This invention relates generally to data retention and, more particularly, to document retention policy and compliance management of a Single-Instance Storage (SIS) system in a distributed computing environment.
Many entities (e.g., businesses, research labs, governmental agencies, etc.) are required by law to retain data (e.g., electronic documents, digital images, audio/video files, etc.) for a certain period of time. In some cases, an entity may be required to destroy data to adhere to privacy regulations. To comply with various laws and regulations, it is becoming increasingly important particularly for businesses to establish some kind of a document retention policy over their data storage systems or repositories. Such a document retention policy generally specifies how business documents should be managed and/or destroyed. For instance, a document retention policy may specify a period of time to retain a particular document or it may require an administrative review by a user before a document can be destroyed. The ability for an entity to understand and structure the life cycle of its documents as they are created, maintained, and ultimately destroyed can greatly impact the infrastructure and processes required to house its content.
Business documents are often held in various forms (e.g., text files, graphic files, emails, etc.), which adds to the complexity of controlling and managing them. Moreover, each of these business documents may have duplicates (i.e., identical copies) maintained or held in different locations (e.g., different directories on the same hard drive, different hard drives, different servers, etc.) for various reasons. Such an inefficient use of space (i.e., document duplication) can contribute to the complexity in resolving problems associated with business document retention. Embodiments of the present invention provide a solution to address this problem and more.
Embodiments of the present invention provide an automated system and method for establishing and managing document retention policy in a distributed computing environment. Any data storage system capable of storing de-duplicated data can be adapted to implement embodiments of the invention.
One such storage system is the ActiveVault system developed by Renew Data Corporation headquartered in Austin, Tex., USA. The ActiveVault system can maintain a single copy of every business document in various forms (e.g., emails, files, images, sound recordings, instant messages, scanned documents, etc.) via a fully de-duplicated database (i.e., the ActiveVault). In one embodiment, the ActiveVault system is a Single-Instance Storage (SIS) system integrated with a unique de-duplication technology. Within this disclosure, the term “Single-Instance Storage” refers to a system with the ability to keep one single copy of content (i.e., a single instance) associated with multiple custodians. In conventional data storage systems, de-duplication is typically performed as a separate process to remove from a set of email messages or files forensically identical extra copies. However, with the ActiveVault system, no additional de-duplication is necessary upon output because the ActiveVault stores de-duplicated data. Examples of various aspects and embodiments of the ActiveVault system are disclosed in Appendices A, B, and C attached to this application.
Since the ActiveVault (and other SIS systems) can have references for every instance of every business document in a computing system, a retention period can be correspondingly associated with every instance. By establishing and monitoring the individual retention periods, references to instances of the document and the associated content can be deleted in a timely manner. When the retention period for the last instance of the business document expires, it too can be deleted.
Embodiments of the invention can address the problem associated with assigning retention periods to each instance of a business document. In one embodiment, a method for establishing and managing document retention periods comprises the steps of loading documents into a database as individual components or items; establishing a custodian for each instance of a document; categorizing the document's content into a plurality of categories; assigning retention periods to the content by category; and continuously monitoring retention policies according to the assigned retention periods.
Within this disclosure, the phrase “custodian” refers to the person or entity who either created the document or who maintained and kept a copy of the document. To establish a custodian, information can be derived from the source of the data in some cases (e.g., a source directory path from where the file was culled or an email database from where it was retrieved.) In other cases, the path names associated with a custodian may need to be determined by a business process and the resulting information added to the database (e.g., the ActiveVault). Once it is added, the custodian path names can be matched to content instances and the relevant relationships established. Once a custodian domain or context is established it can be used to assign retention periods to content associated with the custodian.
According to embodiments of the invention, in categorizing the content of a document into a plurality of categories, the document can be assigned to at least one category, but could be assigned to many. In the event that a document is assigned to multiple categories, the one with the longest retention period is retained. In one embodiment, if a document cannot be assigned to a category automatically or manually, it can potentially be deleted as it may be of no business value. In one embodiment, the categorization process is automated, since there can be billions of documents. In one embodiment, the categorization process allows a small percentage of exceptions to automation for documents that cannot be categorized automatically. As one skilled in the art can appreciate, various categorization methods exist and can be adapted to suit or otherwise implemented with embodiments of the invention.
