Mood:  bright

I will be taking the claims construction material (as poster intheend101 makes available on the Yahoo VCSY forum)  and leave excerpts from that here for a couple days (unless I feel very energetic) and let you think on the text.

Then I'll provide my interpretations and interpretation of what the claims construction says.

These are excerpts from the text in the previous post: 

And checkback at the edit date at the bottom of this post display. I may be adding excerpts to shepherd along the thinking exercises and you will be able to tell that if the edit timestamp is changed. Or, you can do an RSS subscription and you will get an update with every edit. Of course, all you may get is an update for a spelling correct. Diligence can be frustrating.

A critical distinction between the present invention and previous object oriented development systems is the need to know how a function can be called and what to expect it to return, rather than just knowing the function's name.  

An arbitrary object is simply a program piece that can be retrieved by using only its name.

Microsoft disregards this critical intrinsic evidence and instead selectively collects self-serving specific examples and language to improperly import them into the claims.

The specification includes a large number of examples, descriptions, and words of inclusion for “arbitrary objects:” Those examples include the following:

These arbitrary objects may include encapsulated legacy data, legacy systems and custom programming logic from essentially any source in which they may reside. Any language supported by the host system, or anylanguage that can be interfaced to by the host system, can be used to generate an object within the application. (Column 2, lines 29-34, Exhibit A.)
* * *
Arbitrary objects can include text file pointers, binary file pointers, compiled executables, scripts, data base queries, shell commands, remote procedure calls, global variables, and local variables.

Using arbitrary objects allows the independence and separation that is the central benefit of this invention.

For instance, if a company would like to roll out a  new look or syndicate  its content and functionality to another business, this  can be  easily accomplished using the present invention. Since  there is no application  code resident in a web page itself, the same data can be  repackaged in a  number of different ways across multiple sites.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:25 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 18 May 2008 10:42 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  celebratory

As intheend101 makes available excerpts from the VCSY claims construction, I'll add things here, then begin picking off areas to expand on:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4403&mid=4403&tof=2&frt=1

VCSY claim construction brief filed     16-May-08 07:42 pm    
200+ pages. Too much to post. Thought this excerpt was interesting..
____________________________________________

The part of the specification that provides a definition for “arbitrary object” is the following:
Many functions are stored within an object library on an arbitrary object framework such that those functions can be accessed by name arbitrarily.

This is in contrast to a traditional model where the function must be explicitly invoked with all its parameters included. (Column 5, lines 42-46, Exhibit A.)
* * *
A critical distinction between the present invention and previous object oriented development systems is the need to know how a function can be called and what to expect it to return, rather than just knowing the function's name. This means that typically the system administrator calls the name of an object and passes parameters to the object. Any and all variable information or environmental information can be available to every object.

The environment space can be available to all objects executed and an object can arbitrarily take advantage of any of the environmental information, depending on the design of the object. (Emphasis added. Column 5, line 62 to column 6, line 5, Exhibit A.)

The ‘744 patent thus provides a clear distinction between the invention that it describes and claims and the prior art; and in the process provides a definition for “arbitrary objects.”

An arbitrary object is simply a program piece that can be retrieved by using only its name.

Microsoft disregards this critical intrinsic evidence and instead selectively collects self-serving specific examples and language to improperly import them into the claims.

The specification includes a large number of examples, descriptions, and words of inclusion for “arbitrary objects:” Those examples include the following:

These arbitrary objects may include encapsulated legacy data, legacy systems and custom programming logic from essentially any source in which they may reside. Any language supported by the host system, or anylanguage that can be interfaced to by the host system, can be used to generate an object within the application. (Column 2, lines 29-34, Exhibit A.)
* * *
Arbitrary objects can include text file pointers, binary file pointers, compiled executables, scripts, data base queries, shell commands, remote procedure calls, global variables, and local variables. (Column 3, lines 43-46, Exhibit 

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4403&mid=4428&tof=1&frt=1
Re: VCSY claim construction brief filed     17-May-08 11:33 am     Interesting...

