A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to use of polymorphic data in a session between a buyer and seller, or any pair of trading partners, mediated by a broker or e-commerce hub. In particular, methods and devices utilizing a flexible service request and session end messages are described.
2. Description of Related Art
A desire for electronic commerce brings trading partners together. Broker or hub applications can facilitate transactions between trading partners in many ways. The broker application can field an initial session start request from the buyer and forward it to a seller, either acknowledging the start of the session explicitly or leaving it to the seller to acknowledge the start of the session to the buyer. This and other variations on the manner in which electronic commerce is implemented have implications for software design.
An aspect of the present invention includes a protocol for conveying data during an e-commerce session with a polymorphic response, comprising initiating a session with a first message from a buyer application to a broker application and a second message from the broker application to a supplier application; conducting the session between the buyer application and the supplier application; and responding during the session with an additional message which includes a schema identifier for the additional message, resolvable in a context of a system identifier and a polymorphic response comprising a type and a version, wherein the polymorphic response includes additional data elements corresponding to values assigned to the type and version. Additional aspects of the invention can be found in the detailed description, the figures and the claims.
The following description of various aspects and embodiments of the invention is presented for purposes of illustration and description. The description is not intended to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Many modifications and equivalent arrangements will be apparent to people skilled in the art.
One embodiment practicing aspects of the present invention is so-called RoundTrip™ software. RoundTrip facilitates connections between buyers and suppliers for connecting via a MarketSite™ portal. Other embodiments of the present invention will be adapted to facilitating connections between trading partners using other e-commerce portals and connections, including OBI compliant protocols. RoundTrip software may be delivered as a patch to the XML commerce connector (XCC) software or as a stand alone package. Buyers use the XCC software or equivalent components of a stand alone package to process polymorphic messages involving the RoundTrip software. Suppliers optionally may use the XCC software. Custom adaptations to the RoundTrip software by suppliers are supported. The RoundTrip software facilitates return of shopping cart data from a supplier application to a buyer application, after the buyer has created the shopping cart at the supplier site. The buyer application can then use the shopping cart data to create a purchase order which it can send to the supplier application without involvement of the RoundTrip software. One aspect of the present invention, found in the RoundTrip software, is use of a polymorphic message in the context of an e-commerce session to respond with results during a session, sometimes at or near the end of the session. A polymorphic message, described further below, is capable by design of returning shopping cart data, product configuration data, tax calculation data, foreign freight forwarding data, status inquiry responses or another form of data which reflects the interaction between the buyer and supplier. Another aspect of the present invention is use of a polymorphic message to initiate a session, the polymorphic message being adaptable to sending out purchase orders, purchase order responses, invoices, advance shipping notices or the like.
In presenting the RoundTrip software embodiment, reference is made to buyers and suppliers. Buyers and suppliers might alternatively be referred to as trading partners. Reference to buyers or buyer applications is to be taken in its broadest sense as referring to a party or application which seeks goods, services, commercial data or the like. Reference to suppliers or supplier applications has a similarly broad meaning, referring to the source of goods, services or data which the buyer seeks out. The RoundTrip software itself is referred to as the broker application. This software and equivalent applications may sometimes be called e-commerce hubs.
The following interaction overview can be understood with reference to
The table below provides further information regarding supplier service registration, according to the RoundTrip software embodiment. The information set forth in the table enables buyer side applications to connect to and interact with a supplier's RoundTrip enabled services. The information described in the table may be provided either via a paper registration form or an online registration form verified a MarketSite operator.
The next table below provides further information regarding initial buyer registration, according to the RoundTrip software embodiment. The information described in the table may be provided either via a paper registration form or an online registration form verified a MarketSite operator. Default values, subject to overrides, can be assigned to many of these items, including localization values, the Document Exchange Protocol Information, the Accept and Cancel URLs and Labels.