Traditional methods of document management are based on paper filing systems and human intervention. In today's computing environment, managing document retention periods often cannot reasonably be achieved using manual approaches, due to the sheer volume and cost of processing electronic documents, which could be in the millions or even billions. Embodiments of the invention provide a solution to control and manage document retention periods, allowing businesses and various entities to comply with various laws and regulations governing documents and document retention periods.
Other objects and advantages of the present invention will become apparent to one skilled in the art upon reading and understanding the detailed description of the preferred embodiments described herein with reference to the following drawings.
The invention and various features and advantageous details thereof are explained more fully with reference to the exemplary, and therefore non-limiting, embodiments that are illustrated in the accompanying drawings and detailed in the following description. Descriptions of known programming techniques, computer software, hardware, operating platforms and protocols may be omitted so as not to unnecessarily obscure the invention in detail. It should be understood, however, that the detailed description and the specific examples, while indicating preferred embodiments of the invention, are given by way of illustration only and not by way of limitation. Various substitutions, modifications, additions and/or rearrangements within the spirit and/or scope of the underlying inventive concept will become apparent to those skilled in the art from this disclosure.
Embodiments of the methods and systems described herein can address the very pertinent and difficult problem of business document retention. Document retention can be critical to businesses and entities alike. For example, keeping a certain document longer than required by law could be an issue in a litigation situation and may cause damages that otherwise could have been avoided had the document be destroyed in compliance with the applicable laws and/or regulations. The converse can also be true. Premature destruction of a business document can have negative consequences in a litigation situation because it may be seen as an attempt to make the document invalid or unusable as evidence. Utilizing embodiments of the invention disclosed herein to manage retention periods for content can help businesses and entities alike to enforce retention policies in accordance with internal policies as well as in compliance with applicable laws and/or regulations. In particular, embodiment of the invention can address the following issues:
In a business setting, it is not uncommon to have multiple copies of an original document. When these copies are loaded into a database from backup storage media (e.g., tapes, optical discs, hard drives, memory cards, etc.), information about the original document as well as its copies is typically limited. For example, the detailed context about who was keeping which copy and why may not be known. Even if the original file location is known, one may not be able to determine a reason for keeping the document and/or its copies. Since the retention policy of a document is often subject to the context in which it is kept, loss of that information can make setting the proper retention policy more difficult.
Multiple copies of the same instance of a document (collectively referred to as instances) are often recovered from backup media spanning a wide period of time. Any de-duplication involved in processing documents for retention management purposes must capture the history of these instances as presented in the backup media.
It is possible that different instances of the same document could be assigned with different retention policies.
Non-compliant documents (i.e., the retention period has expired) must be deleted from the system as soon as the policy expires. However, if one document has more than one instance, only non-compliant instance(s) of the document would need to be removed (i.e., deleted).
When an instance is deleted, all references thereto must also be deleted.
If a document is subject to discovery in a litigation situation, the retention policy for the relevant instance(s) of the document would need to be suspended until the litigation situation is resolved.
Once the litigation situation is resolved, the retention policy would need to be applied in a timely manner to properly remove any document(s) and/or instance(s) thereof whose retention period has expired during the suspension period.
In one embodiment, a de-duplication process may be employed to remove identical extra copies of business documents. De-duplication allows a vast amount of data to be saved in the minimal storage space. In conventional single-instance storage (SIS) systems, de-duplication is typically performed as a separate process. De-duplicated data has the property that every instance of a content item exists only once and all duplicates exist as references to the single instance. However, this can create a problem when managing document retention. For example, different instances of a document may require different retention polices, depending on the context of the document, the custodian who held it, and for what purpose. In addition, when the retention period on a particular instance expires, that instance would need to be destroyed, but not the other instances for which retention periods are still active. This is a new problem for SIS systems that store de-duplicated content.
