PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS FOR COLLABORATIVE MANIPULATION OF DATA

• US 20110066605A1
• Filed: 09/15/2009
• Published: 03/17/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 09/15/2009
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Foursquare Labs, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Factual Incorporated (Foursquare Labs, Inc.)
• Inventors: ELBAZ, Gilad
• Granted Patent: US 8,959,070 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 707/705
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/248 Presentation of query results
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/252 between a Database Management System and a front-end application
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/345 Summarisation for human users
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/101 Collaborative creation, e.g. joint development of products or services
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/01 Protocols

Abstract

Processes and systems are disclosed for accessing and providing information obtained from a source. The processes and systems allow for accessing data stored in an electronic storage medium and providing a first set of information derived from the data stored in the storage medium. The processes and systems also provide a second set of information comprising detail data underlying the summary data.

Claims

1. A process for accessing and providing information obtained from a source comprising:

accessing data stored in an electronic storage medium;

responsive to an input, providing a first set of information, the first set of information derived from the data stored in the storage medium and comprising summary data and attributes of the summary data; and

responsive to an input, providing a second set of information comprising detail data underlying the summary data.

2. The process of claim 1, wherein the detail data includes associated metadata.

3. The process of claim 1, wherein the data is stored in an electronic database.

4. The process of claim 1, wherein the first set of information is transmitted for display on a display device.

5. The process of claim 1, wherein the second set of information is transmitted for display on a display device.

6. The process of claim 1, wherein the attributes include the reliability or accuracy of the summary data.

7. The process of claim 1, wherein the attributes include the degree of consensus or contentiousness regarding the summary data.

8. The process of claim 1 further comprising receiving into the electronic storage medium additional data comprising detail data and including the additional data in the second set of information and in a subsequent computation of the first set of information.

10. The process of claim 1 wherein the data stored in the electronic medium is organized into one or more data cells, and the first set of information is derived from the data that is summarized in each cell as a function of the detail data stored within each cell.

11. The process of claim 10 wherein cells contain data which represent attributes of other cells.

12. The process of claim 10, wherein one or more cells are organized as a tuple or row.

13. The process of claim 12, wherein one or more cells represent a primary key of the tuple or row, and other cells represent attributes of the primary key.

14. The process of claim 12, wherein rows are further organized into a 2-dimensional relational database table structure.

15. The process of claim 1 further comprising receiving into the storage medium, a submission of data, adding the submission to the second set of information, and re-summarizing the first set of information in response to the submission of data.

16. The process of claim 12, wherein a primary key is a system generated surrogate or identity key.

17. The process of claim 14, wherein a primary key is automatically computed as a set of columns necessary to ensure uniqueness.

18. The process of claim 1, wherein the type of data contained in a cell comprises alphanumeric string, integer, decimal, floating point, date, time, binary, or boolean.

19. The process of claim 1, wherein the type of data comprises array, associative array, hash table, tree or data-interchange formats such as json or XML.

20. The process of claim 1 or 10, wherein the attributes of the summary data comprise information confidence, consensus, or certainty ratings relating to the likelihood that a certain value is correct.

21. The process of claim 20, wherein the confidence, consensus, or certainty of the summary data is indicated with a color or icon.

22. The process of claim 1 or 10, wherein the attributes of the summary data is based on a function of the underlying detail data comprising mode, average, median, standard deviation, variance, or the most recent data submission.

23. The process of claim 1 or 10, wherein the attributes of the summary data comprises a representation of the distribution of opinions about the cell.

24. The process of claim 20, wherein summary data comprises a representation of user submission and the consistency between summary data and user submission.

25. The process of claim 1, wherein an aggregation algorithm determines summarized data using criteria, rules, logic, and data.

26. The process of claim 25, wherein criteria comprises any metadata associated with user submissions.

27. The process of claim 26, wherein metadata comprises user'"'"'s confidence in the accuracy of the data value submitted.

28. The process of claim 26, wherein metadata comprises ratings of trustworthiness of sources.

29. The process of claim 26, wherein metadata comprises ratings of trustworthiness or reputation of users interacting with the cell.

30. The process of claim 26, wherein metadata comprises date and time of submission of the user submitted data.

31. The process of claim 25, wherein de-weighting of a user submission is performed and is based on indications of lack of independence.

32. The process of claim 25, wherein de-weighting prior submissions from a single user are performed, and more weight is given to updated submissions.

33. The process of any of claim 31 or 32, wherein de-weighting submissions is based on unverified citations.

34. The process of claim 29, wherein a reputation algorithm determines the reputation or trustworthiness of the user, the reputation algorithm being based on criteria comprising user'"'"'s reputation ratings, profile information, history of data submissions, predictive ability, social network connections, and IP address.

35. The process of claim 1, wherein the underlying detail data is viewed with a folded or grouped view.

36. The process of claim 1, wherein the underlying detail data is viewed in full with a raw detail data view.

37. The process of claim 35, wherein the folded view displays one or more of the range of user submissions, the number of submissions, and the confidence, consensus, or certainty ratings associated with likelihood of correctness for each value.

38. The process of claim 36, wherein the raw detail data view comprises additional metadata for each source and comments for each user submission.

39. The process of claim 36, wherein the raw detail data view groups data by user or period of time.

40. The process of claim 15, wherein the data submission is accomplished within a detail data view by agreeing or disagreeing with a historical data submission.