After initial registration, the buyer will specify the supplier and supplier services that it wants to subscribe/unsubscribe to. The following information can be used to identify supplier services to which the buyer is subscribing:
For each service, the buyer will also register service specific data. Some examples of these data items are:
A Sox schema for RoundTrip BrokerSessionStart message appears below. Those familiar with the art will recognize Sox as an extension to XML proposed as an open specification through W3C at HTTP://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-SOX. The full Sox specification, version 2, has been published at http://www.commerceone.com/xml/sox/download/index.html. The schema below is self documenting. Some comments and explanations of data usage follow the schema.
This schema works in conjunction with XML Common Business Language (xCBL) documents published as an open standard at the Commerce One download site referenced above. In other embodiments of the present invention, EBXML documents (Sun sponsored) or other schemas could be used for starting the broker session. The table below explains some data usage corresponding to the schema above.
When the user selects a specific service URL, the Service Broker sends a “Supplier Service Session Start” request to the chosen service's supplier application. The service context data is delivered to the supplier application via an HTTP Post to the URL (ServiceURL) specified by the supplier during registration. This is the initial communication between the broker application and the service application. In the RoundTrip embodiment, data is delivered as an XML format document within a hidden form field. The name of the hidden field typically is the name of the root element tag in the document being sent—for example, RTServiceStart, RTServiceEnd, RTServiceCancel, and RTServiceError. The general form for conveying the hidden field can use the following syntax:
In greater detail, the following schema depicts one embodiment of a supplier service session start document. Both the specific schema and some common schema information used in conjunction with the specific schema are provided.
The following table explains some of the data items included in the supplier service session start XML document. In this table, the Supplier Service Session Start data is categorized. Session data is MarketSite Service Broker session information. Data such as session id is used by the broker application to associate the acquired data (order details) with a supplier service session. Other data, such as language, is provided as a courtesy so that the web-based service can provide a tailored experience. Authentication data includes information such as the organization's user-id and password. Authorization data, for catalogs and configurators, for instance, includes the buyer's supplier assigned account number or customer number. Parameter data provides information required by the supplier's service application. For example, a configurator will need a supplier part number. Parameter data typically can be provided by the buyer application. Finally, action data includes button labels and URLs for accept, cancel and other actions.
The previous table shows a basic supplier service session start data layout. The following table shows a list of additional supplier specific data items that can be part of the RoundTrip Supplier Service Start document:
The following example provides a document consistent with the schema above.
When the buyer is done with the supplier site, he may select a Submit or Cancel button in the browser. These selections lead to generation of a Service Session End or Service Session Cancel XML document, respectively, which is to be sent to the buyer by the supplier via the broker, as a hidden form field, over HTTP/S Post. The supplier service posts to a URL (CallBackURL) specified in the Supplier Service Session Start data. The data in this posted document include Supplier Service Session End data as an XML document within a hidden form field, consistent with the following schema. The supplier's document also includes an order response (e.g., a shopping cart) as a CBL format document within a hidden form field. A schema for and example of a shopping cart response follow. The Service Session End document is sent to a buyer provided Submit URL. Alternatively, a Service Session Cancel document is sent to a buyer provided Cancel URL. The buyer receives and processes these documents.
Any errors that occur during this interaction may be posted to a specified error URL. These errors can be automatically displayed within the buyer's browser.
The supplier service session end document is an HTTP form is posted to the broker callback URL when the Supplier Service Session Ends. This form contains the “Supplier Service Session End” XML document and a List of Order Details CBL documents in hidden fields. The following syntax is used:
The following schema depicts a supplier service session end document.
