As enterprise supply chains and consumer demand chains have beome globalized, they continue to inefficiently share information “one-up/one-down”. Profound "bullwhip effects" in the chains cause managers to scramble with inventory shortages and consumers attempting to understand product recalls, especially food safety recalls. Add to this the increasing usage of personal mobile devices by managers and consumers seeking real-time information about products, materials and ingredient sources. The popularity of mobile devices with consumers is inexorably tugging at enterprise IT departments to shifting to apps and services. But both consumer and enterprise data is a proprietary asset that must be selectively shared to be efficiently shared.
About Steve Holcombe
Unless otherwise noted, all content on this company blog site is authored by Steve Holcombe as President & CEO of Pardalis, Inc. More profile information:
Follow @WholeChainCom™ at each of its online locations:
There were 9 references to prior patents at issuance, including US Patent 5,008,853, referenced above. The remaining references are unremarkable for the scope and purposes of this blog.
An advanced search at USPTO online on May 16, 2008 for distinguishing references to this patent after its issuance using ref/5418957 reveals 36 references. A more refined search reveals US Patent 5,764,973.
Abstract:
The Network Data Dictionary is a device for enabling standardization of data structures in programs, file layouts and Data Base Management System (DBMS) schema residing in Include Files located on one or more computers in a network. By making the data structures comply with the data element definitions stored in a common data element dictionary, improvements in the quality, accuracy, and consistency of data can be obtained, while simultaneously providing productivity advantages to programmers.
Independent claims (as numbered):
1. In a network of one or more computers having data structures relating to programs, file layouts, and database schema, the data structures being stored in Include Files, wherein each of the data structures comprises one or more data items, each of the Include Files is associated with a Support File, and each of the Include Files is accessible from an Include File Dictionary (IFD) that includes a tree-structured directory for mapping the Include Files to the network and access control information, a method for enabling a user to interactively edit or create Include Files so as to comply with a set of logical data element definitions derived from the data structures and stored in a Data Element Dictionary (DED), the method comprising the steps of:
1) retrieving a user selected Include File from the IFD into a text editor;
2) editing or creating data structures of the selected Include File from the text editor;
3) validating a user selected data item of the data structures against the logical data element definitions in the DED from the text editor, and if valid logical data element definitions for the selected data item exist, performing the steps of:
displaying logical data element definitions that are valid for the selected data item;
replacing the selected data item in the text editor with a user selected one of the displayed logical data element definitions;
storing cross-reference information in a Support file corresponding to the selected Include File, the cross-reference information referencing a logical data element definition in the DED corresponding to the selected data item in the text editor; or
if valid logical data element definitions for the selected data items do not exist, performing the steps of:
proposing a logical data element definition by the user, in accordance with a set of rules of defined in the DED, in the DED and subject to approval by a system administrator;
replacing the selected data item in the text editor with the proposed logical data element definition;
4) auditing the selected Include File using the support file, including cross-references, and calculating a dictionary compliance percentage to provide a summary of the compliance of the selected Include File to the DED.
Google began offering online personal health records (PHRs) to the public this last Monday. So earlier this week I clicked over to Google Health and signed up for an account.
I was offered the choice of conveniently entering in my medical profile (e.g., age, sex, blood type, allergies, test results, immunizations, etc.). Or, though it was a moot point, I could also upload any medical information of mine that might already be held by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Cleveland Clinic, Longs Drug Stores, Medco, CVS Caremark, Quest Diagnostics, RxAmerica, or Walgreens Pharmacy.
And then I did not fill out any of my medical profile information.
I did not because while it looks like a beautiful information garden that Google is offering, it’s nonetheless a garden that has been charted within a continuing privacy paradigm that unnecessarily allocates more power into the hands of the garden's gatekeeper (i.e., Google) than to the actual gardeners themselves (like you and me).
“If you create, transmit, or display health or other information while using Google Health, you may provide only information that you own or have the right to use. When you provide your information through Google Health, you give Google a license to use and distribute it in connection with Google Health and other Google services. However, Google may only use health information you provide as permitted by the Google Health Privacy Policy, your Sharing Authorization, and applicable law. Google is not a "covered entity" under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the regulations promulgated thereunder ("HIPAA"). As a result, HIPAA does not apply to the transmission of health information by Google to any third party.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. Google Health is a worthy service by the standards of the prevailing privacy paradigm. There are going to be a number of people who will choose to enter in their medical information.
Notwithstanding, Google Health indeed represents the predominant privacy paradigm of data possession by online companies at a time when the momentum is beginning to shift toward a 'data ownership' paradigm - see Dataportability, Traceability and Data Ownership - for truly empowering information owners and producers with technological possession of their own information.
Furthermore, it is difficult for me to imagine Google convincingly claiming the moral high ground for PHRs when I read about U.S. Senators, in a Congressional hearing held the day after Google Health was made public, pressing executives from Yahoo, Google, and Cisco Systems “to justify their business practices in China and other Internet-censoring countries”. See Senators weigh new laws over China online censorship.
“Most physicians in the United States have paper medical records — the sort that doctors have kept for generations. A minority have electronic records that provide, at a minimum, tools for writing progress notes and prescriptions, ordering laboratory and imaging tests, and viewing test results .... Yet electronic health data are poised for an online transformation that is being catalyzed by Dossia (a nonprofit consortium of major employers), Google Health, Microsoft HealthVault, and other Web services that are seeking expanded roles in the $2.1 trillion U.S. health care system.” [emphasis added]
If you choose not to gain access to the full text of this article by subscribing to The New England Journal of Medicine, see Internet Health Records: Convenience at a Cost? by Joanne Silberner on the National Public Radio website (which is available in both text and a 4m 36sec audio).
Silberner does a professional job but it seems like once you have read (or listened) to one of these articles about PHRs, you have pretty much read them all. What she familiarly relates is that despite the involvement of Dossia, Google Health, and Microsoft HealthVault, creating and maintaining a full health record may be a job for the compulsive and, on top of that, medical records experts are worried about privacy.
Holding that thought ...
... let’s pause for a moment to jump from the world of PHRs over to current events vis-à-vis data portability within social networking. Michael Arrington blogs a very neat summary in Data Portability – It’s The New Walled Garden at TechCrunch.
"A huge battle is underway between Google, MySpace and Facebook around control of user profiles and, therefore, users themselves …. Internet giants know that the days of getting you to spend all of your time inside their walled gardens are over. So the next best thing is to at least maintain as much data about the user as possible, and make sure they identify with your brand while they are out there not being on your site …. The companies with the profiles (mostly MySpace and Facebook) know this. And they know that to keep users happy, and to stop them from entering in all that friend data into other sites, they need to make their data at least somewhat portable. Not too portable, mind you. That means they’d lose control. But just portable enough …. [emphasis added]
Arrington further states ...
Google is a little different. They don’t have a social networking presence in the U.S., so they are trying to get in the middle between the guys with the profiles (like Facebook) and the sites that want the data. Their Friend Connect product does just that, and makes them an important data middle man. That position can later be leveraged intensely. In fact, in many ways Google can become the most important social network without actually having a social network." [emphasis added]
In other words, Google's Friend Connect provides it with an opportunity to place MySpace and Facebook within a Google ‘picture frame’ from the perspective of internet users. And that picture frame is the opening to a walled garden of data – yours and mine. Whomever controls the entrance to the garden controls ... well, you get the picture, right?
And, coming back to the world of PHRs, it takes no imagination to conclude that Google might do the same with Google Health. That is, Google Health as 'a picture frame' for Microsoft HealthVault, Dossia, etc.
But for all these machinations inside of Silicon Valley the question still goes begging ...
Is there to be a critical mass of internet users who will actually put their medical profile online under the current privacy paradigm?
From: Steve Holcombe Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 19:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Local: Thurs, May 29 2008 9:48 pm Subject: Data Protection Law & Policy - invitation to write
Hi, I'm an attorney. Legal ownership over information is about privacy regulations covering non-artistic content, and copyright regulations covering artistic content. There is a large world of non-artistic information over which the only protection that an information producer has is to retain control by not sharing that information. An example would be the origin or pedigree of a typical product along a supply chain which, typically, is not shared. In my opinion the focus of Dataportability.org should be upon empowering information producers (whether within social networks or along product supply chains) with technological control over their information. In other words, shift the paradigm from privacy and copyright (i.e., the prevailing legal data ownership paradigm) to direct technological control (i.e., a technological data ownership paradigm). By way of example, [see] 'Personal Health Records, Data Portability and the Continuing Privacy Paradigm' ....
[emphasis added]
Update on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 7:16AM by
Steve Holcombe
See also, Google Hacking Against Privacy, Emin Islam Tath, University of Mannheim, Department of Computer Science (6 Aug 2007):
There were 17 references to prior patents at issuance including US Patent 5,181,162. The remaining references are unremarkable for the scope and purposes of this blog.
An advanced search at USPTO online on May 16, 2008 for distinguishing references to this patent after its issuance using ref/5764973 reveals 35 references. A more refined search reveals US Patent 7,225,302.
Abstract:
The present invention overcomes the shortfalls in the art by creating an environment for integrating information stored in the full range of data structures including: flat files, hierarchical databases, network databases, relational databases, and object-oriented databases. The system can support the integration of not only text and numeric data, but also video, sound and graphics. The system involves using an object-oriented interface to integrate the various information systems into a single framework while still maintaining the legacy systems undisturbed.
Independent claims (as numbered):
1. A system for integrating information from a plurality of different data structures stored in a plurality of different types of storage structures into a single-framework, the system comprising:
(a) input means for choosing criteria on which to gather said information;
(b) modeling means for modeling an entire problem domain which includes at least one said data structure from said plurality of different types of storage structures, including relations, hierarchical, flat file, and object-oriented database structures, at least some of the data structures including relational tables, the modeling means including means for determining which foreign keys in the relational tables are necessary, for removing unnecessary foreign keys in the relational tables, and for removing tables made only of foreign keys;
(c) data dictionary means for tracking locations of said information across said at least one data structure in said problem domain;
(d) statement generating means for automatically generating data requests based on said chosen criteria;
(e) accessing means for receiving said information independent of said types of storage structures and responsive to said data requests; and
(f) interface means for providing a uniform relational view of said problem domain that is consistent across said types of storage structures enabling said data to be manipulated without limitation as to said type of storage structure.
16. A system for integrating information from at least first and second different types of legacy database systems, the legacy database systems having physical data elements stored therein, the system comprising:
first and second interfaces for communicating with the first and second different types of legacy database systems; and
an object-oriented database management system communicating with the first and second interfaces and including:
an object-oriented database,
means for modeling the tables and the physical data elements therein in the different databases and types of databases in the legacy systems to generate logical data elements corresponding to the tables in the legacy systems, logical data elements corresponding to the physical data elements, and pointers from the logical data elements to the physical data elements in the legacy systems, and
a metacatalog maintained as an object-oriented database for storing the logical data elements generated by the modeling means.
19. A method for integrating multiple different types of legacy systems with physical elements into a single object-oriented framework, the method comprising the steps of:
scanning header tables from a number of different tables in the legacy systems to create data elements for the tables;
storing the data elements created in the scanning step in an object-oriented database;
for each table, modeling the physical data elements in the table to create logical data elements;
storing the logical data elements created in the modeling step in the object-oriented database;
creating pointers from the data element for each table to the logical data elements that represent the physical data elements in the respective tables;
determining a datatype for each physical data element based on the header tables of the legacy systems;
using the datatype determined in the determining step as the datatype for each logical data element; and
creating logical elements in a metacatalog during the scanning and modeling steps to create a logical element in the metacatalog each time a physical element is modeled, the system automatically creating a unified environment from multiple different databases and types of databases in legacy systems to provide a consistent view across all of the legacy systems.
On Sunday, May 18th Chris Saad blogged the following on his personal blogging site.
"I’ve heard a lot lately from executives at the highest levels at vendors that do not run large social networks. They might be more traditional media companies, telecommunication companies, device manufactures etc.
There are a few common and resounding themes from those conversations so I thought I would share them here ...."
If you go to Chris' post be sure and check out my comment (i.e., Comment #5).
Also, you might want to additionally check out the interview of Chris Saad in the Talking Tech blog of the Wall Street Journal on May 13th. That interview/blog is by Lee Gomes and entitled Easier Sharing is Goal of Portability Project.
There were 18 references to prior patents at issuance, including US Patent 4,974,173 and US Patent 5,008,853. The remaining 16 references are unremarkable for the scope and purposes of this blog.
An advanced search at USPTO online on May 16, 2008 for distinguishing references to this patent after its issuance using ref/5515491 reveals 91 references. A more refined search reveals US Patent 6,088,702.
Abstract:
It is therefore an object of the present invention:
to provide a method of enhancing cooperative work in a collaborative computer system,
to provide a collaborative editing system for utilization within shared data objects,
to provide a modified "What You See Is What I See" (WYSIWIS) interface, and
to provide a method of protecting user selectable blocks of a shared data object in collaborative computer based system from simultaneous manipulation originating with other users.
Independent claims (as numbered):
1. A method of communications management within a collaborative computer-based system a plurality of display devices, a shared data object simultaneously accessible by a plurality of users, means for displaying portions of said shared data object within each of said plurality of display devices, and means for providing a plurality of cursors within said shared data object, wherein each of said plurality of cursors is associated with one of said plurality of users, said method comprising computer implemented steps of:
entering a mode in which messages are sent in response to selected events by said plurality of users;
determining whether a cursor movement event has occurred;
in response to a cursor movement event occurring, determining whether a cursor movement event has resulted in a cursor moving within a designated notification region within said shared data object;
in response to a cursor moving into the designated notification region, identifying users to receive said message; and
displaying said message to said identified users.
3. A method of communications management within a collaborative computer-based system a plurality of display devices, a shared data object simultaneously accessible by a plurality of users, means for displaying portions of said shared data object within each of said plurality of display devices, and means for providing a plurality of cursors within said shared data object, wherein each of said plurality of cursors is associated with one of said plurality of users, said method comprising computer implemented steps of:
entering a mode in which messages are sent in response to selected events by said plurality of users;
defining a notification region within said shared data object, said defined notification region containing cursors;
defining a message to send; and
sending said message to each user having a cursor within said defined notification region.
4. A communications management system within a collaborative computer-based system a plurality of display devices, a shared data object simultaneously accessible by a plurality of users, means for displaying portions of said shared data object within each of said plurality of display devices, and means for providing a plurality of cursors within said shared data object, wherein each of said plurality of cursors is associated with one of said plurality of users, said communications management system comprising:
means for entering a mode in which messages are sent response to selected events by said plurality of users;
determination means for determining whether a cursor movement event has occurred;
first responsive means for responding to a cursor movement event occurring, determining whether a cursor movement event has resulted in a cursor moving within a designated notification region within said shared data object;
second responsive means for responding to a cursor moving into the designated notification region, identifying users to receive a message; and
display means for displaying said message to said identified users.
6. A communications management system within a collaborative computer-based system a plurality of display devices, a shared data object simultaneously accessible by a plurality of users, means for displaying portions of said shared data object within each of said plurality of display devices, and means for providing a plurality of cursors within said shared data object, wherein each of said plurality of cursors is associated with one of said plurality of users, said communications management system comprising:
means for entering a mode in which messages are sent in response to selected events by said plurality of users;
definition means for defining a notification region within said shared data object, said defined notification region containing cursors;
definition means for defining a message to send; and
sending means for sending said message to each user having a cursor within said defined notification region.
Friday, May 23, 2008 at 3:30AM