Vertical submits that the following two sections of the specification compel adoption of its definition:
More specifically, the present invention provides a method for generating software applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method of the present invention separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified independently.
(Column 2, lines 9-14, Exhibit A.)
* * *
The present invention provides an important technical advantage in that content, form, and function are separated from each other in the generation of the software application. Therefore, changes in design or content do not require the intervention of a programmer. This advantage decreases the time needed to change various aspects of the software application. (Column 2, lines 19-25, Exhibit A.)

The prosecution history also includes these statements in highlighting the benefits of the invention. Using arbitrary objects allows the independence and separation that is the central benefit of this invention. Therefore, the only meaning can be Vertical’s construction.

The invention of the ‘744 patent includes creating and using arbitrary objects which enables the separation of form, content and function. But, the invention does not compel this separation every time. Neither the ‘744 patent nor its prosecution history requires that the method perform this separation all the time. In fact, quite the contrary, the large number of descriptions for arbitrary objects make certain that an arbitrary object can contain these three components separately or in any combination. Thus, Microsoft’s definition and its “Disavowal” statement do not find any support in the internal record or elsewhere. 

From an email source:

For instance, if a company would like to roll out a  new look or syndicate  its content and functionality to another business, this  can be  easily accomplished using the present invention. Since  there is no application  code resident in a web page itself, the same data can be  repackaged in a  number of different ways across multiple sites. [Emphasis  added.] The examiner of the '744 patent did just that when  comparing the claims with  the prior art in an office action dated April 3,  2003

( would be interested in knowing if any other references to that April 3, 2003 event are available)

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:13 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 17 May 2008 5:16 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

An article by Phil Wainewright at http://blogs.zdnet.com/SAAS/?p=522

When you understand what Wainewright is saying here, you will understand why the old paradigm technologies will be scrapped in due time.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:48 PM EDT

Updated: Friday, 16 May 2008 4:06 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Did you ever get  through with a conversation and say "gee, I wish I had said..."? Well, the Yahoo posting forum format doesn't allow for much follow up because, when you do follow up, those who don't want you to read can easily bury the comments with their own innane postings.

So, if you can't stomach reading the Yahoo VCSY board (believe me. more sympathetic I could not be.), I thought you might need to see the MVC discussion from Yahoo put in a more capsulated view.

Therefore, I'll chop and paste my words of relevant revelation to the heathen who rage too much.

PLUS, there are things I wanted to say after I had already posted there, so these posts distilled into this post will also have additional verbiage by me and some editorial corrections (also by me - it's all about me, me, me.).

Concerned about authenticity and purity? Read the Yahoo posts associated with the timestamps to see just what is new and what is old.

So, (just imagine you've dropped into the middle of a conversation).

begin thread: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?

m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4155&mid=4155&tof=5&rt=1&frt=1&off=1

pick up @ 14-May-08 02:37 pm

portuno: Can ANYBODY tell us what is "gibberish" about the claims in 744?
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6826744

sw_mail: Yes, 744 is a framework that implements the MVC design pattern, first described by Trygve Reenskaug in 1979. Yet, 744 is dated 2004. The facts hurt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller

computerguy: I'm a professional Java developer who does a lot of work with MVC in Swing GUIs. I had no idea the pattern was that old. Thanks for the link!

portuno: Notice the "professional Java developer" makes my case all by himself with the words: "does a lot of work with MVC in Swing GUIs".

We're talking about much more than a GUI model controller, "computerguy". We're talking about extending what facility and wonders MVC can accomplish with interfaces into the actual fabric and material of the elements being used to construct the applications.

Read the next post then see if you can understand where you shot whoever sent sw_mail the link before the guy even got out the door.

portuno: MVC

LOL

This is going to be good.

"In MVC, the Model represents the information (the data) of the application and the business rules used to manipulate the data, the View corresponds to elements of the user interface such as text, checkbox items, and so forth, and the Controller manages details involving the communication to the model of user actions such as keystrokes and mouse movements."