In this schema, the ResponseData element enables polymorphism of the session end data document. The extension of ResponseData is self-describing. That is, the basic attributes of ResponseData, which may be extended and adapted in various embodiments, describe the extended data attributes. Data type and version attributes allow the buyer application to determine what data is associated with the message. An optional data format attribute permits further definition of the data associated with the message. This is an extension of XML. The same message, with variants, can be adapted to a variety of functions, such as conveying reference to or the values of shopping cart data, conveying product configuration data, conveying tax calculation data or conveying shipping or foreign freight forwarding data. Use of a polymorphic data schema decouples programming from the evolution of document types and applications. Use of namespaces supports coordination of document type names, development, deployment and maintenance of applications. Relative to a namespace, a schema identifier is provided with a message, which is resolvable in a context of a system identifier. In the sample schemas herein, the system identifier is explicit and part of the self-describing data. The system identifier may be universally unique, across the namespace of the Internet, or locally unique in some narrower domain. At some sacrifice of general adaptability, the system identifier may be implicit in the data tables or program code used by the buyer or supplier application or it may be implicit in the choice of a narrower domain than the Internet. Other Sox extensions of XML which are useful in practicing aspects of the present invention are support of typed data, a predefined set of intrinsic types, such as string, int, URI, and date, user defined types based on enumerated, scalar, and varchar type definitions, namespaces and versions for schemas, and an extensibility mechanism that facilitates the reuse and evolution of schemas and element types. Translation of Sox to Java data formats can leverage strong typing and data structures which are readily mapped into Java.
Polymorphism is not limited in this invention to responses from a supplier. Responses from a buyer to a supplier also can take advantage of this method and data structure. Alternatively, polymorphism can be used at the outset of a session, in a first message (not necessarily the actual first message) from the initiating party to the broker. Either the buyer or supplier can initiate a session through the broker and use polymorphism during the initiating. For example, a buyer can initiate a status inquiry or a purchase order start using data structures equivalent to ResponseData, in place of PassThroughData. A supplier can initiate a session, reversing the roles of the schemas or messages offered as examples herein, and use polymorphism during the initiating. This may be useful to a supplier for purchase order responses, invoices or advance shipment notices. At the conclusion of a session initiated by a supplier, the buyer may respond with data regarding changed conditions. Alternate schedules or other delivery information can be provided. Alternate configurations can be provided if a selected configuration has become unavailable.
The following table explains some data items that are part of the Supplier Service Session End document:
As an extension of ResponseData, the following schema supports a shopping cart.
An example of an end document extended by a shopping cart morphism follows:
An example of one embodiment practicing aspects of the present invention begins when a user web browser is displaying ABC Motors Product Search page in which one or more motors have been selected. The user reads and selects one or more items. The user clicks on an “Order Form” link to submit the request. The ABC Motors order form page is served up by the ABC Motors server. The “Check Out” button sometimes used in e-commerce is replaced with the buyer application specified “Accept” button label. For example, the actual label may read “Add To a Requisition.” The user clicks on the “Accept” button. This results in a HTTP/S Post to the ABC Motors server. The web browser is waiting for an HTTP Reply. The ABC Motors server HTTP/S Posts to the broker application the OrderRequest and context earlier provided by the broker application. The ABC Motors server is waiting for an HTTP Reply. The broker application HTTP/S Posts to the appropriate buyer application “Accept Order Request” ASP page for receiving the OrderRequest CBL and earlier provided buyer application context. The broker application is waiting for an HTTP Reply. The buyer application “Accept Order Request” ASP adds the items in the OrderRequest to the user's requisition (the buyer application context contains the user session information) and then HTTP/S Replies with HTML (to the broker application). The broker application HTTP/S Replies with the buyer application provided HTML to the ABC Motors server. The ABC Motors server HTTP/S Replies with the buyer application provided HTML to the user's web browser. The user's web browser refreshes per the HTML.
Due to the polymorphic nature of the message used to conclude the buyer-supplier session, the message is suitable for a variety of diverse applications, including product configuration, tax calculations or freight forward, in addition to this shopping cart example. A further example of a tax calculation extension to ResponseData follows:
Additional aspects of a system practicing the present invention may include forwarding a purchase order, as depicted in
It is inherent in the present invention that methods practicing the present invention can be expressed as articles of manufacture by describing the method as embodied in a program stored on a magnetic medium. It is further inherent that those methods can be expressed as a broker server device running the broker portion of the method or as a system including buyer, broker and supplier servers running their respective portions of the method.
While the present invention is disclosed by reference to the embodiments and examples detailed above, it is understood that these examples are intended in an illustrative rather than in a limiting sense. It is contemplated that modifications and combinations will readily occur to those skilled in the art, which modifications and combinations will be within the spirit of the invention and the scope of the following claims. Each method practicing the present invention may readily be recast as a device or article of manufacture.
