Collaboration portal (COPO) a scaleable method, system, and apparatus for providing computer-accessible benefits to communities of users

• US 7,890,549 B2
• Filed: 04/30/2008
• Issued: 02/15/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 04/30/2007
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Quantum Leap Research, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Quantum Leap Research, Inc.
• Inventors: Elad, Joseph B, Kallurkar, Srikanth V., Yu, Bin, Dale, Jonathan, Johnson, Apperson H.
• Primary Examiner(s): Alam, Shahid A
• Assistant Examiner(s): Arjomandi, Noosha
• Application Number:
  US12/113,203
• Publication Number:
  US 20080281915A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,021 Days
• Field of Search: 707/728, 707/803, 707/912
• US Class Current: 707/803
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/02 Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising

Abstract

The present invention, known as The Collaboration Portal (COPO), relates generally to the field of automated entity, data processing, system control, and data communications, and more specifically to an integrated method, system, and apparatus for providing computer-accessible benefits for communities of users. It provides a framework for provisioning computer-accessible benefits for communities of users, and can efficiently and robustly distribute the processing in behalf of those users over a decentralized network of computers. The field of the invention generally encompasses enabling appropriate and desired communication among communities of users and organizations, and providing information, goods, services, a works, opportunities, and connections among users and organizations.

Claims

1. In a computer system, having one or more processors or virtual machines, one or more memory units, one or more input devices and one or more output devices, a network, and shared memory supporting communication among the processors, a computer implemented method for constructing terminology signatures or concept ID signatures related to a topic, domain, or universe of terminology from at least one first computer accessible artifact comprising the steps of:

a) obtaining a mapping relationship or mapping procedure for mapping terms to concept IDs;

b) using the mapping relationship or mapping procedure to map terms from computer accessible artifacts to concept IDs;

c) obtaining a ground set of term or concept ID weights related to a topic, domain or universe of terminology;

d) obtaining a first canonical method for selecting partial signature subsets of terms or concept IDs from the first computer accessible artifact;

e) using the first canonical method for partial signature selecting subsets of terms or concept IDs from the first computer accessible artifact;

f) obtaining a second canonical method for weighting partial signature subsets of terms or concept IDs based on the ground set of term or concept ID weights from the first computer accessible artifact;

g) using the second canonical method for weighting partial signature subsets of terms or concept IDs from the first computer accessible artifact; and

h) combining at least one weighted partial signature subset of terms or concept IDs as a terminology signature or a concept ID signature for the first computer accessible artifact.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:

a) using an Order(N) canonical method for selecting or storing partial signature subsets of terms or concept IDs from the computer accessible artifact; and

b) using an Order(N) canonical method for weighting partial signature subsets of terms or concept IDs based on the ground set of term or concept ID weights from the computer accessible artifact.

3. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:

a) using the concept ID signature or a terminology signature to identify the first computer accessible artifact;

b) using the signature to search for at least one second computer accessible artifact wherein the second computer accessible artifact uses similar terminology or concept IDs to the first computer accessible artifact;

c) using the signature of the second computer accessible artifact to measure the degree of match between the second computer accessible artifact and the first computer accessible artifact; and

d) using the signature of the first computer accessible artifact and the second computer accessible artifact to measure the degree of match between the second computer accessible artifact and the first computer accessible artifact.

4. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:

a) treating a first partial signature subset of terms or concept IDs as a first combination or permutation, and giving them a weight based on the combinatorial likelihood of such a combination or permutation;

b) extracting at least one implied second partial signature subset terms or concept IDs from the first partial signature subset, and treating the second partial signature subset of terms or concept IDs as a second combination or permutation, and giving them a weight based on the combinatorial likelihood of such a combination or permutation;

c) applying b) to also obtain all singleton terms or concept IDs implied by first partial signature subset of terms or concept IDs; and

d) using a weighting scheme that combines the individual singleton, combination, and permutation weights of the first partial signature subset and the second partial signature subset.

5. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:

a) constructing first set of term or concept ID weights based on term or concept ID frequencies within a domain, topic, or subtopic;

b) constructing second term or concept ID weights based on term or concept ID frequencies within a domain, topic, subtopic;

c) using the relationship between the first set of weights and the second set of weights in the canonical method for selecting partial signature subsets or in the canonical method for weighting partial signature subsets; and

d) using at least one of the ratio, the log ratio, or the rank of ratios or rank of log ratios as the relationship between the first set of weights and the second set of weights.

6. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:

e) using at least some partial signatures from the concept ID signature or terminology signature to construct search terms;

f) using the search terms to find at least one second computer accessible artifact wherein the second computer accessible artifact is a component if the first computer accessible artifact or the second computer accessible artifact includes components of the first computer accessible artifact; and

g) finding all computer accessible artifacts in a repository which are highly related to the first computer accessible artifact.

7. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:

a) obtaining a set of assignments from of computer accessible artifacts to at least one topic or interest;

b) using at least some partial signatures from the concept ID signature or terminology signature of the first computer accessible artifact to construct a concept ID signature or terminology signature of the topic or interest;

c) using the signature of the topic or interest to identify additional computer accessible artifacts that should be assigned to that the topic or interest; and

d) using the signature of the topic or interest to identify additional computer accessible artifacts that should not be assigned to that the topic or interest.

