Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusable X ML fra
 You have put your finger on the problem of the semantic web: cost. No one has ever, AFAIK, described it in terms of cost savings. There is likely a case for that, but it would be future savings. We had the same problems in CALS. Even the web was a hard sell initially, but it came with 'a movement' and true believers don't study cost estimates and project savings. They just *go for it*. My intent was to say there are markup opportunities in the patent content even if they are limited in the patent document structures. Also, given the enormous and growing problems of intellectual property in our industry, one would think authorities would be actively exploring technologies to address those problems. To hear that they are going in precisely the opposite direction is disturbing and a potential political problem both nationally and internationally. The problem of course, nationally, is to create technology that correctly and provably implements policy. The problem internationally is to harmonize policies (think Berne convention) that can be implemented in interoperable systems. Classification systems would be a sine qua non of such systems and a very important application of the semantic web. Wouldn't an automated classification and indexing system that reached down to the essential claims speed up the examiner process as well as result in an auditable trail of claims references? It would seem to make the prior art evaluation much simpler and more reliable as well as reduce the costs and probability of patent litigation. Patent searches would certainly be more reliable. It could also enable some exotic means of creating specifications. Who pays? The usual victim: taxpayers. The question is, for what quality of results? len From: Bruce.Cox@U... [mailto:Bruce.Cox@U...] I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "mapping" or "mappable entities" but I can say that examiners, as I understand it, among other things, search for patents that anticipate the claims of the application in hand. If they find none (and this is my take on what they do), then the application in hand is presumed original. Finding prior patents that are relevant is done by text searching and by use of the US Patent Classification (see www.uspto.gov for details). Examiners themselves determine the classifications of a patent at the time it is ready for publishing. Applying any kind of markup to the content of the specification or claim would require someone who would understand the technology well enough to apply the appropriate categories, so this is not too different from applying patent classifications, except that it would require considerably more time and validation (accuracy counts). As far as I can tell, nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, at the USPTO would be willing to pay for that, no matter how valuable it might turn out to be, so again, there is no scaling issue. In fact, there has been considerable effort to reduce the cost of or even eliminate the US Patent Classification, as alarming as that might be. Semantic technologies in general suffer from this defect: they are terribly expensive to implement on any useful scale since they require that someone (a live human with intelligence, knowledge, and experience) apply the markup that makes the web "semantic" (I'm beginning to hate that word). Who pays? 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