This application is a continuation of currently pending application Ser. No. 13/615,135, filed 13 Sep. 2012, entitled “METHOD AND DEVICE UTILIZING POLYMORPHIC DATA IN E-COMMERCE”, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 13/031,072 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,301,507 issued on 30 Oct. 2012), filed 18 Feb. 2011, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/343,039 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,895,079 issued on 22 Feb. 2011), filed 30 Jan. 2006, entitled “METHOD AND DEVICE UTILIZING POLYMORPHIC DATA IN E-COMMERCE”, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 09/730,489 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,993,506 issued on 31 Jan. 2006) entitled “METHOD AND DEVICE UTILIZING POLYMORPHIC DATA IN E-COMMERCE” by Mudita Jain, Jari Koistinen, Charles Boyle and Brian Hayes filed on 5 Dec. 2000. The original '489 application is hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3173002 | Starr | Mar 1965 | A |
3229110 | Kleinbach et al. | Jan 1966 | A |
3683161 | Stadlin et al. | Aug 1972 | A |
3719809 | Fink | Mar 1973 | A |
3740572 | Cohn | Jun 1973 | A |
3913829 | Fink | Oct 1975 | A |
3932735 | Giras | Jan 1976 | A |
4320306 | Kohga et al. | Mar 1982 | A |
4410962 | Daniels et al. | Oct 1983 | A |
4438511 | Baran | Mar 1984 | A |
4774655 | Kollin et al. | Sep 1988 | A |
4942552 | Merrill et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
5036484 | McCoy et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5083262 | Haff, Jr. | Jan 1992 | A |
5113517 | Beard et al. | May 1992 | A |
5119465 | Jack et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5149945 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5161222 | Montejo et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5179690 | Ishikawa | Jan 1993 | A |
5212369 | Karlisch et al. | May 1993 | A |
5237507 | Chasek | Aug 1993 | A |
5239662 | Danielson et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5278955 | Forte et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5278972 | Baker et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5294782 | Kumar | Mar 1994 | A |
5297249 | Bernstein et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5367572 | Weiss | Nov 1994 | A |
5386517 | Sheth et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5394324 | Clearwater | Feb 1995 | A |
5530844 | Phillips et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5548721 | Denslow | Aug 1996 | A |
5550984 | Gelb | Aug 1996 | A |
5557798 | Skeen et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5577233 | Goettelmann et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5581708 | Iijima | Dec 1996 | A |
5621654 | Cohen et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5679347 | Porcelli et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5684985 | Ahmadi | Nov 1997 | A |
5692129 | Sonderegger et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5715314 | Payne et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5742845 | Wagner | Apr 1998 | A |
5778368 | Hogan et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5790677 | Fox et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5806049 | Petruzzi | Sep 1998 | A |
5832100 | Lawton et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5884322 | Sidhu et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5905987 | Shutt et al. | May 1999 | A |
5913210 | Call | Jun 1999 | A |
5922123 | Sandefur et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5923833 | Freund et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5966531 | Skeen et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5970475 | Barnes et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974418 | Blinn et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5978779 | Stein et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6009543 | Shavit | Dec 1999 | A |
6012098 | Bayeh et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6023508 | Bombard et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6049785 | Gifford | Apr 2000 | A |
6055513 | Katz et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6072481 | Matsushita et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6095412 | Bertina et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115698 | Tuck et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6119130 | Nguyen et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6125391 | Meltzer et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6125397 | Yoshimura et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6141658 | Mehr et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6145739 | Bertina et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6148290 | Dan et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6154738 | Call | Nov 2000 | A |