If MVC desribes any prior art,m it is prior art already accounted for in the Siteflash patent in the discussion about content management as a prior art.

MVC
A) Model - information (the data AND the business rules - in other words the workflow)
B) View - elements of the user interface
C) Controller - activity manager between the model and the user.

Thus, an interface control mechanism.

SiteFlash
A) Content - information (the data)
B) Format (the form in which the data is presented)
C) functionality (the workflows applied to the data within the format)

Thus, an integrated application.

Very telling the list of MVC implementations is so large, yet, the patent examiner never made any reference to any of those listed. Also very telling, the list of MVC implementation is very large, yet, none of those implementations is capable of creating anything as integrated in all three facets of software construction.

If you haven't noticed, MVC forgets about the "functional program". MVC occupies the space between the modeled program behaviour and the user as an interface controller... not as a functionality integrator.

Siteflash treats the program as simply another component to be integrated with content and format. MVC assumes you already have the program crammed together with the content (and we know that doesn't work in "arbitrary" ways - precisely why all those implementations listed are proprietary programming languages and not capable of handling all components in an arbitrary fashion.

portuno: This: "In MVC, the Model represents the information (the data) of the application and the business rules used to manipulate the data, the View corresponds to elements of the user interface such as text, checkbox items, and so forth, and the Controller manages details involving the communication to the model of user actions such as keystrokes and mouse movements."

Is THAT what Microsoft lawyers are going to hang the company's future on?

So, please explain how this achieves an arbitrated framework for ANY content, ANY format and ANY functionality of an application.

You're dong what even Microsoft did in challenging this patent - you're using easily seen abstracts to blow smoke over the deeper values in virtualization and the arbitrating quality that virtualization has on the components of an application construction.

If MVC were an architecture like 744, there would BE no individual proprietary languages as listed in the wiki article. The need for the incremental refinements offered by those languages would have been swallowed up in one MVC framework capable of presenting all languages as one arbitrated field of commands.

And, if the patent examiner missed that one, you'll have to explain how Microsoft failed to adequately challenge the patent when they tried the first time.

Basically what you've got in MVC is a pattern generator. What you have in 744 is an ecology creator for full development of applications during the entire life cycle as contained in the application. The development ecology IS the application... and you can't get that out of MVC.

Nice try but it's most likely Microsoft is going to be shoveling dirt into the oncoming tide with that stance.

But, we're glad somebody out there is sending you clowns some script material. You've been sucking your own incompetence before somebody came to your rescue.

So, your turn. Demonstrate, please, precisely how and where MVC supercedes what 744 claims to do.

sw_mail: And how does the .net framework violate 744?

portuno: Did I step on your toes?

end thread.

I guess I stepped on sw_mail's fingers. Or else he's trying to find more script from some more relevant engineer.

Here's another conversation.
begin thread @ http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?

m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4186&mid=4186&tof=8&frt=1

pick up at 14-May-08 03:35 pm

sw_mail: And how does the .net framework violate 744?

(me: this appears to be a big question for sw_mail aka computerguy aka vcsy_is_pest).

portuno: Read this: http://www.microsoft-match.com/content/developer/net_35_sp1_changes_your_expression.html
and we'll talk later after you catch your breath.

portuno: BUT of course you really need to know software architecture and understand what you're reading both in a patent and in technical specifications.

That was just a wikipedia article about MVC but it tells the story in a basic way for laymen. Once you do some exploration, you realize why all the traditional procedural languages never advanced into the web-application arena SiteFlash and MLE/Emily occupy.

No wonder it looks "obvious". It looks almost like what they do when they build a GUI. Except, Siteflash isn't a GUI nor a GUI builder alone. SiteFlash is a developmental ecology for applications. It's a creating framework for building other creating frameworks from which operating systems and applications and, yes, even more MVC fashioned languages can be built.

