RASSP_legacy/appnotes/FLOW/APNOTE_FLOW_02, 5 pages. |
| “Topological sorting,” Wikipedia, accessed Dec. 10, 2012, 2 pages. |
| “Unicenter AutoSys Job Management,” Computer Associates, Copyright 2001. |
| “Visual Lint: Squash bugs Early with Interactive C/C++, C# and Java Code Analysis for Microsoft Visual Studio and Eclipse,”[ retrieved from the internet Dec. 3, 2012: www.riverblade.co.uk/products/visual_lint](2 pages). |
| Babaoglu, O et al., “Mapping parallel computations onto distributed systems in Paralex” Compuero '91. Advanced Computer Technology, Reliable Systems and Applications. 5th Annual European Computer Conference. Proceedings. Bologna, Italy May 13-16, 1991, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, IEEE Comput. Soc, US, May 13, 1991, pp. 123-130. |
| Baer, J.L., et al., “Legality and Other Properties of Graph Models of Computations.” Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 17, No. 3, Jul. 1970, pp. 543-554. |
| Bernstein, et al., “Principles of Transaction Processing, 2nd Edition”, Morgan Kaufmann, XP002739946 (Jul. 24, 2009). |
| Bookstein et al., “Modeling Word Occurrences for the Compression of Concordances.” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 15, No. 3, Jul. 1997, pp. 254-290. |
| Burch et al., “Sequential circuit verification using symbolic model checking.” In Design Automation Conference, 1990, Proceedings of the 27th ACM/IEEE, Jun. 24-28, 1990, pp. 46-51. |
| Canadian Office Action in Application No. 2,750,279, dated Mar. 24, 2016, 5 pages. |
| Canadian Office Action in Application No. 2,801,573, dated Apr. 13, 2016. |
| Chinese Office Action (English Translation) in Application No. 2010-80042716.8, dated Apr. 8, 2016 (14 pages). |
| Chinese Office Action (with English Translation) in Application No. 2006-800231781, dated Jan. 12, 2016, 15 pages. |
| Chinese Office Action in Application No. 200680023178.1, dated Apr. 14, 2016 (10 pages) (English translation). |
| Chinese Office Action issued in CN 201380039226.7, dated May 4, 2015. |
| Control-M; New Dimension Software. User Manual. New Dimension Software Ltd., 1999. |
| Cytron et al., “Efficiently Computing Static SIngle Assignment Form and the Control Dependence Graph.” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 13, No. 4, Oct. 1991, pp. 451-490. |
| De Pauw et al., “Web Services Navigator: visualizing the execution of Web Services,” XP2477231, ISSN: 0018-8670, Jan. 1, 2005. |
| Dillon et al., “Inference Graphs: A Computational Structure Supporting Generation of Customizable and Correct Analysis Components,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 29, No. 2, Feb. 2003, pp. 133-150. |
| Ebert et al., “A Declarative Approach to Graph-Based Modeling.” Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, 1994, pp. 1-19. |
| European Examination report issued in EP 06 785 623.7 dated Nov. 24, 2014, 5 pages. |
| European Examination Report issued in related EP Application No. 10 741 775.0 dated Jul. 7, 2014. |
| European Search Report issued in application No. EP10003554, dated Sep. 24, 2010, 7 pages. |
| European Search Report issued in application No. EP10741775, dated Nov. 14, 2012, 4 pages. |
| European Examination Report in Application No. 10741775.0, dated Jan. 12, 2017. |
| Evripidou et al., “Incorporating input/output operations into dynamic data-flow graphs,” Parallel Computing 21 (1995) 1285-1311. |
| Examination Report in Application No. IN 10117/DELNP/2007, dated Dec. 22, 2015. |
| Examination Report in India Application 250CHENP2009, dated Aug. 31, 2016 (7 pages). |
| Extended Enropean Search Report, EP 12165575, dated May 10, 2013, 9 pages. |
| Frankl et al., “An Applicable Family of Data Flow Testing Criteria,” IEEE Transactions on Sofrware Engineering, vol. 14, No. 10, Oct. 1988, pp. 1483-1498. |
| Gamma et al. “Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software”, Sep. 1999. |
| Grove et al., “A Framework for Call Graph Construction Algorithms,” Nov. 2001, ACM TOPLAS, vol. 23, Issue 6, pp. 685-746. |
| Guyer et al., “Finding Your Cronies: Static Analysis for Dynamic Object Colocation,” Oct. 2004, ACM, pp. 237-250. |
| Herniter, “Schematic Capture with MicroSim PSpice,” 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1996, pp. 51-52, 255-280, 292-297. |