41. The process of claim 40, wherein the user submits additional metadata fields.

42. The process of claim 41, wherein metadata comprises a confidence level representing the confidence of the user in the given data submission representing the user'"'"'s belief around the likelihood of that data being correct.

43. The process of claim 41, wherein metadata comprises the source or citation.

44. The process of claim 41, wherein metadata comprises comments.

45. The process of claim 15, wherein the submission is passive and by nature of an interaction that is not an active submission of new data.

46. The process of claim 45, wherein the interaction is where a user views data, the user does not correct or modify the data, and the system determines that there is a higher likelihood that the user agreed with the data than disagreed with the data.

47. The process of claim 15, wherein the user submission is through an API call.

48. The process of claim 1, wherein accessing data stored in an electronic storage medium is in response to a request from a user.

49. A collaborative data collection system, comprising:

input logic for processing a command provided by a user to retrieve, view, manipulate, and/or browse data stored in a database, the database being comprised of one or more cells containing data, the data comprising summary data, metadata, detail data and computed attributes of the data;

access logic responsive to an input for accessing and retrieving data stored in one or more cells in the database;

display logic for providing to a user the data retrieved from one or more databases, the display module further being configured to display one or more attributes of the data; and

summarization logic for analyzing a set of underlying detail data points within each cell, and generating summary data;

all of the logics comprising executable code, the executable code being stored on one or more memory devices.

50. The system of claim 49 further comprising database logic for storing the one or more databases and data.

51. The system of claim 49 wherein cells contain data which represent attributes of other cells.

52. The system of claim 49, wherein one or more cells are organized as a tuple or row.

53. The system of claim 52, wherein one or more cells represent a primary key of the tuple or row, and other cells represent attributes of the primary key.

54. The system of claim 52, wherein rows are further organized into a 2-dimensional relational database table structure.

55. The system of claim 52, wherein a default primary key is a system generated surrogate or identity key.

56. The system of claim 52, wherein a primary key is automatically computed as a set of columns necessary to ensure uniqueness.

57. The system of claim 49, wherein the type of data contained in a cell comprises alphanumeric string, integer, decimal, floating point, date, time, binary, or boolean.

58. The system of claim 49, wherein the type of data comprises array, associative array, hash table, tree or data-interchange formats such as json or XML.

59. The system of claim 49, wherein the attributes of the summary data comprise information confidence, consensus, or certainty ratings relating to the likelihood that a certain value is accurate.

60. The system of claim 59, wherein the confidence of the summary data is indicated with a color or icon.

61. The system of claim 59, wherein the attributes of the summary data is based on a function of the underlying detail data comprising mode, average, median, standard deviation, variance, or the most recent data submission,

62. The system of claim 59, wherein the attributes of the summary data comprises a representation of the distribution of opinions about the cell.

63. The system of claim 59, wherein summary data comprises a representation of user submission and the consistency between summary data and user submission.

64. The system of claim 49, wherein an aggregation logic determines summarized data using criteria, rules, logic, and data.

65. The system of claim 64, wherein criteria comprises any metadata associated with user submissions.

66. The system of claim 65, wherein metadata comprises user'"'"'s confidence in the accuracy of the data value submitted.

67. The system of claim 65, wherein metadata comprises ratings of trustworthiness of sources or citations.

68. The system of claim 65, wherein metadata comprises ratings of trustworthiness or reputation of users interacting with the cell.

69. The system of claim 65, wherein metadata comprises date and time of submission of the user submitted data.

70. The system of claim 64 further comprising logic for de-weighting user submission based on indications of lack of independence.

71. The system of claim 64 further comprising logic for de-weighting prior submissions from a single user, giving more weight to updated submissions.

72. The system of claim 64 further comprising logic for de-weighting submissions based on unverified citations.

73. The system of claim 68, wherein a reputation algorithm determines the reputation or trustworthiness of the user, the reputation algorithm being based on criteria comprising user reputation rating, profile information, history of data submissions, predictive ability of user, social network connections, and IP address.

74. The system of claim 49, wherein the underlying detail data is viewed with a folded view.

75. The system of claim 49, wherein the underlying detail data is viewed in an raw detail data view.

76. The system of claim 74, wherein the folded view displays one or more of the range of use submissions, the number of submissions, and the confidence, consensus, or certainty ratings associated with likelihood of correctness for each value.

77. The system of claim 75, wherein the raw detail data view comprises additional metadata for each source and comments for each user submission.

78. The system of claim 75, wherein the raw detail data view groups data by data value submitted, user, citation, or submission time.

79. The system of claim 50, wherein the input logic receives a submission of data that is accomplished at a detail data view by agreeing or disagreeing with historical votes.

80. The system of claim 79, wherein logic allows the user submits additional metadata fields.

81. The system of claim 80, wherein metadata comprises a confidence level representing estimated likelihood of data being accurate.

82. The system of claim 80, wherein metadata comprises a data regarding a source or citation.

83. The system of claim 80, wherein metadata comprises comments.

84. The process of claim 49, wherein the interaction is where a user views data, the user does not correct or modify the data, and the system determines that there is a higher likelihood that the user agreed with the data than disagreed with the data.

85. The system of claim 50, wherein the submission is passive and by nature of an interaction that is not an active submission of new data.

86. The system of claim 84 further comprising logic, based on a user who views but does not correct data, for calculating the likelihood that the user agreed with the data.

87. The system of claim 50, wherein the user submission is through an API call.