The idea is that you can plug any content you have, any (what the patent is meaning when you read "arbitrary". just say "any" when you read "arbitrary" and you'll beging to see the scope. It's a virtualization platform for any content and format. In other words a Microsoft "Expression" but more. ONE OF THE THINGS Siteflash can do is to act as a content/format manager for any website you want to connect to any legacy equipment you have. BUT WAIT! Content managers or ok but it's been done before. In fact, it's what ALL there is in that "designer" discipline.

Microsoft missed a great opportunity to combine their Visual Studio's development platform with their Expression designer platform. Imagine being able to be a designer AND a developer AT THE SAME FREAKING TIME.

They didn't but SiteFlash can. So we now have the concept of a stylist who can build functionality where before, with the kind of programming environments Java Joe has at his hands, anyone that wants to build an application has to have someone to build the programming code and someone completely different building the content into a formatted web page. If the two of you work well, you can build some pretty fantastic web services - of course Microsoft is going to have to perfect their interoperable capabilities over internet. They can't even demonstrate much of it in their own proprietary ranks, much less doing that kind of thing on the web.

SiteFlash offers, at one level, precisely what any web designer would like to be able to do... without a programmer. Content, format is old hat. That's what MVC represents; automating the display of content. Call it Automatic Television. That's what Microsoft's future is going to be because they can't combine the kind of virtualization architecture to allow them to combine content and format AND functionality.

AND THAT is only the beginning.

I do appreciate the gift sw_mail gave all us VCSY longs since it's the only piece of "prior art" any skeptic has pointed to that somewhat looks like SiteFlash.

But, MVC really doesn't even look like SiteFlash once you actually read the material. And it certainly doesn't do what SiteFlash can do. Those who are passing MVC around as a "prior art" are doing an intellectually dishonest service to those they pass that idea around to, or they really do not know what needs to be done in the software construction arena to meet next-generation needs.  

So, now that we know where the "prior art" is, perhaps we can have some real developers (and I mean REAL developers) study the information on the vaunted MVC methodology, then come back and give it to the 744 patent with both barrels.

Come on, guys and gals. ONE of you must have the hot sauce to argue the situation. I mean, you're all betting your careers that Microsoft doesn't need something like SiteFlash.

And, if you're open-source, you're staring at something that could strip your third-party business to the carcass very quickly.

end thread.

There's much more but I'll wait a bit to post since you're going to need time for your little eyeballs to absorb it all.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:17 AM EDT

Updated: Friday, 16 May 2008 3:26 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  hug me

I know it's like sticking your face in the diaper pail, snookywookums, but you should do a bit of reading on the Yahoo VCSY board for giggles.

You can read, can't you?

One of the "lerkers" (rhymes with "jerkers") decided to teach old daddy portuno about "architecture" and pulled out something somebody had scripted out for him.

LOL Ho, what a belly laugh that was. Have you ever heard of "MVC" The Model View Controller concept? No? Well, apparently other "professional developers" haven't either.

MVC is what much of the traditional software crowd can thank for allowing them to be able to push buttons and tweak textboxes in their "applications".

Some numbnuts think it shows prior art to invalidate the Siteflash patent. Just the other way around; the Siteflash patent shows just how limited and primitive MVC is. Unfortunately for those VCSY haters, patent 6826744, which they all hate with a passion - much more than the company, no doubt, supercedes the MVC concept in so many ways, it's difficult to know where to start the description.

But, I will attempt to more fully describe why MVC is not what 744 is or was or ever hopes to be. 744 can build MVC's. MVC's can not build 744 derivatives.

Now, I know reading the Yahoo VCSY board is not pleasant. There are hooligans and know-nothings "lerking" there who are tasked with making life unpleasant for anyone who shows the slightest interest in VCSY.