| IBM: “Concepts and Architecture—Version 3.6,” Internet citation, http://publiblp.boulder.ibm.coin.cpubs/pdf/h1262857, retrieved Apr. 19, 2007. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion issued in PCT application No. PCT/US01/23552, dated Jan. 24, 2002, 5 pages. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion issued in PCT application No. PCT/US06/24957, dated Jan. 17, 2008, 14 pages. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion issued in PCT application No. PCT/US07/75576, dated Sep. 16, 2008, 13 pages. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion issued in PCT application No. PCT/US08/71206, dated Oct. 22, 2008, 12 pages. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion issued in PCT application No. PCT/US10/49966, dated Nov. 23, 2010, 8 pages. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion received in PCT application No. PCT/US10/24036, dated Mar. 23, 2010, 11 pages. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion received in PCT application No. PCT/US2011/040440, dated Oct. 12, 2011, 13 pages. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion received in PCT application No. PCT/US2013/070386, dated Feb. 12, 2014, 7 pages. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion received in PCT application No. PCT/US2013/076416, dated Apr. 9, 2014, 10 pages. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in PCT/US2016/045612, dated Jan. 13, 2017. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/US2014/068754, dated May 8, 2015 (17 pages). |
| Japanese Office Action (English Translation) in application No. JP2014-077798, dated Nov. 11, 2015 (6 pages). |
| Japanese Office Action for Japanese Application No. 2010-518415, with English Translation, dated Nov. 18, 2013, 11 pages. |
| Japanese Office Action in Application No. 2014-159008, dated May 31, 2015 (English Translation) (4 pages). |
| Japanese Office Action, with English Translation, JP application No. 20098-519474, dated Sep. 25, 2012, 8 pages. |
| Japanese Office Action, with English Translation, JP application No. 2009-523997, dated Oct. 23, 2012, 7 pages. |
| Japanese Office Action, with English Translation, JP application No. 2011-000948, dated Jan. 8, 2013, 11 pages. |
| Japanese Office Action, with English Translation, JP application No. 2010-518415, dated Feb. 21, 2013, 11 pages. |
| Japanese Office Action, with English Translation, JP application No. 2013-515468, dated Jul. 24, 2015, 4 pages. |
| Jawadi et al., “A Graph-based Transaction Model for Active Databases and its Parallel Implementation.” U. Florida Tech. Rep TR94-0003, 1994, pp. 1-29. |
| Just et al., “Review and Analysis of Synthetic Diversity for Breaking Monocultures.” Oct. 2004, ACM, pp. 23-32. |
| Karasawa et al., “Direct generation of data-driven program for stream-oriented processing”—Published in: Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques., 1997, Proceedings., 1997 International Conference on; Nov. 10-14, 1997 San Francisco, CA—pp. 295-306. |
| Kebschull et al., “Efficient Graph-Based Computation and Manipulation of Functional Decision Diagrams.” University of Tubingen, 1993 IEEE, pp. 278-282. |
| Korean Office Action in Application No. 10-2011-7019122, dated Jan. 18, 2016, 14 pages. |
| Korean Office action in Application No. 10-2013-7001038, dated Dec. 11, 2015, 2 pages. |
| Korean Office Action in Application No. 10-2015-7008131, dated Apr. 1, 2016, 5 pages. |
| Krahmer et al., “Graph-Based Generation of Referring Expressions.” Mar. 2003, MIT Press, vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 53-72. |
| Krsul et al., “VMPlants: Providing and Managing Virtual Machine Execution Enviroments for Grid Computing.” Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE SC2004 Conference on Supercomputing, 2001, Nov. 6-12, 2004, 12 pages. |
| Li, Xiqing et al., “A Practical External Sort for Shared Disk MPPs.” Proceedings of Supercomputing '93, 1993, 24 pages. |
| Martin, David et al., “Models of Computations and Systems—Evaluation of Vertex Probablilities in Graph Models of Computations.” Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 14, No. 2, Apr. 1967, pp. 281-299. |
| Mattson et al., “Patterns for Parallel Programming,” Addison-Wesley Professional ISBN: 0-321-22811-1 (2004). |
| Ou, Chao-Wei et al., “Architecture-Independent Locality-Improving Transformations of Computational Graphs Embedded in κ-Dimensions.” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Supercomputing, 1995, pp. 289-298. |
| Rajesh K. Gupta and Giovanni de Micheli—“A co-synthesis approach to embedded system design automation” Design Automation for Embedded Systems, vol. 1, issue 1-2, 69-120. |
| Romberg, M., “UNICORE: Beyond Web-based Job-Submission,” Proceedings of the 42nd Cray User Group Conference, Noordwijk (May 22-26, 2000). |
| Russell, Nick, et al., “Workflow Control—Flow Patterns A Revised View,” Workflow Patterns Initiative, 2006, pp. 1-134. |