6195651 | Handel et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6216136 | Ronstrom | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6216137 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6216158 | Luo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226675 | Meltzer et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6226788 | Schoening et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6230201 | Guck et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6256664 | Donoho et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6286010 | Ramachandran et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292789 | Schutzer | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6306640 | Nicolette | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6338067 | Baker et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6341353 | Herman et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6385596 | Wiser et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393466 | Hickman et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401101 | Britton et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6418441 | Call | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418446 | Lection et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6438547 | Mehr et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6480860 | Monday | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6490619 | Byrne et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6501491 | Brown et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6519642 | Olsen et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6542912 | Meltzer et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6564370 | Hunt | May 2003 | B1 |
6591260 | Schwarzhoff et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601071 | Bowker et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6618852 | van Eikeren et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6654726 | Hanzek | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6684204 | Lal | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6687557 | Ouchi | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6697824 | Bowman-Amuah | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6715147 | Barker | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6757729 | Devarakonda et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6792605 | Roberts et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6904449 | Quinones | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6912529 | Kolfman | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6968513 | Rinebold et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6993506 | Jain et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7028312 | Merrick et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7134072 | Lovett et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7594167 | Fuchs et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7660874 | Meltzer et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7951614 | Tamarkin et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8006177 | Meltzer et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8277812 | Iannacone et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8323696 | Hubbell et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8343497 | Shi et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8343498 | Alexis et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8375116 | Meltzer et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
20010049650 | Moshal et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020087576 | Geiger et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020111885 | Geiger et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020143560 | Hanson et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030046201 | Cheyer | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030187669 | Hassinger et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030188024 | MacPhail et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040081178 | Fujimori | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040128345 | Robinson et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20060269540 | Robert et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20080160089 | Vitiello et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080254045 | Donda et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20100008932 | Bensussan et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100151000 | Thomas et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100303850 | Lipford et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110020388 | Zepp et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110070153 | Hyde et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110070154 | Hyde et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0704795 | Apr 1996 | EP |
0945789 | Sep 1999 | EP |
0954799 | Nov 1999 | EP |
9833125 | Jul 1998 | WO |
9834179 | Aug 1998 | WO |
0023925 | Apr 2000 | WO |
0247005 | Jun 2002 | WO |