So, I'm making things a bit easier for you here. This is a post that has all the thread URL's: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4221&mid=4221&tof=1&frt=1
Discussion about MVC 14-May-08 04:51 pm by Portuno_Diamo

and these are the individual threads in case you prefer navigating on your own.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4155&mid=4155&tof=5&frt=1
"An arbitrary object framework" for XML. 14-May-08 01:06 pm

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4186&mid=4186&tof=8&frt=1
I'll bet there's some furious script writing... 14-May-08 03:29 pm

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4205&mid=4205&tof=6&frt=1
So, ultimately, Siteflash supercedes MVC... 35 minutes ago

Not to worry if the messages aren't there. I can reconstruct the scene whenever. I'll probably do just that in a follow up post here just so we all know the score as the VCSY v MSFT case Markman Hearing marches near.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 5:59 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 6:56 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  amorous

Some legalese:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.§

Civil Action No.
2-07-CV-144 (DF-CE)
THE PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION FOR MODIFICATION
OF THE AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
Plaintiff Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (“Vertical”) and Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) jointly request a modification of the Court's Amended Docket Control Order to provide for the parties to submit technical tutorials to the Court in advance of the Claim Construction hearing.

The Amended Docket Control Order currently provides for a Pre-hearing Conference and technical tutorial, if necessary, on July 9, 2008, and a Claim Construction hearing on July 10, 2008.

The parties respectfully request that the Court vacate the technical tutorial and pre-hearing conference and set a deadline for submitting technical tutorials on CD-ROM by July 2, 2008, so that the Court will have an opportunity to consider the tutorials in advance of the Claim Construction hearing on July 10.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Vertical and Defendant Microsoft respectfully request that this Court modify the Amended Docket Control Order as outlined above.

and more legalese:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Civil Action No.
2-07-CV-144 (DF-CE)
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION OF THE AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
The Court, having considered the Parties’ Joint Motion for Modification of the Amended Docket Control Order and finding good cause supporting it, finds the Motion should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the
Parties’ Joint Motion for Modification of the Amended Docket Control Order is hereby GRANTED in its entirety, and that the Pre-hearing Conference and technical tutorial currently scheduled for July 9, 2008, shall be vacated and replaced with the following modification of the Amended Docket Control Order: Action Rule Date Deadline to submit technical tutorials to the Court Wednesday, July 2, 2008  

and opinion:

Now that's an interesting situation. No doubt the SiteFlash patent and all that can be derived from it can be complex and difficult to understand to people skilled in the art of software. It's a different way of doing things in software - a different architecture - and, as such, much of the novel value made available by this method of creating software will escape the comprehension on the first or even second pass.

In this particular architecture, what may at first appear to be massively complex interactions as theory soon appears as simplified abstracted enhancement to existing tools as well as Siteflash and MLE tools.

A tutorial will better prepare the court to hear the words in the patent claims from a much different prespective.

Now, that's from VCSY. What Microsoft will be doing is trying to demonstrate the parts and pieces of Siteflash have all been done before. It's the tactic most first and second time readers of the patent try to use to prove the patent(s - both of them share this quality) invalid based on prior art and obviousness.

I don't disagree there are examples of programming and software development prior art within the patent. But, as a bicycle is a collection of screws and bolts and wheels... all of which have been done before, the assembled "bicycle" invention is a much more useful machine than a boxed set of all these parts.

The traditional parts in patents 6826744 and 7076521 are assembled in such a way to build an integrated software system that does things much better, more wholly and more efficiently than any collections of any prior art.

So, the tutorial on VCSY's side will be much more productive as it will describe the way Siteflash uses all those currently existing software to build ecologys which, in turn, are used to build software frameworks in which businesses may function.

Try that with FrontPage - the "prior art" avowed by Microsoft to invalidate what Siteflash does. LOL

I would love to watch just these two tutorials. What a treasure trove of material with which to confound and befuddle the likes of dlkjla (a throwback poster on the Yahoo VCSY board - I thought I might help him build a fanbase here as he appears to be enamored of attention.)

PS - Yes. I know it's petty. I'm a petty little man. Who else would have a "new baby" freebie site on Lycos dedicated to chronical surmisings about the current industry state and Microsoft and their nemesis VCSY?