Embodiments of the invention disclosed herein can be applied to any data storage system capable of storing de-duplicated data (e.g., the ActiveVault system developed by Renew Data Corporation, the assignee of the present application). Within this disclosure, the term “document” refers to a collection of data stored on a computer readable medium (i.e., any memory or storage medium that can be read by a computer, e.g., random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), hard drive, floppy disk, backup tapes or cartridges, compact disc ROM (CD-ROM), etc.) Within this disclosure, the term “document” may refer to a single or a compound document. A document can have one or more components to hold its contents, metadata, and location. As an example, a first component of a compound document may be a pointer designating the location of the compound document. A second component of the compound document may be a single document embedded within, attached to, or referenced by the compound document. Within this disclosure, the term “component” may be used interchangeably with the term “item”. Exemplary items can include emails, text files, instant messages, voice recordings, scanned documents, video clips, digital images, etc. The term “content” used herein may refer to any information (e.g., a string of bytes) that is contained in a document. Metadata generally contain information about the document (e.g., file name, date of creation, date of last modification, length, etc.).
In one embodiment, database server 130 is configured to maintain a single copy of every business document (e.g., emails, memos, letters, invoices, reports, images, sound recordings, instant messages, video clips, presentations, computer-assisted drawings, scanned documents, other electronic files, etc.) in computing system 100. In one embodiment, business documents are extracted from various data sources (e.g., server computer 102, enterprise database 104, data storage device or medium 106, client computer 108, and data storage device 116). In one embodiment, database 140 is a fully de-duplicated database in which every document is represented only once via a single instance and all duplicative instances refer to the single instance.
In one embodiment, database 140 may allow the content of a document to be associated with metadata and locations pertaining to the document. In one embodiment, database 140 may also allow the stored content to be associated with multiple locations and pieces of stored metadata, stored metadata to be associated with multiple locations and pieces of stored content, and stored locations to be associated with multiple pieces of stored metadata and content. In one embodiment, database 140 may be a single depository (e.g., the ActiveVault database) capable of storing and relating the content, metadata, and location of any document extracted from server computer 102, enterprise database 104, client computer 108, or data source 106. To avoid duplication, documents extracted from server computer 102, enterprise database 104, data storage device or medium 106, client computer 108, and data storage device 116 are separated into components (e.g., content, metadata, file location, etc.) and only components that are not already resident in database 140 are added. Embodiments of the invention can be implemented with any database capable of ensuring that all loaded content is maintained in a single instance form and that all history is maintained for every instance of a document that is read into the database.
One embodiment of the invention implements an SIS system (e.g., the ActiveVault system) and holds one copy of the message body and attachments within the database. Duplicate references access desired content through a set of database pointers and other properties (e.g., Sender, Recipient, etc.) which allow the content to have one-to-many references. For example, an email sent to 10 recipients can be stored within the database as a single email body with 11 database record references (i.e., instances) of the message. In this embodiment, to ensure the forensic accuracy of single-instance storage and to identify duplicates, when an email is loaded into the database, digital fingerprints are created with hash values for both the message metadata and the message body. A hash is also called a digest, which is a kind of signature for a stream of data that represents the content. The links between the parts (i.e., components) for a particular instance of the email are tracked so that it can be extracted from the database exactly as it was loaded.
At step 302, processed document components are loaded into the database. In this embodiment, a component is loaded only if that component does not already exist in the system. If it already exists, relevant metadata about the component (e.g., creators, dates and other forensically important properties of the component) is captured, but the component is not added into the database. Instead, a pointer to the already loaded copy is recorded, and a history of the component is updated to register the new copy. This ensures that only a single instance of the actual content is stored in the system. All instances are recorded together with relevant changes to the metadata about each instance. More examples of single-instance storage processing can be found in the attached Appendices.