2009131712 | Oct 2009 | WO |
2010138192 | Dec 2010 | WO |
2012149259 | Nov 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
McKenzie, Neil Robin. The Cranium network interface architecture: Support for message passing on adaptive packet routing networks. University of Washington, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1997. |
Aggarwal, Praveen, “Surrogate buyers and the new product adoption process: a conceptualization and managerial framework”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Santa Barbara: 1997. vol. 14, Iss. 5; p. 391, Proquest. |
“QueryObject and InterNetivity Collaborate on E-Commerce Solution”, press release, Uniondale, N.Y., Jun. 2, 1999, 4 pages. |
Orr, Joel N., “What's the Blg Deal About Objects?”, Computer-Aided Engineering, Nov. 1992, 11(11), p. 60. |
Bergeron, F., and L. Raymond, “Managing EDI for corporate advantage: A longitudinal study,” Information & Management, 31, 1997, pp. 319-333, Elsevier. |
Bonometti, Robert J., et al., “The Walls Coming Down: Interoperability Opens the Electronic City,” The Future of the Electronic Marketplace, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998, pp. 265-301. |
Bort, Richard, and Gerald R. Bielfeldt, “EDI on the Internet,” Handbook of EDI, Warren, Gorham & Lamont, USA, 1997, pp. B7-1-B7-19, 21 pages. |
Gallego, Isabel, Jaime Delgado, and Jose J. Acebron, “Distributed Models for Brokerage on Electronic Commerce,” TREC'98, LNCS 1402, 1998, pp. 129-140, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. |
Garguilo, John J., and Paul Markovitz, “Guidelines for the Evaluation of Electronic data Interchange Products,” Draft—Technical Report CAML/CLS, Dec. 6, 1995, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 57 pages. |
Ghosh, Shikhar, “Making Business Sense of the Internet,” Harvard Business Review, Mar.-Apr. 1998, pp. 126-135. |
Khoo, Li-Pheng, Shu Beng Tor, and Stephen S. G. Lee, “The Potential of Intelligent Software Agents in the World Wide Web in Automating Part Procurement,” International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Jan. 1998, pp. 46-52. |
Riggins, F., et al., “Toward a Unified View of Electronic Commerce,” Communications of the ACM, Oct. 1998, vol. 41, No. 10, pp. 88-95. |
Bond, Robert and Whiteley, Caroline, “Untangling the web: A review of certain secure e-commerce legal issues”, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Jul. 1998, vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 349-370. |
Wayner, Peter, “Finding Hidden Senders in All That E-Mail Gobbledygook”, Mar. 26, 1998. New York Times, p. 11, 4pgs. |
Kyrish, Sandy Kay, “Predicting the future: Assessing forecasts and predictions for residential broadband services”, Temple University, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1993, 311 page. |
PCT Application No. PCT/US01/47250, International Search Report, mailed Apr. 9, 2002, 1 page. |
Bray, T., et al. (editors), “W3C: Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0,” W3C Recommendation Feb. 10, 1998, Printed from the Internet Feb. 17, 1998, Retrieved from the Internet: <http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210>, pp. 1-37. |
Kimbrough, et al., “On Automated Message Processing in Electronic Commerce and Work Support Systems: Speech Act Theory and Expressive Felicity,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 15, No. 4, Oct. 1997, pp. 321-367. |
Fuchs, M., “Domain Specific Languages for ad hoc Distributed Applications,” USENIX Associate, Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, Oct. 15-17, 1997, pp. 27-35. |
Finin, T., et al., “KQML as an Agent Communication Language,” Association of Computing Machinery, Nov. 1994, 22 pages. |
Chappell, D., “Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP),” Microsoft Windows: Simple Object Access Protocol Technical Article, Sep. 10, 1999, Microsoft Corporation. |
Chung, P.E., et al., “DCOM and CORBA Side by Side, Step by Step, and Layer by Layer,” Sep. 3, 1997, Retrieved from the Internet: <http://research.microsoff.com/en-us/um/people/ymwang/papers/html/dcomncorba/s.html>. |
Howes, T.A., et al., “A Scalable, Deployable, Directory Service Framework for the Internet,” CITI Technical Report 95-7, Jul. 11, 1995, Retrieved from the Internet: <http://www.openldap.org/pub/umich/inet.direct.pdf>, 12 pages. |
Dudeck, J., “Aspects of Implementing and Harmonizing Healthcare Communication Standards,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, vol. 48, Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd., Feb. 1998, pp. 163-171. |
Kristensen, A., “Template Resolution in XML/HTML,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 30, Elsevier Science B.V., Mar. 1999, 17 pages. |
Liechti, O., et al., “Structured Graph Format: XML Metadata for Describing Web Site Structure,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 30, Elsevier Science B.V., Jan. 1998, pp. 11-21. |