If you want to see the original source of the above posts (like you're making a anthropology exhibit for the science fair and all) you can look here, but, I should warn you. Put a q-tip soaked in pine tar in each ear and push firmly. That's the only thing that can innoculate you from suffering the torment of actually reading through the garbage you wade through to get those freegan goodies.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:27 AM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 13 May 2008 1:13 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  bright

If you ever want to work semantically on the internet, you have to be able to, first; interoperate with data situated between your own process desires and some other processing demand.

If you can do that, congratulations. That was the first step. You now need to make interoperation data perform in a data portable way and you then have the wheels for functionality.

Functionality is what we call any active processing a software body (an "application") can do as touching a body of data being considered as content. If all the application does is contained in that one body of functionality as dealing with an exclusive content and doesn't go outside the present application except to direct the user elsewhere to do something else, the application is a monolith and indicative of traditional "object" oriented architecture.

Our quest here is to describe what is appearing in the industry; spotting those attributes that will allow us to track to determine whether and where technology may go in the seen and unseen landscape.

Interoperability is necessary when discussing the functionality of two or more applications as relates to a common body of data.

Interoperation is fundamental to the distribution of functionality.

The entire issue of interoperability is the core argument in the controversy surrounding the standardization of Microsoft's OOXML Office document XML formats (>6000 pages) as opposed to a more simple XML standard in ODF (measured in hundreds of pages).

We see Microsoft apparently does not want other applications working intimately with their document and programming files. They therefore drag their feet on meeting open-ness standards.

We do not see Microsoft putting energy into interoperation because interoperation opens up the probability the outside application interacting with Microsoft's own data domain will only bring diffusion of user's market view and dilution of client lock-in.

Interoperation fundamentally demands the data be in a universal form so the content can be differentiated from non-content data.

Having that interoperability provides for two adjacent methods to operate on the data between them, thus providing a foundation for a movement of data from one processing node to another.

The basic terminology would then describe the movement of data from one processing node to another (thus an interoperation between a pair of connected nodes may be transported further by allowing one of the nodes to perform a similar interoperative process with another adjacent node.) This is a sophisticated form of data portability called transactioning and is fundamental to various mainframe operating systems.

Transactioning begins with one node performing a process which triggers transport of data to facilitate a collaborative exchange of meaning and ownership to another node. Just like humans do their workflows.

This "event processing" and "transactioning" are fundamental activities necessary to provide software functionality to a mass of data.

Most  "event processing" is commonly pictured in manufacturing process automation.

Most "transactioning" is thought to be performed in financial systems automation.

But, without event processing AND transactioning, neither system automations are possible.

If you intend to work in that direction, you first need to "tag" (XML markup is applied around the text or image to instruct the machine as to the "name" and other properties of that particular text or image) each significant word and image of content to provide the machine with a way to apply industry specific meaning to bodies of content.

That's what Yahoo announced back in March 2008.

"Yahoo’s support for semantic web standards like RDF and microformats is exactly the incentive websites need to adopt them. Instead of semantic silos scattered across the Web (think Twine), Yahoo will be pulling all the semantic information together when available, as a search engine should. Until now, there were few applications that demanded properly structured data from third parties. That changes today."

This is a baby step to bring the available data throughout the "known" world to a machine "knowable" state. It's the "seamless" nature of a virtualized mass of data that makes discovering unknown relationships embedded within the data mass a matter of course and very valuable.

Bringing data into that state allows different applications from various platforms to work with the same data amongst all uses. That's interoperability.

Interoperability allows for virtualization of the interface between two interoperating machines.

The next baby step to perform is data portability. Yahoo announced that step the other day.

Where to next?

We are advancing toward a point where processing of any desired amount may be done within the objects doing the event processing + transactioning local to the data storage and protection, allowing for secure granular functionality at any data point.

This removes tremendous burdens off the centralized infrastructures and makes the distributed processing devices more valuable to the overall ecology.