At step 303, loaded document components are scanned for extracting their textual content. Since these components can have various formats, they may be processed into a consistent format. According to one embodiment of the invention, this step can be done using text extraction engines (e.g., Insight Discoverer™ Extractor available from TEMIS USA, Alexandria, Va., USA).
At step 304, extracted text is added to the metadata for each unique instance in the system. At this point, the data is loaded and the processes of custodian assignment and indexing (i.e., categorization) can commence. In one embodiment, these processes (i.e., custodian assignment 400 and categorization 500) occur sequentially since the process of categorization may be dependent on the custodian assignment.
In one embodiment, at step 401, the metadata of a document is first analyzed to determine the authorship (i.e., creator) of the document. When the document is loaded into the system (e.g., via data loading 300 of
At step 402, if the metadata includes information about who created the document, the custodian of the document is assigned to the creator. Alternatively, if the metadata includes information about who the last owner of the document was, the custodian of the document is assigned to the last owner. In one embodiment, if information about both the creator and the last owner of the document can be found in the metadata of the document, the custodian is assigned to the creator. Alternatively, if information about both the creator and the last owner of the document can be found in the metadata of the document, the custodian is assigned to the last owner.
At step 403, regardless of whether the metadata contains information about the creator and/or the last owner of the document, a custodian can be defined by associating the presence of keywords or phrases in the metadata according to user-specified criteria. For example, it may be possible to assign a custodian by examining the pathname of a file to see if it contains certain initials and/or names of a person. In one embodiment, this can be done through a process external to the system in which a user may be able to select or define pathnames and files names that can be assigned to a custodian. In one embodiment, documents that meet certain user-defined criteria are assigned to a user-specified custodian(s).
At step 404, documents that cannot be assigned to a custodian at either step 402 or step 403 are assigned to a general or default custodian, according to one embodiment of the invention. This step ensures that every document loaded into the database is assigned to a custodian.
At step 405, each unique custodian in the system is identified and all the documents associated with that custodian are linked to them. According to embodiments of the invention, a specific instance of a document can only be associated with one custodian. In one embodiment, each unique custodian is also associated with a business function. In one embodiment, each business function is associated with one or more topics. In one embodiment, topics are determined in a categorization process (e.g., categorization 500 described below).
At step 502, the grammatical structure of the content is analyzed and patterns or phrases are identified and notated. Any text pattern recognition software application capable of performing statistical analysis can be utilized to implement this step (e.g., Insight Discoverer™ Categorizer available from TEMIS USA, Alexandria, Va., USA).
At step 503, a linguistic analysis is performed on the words and phrases identified at step 502 to determine one or more topics being addressed by the component. Any text mining software application capable of performing linguistic analysis can be utilized to implement this step (e.g., Insight Discoverer™ Categorizer or a linguistic engine called XELDA® available from TEMIS USA, Alexandria, Va., USA). The identified topic(s) is then associated with that component.
At step 504, once all the components in a document are examined, the topic(s) identified at step 503 are examined to determine an overall topic or topics to be associated with the whole document. One document may be associated with multiple topics.
Retention policies can be based on a variety of factors (e.g., business rules, policies, and statutory/regulatory requirements, etc.). Retention policies can be associated with a position function, a time period when a document (which could be a component, e.g., an attachment, of another document) is created, and/or the nature or context of the information the document describes or discusses.
As an example, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations require that all broker-customer communications be kept for several years (e.g., 3 or 6), depending on the content of the communication. Through steps described above, appropriate retention policies can be associated with custodians that are brokers. Such a retention policy can start on the date the communication is completed (e.g., when a broker sent an email to a customer) and can be set for 3 or 6 years, depending on the nature of the information communicated.
As another example, in the case of an insurance policy, the retention policy can be set according to the state(s) in which the insurance policy was issued and the insured person or assets are located. The retention policy can start from the issue date of the insurance policy, and can continue for some period after the insurance policy expires or is claimed against, depending upon the nature of the insurance policy (i.e., whether it is a business insurance policy, life insurance policy or one protecting assets or something else that may be insured).