Tenenbaum, et al., “Eco System: An Internet Commerce Architecture,” IEEE, May 1997, pp. 48-55. |
“The Internet: Untangling the Web,” The Economist, Apr. 25, 1998, 3 pages. |
Orfali, R., et al., “The Essential Distributed Objects Survival Guide,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, pp. xxii-xxxiv, 1-20, 271-282, and 339-424. |
“Web Interface Definition Language (WIDL),” Submitted to W3C, Sep. 22, 1997, Retrieved from the Internet: <http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-widl-970922>, 17 pages. |
Ross, K., et al., U.S. Appl. No. 60/036,385; U.S. Provisional Application, filing date Jan. 24, 1997. |
Bryan, M., “Guidelines for Using XML for Electronic Data Interchange: Version 0.02,” The SGML Centre, Sep. 12, 1997, 29 pages. |
Bryan, M., et al., “Guidelines for Using XML for Electronic Data Interchage: Version 0.05,” The SGML Centre, Jan. 25, 1998, 38 pages. |
Usdin, et al., “XML: Not a Silver Bullet, But a Great Pipe Wrench”, StandardView, vol. 6, No. 3, Sep. 1998, pp. 125-132. |
Meltzer, et al., “XML and Electronic Commerce: Enabling the Network Economy,” Sigmod Record, vol. 27, No. 4, Dec. 1998, pp. 21-28. |
Tauber, J., “XML After 1.0: You Ain't Seen Nothin′ Yet”, IEEE Internet Computing, Jun. 1999, pp. 100-102. |
Kiely, D., “BizTalk Could Spur XML and E-Business”, Information Week, Aug. 1999, 2 pages. |
“Symix Publishes XML Schema for Collaboration-Critical Midmarket Transactions to BizTalk.org”, PR Newswire, Nov. 1999, 3 pages. |
Tenenmbaum, J.M., et al., “eCo System: CommerceNet's Architectural Framework for Internet Commerce”, Jan. 1997, pp. 1-42. |
Lautemann, S.E., “A Propagation Mechanism for Populated Schema Versions”, IEEE, 1997, pp. 67-78. |
Jacobsen, et al., “Modeling Interface Definition Language Extensions,” Proceedings 37th International Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, 2000, pp. 242-251. |
Hirshfield, S., “Object-Oriented Programming,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 28, No. 1, Mar. 1996, pp. 253-255. |
Battle, et al., “Flexible Information Presentation with XML,” The Institution of Electrical Engineers, Jan. 1999, pp. 13/1-6. |
Schafer, J., et al., “Recommender Systems in E-Commerce”, ACM, Nov. 1999, pp. 158-166. |
Bolin, S., “E-commerce: A Market Analysis and Prognostication”, ACM, Sep. 1998, pp. 97-105. |
Li, X., “A Survey of Schema Evolution in Object-Oriented Databases”, IEEE, Sep. 1999, pp. 362-371. |
Ra, Y., et al., “A Transparent Schema-Evolution System Based on Object-Oriented View Technology,” IEEE, vol. 9, No. 4, Jul.-Aug. 1997, pp. 600-624. |
Osborn, S., “The Role of Polymorphism in Schema Evolution in an Object-Oriented Database,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 1, No. 3, Sep. 1989, pp. 310-317. |
Glushko, et al., “An XML Framework for Agent-based E-commerce,” ACM, vol. 42, No. 3, Mar. 1999, pp. 1-9. |
Pons, et al., “Schema Evolution in Object Databases by Catalogs,” Database Engineering and Applications Symposium, 1997, IEEE, pp. 368-375. |
Zhou, et al., “Schema Evolution of an Object-Oriented Real-Time Database System for Manufacturing Automation,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 9, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 1997, pp. 956-977. |
Beech, D., et al., “XML Schema Part 1: Structures”, W3C Working Draft May 6, 1999, W3C XP-002203859, Retrieved on the Internet: <http://www.w3.org/1999/05/06-xmlschema-1>, pp. 1-53. |
Biron, P., et al., “XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes”, World Wide Web Consortium Working Draft May 6, 1999, W3C XP-002203860, Retrieved on the Internet: <http://www.w3.org/1999/05/06-xmlschema-2>, pp. 1-28. |
Brown, K., “BizTalk: Fluent in E-Business”, XP-002203861, Dec. 1999, pp. 1-6. |
Yeong, W., et al., “Lighweight Directory Access Protocol”, ISODE Consortium, Mar. 1995, pp. 1-19. |
Moats, R., “URN Syntax,” The Internet Engineering Task Force, Online!, AT&T, May 1997, Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2141.txt>, pp. 1-7. |
Klarlund, N., et al, “Document Structure Description 1.0”, AT&T and BRICS 1999, XP-002203865, pp. 1-34. |
Narayanaswamy, K., et al., “An Incremental Mechanism for Schema Evolution in Engineering Domains”, Data Engineering IEEE 1988, Proceedings 4th Intl. Conf., Los Angeles, CA, Feb. 1, 1988, pp. 294-300. |
Bray, T., “Extensible Markup Language (XML)”, World Wide Web Consortium Dec. 8, 1997, W3C XP-002203864, Retrieved from the Internet: <http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-xml-971208>, 35 pages. |
Davidson, A., et al., “Schema for Object-Oriented XML 2.0”, W3C Note Jul. 30, 1999, W3C XP-002203857, Retrieved from the Internet: <http://www.w3/org/1999/07/NOTE-SOX-19990730>, pp. 1-22. |
Lassila, O., et al., “Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Syntax Specification”, W3C Recommendation Feb. 22, 1999, Retrieved from the Internet: <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222> [Aug. 30, 2006], 46 pages. |
