Hi:
I also have my own "prior art" for faceted navigation, described in slides
12, 14, 16, 31-39, 41, 43-58 at http://www.one-world-is.com/rer/owis/dem. I
had first documented this design in my graduate school during 81-85 (yes,
that's several years prior to John Zachman's EA Framework), in the US Army
Europe Suggestion Program in 88, 89, 91, and 92, online in early web-fora
from 92 till 94, in the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Suggestion
in 1992, and I published all of my material on my one-world-is.com web site
beginning in December 94. I have since used the approach supporting several
Defense, Civil Government, and commercial clients. I built a
multidimensional-navigation enterprise management system called TAPES (Total
Architecture, Plans, and Execution System) between 89 and 92 while serving
as Lead Information Engineer (i.e., Enterprise Architect) for USAREUR, and
submitted it into the Army as a functional requirement for a dynamic
enterprise resource management system (which was accepted as a standard Army
sustaining-base information system but was only partially built by my
"clients" after I left Europe).
I subsequently used this same faceted classification/navigation approach in
a project where I was the Chief Enterprise Architect for a White House
project to build a continuity-communication enterprise architecture for the
Federal Executive Branch, which is languishing because of power-sharing
issues and fear of managed-accountability for those Agencies whose
enterprise architectures must be integrated, and therefore constrained, by a
higher level Branch-continuity architecture.
I have filed for my own patent based on new "integrated intelligence and
operations management" designs (i.e., concepts, methodologies, metaschema,
supporting-technology-specification, implementation plans, operational
procedures) further enhancing and expanding my previous enterprise (i.e.,
purposeful human endeavor) management design.
By the way, as a non-profit, I'm always seeking contributions and grants to
help me further this one-world-enterprise-management-information-system
effort.
Roy Roebuck
Director
One World Information System, An Educational Non-Profit Organization
http://www.one-world-is.com <http://www.one-world-is.com/>
The General Enterprise Management (GEM) approach to human interoperability:
http://www.one-world-is.com/beam
Mobile: +1 (703)-598-2351
Skype ID: roy.roebuck
SkypeIn #: (703) 349-0475
SMS: 7035982351 <at> messaging.sprintpcs.com
MS IM: roy <at> one-world-is.com
FreeBusy: http://www.one-world-is.com/freebusy/roebuckr/roebuckr.vfb
<http://www.one-world-is.com/freebusy/roebuckr/roebuckr.htm>
_____
From: facetedclassification <at> yahoogroups.com
[mailto:facetedclassification <at> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dale Mead
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:56 AM
To: facetedclassification <at> yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [facetedclassification] Siderean patents faceted navigation
I only took a quick look at the patent, but it would appear that the
press release claims might be somewhat broader than the actual claims of
the patent.
There is no question that the whole area of intellectual property is in
need of some major change. I think that the biggest issue is that there
is money (and, therefore, campaign dollars and funds for lobbyists) in
protecting IP, but not so much in providing a workable system. Big
companies patent everything in sight, not only to provide ground for
suit (Alcatel, having bought Lucent last month is now trying to enforce
old Bell Labs patents on MP3), but also to provide negotiating positions
if they get sued ("Yes, we are violating your patents, but you are
violating ours too!"). Small companies are at a disadvantage in this
(as are big companies when the plaintiff is simply a patent holding
company).
As to navigation systems (faceted or otherwise): A patent can be
destroyed by showing that it is prior art. Faceted classification,
generally, predates the date of application of this patent. Many of the
big research companies (IBM, Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, etc) engage in a
practice of "defensive publication." That is, after they determine that
they do not want to patent something, they publish the details of the
idea in a industry forum or, often, a public company technical journal
(that they control for this purpose). This prevents someone later from
hitting them with a patent over something that they themselves had
invented earlier. I once was involved in a multi-billion dollar suit
regarding an alleged patent over the concept of a computer "file
system." The patent was applied for in the 1960's, but not granted
until the '90's (known as a "submarine patent"). Turns out that IBM did
a defensive publication of the idea of a file system in 1956. The suit
went away. A generalized patent claim regarding faceted classification
applied for in the timeframe of this patent will run into prior
art/defensive publication issues. I haven't been tracking the work of
other people, but I, myself, presented on user experience, process, and
data modeling aspects of faceted navigation in three published
conferences in 2000-2001. Prior to that, Apple's Advanced Technology
Group, published a lot of material on faceting and navigation through
information spaces in conjunction with "Hot Sauce" and the MCF (?, from
memory) specification that later gave rise to RDF.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RSS Feed