Other retention policies may be determined by laws and/or regulations. For example, current tax laws require that documents pertaining to the finances of a business must be kept for at least 7 years. In some cases, certain business documents many need to be kept indefinitely while the business is functioning. Other legal (e.g., statutory or court-imposed) or self-imposed (e.g., internal corporate retention policies) retention policies can also be used in conjunction with embodiments of this invention. Once all retention policies are assigned, they can be continuously monitored and acted upon, according to one embodiment of the invention.
At step 602, the retention policy or policies prepared at step 601 are associated with individual custodians or groups of custodians. In one embodiment, the groups of custodians are defined by business functional groups (e.g., executives, administrators, managers, sales representative, support staff, etc.).
At step 603, rules can be created to associate each unique instance of a document with one or more retention policies. More details on steps 602-603 will be further described below with reference to Phase 3 of
At step 604, once all the retention policies are assigned, each document is reviewed. The policy that has the longest retention period is set as the principle policy and all the other associated policies are marked as secondary policies for that document instance. According to embodiments of the invention, each unique instance of every document has at least one policy assigned. According to embodiments of the invention, a document can have multiple policies of equal or differing lengths of retention periods.
At step 702, all document instances identified at step 701 as nearing expiration are flagged for processing. According to one embodiment of the invention, the period of time this occurs for a document can be part of the retention policy.
At step 703, document instances that are flagged at step 702 are placed on a deletion queue (e.g., “to be deleted queue”) and a retention policy manager (i.e., a software module designed to perform the function of managing retention policies) is notified of the pending deletions.
At step 704, the retention policy manager is operable to take one of three actions on a flagged instance: A) Nothing (i.e., proceed with the deletion as scheduled); B) Reset the retention period to a new value (e.g., due to a change in business rules or regulations); and C) Put the flagged instance into a suspended state (e.g., due to current business issues such as a pending litigation).
At step 705, instances that are changed or suspended at step 704 can be removed from the deletion queue (e.g., “to be deleted queue”) and subjected to the normal processing going forward. Instances placed into a suspended state can remain in that state until the pending litigation or business conditions that placed it into the suspended state come to a conclusion. At that point, the retention policy is either reset to its original state or a new policy is applied. If the policy is reset to its original state and the deletion is now past due, it can be placed on the “to be deleted queue” on the next pass of the retention policy expiration scan. The new policy may or may not be in the future. If it was in the past, the same procedure as described above is followed, resulting in the deletion of the now expired document.
At step 706, each document in the deletion queue (e.g., “to be deleted queue”) is processed and deleted on its due date (i.e., retention expiration date). When a document is deleted, a specific instance of that document is deleted. Deletion means removal of all relevant metadata and references to that instance of the content from the system. If other instances of that document (which may or may not include the original document) still exist under different custodians and/or retention policies, no further action is required. If the instance being deleted is the last instance of the document, then all remaining references, pointers and content components will be deleted from the system.
According to one embodiment of the invention, some or all of the following steps can be performed during Phase 1:
According to one embodiment of the invention, some or all of the following steps can be performed during Phase 2:
According to one embodiment of the invention, some or all of the following steps can be performed during Phase 3:
It should be understood that, while a data processing system may apply retention policies on documents dynamically as part of its document management process (i.e., on-the-fly), a data storage system generally processes historical documents for storage “after the fact” (i.e., after they have served their intended purpose). These historical documents (e.g., a collection of random documents retrieved from backup media) may not have sufficient contextual information to establish proper retention policies. Lacking contextual information, a conventional data storage system typically cannot properly establish and monitor retention policies on historical documents. The inability for a business to monitor and enforce retention policies on its historical documents can impede compliance to applicable data/document/content retention laws and regulations. Embodiments of the invention described above can add context to retention policy management for data storage systems. In particular, embodiments of the invention can identify custodian(s) and business topic(s) for each document instance loaded into an SIS database. These custodian(s) and business topic(s) can provide proper contextual information on the document's content (e.g., who created/held the document, the role/business function of the creator/owner at the time the document was created/retained, and what is the document about, etc.). This contextual information on historical content can be particularly useful in establishing and maintaining retention policies in compliance with external as well as internal rules and regulations.