Brickley, D., et al., “Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification”, W3C Working Draft Aug. 14, 1998, Retrieved on the Internet: <http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-rdf-schema-19980814> [Aug. 30, 2006], 17 pages. |
Sall, K.B., “XML Family of Specifications—A Practical Guide”, Chapter 16 (RDF: Resource DesCription Framework), pp. 1029-1059, Pearson Education, Inc. 2002. |
Klyne, G., et al., “Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax,” .sctn. 3.1 Graph Data Model, (W3C working draft Jan. 23, 2003), on Aug. 30, 2006, 26 pages. |
Hayes, P., “RDF Model Theory,” .sctn. 3.1 RDF Interpretations, Figure 2: An Example of an rdf-interpretation (W3C working draft Apr. 29, 2002), Retrieved from the Internet: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020429/> [Aug. 30, 2006], 40 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Office Action dated May 14, 2004, 11 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Office Action dated May 1, 2006, 19 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Final Office Action, dated Nov. 16, 2006, 19 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Office Action dated May 30, 2007, 19 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Office Action dated Jun. 25, 2008, 17 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Final Office Action dated Dec. 11, 2008, 19 pages. |
Liu, et al., “The Role of Polymorphic Resue Mechanisms in Schema Evolution in an Object-Oriented Database,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 9, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997, pp. 50-67. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/511,959, Office Action dated Oct. 24, 2011, 11 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/610,706, Office Action dated Jun. 19, 2014, 9 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/730,489, Office Action dated Sep. 17, 2004, 6 pages. |
Hackos, J.T., et al., “Customer Partnering: Data Gathering for Complex On-Line,” Comtech Services Inc., Denver, Colorado, Professional Communication, IEEE, vol. 40, Issue 2, Jun. 1997, pp. 102-110. |
Little, M.C., et al., “Integrating the Object Transaction Service with the Web,” Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop, IEEE, La Jolla, CA, Nov. 3-5, 1995, pp. 194-205. |
Rao, et al., “An Incremental Mechanism for Schema Evolution,” IEEE, 1998, pp. 294-301. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/610,706, Response filed on Dec. 19, 2014, 5 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/511,959, Response filed Apr. 24, 2012, 8 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Final Office Action dated May 18, 2005, 12 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Response filed Sep. 14, 2004, 13 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Appeal Brief filed Nov. 4, 2005, 21 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Response filed Aug. 30, 2006, 15 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Response filed Mar. 7, 2007, 15 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Response filed Nov. 30, 2007, 14 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Response filed Sep. 22, 2008, 20 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/493,517, Response filed Feb. 25, 2009, 10 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/343,039, Response dated Jul. 30, 2010, 10 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/343,039, Office Action dated Jan. 6, 2010, 7 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/343,039, Office Action dated Sep. 22, 2009, 8 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/343,039, Response dated Apr. 16, 2009, 15 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/343,039, Final Office Action dated Feb. 17, 2009, 9 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/343,039, Response filed Dec. 1, 2008, 9 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/343,039, Office Action dated May 30, 2008, 7 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/031,072, Office Action dated Oct. 6, 2011, 7 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/031,072, Response filed Apr. 6, 2012, 10 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/615,135, Office Action dated Nov. 7, 2012, 7 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/615,135, Response filed May 7, 2013, 5 pages. |
PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US01/47250, International Preliminary Examination Report dated Sep. 23, 2002, 4 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/730,489, Response filed Feb. 3, 2005, 20 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140081788 A1 | Mar 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13615135 | Sep 2012 | US |
Child | 14084522 | US | |
Parent | 13031072 | Feb 2011 | US |
Child | 13615135 | US | |
Parent | 11343039 | Jan 2006 | US |
Child | 13031072 | US | |
Parent | 09730489 | Dec 2000 | US |
Child | 11343039 | US |