8. The method of claim 1 further comprising obtaining a computer accessible artifact of that is at least one type of artifact selected from the set of artifact types consisting of:

documents, images, video, audio, computer programs, spectra, radiographs, radiographic data;

tomography images, tomographic data, ultrasound images, ultrasound data;

microscope images;

terahertz imaging images;

Doppler images, Doppler data, photoacoustic images, photoacoustic data;

laser scanning images;

laser scanning data,

HTML documents, Microsoft Word, Excel, and Powerpoint documents, Open Office Documents, Lotus Documents, Adobe documents, ADA documents, Algol documents, APL documents, BASIC documents, Beanshell documents, C documents, C++ documents, C# documents, Common lisp documents, Forth documents, Fortran documents, Haskell documents, Groovy documents, Java documents, JavaScript documents, Lisp documents, Logo documents, Maple documents, Mathematica documents, MATLAB documents, ML documents, Modula documents, Objective-CAML documents, Objective-C documents, Perl, documents, Prolog documents, Python documents, APL documents, Ruby, documents, Scheme documents, Self documents, Smalltalk documents, TK documents, and UML documents.

9. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:

a) Using at least one mapping procedure selected from the group consisting of;

mapping by a concept index;

mapping by an indexed set of categories;

mapping by a taxonomy with uniquely indexed elements;

mapping by an ontology with uniquely indexed elements;

mapping by a thesaurus with uniquely indexed elements;

mapping by a library index system;

mapping by a patent classification system;

mapping by a domain-specific index of concepts; and

b) obtaining a mapping relationship selected from the group consisting of;

an index that maps terms in a given language to numeric concept IDs;

an index that maps terms in a given language to symbolic concept IDs;

an index that maps terms in a first language to concept IDs in a second language;

an index that maps terms from a first domain to concept IDs in a second domain;

wordnet categories;

Roget thesaurus categories;

DMOZ Open Directory categories;

Wikipedia categories;

Dewey decimal system categories;

the Bliss bibliographic classification system categories;

the Library of Congress Classification system categories;

the Nippon Decimal Classification system categories;

the Chinese Library Classification system categories;

the Korean Decimal Classification system categories;

the Colon classification system categories;

the Cutter Expansive Classification system categories;

the Universal Decimal Classification system categories;

the Brinkler Classification system categories;

EDGAR Standard Taxonomies categories;

contextual indexing and faceted taxonomic access system categories;

SUMO categories;

Yahoo categories;

Google categories;

the USPTO patent classification system categories;

the WIPO patent classification system categories;

ACS PubChem categories;

NIH Mesh Term categories;

International Classification of Disease codes;

Concept Map encodings;

British American Scientific International Commercial (BASIC) English encodings;

Caterpillar Technical English encodings;

VOA Special English encodings;

Ogden'"'"'s basic English encodings; and

Universal Language Dictionary categories; and

c) combining a plurality of mapping procedure results or a plurality of mapping relationship to form a consensus mapping or a weighted consensus mapping.

10. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:

a) obtaining a first procedure or mapping relationship for mapping terms or concept IDs to features;

b) applying the first procedure or mapping relationship to identify a first set of features associated with the first computer accessible artifact;

c) constructing an association between the a first set of features and at least one partial signature or at least one signature; and

d) wherein the first procedure is at least one selected from the group consisting of;

entity extraction;

named entity recognition;

extraction of the source organization;

extraction of the source address;

extraction of the author;

extraction of the date;

text summarization;

text simplification;

inference of computer accessible artifact provenance;

part-of-speech tagging;

co-reference analysis;

social tagging;

domain-weighted social tagging;

expertise-weighted social tagging;

tokenization and parsing;

n-gram association;

Bayesian network prediction;

Kernel method category prediction;

Association rules;

k-means classifiers;

Frequent Itemset associations; and

Inductive Logic Programming rules.

11. A computer implemented system for constructing terminology signatures or concept ID signatures related to a topic, domain, or universe of terminology or concept IDs from at least one first computer accessible artifact and for constructing scaleable topic and interest networks using terminology signatures or concept ID signatures related to a topic, domain or universe of terminology or concept IDs and for obtaining terminology signatures or concept ID signatures related to an interest, sub\-topic, topic or domain and for obtaining computer accessible artifacts or information about computer accessible artifacts related to an interest, sub-topic, topic or domain and for creating and maintaining communities of interest to inform generalized actors and to obtain computer accessible benefits for generalized actors by the methods of claim 1.

12. A computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions for constructing terminology signatures or concept ID signatures related to a topic, domain, or universe of terminology or concept IDs from at least one first computer accessible artifact and for constructing scaleable topic and interest networks using terminology signatures or concept ID signatures related to a topic, domain or universe of terminology or concept IDs and for obtaining terminology signatures or concept ID signatures related to an interest, sub-topic, topic or domain and for obtaining computer accessible artifacts or information about computer accessible artifacts related to an interest, sub-topic, topic or domain and for creating and maintaining communities of interest to inform generalized actors and to obtain computer accessible benefits for generalized actors by the methods of claim 1.