Although the present invention has been described and illustrated in detail, it should be understood that the embodiments and drawings are not meant to be limiting and should be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense. As one of ordinary skill in the art can appreciate, various modifications and changes can be made to the embodiments and drawings disclosed herein without departing from the scope of the present invention. In addition, many alternatives to the examples disclosed herein are possible. All such modifications and alternatives are intended to be included within the scope of present invention. Accordingly, the scope of the invention should be determined by the following claims and their legal equivalents.
This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/651,121, filed Feb. 8, 2005, and entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGEMENT OF RETENTION PERIODS FOR CONTENT IN A COMPUTING SYSTEM,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4706212 | Toma | Nov 1987 | A |
5107419 | MacPhail | Apr 1992 | A |
5278980 | Pedersen et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5350303 | Fox et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5535121 | Roche et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5535381 | Kopper | Jul 1996 | A |
5617566 | Malcolm | Apr 1997 | A |
5644774 | Fukumochi et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5687384 | Nagase | Nov 1997 | A |
5689699 | Howell et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5717913 | Driscoll | Feb 1998 | A |
5732265 | Dewitt et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5742807 | Masinter | Apr 1998 | A |
5778395 | Whiting et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5813009 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5813015 | Pascoe | Sep 1998 | A |
5926811 | Miller et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5937401 | Hillegas | Aug 1999 | A |
5982370 | Kamper | Nov 1999 | A |
6006221 | Liddy et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6023710 | Steiner et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6047294 | Deshayes et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6125371 | Bohannon et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6157931 | Cane et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6182029 | Friedman | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6189002 | Roitblat | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199067 | Geller | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6199081 | Meyerzon et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6216123 | Robertson et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226630 | Billmers | May 2001 | B1 |
6226759 | Miller et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240409 | Aiken | May 2001 | B1 |
6243713 | Nelson et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6256633 | Dharap | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269382 | Cabrera et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6278992 | Curtis et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6324548 | Sorenson | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6389403 | Dorak, Jr. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393389 | Chanod et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6408266 | Oon | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6421767 | Milillo et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6453280 | Yang | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6477544 | Bolosky et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493711 | Jeffrey | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6662198 | Satyanarayanan et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6708165 | Jeffrey | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6745197 | McDonald | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6751628 | Coady | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6778979 | Grefenstette et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6810395 | Bharat | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6834110 | Pacifici et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6859800 | Roche et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6915435 | Merriam | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6928526 | Zhu et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6947954 | Cohen et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6952737 | Coates et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6954750 | Bradford | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6996580 | Bae et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7047386 | Ngai et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7089286 | Malik | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7137065 | Huang et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7146388 | Stakutis et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7158970 | Chang et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7174368 | Ross, Jr. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7260568 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7269564 | Milsted et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7284191 | Grefenstette et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7287025 | Wen et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7313556 | Gallivan et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7325041 | Hara et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7458082 | Slaughter et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7478113 | De Spiegeleer et al. | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7526478 | Friedman | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7533291 | Lin | May 2009 | B2 |
7650341 | Oratovsky et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7698650 | Holmes | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7860706 | Abir | Dec 2010 | B2 |
8095516 | Margolus et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
20020002468 | Spagna et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020019814 | Ganesan | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020038296 | Margolus et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020059317 | Black et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020107803 | Lisanke et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107877 | Whiting et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116402 | Luke | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120925 | Logan | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020138376 | Hinkle | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020140960 | Ishikawa | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020143737 | Seki et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020143871 | Meyer et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147733 | Gold et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161745 | Call | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020178176 | Sekiguchi et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020193986 | Schirris | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194324 | Guha | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030028889 | McCoskey et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030069803 | Pollitt | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030069877 | Grefenstette et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030093790 | Logan et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105718 | Hurtado et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110130 | Pelletier | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030126247 | Strasser et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030126362 | Camble et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030135464 | Mourad et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030145209 | Eagle et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030182304 | Summerlin et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030233455 | Leber et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003132 | Stanley et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040034550 | Menschik et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040034632 | Carmel et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040054630 | Ginter et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040064447 | Simske et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040064537 | Anderson et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040068604 | Le et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040083211 | Bradford | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040143609 | Gardner et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040158559 | Poltorak | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040168058 | Margolus | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040186827 | Anick et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193695 | Salo et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040205448 | Grefenstette et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050076293 | Beresnevichiene | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050097081 | Sellen et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050097092 | Annau et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114282 | Todhunter | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114370 | Lewak et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050144157 | Moody et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050160481 | Todd et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050223067 | Buchheit et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050234843 | Beckius et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050283473 | Rousso et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060026220 | Margolus | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060122998 | Bar-Yossef et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060167679 | Tsai et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167842 | Watson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060173824 | Bensky et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060230035 | Bailey et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060265209 | Bradford | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271526 | Charnock et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070011154 | Musgrove et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070022134 | Zhou et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070030528 | Quaeler et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070033177 | Friedman | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070033183 | Friedman | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070033410 | Eagle et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038616 | Guha | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050339 | Kasperski et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070050351 | Kasperski et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061335 | Ramer et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070088687 | Bromm et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070192284 | Finley et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198470 | Freedman et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070233692 | Lisa et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070245108 | Yasaki et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070253643 | Nagarajan | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070255686 | Kemp et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070266009 | Williams | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070282811 | Musgrove | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070282826 | Hoeber et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070288445 | Kraftsow | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070288450 | Datta et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080005651 | Grefenstette et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080059187 | Roitblat et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080059512 | Roitblat et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077570 | Tang et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080097975 | Guay et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080104032 | Sarkar | May 2008 | A1 |