| Shoten, Iwanami, “Encyclopedic Dictionary of Computer Science,” (with English Translation), May 25, 1990, p. 741. |
| Stanfill, Craig et al., “Parallel Free-Text Search on the Connection Machine System.” Communications of the ACM, vol. 29, No. 12, Dec. 1986, pp. 1229-1239. |
| Stanfill, Craig, “Massively Parallel Information Retriveal for Wide Area Information Servers.” 1991 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Oct. 1991, pp. 679-682. |
| Stanfill, Craig, “The Marriage of Parallel Computing and Information Retrieval.” IEE Colloquium on Parallel Techniques for Information Retrieval, Apr. 1989, 5 pages. |
| Supplemental European Search Report issued in application No. EP07813940, dated Nov. 26, 2009, 7 pages. |
| Supplemental European Search Report issued in application No. EP08796632, dated Sep. 24, 2010, 6 pages. |
| Supplemental European Search Report issued in application No. EP06774092, dated Dec. 19, 2012, 5 pages. |
| Supplemental European Search Report issued in EP 13 80 2160 dated Jul. 6, 2016 (6 pages). |
| Supplemental European Search Report issued in EP10819444, dated Jun. 3, 2015. |
| Vajracharya, Suvas et al., “Asynchronous Resource Management.” Proceedings of the 15th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, Apr. 2001, 10 pages. |
| Van der Aalst, W.M.P., et al., “Workflow Patterns,” Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14, 5-51, 2003. |
| Wah, B.W. et al., “Report on Workshop on High Performance Computing and Communications for Grand Challenge Applications: Computer Vision, Speech and Natural Language Processing, and Artificial Intelligence.” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 5, No. 1, Feb. 1993, 138-154. |
| Whiting, Paul. G., et al., “A History of Data-Flow Languages,” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, vol. 16, No. 4, 1994, pp. 38-59. |
| “Modular programming” Wikipedia, retrieved Feb. 10, 2009 (2 pages). |
| “System integration” Wikipedia, retrieved Jan. 25, 2009 (3 pages). |
| Fraleigh et al., “Integrating Dataflow and Sequential Control in a Graphical Diagnostic Language,” IFAC, Symposium on On-line Fault Detection and Supervision in the Chemical Process Industries, Newark, Apr. 1992. |
| Finch et al., “Using the G2 Diagnostic Assistant for Real-Time Fault Diagnosis,” Euopean Conference on Industrial Application of Knowledge-Based Diagnosis, Milan, Italy, Oct. 1991. |
| Stanley et al., “An Object-Oriented Graphical Language and Environment for Real-Time Fault Diagnosis,” European Symposium on Computer Applications in Chemical Engineering, COPE-91, Spain, Oct. 1991. |
| Japanese Office Action in Japanese Application No. 2016-046091, dated May 23, 2017, 63 pages (with English translation. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 09/627,252 U.S. Pat. No. 7,164,422, filed Jul. 28, 2000 Jan. 16, 2007, Parameterized Graphs with Conditional Components. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 10/268,509 U.S. Pat. No. 7,167,850, filed Oct. 10, 2002 Jan. 23, 2007, Startup and Control of Graph-Based Computation. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/467,724 U.S. Pat. No. 7,577,628, filed Aug. 28, 2006 Aug. 18, 2009, Startup and Control of Graph-Based Computation. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/733,579 U.S. Pat. No. 7,636,699, filed Apr. 10, 2007 Dec. 22, 2009, Processing Transactions Using Graph-Based Computations Including Instances of Computation Graphs Associated with the Transactions. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/169,014 U.S. Pat. No. 7,716,630, filed Jun. 27, 2005 May 11, 2010, Managing Parameters for Graph-Based Computations. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/167,902 U.S. Pat. No. 7,877,350, filed Jun. 27, 2005 Jan. 25, 2011, Managing Metadata for Graph-Based Computations. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/977,545 U.S. Pat. No. 8,484,159, filed Dec. 23, 2010 Jul. 9, 2013, Managing Metadata for Graph-Based Computations. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/936,330 U.S. Pat. No. 9,158,797, filed Jul. 8, 2013 Oct. 13, 2015, Managing Metadata for Grpah-Based Computations. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/836,349 U.S. Pat. No. 8,572,236, filed Aug. 9, 2007 Oct. 29, 2013, Distributing Services in Graph-Based Computations. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/180,141 U.S. Pat. No. 8,706,667, filed Jul. 25, 2008 Apr. 22, 2014, Transactional Graph-Based Computation with Error Handling. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/704,998 U.S. Pat. No. 9,886,319, filed Feb. 12, 2010 Feb. 6, 2018, Managing Task Execution. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/873,095, filed Jan. 17, 2018, Managing Task Execution. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/161,010 U.S. Pat. No. 8,875,145, filed Jun. 15, 2011 Oct. 28, 2014, Dynamically Loading Graph-Based Computations. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/520,588 U.S. Pat. No. 9,753,751, filed Oct. 22, 2014 Sep. 5, 2017, Dynamically Loading Graph-Based Computations. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/638,588 U.S. Pat. No. 8,667,329, filed Dec. 15, 2009 Mar. 4, 2014, Processing Transactions in Graph-Based Applications. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/678,921 U.S. Pat. No. 9,507,682, filed Nov. 16, 2012 Nov. 29, 2016, Dynamic Graph Performance Monitoring. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/678,928 U.S. Appl. No. 10/108,521, filed Nov. 16, 2012 filed Oct. 23, 2018, Dynamic Component Performance Monitoring. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/137,822, filed Sep. 21, 2018, Dynamic Component Performance Monitoring. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/733,403, filed Jan. 3, 2013, Configurable Testing of Computer Programs. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/165,698 U.S. Pat. No. 9,154,707, filed Jan. 28, 2014 Oct. 6, 2015, Configurable Testing of Computer Programs. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/561,494, filed Dec. 5, 2014, Managing Interfaces for Sub-Graphs. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/818,895, filed Aug. 5, 2015, Selecting Queries for Execution on a Stream of Real-Time Data. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/384,508, filed Dec. 20, 2016, Sub-Graph Interface Generation. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/561,435, filed Dec. 5, 2014, Managing Interfaces for Sub-Graphs. |
| “Performance Measurement Supporting Increase in Processing Speed of Java Program/Load Testing Tool,” (English Translation) Java World, IDG Japan, Inc., Apr. 1, 2005 vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 020-021. |
| Arasu et al., “STREAM: The Stanford Data Stream Management System,” In: Garofalakis et al (eds), “Data Stream Management,” Data-Centric Systems and Applications, Jan. 1, 2016, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 317-336. |
| Atterbury, Matthew et al. U.S. Appl. No. 61/355,129 titled “Dynamically Loading Graph-Based Computations”, filed Jun. 15, 2010. Priority document to PG Pub 2011/0307897, pp. 1-34. |
| AU Office Action in Australian Appln. No. 2016301376, dated Jul. 14, 2020, 4 pages. |
| AU Office Action in Australian Appln. No. 2019203337, dated Jul. 6, 2020, 5 pages. |
| CN Office Action in Chinese Appln. No. 201710217866, dated Mar. 27, 2020, 22 pages. |
| Ep Office Action in European Appln. No. 16759900.0, dated Jul. 9, 2020, 21 pages. |
| European Examination Report issued in related EP Application No. 16759900.0 dated Jul. 30, 2019, 9 pages. |
| Extended European Search Report in European Application No. 17156952.8, dated Jun. 16, 2017, 10 pages. |
| IN Office Action in Indian Appln. No. 5319/CHENP/2011, dated Sep. 27, 2019, 19 pages. |
| Japanese Office Action in Application No. 2015-542845, dated Mar. 26, 2018. |
| JP Office Action in Japanese Appln. No. 2017-567783, dated Jun. 22, 2020, 13 pages (with English translation). |
| National Instruments LABVIEW User Manual, Apr. 2003 Edition National Instruments Corporation, Austin TX (349 pages). |
| Satoshi Katsunuma and five others, Development of Automotive Embedded Data Stream Management System, IEICE Transactions, Japan, The Institute of Electronics, Information and Comunication Engineers, 6 Dec. 1, 2012, vol. J95-D, No. 12, pp. 2031-2047. |
| Satoshi Katsunuma and three others, The Static Scheduling Method in Data Stream Management for Automotive Embedded Systems, IPSJ Transactions 2012 (1) [CD-ROM], Japan, Information Processing Society of Japan, Oct. 15, 2012, vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 36-50. |
| wikipedia.org [online] “Data mapping Wikipedia ” Jan. 4, 2009, retrieved Jan. 15, 2020, retrieved from URL <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Data_mapping&oldid=261914241>, 3 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20190095176 A1 | Mar 2019 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62031388 | Jul 2014 | US | |
| 61912057 | Dec 2013 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 14561435 | Dec 2014 | US |
| Child | 16200998 | US |