Thus, I commend this article to your reading for your edification toward the future conversations we'll be having.

I know this stuff is pretty heavy for a snookywookums to read but you gotta grow up fast in this world, bucky.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1102

May 11th, 2008

Is anyone ready to process a trillion events per day?

Posted by Joe McKendrick @ 12:04 pm

A typical company deals with millions, if not billions, of events in a single day, and most, if not all, of these events are still handled manually, by people.

"he value of complex event processing, overall, can be summarized as improving situation awareness,” Schulte said. “Simply put, that is just knowing what is going on, so you can figure out what to do.” The benefits of complex event processing, Schulte said, include better decision quality, faster response times, reduced information glut, and reduced costs.

(more at URL)
-------------

I don't think you need much more than that to be said to help you attempt to grasp how pervasive the need is for event handling technology and transactionary technology to track the events handled. The potential for innovation in the ability to provide real-time metrics, quantization and qualification of  business processes and the impact on business design is enormous.

And that's just the first step executable without touching the legacy code or the work flows. It's the simple virtual fitting of a sensing and control feedback system to the existing electronic interfaces making data available in some form (any form because the known content has been semanticized and the search efforts have further extended knowledge) to the machine.

No control actuation is available without further outfitting at this point in describing the architecture, but this already described simple process can put a corporation or community electronic world in a semantically knowable state worth fortunes.

The first half necessary in learning to do the automation walk.

And that is achieved by simply outfitting the various data points with local processing resources to be aware of event triggering and capable of  transaction processing and audit history. That is a foundation for true trusted-but-verified human interaction as measured at the point of contact with the human... not buried in a remote server-farm.

Where possible, measure closest to the point of use and provide service local to your event. If you have the capability to process in that way, you can press on. Without that, you will stumble in the effort to execute distributed processes in a deterministic control state.

Once (and not before) that control feedback framework is available/applied to the various data points in a business, functional activities may then be applied to each data local to perform activities needed.  That processing has the opportunity to provide true parallel processing across many distributed clients and revolutionize workflow process for a productivity leap similar to the OLE/COM age. I believe the impace will be more quickly deployed and more quickly adopted at a much larger scale. 

At the most fundamental incarnation, the processing nodes allow for the building of metric systems to allow for proper critique and assessment of human-actuated business processes. That capability alone is of huge value in business immediately, even if the automation of these business work practices is years away.

But the immense value lies in learning to create software services to enhance, elevate or replace the human task while applying processing resources local to the person executing the transaction both on the "consumer" side and the "supplier side".

Another phrase from the above article: "Most of these events are not captured or automated in enterprises"

This means enabling all these new data points opens up dimensions of stratified association and relationships. In many ways these formerly unseen assets will provide useful feedback, viable new methods, and potentially new business aptitudes and direction for the automating business process.

So why do we need to do this? “We have to record events using event objects so computers can receive them and do computations on those events,”

Precisely. They do those things much more reliably and accurately.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:31 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 12 May 2008 12:14 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  celebratory

Happy Mothers Day to all you mothers out there. As some of you lttle mothers know, the concept of "mother" can be abstracted to a technological sense. At the core of "motherhood" is the ability to communicate with ones you should be friendly with.

Therefore and To wit:

First there was interoperability...

(Horn toot: If you have been following along, you'll know we were discussing the core concepts interoperability and virtualization as far back as 2005-2006 - we've been talking about services since 2000.)

(Uhhh... pardon.)

...commonly defined as having a file system that is agnostic, and therefore useful, to outside applications.

These files could be worked on by any user with authorized access. Not only could that data be worked on in that particular file commonly amongst a group of users, one could conceivably take an instance of the data in the file and move that instance to another file to work in conjunction with other data instances and files...

But wait! I'm getting ahead of the industry. First you must have interoperability. Then, before you get to functionality, you must have portability.

So, welcome to all who are joining in making their data common (Yahoo, MySpace, FaceBook and now Google, so far) and providing a non-intrusive identification system for trusted commerce (???? that requires functionality - are you guys really ready for that?).