20080133570 | Allen et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080147644 | Aridor et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080155192 | Iitsuka | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162498 | Omoigui | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080189273 | Kraftsow et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080195601 | Ntoulas et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080235202 | Wang et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080288474 | Chin et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090024612 | Tang et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090182737 | Melman | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090182789 | Sandorfi et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090287685 | Charnock et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090313248 | Balachandran et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090327625 | Jaquette et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1967972 | Sep 2008 | EP |
2003303194 | Oct 2003 | JP |
2004213237 | Jul 2004 | JP |
WO 03019412 | Mar 2003 | WO |
WO 2008080140 | Jul 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Cohen, E. et al.; “Processing Top k Queries from Samples”; ACM. |
Conlon, S., “Automatic Web Searching and Categorizing Using Query Expansion and Focusing”, (Mississippi University.), 6p, Jan. 2003. |
Crestani, F. et al.; “Is This Document Relevant? . . . Probably: A Survey of Probabilistic Models in Information Retrieval”; ACM Computing Surveys vol. 30, No. 4, Dec. 1998. |
E. M. Voorhees, “Query expansion using lexical-semantic relations”, Annual ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Proceedings of the 17th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, 1994, Dublin, Ireland, Aug. 1994, pp. 61-69, ISBN:0-387-1988-X. |
Gauch et al., “A Corpus Analysis Approach for Automatic Query Expansion and Its Extension to Multiple Databases” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 17, No. 3, Jul. 1999, pp. 250-269. |
Gehler, P. et al.; “The Rate Adapting Poisson Model for Information Retrieval and Object Recognition”; Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2006. |
http://www.googleguide.com/tools.html <retrieved on Jul. 8, 2009>. |
http://www.lexisnexis.com/toolbar/help/using.htm#HighlightAndClick <retrieved on Jul. 8, 2009>. |
Ilyas, I. et al.; “Adaptive Rank-Aware Query Optimization in Relational Databases”; ACM Transactions on Database Systems; vol. 31. No. 4, Dec. 2006. |
Luk, R. et al.; “A Comparison of Chinese Document Indexing Strategies and Retrieval Models”; ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, vol. 1, No. 3, Sep. 2002. |
Margulis, E.; “Modelling Documents with Multiple Poisson Distributions”; Information Processing & Management vol. 29, No. 2, 1993. |
Margulis, E.; “N-Poisson Document Modelling”; SIGIR '92. |
Mei, Q. et al.; “A Study of Poisson Query Generation Model for Information Retrieval”; SIGIR '07 Proceedings, Session 12: Formal Models. |
Mitra et al., “Improving Automatic Query Expansion”, Annual ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 206-214, Year of Publication: 1998, ISBN:1-58113-015-5. |
Ozmutlu, H. et al.; “Analysis of large data logs: an application of Poisson sampling on excite web queries”; Information Processing and Management, vol. 38, 2002. |
Robertson, S. et al.; “Some Simple Effective Approximations to the 2-Poisson Model for Probabilistic Weighted Retreival”; Centre for Interactive Systems Research, London. |
Roelleke, T.; “A Frequency-based and a Poisson-based Definition of the Probability of Being Informative”; SIGIR '03. |
Tao, Y. et al.; “Indexing Multi-Dimensional Uncertain Data with Arbitrary Probability Density Functions”; Proceedings of the 31st VLDB Conference, Norway 2005. |
Volkmer et al., “Exploring Automatic Query Refinement for Text-Based Video Retrieval”, IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, Jul. 9-12, 2006, pp. 765-768, Toronto, Ont., ISBN: 1-4244-0366-7. |
Mosher, Sue, “Outlook Tips and Techniques,” Windows IT Pro, Feb. 12, 2001. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from PCT/US2010/060899 dated Mar. 3, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from PCT/US2010/059775 dated Mar. 16, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from PCT/US11/22472 dated Mar. 30, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from PCT/US11/26924 dated Apr. 29, 2011. |
Amati, G. et al.; “Probabilistic Models of Information Retreival Based on Measuring the Divergence from Randomness”; ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 20, No. 4. Oct. 2002. |
Attar et al., “Local Feedback in Full-Text Retrieval Systems”, Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 24, Issue 3 (Jul. 1977), pp. 397-417, ISSN:0004-5411. |
Cai et al., “Automatic Query Expansion Based on Directed Divergence”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing, p. 8, 2002, ISBN:0-7695-1506-1. |
Xu et al., “Query expansion using local and global document analysis,” in Proc. of ACM-SIGIR 1996, Zurich, Switzerland, Aug. 18-22, 1996, pp. 4-11. |
Yan, T. et al.; “The SIFT Information Dissemination System”; ACM Transactions on Database Systems, vol. 24, No. 4, Dec. 1999. |
Zakariah, R. et al.; “Detecting Junk Mails by Implementing Statistical Theory”; IEEE Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, 2006. |
Roitblat, Herbert L. (2004), “Electronic Data Are Increasingly Important to Successful Litigation”, Trends in Electronic Data. |
Roitblat, Herbert L. (2005), “Document Retrieval”, DolphinSearch, Inc. |
“The Sedona Principles: Best Practices Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production,” The Sedona Conference Working Group Series, Jul. 2005 Version. |
Meng, W., et al., “Building Efficient and Effective Metasearch Engines,” ACM Computing Surveys, ACM, New York, NY, US, US, vol. 34, No. 1, Mar. 1, 2002, pp. 48-89. |
Comparing IBM Tivoli Storage Manager and Veritas NetBackup in Real-World Environments. A summary by IBM of the whitepaper and benchmark written by Progressive Strategies, Nov. 8, 2002. |
Beyond Backup Toward Storage Management by M. Kaczmarski, T. Jiang and D.A. Pease. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 42, pp. 322-337, Nov. 2, 2003. |
PCT Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 18, 2008, PCT/US07/13483. |
PCT Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 8, 2009, PCT/US2009/032990. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60651121 | Feb 2005 | US |