(I wonder if a not-so-trusted commercial entity can be reformed into a trusted commercial entity? Probation? Remediation? TIme out?

Baby steps before you get to the semantic web. If you don't do these, you're motionless.

-data interoperability
-data portability
-data functionality
-data control (governance)

 http://webworkerdaily.com/2008/04/25/data-portability/

Data Portability and the File System

April 25th, 2008 (3:00pm) Imran Ali 3 Comments

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:08 PM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 11 May 2008 2:14 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  caffeinated

Conspiracy? Did portuno hear the word "conspiracy"???

Want another "conspiracy"?

OK. How about this one?

SavaJe was a java based smart phone platform for distributed applications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SavaJe

which was introduced in 2001. It had many things going for it... had.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8885915946.html

One of its backers was Ken Ross, the namesake of Ross Systems which had its legacy trashed by the actions of the CEO Patrick Tinley and the corporation chinadotcom. That's right, the same Ross Systems that tried to take NOW Solutions away from VCSY...and lost. The same chinadotcom that bought Ross Solutions and continued the fight for NOW Solutions... and lost.

During those years from 2001, SavaJe looked poised to take the stage as a key mobile platform. Ken Ross must have been pleased even though his namesake company was being ground into the dirt.

Then, suddenly and without warning, SavaJe closed down October 25, 2006.

Sun bought SavaJe in April 12, 2007 and subsequently released JavaFX a month later May 9, 2007.

...and then Sun released "for real" JavaFX May 8, 2008... expected to be delivered "this fall".

Sun is in the same posture as Microsoft. Promise and delay. Promise and delay.

Silverlight is supposed to be Microsoft's answer to Adobe AIR eventually. So far, it's barely a competitor to Adobe Flash.

JavaFX is supposed to be Sun's answer to Adobe AIR eventually. So far, it doesn't exist.

What happened to Ken Ross' dream of having THE distributed platform for mobile computing? Well, when VCSY built  the distributed extention of Apollo-smart for Apollo industries using MLE/Emily, the field got crowded and the intellectual property issues came into play, I would say, the reality of a superior platform kicking SavaJe's Java based distributed kernels down the stairs became a stare-down.

Patent 7076521. This is the intellectual property root VCSY used for the Apollo smart card platform. Read the patent and then study JavaFX. The idea was to take the Java language developed originally for smart cards in 1995 and build the language out as the extensible platform. That never quite happened.

Although Java has many uses and capabilities, it also has problems and is ever on the verge of sucking industry dirt. It's why the industry hasn't been able to scale mobile applications to cover other areas of communications.

Sun is trying to stay in the game, but is behind the timeline compared to Adobe.

Interesting, isn't it, that the scenario for the VCSY IP back in 2005 would predict Sun and Microsoft would split in their SOA efforts of 2005 at some point when Sun realized Microsoft couldn't fulfill its promises for a solid SOA framework.

That happened in April 2006 amid turmoil about Vista's future - and Sun would go looking for a better way to IBM.

Maybe Sun found a better way that summer and made atonement for the Java transgressions through the years by sucking up what was left of SavaJe after the company went teats up 90 days after the 7076521 patent was granted.

Conspiracy? It doesn't take much more than just misguided attitudes and manipulated motives to make a series of events look like a conspiracy. But, events in train and coincidental with other supporting activities do demonstrate some sort of ... some sort of... some... uhhh, do we have a word in the English language for "covetousness"?

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:15 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 8 May 2008 1:47 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  accident prone

I've been getting very tired of hearing myself talk. It's good to hear your opinions shared. This is well worth the read so you can see where we are now that Microsoft stands denuded.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/podcasts/why_didnt_microsoft_yell_yahoo.html

Enjoy... we'll talk later. Let's have a little quiet time and let the baby sleep. Little snookywookums has had a busy few weeks.

This is a period when history is being made.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:22 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 5 May 2008 11:29 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink