US20060129978A1 - Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications - Google Patents
Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20060129978A1 US20060129978A1 US11/350,448 US35044806A US2006129978A1 US 20060129978 A1 US20060129978 A1 US 20060129978A1 US 35044806 A US35044806 A US 35044806A US 2006129978 A1 US2006129978 A1 US 2006129978A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- business
- rule
- values
- editable
- product
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F8/00—Arrangements for software engineering
- G06F8/10—Requirements analysis; Specification techniques
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F8/00—Arrangements for software engineering
- G06F8/30—Creation or generation of source code
- G06F8/34—Graphical or visual programming
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
-
- Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
- Y02P—CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING OF GOODS
- Y02P90/00—Enabling technologies with a potential contribution to greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions mitigation
- Y02P90/80—Management or planning
Definitions
- the present invention relates to platforms for the development and deployment of computer program applications.
- An enterprise application is a software program used by business people to increase productivity through automated data processing. Enterprise applications put into action a set of business requirements, expressed using natural language and “business speak”. For the purposes of better defining the system, business requirements can be broken down into a set of interrelated business rules.
- a business rule as defined by the GUIDE Business Rules Project, is a statement that defines or constrains some aspect of the business.
- a business rule is intended to assert business structure, or to control or influence the behavior of the business.
- a business rule should be atomic so that it cannot be broken down further without losing meaning.
- rule-based An alternative approach to business rules automation is through expensive and difficult-to-use expert (rule-based) systems. This entails the conversion of the business rules into a formalized syntax that more closely represents the declarative nature of the business rules, generally requiring the services of highly trained knowledge engineers. The formalized rules are then processed through an inference engine, which itself requires tremendous programming effort to integrate with existing enterprise systems. Although some such rule-based systems provide the ability to easily modify the business rules, they fail to support certain business rule types such as constraints. And like procedural implementations, they provide no support for resolving logic errors.
- Component technologies in general, have interface and interoperability standards that facilitate rapid and straightforward integration of distributed computing applications.
- Components have delivered significant benefits for providing standardized low-level services, user interface controls and database access.
- Distributed component platforms enable the development of highly reusable server-side business components.
- component business logic requires manipulation of programmed code, which is difficult and, in any event, generally not allowed under the component license agreement.
- component behaviors may be influenced by parameterization, they are nevertheless limited to the problem domain contemplated by the component developer.
- declarative business rules not hard-coded into a component can be easily adapted to accommodate changing business requirements.
- a method for the automation of such rules is the inference engine.
- inference engines have been difficult to use within server-side component-based systems, with integration requiring coding to the proprietary API of the inference engine, and processing instructions represented in the proprietary syntax or programming language of each particular inference engine.
- the invention provides a platform with an advantageous user interface for the development, deployment, and maintenance of computer program applications.
- a platform can be implemented in accordance with the invention that reconciles component and business rules technologies, combining the reusability features of component technologies with the adaptability features of business rules to create a powerful unified platform.
- One particular implementation of the platform integrates standards such as the Unified Modeling Language (UML), Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB), and Extensible Markup Language (XML) with business rule technologies. It enables non-technical business experts to play an active and central role in the development process of highly adaptable business applications. It offers a highly effective development methodology, an integrated set of standards-based tools, and a robust, scalable deployment platform. It provides an optimal environment for diverse enterprise applications.
- UML Unified Modeling Language
- EJB Enterprise JavaBeans
- XML Extensible Markup Language
- the platform allows a developer to build, deploy and maintain Internet-based business (eBusiness) applications rapidly. It captures enterprise intelligence in the form of highly adaptable business rule components. This approach provides high levels of enterprise automation, leading to lower personnel costs and higher profits. In addition, because non-technical developers can rapidly adapt and extend platform-based applications, the applications can dynamically evolve with changing market conditions, business practices, and customer preferences.
- eBusiness Internet-based business
- the platform systematically separates business rules from procedural business process logic and thereby improves code quality and reduces development and maintenance costs. This makes rules technology accessible to mainstream developers and business experts.
- the platform enables non-technical personnel to develop, test, deploy and update sophisticated business rules declaratively, with no need for procedural programming, allowing for complex dynamically adaptable application behavior. These benefits are amplified for applications whose rules are volatile or subject to frequent changes, as well as applications impossible or prohibitively difficult to implement procedurally due to their logical complexity.
- the platform offers many opportunities to streamline the development process. For example, it enables business experts and analysts to begin developing and testing rules as early as the requirements phase, facilitating early detection and correction of logical defects, and reducing the risks of application development.
- Rapid-prototyping is very beneficial in clarifying application requirements, inducing user feedback, and reducing the chances of project failure. However, it also carries a high risk. Rapid prototypes are generally not developed based on sound software principles because they are intended to be throwaways. Unfortunately, due to time constraints and lack of foresight, most prototypes are just polished up and deployed into production, without regard for proper software engineering techniques. Such applications are generally unreliable and turn into expensive maintenance nightmares.
- Enterprise Java business components tend to be thinner than alternative architectures such as CORBA and COM. This is because necessary middle-tier services such as security, concurrency control, transaction, and lifecycle management are not coded directly into the component, but are delegated to be handled by the component container. Nonetheless, Enterprise Java components still contain process or transactional logic and embedded business rules. The further extraction of business rules from such components has the added benefit of reducing their complexity even more. Consequently, the remaining logic of such components can be generated automatically from design models, minimizing the need for programming. Business rules tend to be the most volatile part of a business application. It is thus advantageous to maintain them using a highly adaptable environment. It is also advantageous to make them accessible to non-programmer business experts who can implement the changes directly. Traditional programming languages do not have these features and advantages.
- Inference engines are an alternative mechanism to procedural programming languages for the processing of business logic, and have been used in specialized business applications for over a decade.
- the invention abstracts away the low-level API (Application Programming Interface) of inference engine as well as its rule language.
- the business developers work in a friendly IDE (Integrated Development Environment) using an implementation-neutral rule language that is targeted at them.
- This IDE also has special features to enable them to identify and resolve logic errors.
- the IDE enables business developers to tie the business rule implementations directly to the motivational statements from which they derive, maintaining business context and traceability through development, deployment, and future maintenance efforts.
- the IDE also enables the development of declarative platform-independent rule components called rulepacks.
- a rulepack is deployed as a black box component, with a well-defined programming interface. This component is no different from any other and therefore requires no additional programming skills to integrate into the enterprise application.
- FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a business automation platform in accordance with the invention.
- FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a deployment platform in accordance with the invention.
- FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a simple development process suitable for use with the application development platform.
- FIG. 4 shows a use case model displayed graphically by a user interface.
- FIG. 5 shows a business object model displayed graphically by a user interface.
- FIGS. 6, 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , and 18 show examples of user interface windows and elements displayed by implementations of the IDE.
- a platform 100 in accordance with the invention is divided into two parts: a deployment platform 110 and a development platform 160 .
- Each platform is further subdivided into application tiers: a front end (presentation); a middle tier (business logic), and a back end (database).
- the front end of the development platform 160 is provided by off-the-shelf products conventionally used for rapid development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), such as the Microsoft Frontpage® web site creation tool.
- GUIs graphical user interfaces
- the middle tier of the development platform 160 implements the business logic of an application.
- business logic was implemented procedurally, requiring programmers to build and maintain application code.
- the platform 160 implements a visually declarative approach. With the platform, business logic can be subdivided into two parts: business rules and process logic.
- Rulepacks are declarative components that encapsulate a set of business rules automating the knowledge of a particular context of the business process. Rulepacks are made up of one or more rulesheets. Each rulesheet can contain one or more rules that apply within the same particular scope. Rulepacks are built and maintained by the IDE 180 .
- the IDE includes a vocabulary 181 , which represents the business entities, their attributes, and their associations (relationships) in the form of a tree view.
- the vocabulary can be created within the IDE or imported from a UML business object model (also known as a class diagram) 174 , or generated from business objects, from a relational database, or from an XML schema.
- the vocabulary tree view serves as an optimal drag-and-drop source for easy creation of rulesheets (see, e.g., FIG. 6 ).
- the IDE also includes a rulepack and rulesheet editor 182 , which is a visual environment designed to be used by non-technical business domain experts to build and maintain rulepacks and their rulesheets.
- a rulesheet is a spreadsheet-like construct for intuitive development of logically correct sets of rules.
- the visual environment created by the rulepack editor 182 is illustrated in FIGS. 6-18 .
- Rulepacks in the present implementation, are implemented as XML documents expressed in a rules markup language created for that purpose.
- the rules markup language defines an XML rules interchange format similar to that of the Business Rules Markup Language (BRML), which was defined by the CommonRules Java library, available from International Business Machines Corporation of Armonk, N.Y.
- BRML Business Rules Markup Language
- the syntax of the rules markup language is shown in Table 1 at the end of this specification represented in an Extended BNF (Backus Normal Form).
- the rule repository 150 facilitates collaborative rules development through source and version control, allowing creation of authorization and access privileges for rules documents.
- the rule repository 150 maintains version control, offering the opportunity to roll back to previous versions of rules when necessary. It can also track the business motivation behind every rule, such as business policy charters, business risks, customer preferences, or regulatory stipulations.
- the process logic part of the business logic is a thin layer of transactional code, and in one implementation this is built and maintained using a UML modeler and code editor 170 .
- the transactional code i.e., the process logic
- the process logic can be coded in Java using any standard Java IDE, such as the Together UML modeling tool and IDE products available from TogetherSoft Corporation of Raleigh, N.C.
- the Together products automatically generate the majority of the process logic (including Enterprise JavaBeans), so programming requirements are reduced to a minimum.
- a developer will use the UML modeler and code editor 170 to build and maintain a use case model, a business object model (a UML class diagram), a component model, and various other UML models necessary to implement a complete enterprise application.
- the modeler and editor 170 includes a use case modeler 172 , a business object modeler 174 , and a component modeler 176 , and other UML modelers.
- the modeler and editor 170 also includes an IDE (Integrated Development Environment) 178 that supports a Java development kit (JDK), optionally extended with a Java math library to support business domain calculations.
- JDK Java development kit
- the use case modeler 172 is used to build and maintain business requirements visually in the form of UML-standard use cases.
- the business object modeler 174 is used to build and maintain an enterprise-level object model of all data elements.
- the enterprise-level model represents all data in the enterprise. It can be created from scratch or derived from existing enterprise databases.
- the objects of the enterprise-level object model also contain business functions. Business rules that are non-declarative in nature or involve an algorithm or complex mathematical calculation are captured as functions.
- the procedural component modeler 176 is used to build and maintain those procedural business components that use rulepacks.
- the deployment platform 110 supports deployment on diverse distributed user interface devices 112 , such as web browsers, telephones, personal digital assistants, and other client programs and access devices. Each user interface device merely needs to be able to communicate with supported middle tier application servers.
- the middle tier of an application includes a web server 120 , a Java application server 130 , and a business intelligence server 140 .
- Any web server supporting JSP (Java Server Pages) and any Java application server can be used, such as a J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition) compliant application server.
- the middle tier can be implemented using Microsoft® distributed Component Object Model (COM)-based technologies, including Active Server Pages (ASPs) and Microsoft® Transaction Server (MTS).
- COM Component Object Model
- ASPs Active Server Pages
- MTS Microsoft® Transaction Server
- the middle tier can also be implemented on a Microsoft.NET platform.
- a rule component contains a lightweight, high-performance rule engine.
- the rule engine can be implemented as an inference engine, for processing rules as such.
- a JESS Java Expert System Shell
- CLIPS C Language Integrated Production System
- rule components can be implemented to embody their rules as translated into a procedural programming language or into calls to a database query language such as SQL.
- a rule component deploys a rulepack as a functional knowledge unit.
- FIG. 2 depicts multiple rule components deployed in a J2EE environment.
- the user interface communicates with a servlet 122 , which may be generated by a JSP, which communicates with session and entity beans 132 , which in turn communicate with the rule components 142 through a standardized messaging scheme.
- a servlet 122 which may be generated by a JSP, which communicates with session and entity beans 132 , which in turn communicate with the rule components 142 through a standardized messaging scheme.
- Two types of messages are supported: synchronous (e.g., direct Java calls) and asynchronous (e.g., using XML-based messages).
- a rule component 142 is preloaded with the rules in a rulepack for optimal performance.
- the rule components 142 can interact with various types of business components (not just Enterprise JavaBeans components) using standardized messaging (e.g., XML messaging).
- the business intelligence server 140 provides a central integration hub that can interact with diverse application components 132 , such as Microsoft® COM (Component Object Model) components, CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture) components, EJB components, and Java components.
- the business intelligence server 140 can turn any Java application server into an application integrator, acting as a control center for an enterprise information system.
- the back end of the deployment platform 110 can include any number of databases 134 based on database management products from any number of vendors.
- the rule repository 150 is implemented as a database, such as a relational database.
- the business intelligence server 140 is a virtual extension of the rule repository 150 , which remotely manages the lifecycle of all deployed rule components. Once a business rule is modified in the rule repository 150 , all rule components containing rulepacks affected by the change are dynamically notified to refresh their business logic. This allows for real-time modification of system behavior without any downtime.
- a simple application development methodology that takes advantage of the features of the application development platform 100 will now be described. Unlike traditional techniques that focus on a combination of data and process, or on objects that encapsulate both data and process, the methodology places business rules in the center of the development process.
- Business rule analysis accelerates the software development lifecycle by reducing unstructured requirements verbiage into concrete statements that are easily verified by business users.
- the methodology enables analysts and developers to identify, capture and test business rules from the very inception of a project.
- the methodology guarantees that UML-conforming documentation (such as use case models) will be created as an inherent byproduct of the software development process.
- the methodology ensures that the documents remain in synchronization with the application logic, because the business rules that the documents represent are literally part of the application.
- step 310 business analysts collaborate with subject matter experts to define high-level business requirements (step 310 ) using vocabulary understandable to the subject matter experts.
- the analysts create UML use cases (step 320 ) using the use case modeler 172 , which allows the user to specify actors and their various usages of the system graphically, as illustrated in FIG. 4 , where actor 404 is shown in a communicates relationship with use cases 406 , 408 , 410 .
- Each use case contains a high-level written narrative that explains it in clear, concise business terms.
- a business object model can be created from scratch or derived from an existing database (step 330 ).
- the business object modeler 176 can capture the business object model as a UML class diagram.
- An example of such a diagram is diagram 504 shown in user interface window 502 in FIG. 5 .
- the IDE 180 transforms this into a vocabulary tree view for easy drag-and-drop functionality onto the rulesheets 182 .
- Such a vocabulary tree view is shown in pane 604 of FIG. 6 .
- the vocabulary can also be created directly in the rule IDE 180 , without the need for an object model.
- the vocabulary can optionally have a name, illustrated as “FIM” 622 in pane 604 .
- the vocabulary is displayed in the form of a tree of business terms such as entities (non-leaf nodes), their attributes (leaves), and their relationships to other entities (named branches).
- a tree view presents a conceptual semantic model in a form that is understandable to the business user.
- the tree view can be used for building rules, test data, user interfaces, databases, and other application components. Its elements can be used by a user to drag-and-drop vocabulary terms onto the rulesheet.
- a vocabulary term can be either simple (root-level) or complex (branch-level). When an attribute node that is deeper than the first tier of leaf nodes is drag-and-dropped, relationship traversals are handled automatically using a dot-notation (e.g., Trade.security.symbol) giving the business term a specific context.
- dot-notation e.g., Trade.security.symbol
- business rules are developed and tested (step 340 ) using the vocabulary 181 , the rulepack editor 182 , and the tester 183 .
- Business rules are captured as discrete rule sets (rulepacks).
- Business rules can be categorized into three types: constraints (rejecters), triggers (projectors), and derivations (producers).
- the rulepack editor 182 enables developers to compose all types of rules that operate on data structures defined in the business object model. Developers can drag-and-drop terms from a tree view of the vocabulary 181 onto a rulesheet in order to define the conditions and actions of each rulepack.
- FIG. 6 shows a rulesheet containing constraints.
- Constraint rules allow developers to specify business rules that constrain a business and therefore define the boundaries for its valid state. Constraint rules are generally constraints such as data validation and integrity rules.
- the vocabulary 181 ( FIG. 1 ) of the business object model is displayed in an equivalent tree view in a pane 604 at the left of the rulesheet. To the right of the tree view, the possible conditions (upper left quadrant 606 ) and actions (lower left quadrant 608 ) are tabulated. Because the word “condition” has different meanings according to context, the expression in a row in the upper left quadrant will occasionally be referred to as a “condition term” for the sake of clarity.
- the order in which actions are listed in the actions quadrant 608 can optionally be used to determine the order in which the actions are executed. However, it is advantageous that this not be done, because doing so would introduce a procedural aspect to the definition of rules that is inconsistent with the declarative design of the user interface.
- the conditions and actions are tied together as rules, each rule being expressed in one of the vertical columns 610 spanning the two right quadrants of the rulesheet.
- the cells in a vertical rule column specify the truth values of the conditions—determined by the if-value cells in the upper right quadrant 612 —necessary to trigger the execution of actions—determined by the then-value cells in the lower right quadrant 614 .
- the if-part of a rule is the conjunction of the conditions defined by the if-values in one column.
- the rule statements pane 616 displays a list of natural language statements of the rules (in business terms) implemented by the rulesheet. Each rule statement is tied to the corresponding rule column 610 with the same number 618 . Each non-conditional rule can also have a business rule statement associated with it (e.g., statement 732 in FIG. 7 ). The business rule statements can optionally be linked to business policy charters and other supporting documents for the purpose of tracing the motivation behind the corresponding rules.
- Actions typically take the form of a value assignment, which is effectively a derivation.
- the assigned value may be a constant, the value of a different attribute, or a calculation (which may involve business object method calls).
- actions may post a message of type violation, warning, or information.
- the particular action 620 illustrated in FIG. 6 posts a violation.
- the business rule statement associated with the rule is posted in the form of a message with a severity of violation, warning, or information.
- a message may be linked to a specific instance of a business entity to provide an appropriate context. Such messages are used to indicate the firing of a rule and can also serve as error messages displayed to the system user. They can, furthermore, help in educating novice users on the functionality of the system and the rules of the business as a whole.
- a specific type of message can also be used to deliver synchronous or asynchronous processing commands to other enterprise components.
- FIG. 7 shows in pane 704 a partially expanded vocabulary tree corresponding to the vocabulary tree shown in pane 604 of FIG. 6 .
- All nodes of the tree at the root level such as entity Account (node 706 ), are entities.
- the Account entity has been expanded by a user to show the attributes, such as the attribute number (node 708 ), of the Account entity.
- attributes such as the attribute number (node 708 )
- UML business object model also known as a class diagram
- Every association (relationship) between two entities has two role names, one at each end of the association (as shown in FIG. 5 ). These role names are used to traverse from one entity to another in the vocabulary tree view (and using the dot-notation). If no role name is specified, it is defaulted to the name of the corresponding entity, except that the role name begins with a small letter whereas the entity name begins with a capital letter. Thus, the role name “positions” in node 710 indicates that node 710 represents a relationship between an Account entity and a SecurityPosition entity. The icon 712 identifies this as a relationship and, in particular, as a one-to-many relationship. This node is used to traverse from Account to its corresponding SecurityPosition's.
- SecurityPosition entity also has an “account” node that is used to traverse the same relationship in the opposite direction (not shown in the figure).
- the term “positions” can be thought of as the name of a relationship, which is a bidirectional relationship. In this user interface convention, the entity at one end of the relationship is named explicitly (in this example it is the Account entity) while the entity at the other end of the relationship (SecurityPosition) is named implicitly by the name of the relationship role name (positions). In alternative implementations, both a name for the relationship and the name of the entity at each can be shown explicitly.
- the entity SecurityPosition (shown implicitly as positions) at node 710 has several attributes. Because node 710 has been expanded, those attributes, such as quantity (node 714 ), are shown. Also shown is a further relationship role named “security” (node 716 ), representing a relationship between entities SecurityPosition (in the context of node 710 ) and the entity Security. This latter node 716 is also expanded and shows the attributes of the entity Security.
- associations may be such that there is a loop in the definition.
- a developer is able to expand entities and relationships in the tree view without any limit imposed by vocabulary because the expansions are constructed on the fly. This allows a developer to use the tree view to construct a context of any depth for every attribute that is of interest to the developer.
- a developer will drag an attribute node of the vocabulary to the rulesheet. This will cause the attribute and its entire context to be inserted as a term wherever the drop part of the operation dictates.
- the term dropped will be Account.positions.quantity. If aliases have been defined for any part of the selected term, the alias will be used in the rulesheet for the sake of brevity and convenience. In FIG. 7 , an alias “&position” has been defined as “positions” and Account has been identified as the anchor entity, so dragging the node quantity 714 to the rulesheet would result in the term &position.quantity being dropped.
- FIG. 7 also shows a rulepack display 702 with multiple rulesheets displayed as tabs 720 .
- the visible tab shows a rulesheet containing derivation rules (producers).
- Derivation rules allow developers to specify business rules that infer or calculate the value of derived fields.
- the actions are statements that assign values to fields (i.e., they are assignment actions).
- the fields are identified in rows in the Actions pane, the values are in the corresponding then-value cells.
- this rulesheet also shows a pane 722 for entity shortcuts, called “Shortcuts”, and a pane 724 for unconditional calculations, called “Rules (non-conditional)”.
- the shortcuts link alias names to the object model.
- the non-conditional rules are business rules that fire without any conditions.
- the rulesheet shown in FIG. 7 also shows the display (under the heading ‘Values’ 726 ) of a value set for a condition.
- the value set for a condition is the set of all possible if-values for the condition. In FIG. 7 , this is the set ⁇ ‘HI-GRD’, ‘HI-YLD’ ⁇ 730 for the security profile condition.
- Value sets can be declared for assignment actions as well as conditions.
- the value set for an assignment action is the set of all possible values for the assignment term.
- FIG. 7 also shows how the editing of a rule cell, in this case, for rule B, can be aided by a pre-populated drop-down list 728 of these possible values.
- an if-value 730 can be a string.
- An if-value can also be of any other data type, such as date, boolean, or numeric.
- a condition term can include a comparison operator, in which case the value set for the condition would be ⁇ T,F ⁇ , i.e., true and false.
- a then-value can be a string (as in cell 808 ).
- a then-value can be of any other simple data type.
- a then-value can also be a mark—such as represented by “X” in cell 736 in FIG. 7 , for example—that indicates that the corresponding action is to be performed, without providing any data to the action.
- a rulesheet can also have preconditions in a preconditions pane 734 .
- Preconditions are conditions that apply to all rules. They are generally used to customize a rulesheet to activate only in a particular situation or for a particular instance of a business term. Preconditions are logically ANDed with the rest of the conditions of every rule on the rulesheet.
- a user or developer can provide a value set for each condition term. This can be done through the IDE, in the definition of the vocabulary, or otherwise. With this information, the system can validate the rulesheet by applying completeness and ambiguity checks. In one implementation, the value set for a rule is checked for completeness heuristically by applying the following checks and corrections. A value set must have more than one value. If it does not, add a value representing OTHER to the set. A range of values must have no gaps. If a gap is found, add values to fill the gaps.
- the condition term is numeric and the value set being tested is ⁇ 15, 15-30 ⁇ , then add a value so the value set is ⁇ 15, 15-30,>30 ⁇ .
- a range of dates is tested and corrected in the same way.
- the system can automatically, or the user can optionally, add the value representing OTHER to the set to ensure its completeness.
- All developed rulepacks, rulesheets, and individual atomic rules are stored in the rules repository 150 and become part of an application rulebook, which contains all the rules for the application. Each rule may be reused in more than one rulesheet or rulepack.
- the repository keeps track of such interdependencies and forces rule integrity and consistency throughout the rulebook and therefore the enterprise.
- the IDE has validation logic to detect and help eliminate logic errors in rulesheets, such as ambiguities, redundancies, or incompleteness.
- FIG. 8 shows a profiling rulesheet before ambiguity and completeness checks are performed.
- Rules A and B (columns 804 and 806 ) are determined to be ambiguous.
- Rules A and B are complex rules due to the existence of a do-not-care value (i.e., a dash) in their if-values.
- a do-not-care indicates that the rule applies for all possible values of a condition.
- Such rules can be broken down into simple rules with all specific values to aid in visualizing the source of the ambiguity.
- the IDE has expand and collapse functionalities for this purpose.
- rule A overrides rule B.
- the override input can indicate a set of rules, and in that case the set would be displayed. If the actions are not mutually exclusive, they can be combined into one rule. Should the ambiguity point to a logic error, the rules can be modified by the user in such a way as to resolve the ambiguity.
- a simple form of ambiguity is redundancy. This occurs when two rules are identical. It is resolved by removing one of the rules, which can be done automatically by the system.
- FIG. 10 shows the rulesheet in FIG. 8 after a logical completeness check is performed.
- the complete set of distinct possible if-parts for the entire rulesheet is compared to the if-parts actually in the rulesheet.
- the missing ones are identified and added to the rulesheet automatically; in the present case, rules C and D (columns 1006 ) are added to complete the rulesheet.
- Such an incompleteness generally indicates an oversight on the part of the developer and results in a new business rule added to the requirements, an example of which is shown in FIG. 11 .
- FIG. 12 shows the same rulesheet after it has been collapsed into the smallest possible set of complex rules. It also shows how a rule cell (e.g., if-value cell 1204 ) can contain a subset of the values allowed by the condition value set (i.e., the subset ⁇ ‘BBB’, ‘BB’ ⁇ as the if-value for the rating condition in rule C). Should a cell contain the entire value set, it is automatically turned into a do-not-care value.
- a rule cell e.g., if-value cell 1204
- FIG. 13 shows how business rules can be tested immediately after they are coded, independent of other development activities.
- the left pane 1306 represents the input into a rules component 142 . This can be developed using drag-and-drop from the vocabulary pane 1304 or directly from a database or a test suite repository.
- the right pane 1308 shows the output of the rules component, which is the contents of the left pane 1306 modified by the rule engine of the rules component.
- the rule component calculated a value for the term dProfile for each of four different securities, which were provided as input in the input pane.
- the difference between the two panes can be highlighted by a tester subsystem to aid the developer in determining what rules fired. Additional features such as breakpoints and watch windows can be added to aid the user in stepping through the processing of the rulesheet.
- FIG. 14 shows an alternative user interface display for a rulesheet 1402 .
- This is illustrated without scroll bars, vocabulary tree view, and other user interface elements shown, for example, in FIG. 7 .
- This display differs from the one illustrated in FIG. 7 , for example, in that it includes a non-conditional (N/C) column 1404 .
- N/C non-conditional
- the action [Action 1 ] is a non-conditional action.
- [Action 2 ] is performed if and only if the value of [Condition 1 ] is val 1 and the value of [Condition 2 ] is val 3 .
- the user interface display of FIG. 14 also differs from the one illustrated in FIG. 7 in that in FIG. 14 , a rule is represented by a cell, such as cell 1408 , rather than by a column, such as one of the columns 610 ( FIG. 6 ). Thus, multiple rules having the same if-part can be represented in the same column.
- FIG. 15 shows an alternative display 1502 corresponding to display 1402 ( FIG. 14 ) in which the rows and columns are flipped.
- the IDE can allow a user to select one or to switch between these two forms of display.
- an overrides section can be made visible if overrides are necessary. Overrides were described in reference to FIG. 10 .
- Each row 1604 , 1606 represents an override rule.
- Each override can be tied to a rule statement and therefore can have a rule name.
- the overrides indicate the following.
- rule A 2 overrides rule B 3 ; that is, rule A 2 is dominant and therefore operative, and rule B 3 is not.
- rule C 1 overrides rule B 3 .
- FIG. 17 shows a display matrix 1702 for an expression rulesheet.
- An expression rulesheet can be used to define expressions of any data type, e.g., text, numeric, and boolean.
- Cell 1704 carries the name that is defined.
- Cell 1706 which can be implemented as a pull-down pick list, carries the data type.
- the type is boolean and the name is exprName.
- exprName is given a value of T.
- Expressions defined using this rulesheet can be used as derived business terms on other rulesheets. The expressions defined are automatically added to the vocabulary as an attribute of the anchor entity of the rulesheet.
- rulesheets The rules that define an expression are thus reused in and simplify higher level rulesheets. This allows rulesheets to be logically combined for building more complex rulesheets and for creating levels of abstraction in the definition of terms. This is fundamentally how rulesheets are logically linked to each other.
- FIG. 18 shows a display matrix 1802 for a constraint rulesheet.
- a constraint rulesheet can be used to define constraints such as data consistency constraints or business policy constraints. Constraints can be of different categories, represented by the values in a constraint category row 1804 in the matrix. In the illustrated rulesheet, when [ConstraintCondition 1 ] is satisfied, constraint rule A fires, and the category of the constraint is “V”, which indicates a violation (represented in cell 1810 ). Similarly, when [ConstraintCondition 2 ] is satisfied, constraint rule B fires, and the category of the constraint is “W”, which indicates a warning (represented in cell 1812 ). Constraint categories can be represented with icons as well as text, and they can be structured to have, for example, multiple levels representing different aspects of the constraints.
- each column (in the implementation of FIG. 6 ) or each cell (in the implementation of FIG. 14 ) that represents a rule can have a name associated with it.
- the name can be used to check the state of the rule.
- the rule name can be referred to in the vocabulary as an attribute of the anchor entity of the rulesheet.
- the anchor entity is one of the root entities (if there is more than one) of the vocabulary and is designated as such by the developer of the rulesheet.
- the developer has designated the entity Account as the root entity by giving it the alias “&anchor”.
- RuleName in a rulesheet with an anchor entity named Entity
- the state of this rule can be checked using a term of the form Entity.RuleName.fired, which returns a boolean value, namely true if the rule has executed and false if the rule has not executed.
- Other attributes of the rule, in addition to whether it has been fired, such as the constraint category with the associated rule, can also be defined in the vocabulary so that they can be checked.
- the invention can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them.
- Apparatus of the invention can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor; and method steps of the invention can be performed by a programmable processor executing a program of instructions to perform functions of the invention by operating on input data and generating output.
- the invention can be implemented advantageously in one or more computer programs that are executable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor coupled to receive data and instructions from, and to transmit data and instructions to, a data storage system, at least one input device, and at least one output device.
- Each computer program can be implemented in a high-level procedural or object-oriented programming language, or in assembly or machine language if desired; and in any case, the language can be a compiled or interpreted language.
- Suitable processors include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors.
- a processor will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory and/or a random access memory.
- a computer will include one or more mass storage devices for storing data files; such devices include magnetic disks, such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and optical disks.
- Storage devices suitable for tangibly embodying computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-volatile memory, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM disks. Any of the foregoing can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits).
- semiconductor memory devices such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices
- magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks
- magneto-optical disks magneto-optical disks
- CD-ROM disks CD-ROM disks
- the invention can be implemented on a computer system having a display device such as a monitor or LCD screen for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device such as a mouse or a trackball by which the user can provide input to the computer system.
- the computer system can be programmed to provide a graphical user interface through which computer programs interact with users.
- hexadecimal_escape_sequence; s_char [all ⁇ [‘“’ + [‘'’ + [‘ ⁇ ’ + [lf + cr]]]]]]
- relational_expression_tail relational_operator additive_expression
- additive_expression multiplicative_expression additive_expression_tail*
- additive_expression_tail add_operator multiplicative_expression
- multiplicative_expression unary_expression multiplicative_expression_tail*
- multiplicative_expression_tail multiply_operator unary_expression
- unary_expression ⁇ unary ⁇ unary_operator postfix_expression
- ⁇ arrow ⁇ arrow; primary_expression ⁇ lit_col ⁇ literal_collection
- expression_list_or_range expression expression_list_or_range_tail?
- expression_list_or_range_tail ⁇ list ⁇ expression_list_tail+
- expression_list_tail comma expression ;
- feature_call path_name time_expression? qualifiers? feature_call_parameters? ;
- qualifiers l_bracket actual_parameter_list r_bracket ;
- declarator ⁇ standard ⁇ name declarator_tail* declarator_type_declaration?
- the invention has been described in terms of particular embodiments. Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. For example, the steps of the invention can be performed in a different order and still achieve desirable results.
- the invention can be implemented in other component architectures.
- the invention can be implemented using Microsoft APS (Active Server Pages) and COM (Component Object Model) or DCOM (Distributed Component Object Model) technologies or CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture) rather than Java-based technologies, and programmed components of the invention can be programmed in a language other than Java, for example, C++.
Abstract
Description
- This application is a continuation of, and claims priority to, U.S. Application No. 09/994,477, entitled “BUSINESS RULES USER INTERFACE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADAPTABLE ENTERPRISE APPLICATIONS,” filed Nov. 26, 2001, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/250,869, entitled “BUSINESS RULES USER INTERFACE ELEMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADAPTABLE ENTERPRISE APPLICATIONS,” filed Dec. 1, 2000, the disclosures of which are both incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
- The present invention relates to platforms for the development and deployment of computer program applications.
- An enterprise application is a software program used by business people to increase productivity through automated data processing. Enterprise applications put into action a set of business requirements, expressed using natural language and “business speak”. For the purposes of better defining the system, business requirements can be broken down into a set of interrelated business rules. A business rule, as defined by the GUIDE Business Rules Project, is a statement that defines or constrains some aspect of the business. A business rule is intended to assert business structure, or to control or influence the behavior of the business. A business rule should be atomic so that it cannot be broken down further without losing meaning.
- Traditional implementations of business rules typically involve hard-coding them as procedural (flow-chartable) logic using programming languages such as Java, C++, and COBOL. Such business logic generally implements the business requirements of the enterprise application, providing the instructions necessary to store, retrieve, create, and manipulate data as well as validation constraints on such transactions. Implementing business logic using such languages requires highly trained software engineers and is relatively expensive and time-consuming. In addition, procedural programming languages do not support inferencing, which is a key feature of a robust rule-based system. They also make it prohibitively difficult to identify and resolve logic errors such as ambiguity and incompleteness among interrelated business rules.
- An alternative approach to business rules automation is through expensive and difficult-to-use expert (rule-based) systems. This entails the conversion of the business rules into a formalized syntax that more closely represents the declarative nature of the business rules, generally requiring the services of highly trained knowledge engineers. The formalized rules are then processed through an inference engine, which itself requires tremendous programming effort to integrate with existing enterprise systems. Although some such rule-based systems provide the ability to easily modify the business rules, they fail to support certain business rule types such as constraints. And like procedural implementations, they provide no support for resolving logic errors.
- Component technologies, in general, have interface and interoperability standards that facilitate rapid and straightforward integration of distributed computing applications. Components have delivered significant benefits for providing standardized low-level services, user interface controls and database access. Distributed component platforms enable the development of highly reusable server-side business components.
- However, adapting component business logic requires manipulation of programmed code, which is difficult and, in any event, generally not allowed under the component license agreement. Although component behaviors may be influenced by parameterization, they are nevertheless limited to the problem domain contemplated by the component developer. On the other hand, declarative business rules not hard-coded into a component can be easily adapted to accommodate changing business requirements. A method for the automation of such rules is the inference engine. However, inference engines have been difficult to use within server-side component-based systems, with integration requiring coding to the proprietary API of the inference engine, and processing instructions represented in the proprietary syntax or programming language of each particular inference engine.
- The invention provides a platform with an advantageous user interface for the development, deployment, and maintenance of computer program applications.
- The invention can be implemented to realize one or more of the following advantages. A platform can be implemented in accordance with the invention that reconciles component and business rules technologies, combining the reusability features of component technologies with the adaptability features of business rules to create a powerful unified platform. One particular implementation of the platform integrates standards such as the Unified Modeling Language (UML), Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB), and Extensible Markup Language (XML) with business rule technologies. It enables non-technical business experts to play an active and central role in the development process of highly adaptable business applications. It offers a highly effective development methodology, an integrated set of standards-based tools, and a robust, scalable deployment platform. It provides an optimal environment for diverse enterprise applications.
- The platform allows a developer to build, deploy and maintain Internet-based business (eBusiness) applications rapidly. It captures enterprise intelligence in the form of highly adaptable business rule components. This approach provides high levels of enterprise automation, leading to lower personnel costs and higher profits. In addition, because non-technical developers can rapidly adapt and extend platform-based applications, the applications can dynamically evolve with changing market conditions, business practices, and customer preferences.
- The platform systematically separates business rules from procedural business process logic and thereby improves code quality and reduces development and maintenance costs. This makes rules technology accessible to mainstream developers and business experts. The platform enables non-technical personnel to develop, test, deploy and update sophisticated business rules declaratively, with no need for procedural programming, allowing for complex dynamically adaptable application behavior. These benefits are amplified for applications whose rules are volatile or subject to frequent changes, as well as applications impossible or prohibitively difficult to implement procedurally due to their logical complexity.
- The platform offers many opportunities to streamline the development process. For example, it enables business experts and analysts to begin developing and testing rules as early as the requirements phase, facilitating early detection and correction of logical defects, and reducing the risks of application development.
- Enterprise software projects tend to suffer from schedule and budget overruns. Some are a total failure in delivering the wrong solution that does not meet the business needs. The primary reason for such shortcomings of the traditional approaches is the propensity to initiate coding before the business problem and the appropriate solution are fully understood. Unfortunately, from a management point of view, progress tends to be measured by tangible deliverables. This early development of business rules, sometimes hand-in-hand with rapid prototyping of presentation elements, offers such tangible deliverables to help satisfy the progress-hungry business managers, while minimizing the high risks associated with the late discovery of logic errors.
- Rapid-prototyping is very beneficial in clarifying application requirements, inducing user feedback, and reducing the chances of project failure. However, it also carries a high risk. Rapid prototypes are generally not developed based on sound software principles because they are intended to be throwaways. Unfortunately, due to time constraints and lack of foresight, most prototypes are just polished up and deployed into production, without regard for proper software engineering techniques. Such applications are generally unreliable and turn into expensive maintenance nightmares.
- The early stage focus on development and clarification of business rules has all the benefits of rapid-prototyping without the shortcomings. Not only is the business logic completely fleshed out prior to programming, but also the resultant rules are not a throwaway. In fact, they become the cornerstone of the rest of the development lifecycle.
- Enterprise Java business components tend to be thinner than alternative architectures such as CORBA and COM. This is because necessary middle-tier services such as security, concurrency control, transaction, and lifecycle management are not coded directly into the component, but are delegated to be handled by the component container. Nonetheless, Enterprise Java components still contain process or transactional logic and embedded business rules. The further extraction of business rules from such components has the added benefit of reducing their complexity even more. Consequently, the remaining logic of such components can be generated automatically from design models, minimizing the need for programming. Business rules tend to be the most volatile part of a business application. It is thus advantageous to maintain them using a highly adaptable environment. It is also advantageous to make them accessible to non-programmer business experts who can implement the changes directly. Traditional programming languages do not have these features and advantages.
- Inference engines are an alternative mechanism to procedural programming languages for the processing of business logic, and have been used in specialized business applications for over a decade. The invention abstracts away the low-level API (Application Programming Interface) of inference engine as well as its rule language. As a result, the business developers work in a friendly IDE (Integrated Development Environment) using an implementation-neutral rule language that is targeted at them. This IDE also has special features to enable them to identify and resolve logic errors. In addition, the IDE enables business developers to tie the business rule implementations directly to the motivational statements from which they derive, maintaining business context and traceability through development, deployment, and future maintenance efforts. The IDE also enables the development of declarative platform-independent rule components called rulepacks. A rulepack is deployed as a black box component, with a well-defined programming interface. This component is no different from any other and therefore requires no additional programming skills to integrate into the enterprise application.
- The details of one or more embodiments of the invention are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the description, the drawings, and the claims.
-
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a business automation platform in accordance with the invention. -
FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a deployment platform in accordance with the invention. -
FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a simple development process suitable for use with the application development platform. -
FIG. 4 shows a use case model displayed graphically by a user interface. -
FIG. 5 shows a business object model displayed graphically by a user interface. -
FIGS. 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 show examples of user interface windows and elements displayed by implementations of the IDE. - Like reference numbers and designations in the various drawings indicate like elements.
- As shown in
FIG. 1 , aplatform 100 in accordance with the invention is divided into two parts: adeployment platform 110 and adevelopment platform 160. Each platform is further subdivided into application tiers: a front end (presentation); a middle tier (business logic), and a back end (database). - The front end of the
development platform 160 is provided by off-the-shelf products conventionally used for rapid development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), such as the Microsoft Frontpage® web site creation tool. - The middle tier of the
development platform 160 implements the business logic of an application. In prior systems, business logic was implemented procedurally, requiring programmers to build and maintain application code. In contrast, theplatform 160 implements a visually declarative approach. With the platform, business logic can be subdivided into two parts: business rules and process logic. - Business rules, which often make up the bulk of business logic, are built and maintained in the visually declarative environment of a
rules IDE 180. This allows non-technical developers, such as business experts and analysts, to create and maintain enterprise business rules as reusable, adaptable components, which will be referred to as rulepacks. Rulepacks are declarative components that encapsulate a set of business rules automating the knowledge of a particular context of the business process. Rulepacks are made up of one or more rulesheets. Each rulesheet can contain one or more rules that apply within the same particular scope. Rulepacks are built and maintained by theIDE 180. - The IDE includes a
vocabulary 181, which represents the business entities, their attributes, and their associations (relationships) in the form of a tree view. The vocabulary can be created within the IDE or imported from a UML business object model (also known as a class diagram) 174, or generated from business objects, from a relational database, or from an XML schema. The vocabulary tree view serves as an optimal drag-and-drop source for easy creation of rulesheets (see, e.g.,FIG. 6 ). The IDE also includes a rulepack andrulesheet editor 182, which is a visual environment designed to be used by non-technical business domain experts to build and maintain rulepacks and their rulesheets. A rulesheet is a spreadsheet-like construct for intuitive development of logically correct sets of rules. The visual environment created by therulepack editor 182 is illustrated inFIGS. 6-18 . - Rulepacks, in the present implementation, are implemented as XML documents expressed in a rules markup language created for that purpose. The rules markup language defines an XML rules interchange format similar to that of the Business Rules Markup Language (BRML), which was defined by the CommonRules Java library, available from International Business Machines Corporation of Armonk, N.Y. The syntax of the rules markup language is shown in Table 1 at the end of this specification represented in an Extended BNF (Backus Normal Form).
- The
rule repository 150 facilitates collaborative rules development through source and version control, allowing creation of authorization and access privileges for rules documents. Therule repository 150 maintains version control, offering the opportunity to roll back to previous versions of rules when necessary. It can also track the business motivation behind every rule, such as business policy charters, business risks, customer preferences, or regulatory stipulations. - The process logic part of the business logic is a thin layer of transactional code, and in one implementation this is built and maintained using a UML modeler and
code editor 170. When implemented in Enterprise Java architecture, the transactional code (i.e., the process logic) can be coded in Java using any standard Java IDE, such as the Together UML modeling tool and IDE products available from TogetherSoft Corporation of Raleigh, N.C. The Together products automatically generate the majority of the process logic (including Enterprise JavaBeans), so programming requirements are reduced to a minimum. - A developer will use the UML modeler and
code editor 170 to build and maintain a use case model, a business object model (a UML class diagram), a component model, and various other UML models necessary to implement a complete enterprise application. For these purposes, the modeler andeditor 170 includes ause case modeler 172, abusiness object modeler 174, and acomponent modeler 176, and other UML modelers. The modeler andeditor 170 also includes an IDE (Integrated Development Environment) 178 that supports a Java development kit (JDK), optionally extended with a Java math library to support business domain calculations. - The
use case modeler 172 is used to build and maintain business requirements visually in the form of UML-standard use cases. Thebusiness object modeler 174 is used to build and maintain an enterprise-level object model of all data elements. The enterprise-level model represents all data in the enterprise. It can be created from scratch or derived from existing enterprise databases. The objects of the enterprise-level object model also contain business functions. Business rules that are non-declarative in nature or involve an algorithm or complex mathematical calculation are captured as functions. Theprocedural component modeler 176 is used to build and maintain those procedural business components that use rulepacks. - The
deployment platform 110 supports deployment on diverse distributeduser interface devices 112, such as web browsers, telephones, personal digital assistants, and other client programs and access devices. Each user interface device merely needs to be able to communicate with supported middle tier application servers. - As shown in
FIG. 1 , the middle tier of an application includes aweb server 120, aJava application server 130, and abusiness intelligence server 140. Any web server supporting JSP (Java Server Pages) and any Java application server can be used, such as a J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition) compliant application server. In alternative implementations, the middle tier can be implemented using Microsoft® distributed Component Object Model (COM)-based technologies, including Active Server Pages (ASPs) and Microsoft® Transaction Server (MTS). The middle tier can also be implemented on a Microsoft.NET platform. - As shown in
FIG. 2 , thebusiness intelligence server 140 managesrule components 142. A rule component contains a lightweight, high-performance rule engine. The rule engine can be implemented as an inference engine, for processing rules as such. For example, a JESS (Java Expert System Shell) or CLIPS (C Language Integrated Production System) rule engine can be used. Alternatively, rule components can be implemented to embody their rules as translated into a procedural programming language or into calls to a database query language such as SQL. A rule component deploys a rulepack as a functional knowledge unit.FIG. 2 depicts multiple rule components deployed in a J2EE environment. The user interface communicates with aservlet 122, which may be generated by a JSP, which communicates with session andentity beans 132, which in turn communicate with therule components 142 through a standardized messaging scheme. Two types of messages are supported: synchronous (e.g., direct Java calls) and asynchronous (e.g., using XML-based messages). - A
rule component 142 is preloaded with the rules in a rulepack for optimal performance. Therule components 142 can interact with various types of business components (not just Enterprise JavaBeans components) using standardized messaging (e.g., XML messaging). Thebusiness intelligence server 140 provides a central integration hub that can interact withdiverse application components 132, such as Microsoft® COM (Component Object Model) components, CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture) components, EJB components, and Java components. Thebusiness intelligence server 140 can turn any Java application server into an application integrator, acting as a control center for an enterprise information system. - The back end of the
deployment platform 110 can include any number ofdatabases 134 based on database management products from any number of vendors. Therule repository 150 is implemented as a database, such as a relational database. Thebusiness intelligence server 140 is a virtual extension of therule repository 150, which remotely manages the lifecycle of all deployed rule components. Once a business rule is modified in therule repository 150, all rule components containing rulepacks affected by the change are dynamically notified to refresh their business logic. This allows for real-time modification of system behavior without any downtime. - A simple application development methodology that takes advantage of the features of the
application development platform 100 will now be described. Unlike traditional techniques that focus on a combination of data and process, or on objects that encapsulate both data and process, the methodology places business rules in the center of the development process. - Business rule analysis, as facilitated by the
platform 100, accelerates the software development lifecycle by reducing unstructured requirements verbiage into concrete statements that are easily verified by business users. In addition, the methodology enables analysts and developers to identify, capture and test business rules from the very inception of a project. In addition, the methodology guarantees that UML-conforming documentation (such as use case models) will be created as an inherent byproduct of the software development process. Furthermore, the methodology ensures that the documents remain in synchronization with the application logic, because the business rules that the documents represent are literally part of the application. - By allowing developers to begin building and testing business rules at project inception, the methodology ensures healthy design disciplines, such as providing tangible design deliverables in a project's early phases. Moreover, business rules developed early in the development process are directly incorporated into the final application, resulting in cost savings when compared with traditional “throw away” prototyping techniques.
- As shown in
FIG. 3 , in a typical development project, business analysts collaborate with subject matter experts to define high-level business requirements (step 310) using vocabulary understandable to the subject matter experts. Having the business requirements, the analysts create UML use cases (step 320) using theuse case modeler 172, which allows the user to specify actors and their various usages of the system graphically, as illustrated inFIG. 4 , whereactor 404 is shown in a communicates relationship withuse cases - A business object model can be created from scratch or derived from an existing database (step 330). The
business object modeler 176 can capture the business object model as a UML class diagram. An example of such a diagram is diagram 504 shown inuser interface window 502 inFIG. 5 . TheIDE 180 transforms this into a vocabulary tree view for easy drag-and-drop functionality onto therulesheets 182. Such a vocabulary tree view is shown inpane 604 ofFIG. 6 . However, the vocabulary can also be created directly in therule IDE 180, without the need for an object model. The vocabulary can optionally have a name, illustrated as “FIM” 622 inpane 604. - In the tree view, the vocabulary is displayed in the form of a tree of business terms such as entities (non-leaf nodes), their attributes (leaves), and their relationships to other entities (named branches). Such a tree view presents a conceptual semantic model in a form that is understandable to the business user. The tree view can be used for building rules, test data, user interfaces, databases, and other application components. Its elements can be used by a user to drag-and-drop vocabulary terms onto the rulesheet. In the tree view, a vocabulary term can be either simple (root-level) or complex (branch-level). When an attribute node that is deeper than the first tier of leaf nodes is drag-and-dropped, relationship traversals are handled automatically using a dot-notation (e.g., Trade.security.symbol) giving the business term a specific context.
- Next, business rules are developed and tested (step 340) using the
vocabulary 181, therulepack editor 182, and thetester 183. Business rules are captured as discrete rule sets (rulepacks). Business rules can be categorized into three types: constraints (rejecters), triggers (projectors), and derivations (producers). Therulepack editor 182 enables developers to compose all types of rules that operate on data structures defined in the business object model. Developers can drag-and-drop terms from a tree view of thevocabulary 181 onto a rulesheet in order to define the conditions and actions of each rulepack. -
FIG. 6 shows a rulesheet containing constraints. Constraint rules allow developers to specify business rules that constrain a business and therefore define the boundaries for its valid state. Constraint rules are generally constraints such as data validation and integrity rules. The vocabulary 181 (FIG. 1 ) of the business object model is displayed in an equivalent tree view in apane 604 at the left of the rulesheet. To the right of the tree view, the possible conditions (upper left quadrant 606 ) and actions (lower left quadrant 608) are tabulated. Because the word “condition” has different meanings according to context, the expression in a row in the upper left quadrant will occasionally be referred to as a “condition term” for the sake of clarity. The order in which actions are listed in theactions quadrant 608 can optionally be used to determine the order in which the actions are executed. However, it is advantageous that this not be done, because doing so would introduce a procedural aspect to the definition of rules that is inconsistent with the declarative design of the user interface. - The conditions and actions are tied together as rules, each rule being expressed in one of the
vertical columns 610 spanning the two right quadrants of the rulesheet. The cells in a vertical rule column specify the truth values of the conditions—determined by the if-value cells in the upperright quadrant 612—necessary to trigger the execution of actions—determined by the then-value cells in the lowerright quadrant 614. The if-part of a rule is the conjunction of the conditions defined by the if-values in one column. - The
rule statements pane 616 displays a list of natural language statements of the rules (in business terms) implemented by the rulesheet. Each rule statement is tied to thecorresponding rule column 610 with thesame number 618. Each non-conditional rule can also have a business rule statement associated with it (e.g.,statement 732 inFIG. 7 ). The business rule statements can optionally be linked to business policy charters and other supporting documents for the purpose of tracing the motivation behind the corresponding rules. - Actions typically take the form of a value assignment, which is effectively a derivation. The assigned value may be a constant, the value of a different attribute, or a calculation (which may involve business object method calls).
- Optionally, actions may post a message of type violation, warning, or information. The
particular action 620 illustrated inFIG. 6 posts a violation. Once a post action is triggered, the business rule statement associated with the rule is posted in the form of a message with a severity of violation, warning, or information. A message may be linked to a specific instance of a business entity to provide an appropriate context. Such messages are used to indicate the firing of a rule and can also serve as error messages displayed to the system user. They can, furthermore, help in educating novice users on the functionality of the system and the rules of the business as a whole. A specific type of message can also be used to deliver synchronous or asynchronous processing commands to other enterprise components. However, supporting the use of message posting for processing commands introduces an undesirable procedural element into the definition of rules. Thus, it is advantageous to avoid message posting and instead define attributes that can be tested by process control components. A more declarative alternative to capturing constraint rules is by using a special rulesheet, as illustrated inFIG. 18 , which will be described later. -
FIG. 7 shows in pane 704 a partially expanded vocabulary tree corresponding to the vocabulary tree shown inpane 604 ofFIG. 6 . All nodes of the tree at the root level, such as entity Account (node 706), are entities. The Account entity has been expanded by a user to show the attributes, such as the attribute number (node 708), of the Account entity. When an entity is expanded, its relationships with other entities, if any, are also shown. These relationships will have been defined, for example, by a UML business object model (also known as a class diagram), as described earlier. - Every association (relationship) between two entities has two role names, one at each end of the association (as shown in
FIG. 5 ). These role names are used to traverse from one entity to another in the vocabulary tree view (and using the dot-notation). If no role name is specified, it is defaulted to the name of the corresponding entity, except that the role name begins with a small letter whereas the entity name begins with a capital letter. Thus, the role name “positions” innode 710 indicates thatnode 710 represents a relationship between an Account entity and a SecurityPosition entity. Theicon 712 identifies this as a relationship and, in particular, as a one-to-many relationship. This node is used to traverse from Account to its corresponding SecurityPosition's. Note that SecurityPosition entity also has an “account” node that is used to traverse the same relationship in the opposite direction (not shown in the figure). The term “positions” can be thought of as the name of a relationship, which is a bidirectional relationship. In this user interface convention, the entity at one end of the relationship is named explicitly (in this example it is the Account entity) while the entity at the other end of the relationship (SecurityPosition) is named implicitly by the name of the relationship role name (positions). In alternative implementations, both a name for the relationship and the name of the entity at each can be shown explicitly. - As also shown in
pane 704, the entity SecurityPosition (shown implicitly as positions) atnode 710 has several attributes. Becausenode 710 has been expanded, those attributes, such as quantity (node 714), are shown. Also shown is a further relationship role named “security” (node 716), representing a relationship between entities SecurityPosition (in the context of node 710) and the entity Security. Thislatter node 716 is also expanded and shows the attributes of the entity Security. - It is worth noting that the relationships (associations) between entities may be such that there is a loop in the definition. In this situation, a developer is able to expand entities and relationships in the tree view without any limit imposed by vocabulary because the expansions are constructed on the fly. This allows a developer to use the tree view to construct a context of any depth for every attribute that is of interest to the developer.
- To drag-and-drop a vocabulary element to a rulesheet, a developer will drag an attribute node of the vocabulary to the rulesheet. This will cause the attribute and its entire context to be inserted as a term wherever the drop part of the operation dictates. Thus, when a developer drags the
node quantity 714 to the rulesheet, the term dropped will be Account.positions.quantity. If aliases have been defined for any part of the selected term, the alias will be used in the rulesheet for the sake of brevity and convenience. InFIG. 7 , an alias “&position” has been defined as “positions” and Account has been identified as the anchor entity, so dragging thenode quantity 714 to the rulesheet would result in the term &position.quantity being dropped. -
FIG. 7 also shows arulepack display 702 with multiple rulesheets displayed astabs 720. The visible tab shows a rulesheet containing derivation rules (producers). Derivation rules allow developers to specify business rules that infer or calculate the value of derived fields. In this rulesheet the actions are statements that assign values to fields (i.e., they are assignment actions). The fields are identified in rows in the Actions pane, the values are in the corresponding then-value cells. In addition, this rulesheet also shows apane 722 for entity shortcuts, called “Shortcuts”, and apane 724 for unconditional calculations, called “Rules (non-conditional)”. The shortcuts link alias names to the object model. The non-conditional rules are business rules that fire without any conditions. - The rulesheet shown in
FIG. 7 also shows the display (under the heading ‘Values’ 726) of a value set for a condition. The value set for a condition is the set of all possible if-values for the condition. InFIG. 7 , this is the set {‘HI-GRD’, ‘HI-YLD’} 730 for the security profile condition. Value sets can be declared for assignment actions as well as conditions. The value set for an assignment action is the set of all possible values for the assignment term.FIG. 7 also shows how the editing of a rule cell, in this case, for rule B, can be aided by a pre-populated drop-downlist 728 of these possible values. - As shown in
FIG. 7 , an if-value 730 can be a string. An if-value can also be of any other data type, such as date, boolean, or numeric. As shown inFIG. 9 , for example, an if-value can also include a comparison operator, such as “>=” or “<”. If no operator is expressed, the operator “=” is implied. Also, a condition term can include a comparison operator, in which case the value set for the condition would be {T,F}, i.e., true and false. - As shown in
FIG. 8 , a then-value can be a string (as in cell 808). A then-value can be of any other simple data type. A then-value can also be a mark—such as represented by “X” incell 736 inFIG. 7 , for example—that indicates that the corresponding action is to be performed, without providing any data to the action. - A rulesheet can also have preconditions in a
preconditions pane 734. Preconditions are conditions that apply to all rules. They are generally used to customize a rulesheet to activate only in a particular situation or for a particular instance of a business term. Preconditions are logically ANDed with the rest of the conditions of every rule on the rulesheet. - In the system being described, a user or developer—either directly or indirectly—can provide a value set for each condition term. This can be done through the IDE, in the definition of the vocabulary, or otherwise. With this information, the system can validate the rulesheet by applying completeness and ambiguity checks. In one implementation, the value set for a rule is checked for completeness heuristically by applying the following checks and corrections. A value set must have more than one value. If it does not, add a value representing OTHER to the set. A range of values must have no gaps. If a gap is found, add values to fill the gaps. For example, if the condition term is numeric and the value set being tested is {<15, 15-30}, then add a value so the value set is {<15, 15-30,>30}. A range of dates is tested and corrected in the same way. For any other kind of set, such as one enumerating the names of people, for example, the system can automatically, or the user can optionally, add the value representing OTHER to the set to ensure its completeness.
- All developed rulepacks, rulesheets, and individual atomic rules are stored in the
rules repository 150 and become part of an application rulebook, which contains all the rules for the application. Each rule may be reused in more than one rulesheet or rulepack. The repository keeps track of such interdependencies and forces rule integrity and consistency throughout the rulebook and therefore the enterprise. - The IDE has validation logic to detect and help eliminate logic errors in rulesheets, such as ambiguities, redundancies, or incompleteness.
FIG. 8 shows a profiling rulesheet before ambiguity and completeness checks are performed. Rules A and B (columns 804 and 806) are determined to be ambiguous. Rules A and B are complex rules due to the existence of a do-not-care value (i.e., a dash) in their if-values. A do-not-care indicates that the rule applies for all possible values of a condition. Such rules can be broken down into simple rules with all specific values to aid in visualizing the source of the ambiguity. The IDE has expand and collapse functionalities for this purpose.FIG. 9 shows the rulesheet after an expansion, where rules A and B are expanded into rules {A.1,A.2} 904 and rules {B.1,B.2,B.3} 906 respectively. The source of the ambiguity is highlighted as being simple rules A.1 and B.1. For the exact same if-part (i.e., the conjunction of conditions with values ‘A’ and >=7), these rules take contradictory actions (i.e., set profile to ‘HI-GRD’ and set profile to ‘HI-YLD’). Once an ambiguity is identified, it can resolved in one of three ways. If the actions are mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot both happen simultaneously), the override feature can be used by a user to set precedence order as shown at 1004 inFIG. 10 , where rule A overrides rule B. In more complex situations, the override input can indicate a set of rules, and in that case the set would be displayed. If the actions are not mutually exclusive, they can be combined into one rule. Should the ambiguity point to a logic error, the rules can be modified by the user in such a way as to resolve the ambiguity. A simple form of ambiguity is redundancy. This occurs when two rules are identical. It is resolved by removing one of the rules, which can be done automatically by the system. -
FIG. 10 shows the rulesheet inFIG. 8 after a logical completeness check is performed. The complete set of distinct possible if-parts for the entire rulesheet is compared to the if-parts actually in the rulesheet. The missing ones are identified and added to the rulesheet automatically; in the present case, rules C and D (columns 1006) are added to complete the rulesheet. Such an incompleteness generally indicates an oversight on the part of the developer and results in a new business rule added to the requirements, an example of which is shown inFIG. 11 . -
FIG. 12 shows the same rulesheet after it has been collapsed into the smallest possible set of complex rules. It also shows how a rule cell (e.g., if-value cell 1204) can contain a subset of the values allowed by the condition value set (i.e., the subset {‘BBB’, ‘BB’} as the if-value for the rating condition in rule C). Should a cell contain the entire value set, it is automatically turned into a do-not-care value. -
FIG. 13 shows how business rules can be tested immediately after they are coded, independent of other development activities. Theleft pane 1306 represents the input into arules component 142. This can be developed using drag-and-drop from thevocabulary pane 1304 or directly from a database or a test suite repository. Theright pane 1308 shows the output of the rules component, which is the contents of theleft pane 1306 modified by the rule engine of the rules component. InFIG. 13 , for example, the rule component calculated a value for the term dProfile for each of four different securities, which were provided as input in the input pane. The difference between the two panes can be highlighted by a tester subsystem to aid the developer in determining what rules fired. Additional features such as breakpoints and watch windows can be added to aid the user in stepping through the processing of the rulesheet. - While rules development and testing are in progress, developers can simultaneously code custom processes (or acquire pre-written components if available) and begin implementing the user interface. These activities produce feedback that can be used to refine requirements, UML models, and the business rules, resulting in an iterative development cycle. Development cycle iterations continue as necessary until the application is ready for deployment and then throughout its life as features are changed, upgraded or extended.
-
FIG. 14 shows an alternative user interface display for arulesheet 1402. This is illustrated without scroll bars, vocabulary tree view, and other user interface elements shown, for example, inFIG. 7 . This display differs from the one illustrated inFIG. 7 , for example, in that it includes a non-conditional (N/C)column 1404. When a cell in this column is checked, as is shown forcell 1406, the corresponding actions are always performed, subject to any preconditions applicable to the rulesheet. In the illustratedrulesheet 1402, the action [Action1] is a non-conditional action. On the other hand, [Action2] is performed if and only if the value of [Condition1] is val1 and the value of [Condition2] is val3. - The user interface display of
FIG. 14 also differs from the one illustrated inFIG. 7 in that inFIG. 14 , a rule is represented by a cell, such ascell 1408, rather than by a column, such as one of the columns 610 (FIG. 6 ). Thus, multiple rules having the same if-part can be represented in the same column. -
FIG. 15 shows analternative display 1502 corresponding to display 1402 (FIG. 14 ) in which the rows and columns are flipped. The IDE can allow a user to select one or to switch between these two forms of display. - As shown in
FIG. 16 , an overrides section can be made visible if overrides are necessary. Overrides were described in reference toFIG. 10 . Eachrow - In
FIG. 16 , the overrides indicate the following. When conditions would cause both rule A2 (cell 1610) and rule B3 (cell 1612) to be performed, rule A2 overrides rule B3; that is, rule A2 is dominant and therefore operative, and rule B3 is not. Similarly, rule C1 overrides rule B3. -
FIG. 17 shows adisplay matrix 1702 for an expression rulesheet. An expression rulesheet can be used to define expressions of any data type, e.g., text, numeric, and boolean.Cell 1704 carries the name that is defined.Cell 1706, which can be implemented as a pull-down pick list, carries the data type. InFIG. 17 , the type is boolean and the name is exprName. In the example ofFIG. 17 , if any preconditions and rule A are satisfied, then exprName is given a value of T. Expressions defined using this rulesheet can be used as derived business terms on other rulesheets. The expressions defined are automatically added to the vocabulary as an attribute of the anchor entity of the rulesheet. The rules that define an expression are thus reused in and simplify higher level rulesheets. This allows rulesheets to be logically combined for building more complex rulesheets and for creating levels of abstraction in the definition of terms. This is fundamentally how rulesheets are logically linked to each other. -
FIG. 18 shows adisplay matrix 1802 for a constraint rulesheet. A constraint rulesheet can be used to define constraints such as data consistency constraints or business policy constraints. Constraints can be of different categories, represented by the values in aconstraint category row 1804 in the matrix. In the illustrated rulesheet, when [ConstraintCondition1] is satisfied, constraint rule A fires, and the category of the constraint is “V”, which indicates a violation (represented in cell 1810). Similarly, when [ConstraintCondition2] is satisfied, constraint rule B fires, and the category of the constraint is “W”, which indicates a warning (represented in cell 1812). Constraint categories can be represented with icons as well as text, and they can be structured to have, for example, multiple levels representing different aspects of the constraints. - As previously mention, each column (in the implementation of
FIG. 6 ) or each cell (in the implementation ofFIG. 14 ) that represents a rule can have a name associated with it. The name can be used to check the state of the rule. For example, the rule name can be referred to in the vocabulary as an attribute of the anchor entity of the rulesheet. The anchor entity is one of the root entities (if there is more than one) of the vocabulary and is designated as such by the developer of the rulesheet. For example, inFIG. 6 , the developer has designated the entity Account as the root entity by giving it the alias “&anchor”. Thus, having a rule named RuleName in a rulesheet with an anchor entity named Entity, for example, the state of this rule can be checked using a term of the form Entity.RuleName.fired, which returns a boolean value, namely true if the rule has executed and false if the rule has not executed. Other attributes of the rule, in addition to whether it has been fired, such as the constraint category with the associated rule, can also be defined in the vocabulary so that they can be checked. - The invention can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them. Apparatus of the invention can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor; and method steps of the invention can be performed by a programmable processor executing a program of instructions to perform functions of the invention by operating on input data and generating output. The invention can be implemented advantageously in one or more computer programs that are executable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor coupled to receive data and instructions from, and to transmit data and instructions to, a data storage system, at least one input device, and at least one output device. Each computer program can be implemented in a high-level procedural or object-oriented programming language, or in assembly or machine language if desired; and in any case, the language can be a compiled or interpreted language. Suitable processors include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors. Generally, a processor will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory and/or a random access memory. Generally, a computer will include one or more mass storage devices for storing data files; such devices include magnetic disks, such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and optical disks. Storage devices suitable for tangibly embodying computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-volatile memory, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM disks. Any of the foregoing can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits).
- To provide for interaction with a user, the invention can be implemented on a computer system having a display device such as a monitor or LCD screen for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device such as a mouse or a trackball by which the user can provide input to the computer system. The computer system can be programmed to provide a graphical user interface through which computer programs interact with users.
TABLE 1 Helpers all = [0..127]; lf = 10; cr = 13; uppercase = [‘A’..‘Z’]; lowercase = [‘a’..‘z’]; digit = [‘0’..‘9’]; number = digit+; line_terminator = lf | cr | cr lf; input_character = [all − [cr + lf]]; simple_escape_sequence = ‘\’ ‘'’ | ‘\“’ | ‘\?’ | ‘\\’ | ‘\a’ | ‘\b’ | ‘\f’ | ‘\n’ | ‘\r’ | ‘\t’ | ‘\v’; octal_digit = [‘0’ .. ‘7’]; octal_escape_sequence = ‘\’ octal_digit octal_digit? octal_digit?; hexadecimal_digit = [digit + [[‘a’ .. ‘f’] + [‘A’ .. ‘F’]]]; hexadecimal_escape_sequence = ‘\x’ hexadecimal_digit+; escape_sequence = simple_escape_sequence | octal_escape_sequence | hexadecimal_escape_sequence; s_char = [all − [‘“’ + [‘'’ + [‘\’ + [lf + cr]]]]] | escape_sequence; s_char_sequence = s_char+; br_char = [all − [‘{’ + [‘}’ + [lf + cr]]]]; br_char_sequence = br_char+; h_set = ‘Set’; h_bag = ‘Bag’; h_sequence = ‘Sequence’; h_collection = ‘Collection’; h_rule = ‘Rule’; h_precond = ‘Precondition’; h_nrule = ‘NRule’; h_cond = ‘Condition’; h_act = ‘Action’; h_valueset = ‘Valueset’; h_actionset = ‘Actionset’; h_rulesheet = ‘Rulesheet’; h_brstate = ‘BRStatement’; h_dtilda = ‘˜˜’; h_from = ‘From’; h_asgn = ‘Assign’; Tokens comment = ‘--’ [[all − 10] − 13]* [10 + 13]?; dot = ‘.’; arrow = ‘->’; not = ‘not’; mult = ‘*’; div = ‘/’; plus = ‘+’; minus = ‘−’; mod = ‘%’; exp = ‘**’; context = ‘context’; enum = ‘enum’; t_pre = ‘pre’; t_rule = h_rule; t_precondition = h_precond; t_nrule = h_nrule; t_condition = h_cond; t_action = h_act; t_valueset = h_valueset; t_actionset = h_actionset; t_rulesheet = h_rulesheet; t_brstatement = h_brstate; t_from = h_from; t_asgn = h_asgn; equal = ‘=’; n_equal = ‘<>’; lt = ‘<’; gt = ‘>’; lteq = ‘<=’; gteq = ‘>=’; p_equal = ‘+=’; m_equal = ‘−=’; and = ‘and’; or = ‘or’; xor = ‘xor’; implies = ‘implies’; l_par = ‘(’; r_par = ‘)’; l_bracket = ‘[’; r_bracket = ‘]’; l_brace = ‘{’; r_brace = ‘}’; semicolon = ‘;’; dcolon = ‘::’; colon = ‘:’; comma = ‘,’; channel = ‘#’; at = ‘@’; bar = ‘|’; ddot = ‘..’; apostroph = ‘'’; quote = ‘“’; amp = ‘&’; qmark = ‘?’; inc_range = ‘[..]’; exc_range = ‘(..)’; incl_range = ‘[..)’; incr_range = ‘(..]’; t_let = ‘let’; t_in = ‘in’; t_if = ‘if’; t_then = ‘then’; t_else = ‘else’; endif = ‘endif’; t_set = h_set; t_bag = h_bag; t_sequence = h_sequence; t_collection = h_collection; bool = ‘true’ | ‘false’ | ‘T’ | ‘F’; simple_type_name = ( uppercase (lowercase | digit | uppercase | ‘_’)* ) | h_set | h_bag | h_sequence | h_collection; name = lowercase (lowercase | digit | uppercase | ‘_’)*; new_line = line_terminator; int = number; real = number ‘.’ number; blank = 9 | ‘ ’*; tab = 9; string_lit = ‘'’ s_char_sequence? ‘'’; time_lit = ‘“’ s_char_sequence? ‘“’; br_lit = h_dtilda br_char_sequence? h_dtilda; Ignored Tokens comment, new_line, blank, tab, amp, qmark; Productions rulesheet = {rulesheet} t_rulesheet id [priority]:int let_expression* precondition* nc_rule* condition* action* rule* | {fragment} rule_fragment; id = {name} name | {typename} simple_type_name | {number} int ; rule_fragment = {declaration} let_expression | {precondition} precondition | {nc_rule} nc_rule | {condition} condition | {action} action | {when} when_expression | {do} do_expression | {brstatement} brstatement; precondition = t_precondition expression; nc_rule = t_nrule id action_expression action_tail* ; condition = t_condition id expression t_valueset valueset; valueset = l_brace unary_relational_expression valueset_tail* r_brace; valueset_tail = comma unary_relational_expression; when_expression = t_valueset not? [whenset]:valueset when_tail* t_from [fromset]:valueset ; when_tail = comma not? valueset; unary_relational_expression = {unary} relational_expression_tail | {postfix} postfix_expression | {range} range_expression; range_expression = [left_expr]:postfix_expression range_op [right_expr]:postfix_expression ; range_op = {inclusive} inc_range | {exclusive} exc_range | {inc_left} incl_range | {inc_right} incr_range ; action = t_action id action_expression action_tail* t_actionset actionset?; actionset = l_brace postfix_expression actionset_tail* r_brace; actionset_tail = comma postfix_expression ; do_expression = t_actionset l_brace postfix_expression r_brace t_from actionset; brstatement = t_brstatement id br_body*; br_body = {text} br_lit | {value} l_brace postfix_expression r_brace; rule = t_rule id conditionlist* actionlist*; conditionlist = t_condition id valueset; actionlist = t_action id postfix_expression; action_expression = {assign} assignment_expression | {expr} expression ; action_tail = semicolon action_expression ; assignment_expression = t_asgn postfix_expression assignment_operator expression ; assignment_operator = {equal} equal | {plus_equal} p_equal | {minus_equal} m_equal ; expression = let_expression* logical_expression ; if_expression = t_if [if_branch]:expression t_then [then_branch]:expression t_else [else_branch]:expression endif ; logical_expression = relational_expression logical_expression_tail* ; logical_expression_tail = logical_operator relational_expression ; relational_expression = additive_expression relational_expression_tail? ; relational_expression_tail = relational_operator additive_expression; additive_expression = multiplicative_expression additive_expression_tail* ; additive_expression_tail = add_operator multiplicative_expression ; multiplicative_expression = unary_expression multiplicative_expression_tail* ; multiplicative_expression_tail = multiply_operator unary_expression ; unary_expression = {unary} unary_operator postfix_expression | {postfix} postfix_expression ; postfix_expression = primary_expression postfix_expression_tail* ; postfix_expression_tail = postfix_expression_tail_begin feature_call; postfix_expression_tail_begin = {dot} dot | {arrow} arrow; primary_expression = {lit_col} literal_collection | {literal} literal | {feature} path_name time_expression? qualifiers? feature_call_parameters? | {parentheses} l_par expression r_par | {if} if_expression ; feature_call_parameters = {empty} l_par r_par | {concrete} l_par expression fcp_helper* r_par | ( l_par declarator? actual_parameter_list? r_par ) ; fcp_helper = {comma} comma expression | {colon} colon simple_type_specifier | {iterate} semicolon name colon simple_type_specifier equal expression | {bar} bar expression ; let_expression = t_let name let_expression_type_declaration? equal expression t_in ; let_expression_type_declaration = colon path_type_name ; literal = {string} string_lit | {real} real | {integer} int | {boolean} bool | {enum} channel name | {time} time_lit; enumeration_type = enum l_brace channel name enumeration_type_tail* r_brace ; enumeration_type_tail = comma channel name ; simple_type_specifier = {path} path_type_name | {enum} enumeration_type ; literal_collection = collection_kind l_brace expression_list_or_range? r_brace; expression_list_or_range = expression expression_list_or_range_tail?; expression_list_or_range_tail = {list} expression_list_tail+ | {range} ddot expression ; expression_list_tail = comma expression ; feature_call = path_name time_expression? qualifiers? feature_call_parameters? ; qualifiers = l_bracket actual_parameter_list r_bracket ; declarator = {standard} name declarator_tail* declarator_type_declaration? bar | {iterate} [iterator]:name [iter_type]:declarator_type_declaration semicolon [accumulator]:name [acc_type]:declarator_type_declaration equal expression bar; declarator_tail = comma name ; declarator_type_declaration = colon simple_type_specifier ; path_type_name = type_name path_type_name_tail* ; path_type_name_tail = dcolon type_name ; type_name = {non_collection} simple_type_name | {collection} collection_type l_par simple_type_name r_par; collection_type = {set} t_set | {bag} t_bag | {sequence} t_sequence | {collection} t_collection; path_name = path_name_begin path_name_tail* ; path_name_begin = {type_name} type_name | {name} name ; path_name_tail = dcolon path_name_end ; path_name_end = {type_name} type_name | {name} name ; time_expression = at t_pre ; actual_parameter_list = expression actual_parameter_list_tail* ; actual_parameter_list_tail = comma expression ; logical_operator = {and} and | {or} or | {xor} xor | {implies} implies; collection_kind = {set} t_set | {bag} t_bag | {sequence} t_sequence | {collection} t_collection ; relational_operator = {equal} equal | {n_equal} n_equal | {gt} gt | {lt} lt | {gteq} gteq | {lteq} lteq ; add_operator = {plus} plus | {minus} minus; multiply_operator = {mult} mult | {div} div | {mod} mod | {exp} exp; unary_operator = {minus} minus | {not} not; - The invention has been described in terms of particular embodiments. Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. For example, the steps of the invention can be performed in a different order and still achieve desirable results. The invention can be implemented in other component architectures. For example, the invention can be implemented using Microsoft APS (Active Server Pages) and COM (Component Object Model) or DCOM (Distributed Component Object Model) technologies or CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture) rather than Java-based technologies, and programmed components of the invention can be programmed in a language other than Java, for example, C++.
Claims (42)
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US11/350,448 US20060129978A1 (en) | 2000-12-01 | 2006-02-06 | Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications |
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US25086900P | 2000-12-01 | 2000-12-01 | |
US09/994,477 US7020869B2 (en) | 2000-12-01 | 2001-11-26 | Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications |
US11/350,448 US20060129978A1 (en) | 2000-12-01 | 2006-02-06 | Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications |
Related Parent Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US09/994,477 Continuation US7020869B2 (en) | 2000-12-01 | 2001-11-26 | Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20060129978A1 true US20060129978A1 (en) | 2006-06-15 |
Family
ID=26941197
Family Applications (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US09/994,477 Expired - Lifetime US7020869B2 (en) | 2000-12-01 | 2001-11-26 | Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications |
US11/350,448 Abandoned US20060129978A1 (en) | 2000-12-01 | 2006-02-06 | Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications |
Family Applications Before (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US09/994,477 Expired - Lifetime US7020869B2 (en) | 2000-12-01 | 2001-11-26 | Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications |
Country Status (4)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (2) | US7020869B2 (en) |
EP (1) | EP1337952A4 (en) |
AU (1) | AU2002228679A1 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2002044854A2 (en) |
Cited By (110)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20040205200A1 (en) * | 2003-04-08 | 2004-10-14 | Nikhil Kothari | Integrating online community and program development environments |
US20040220815A1 (en) * | 2000-08-18 | 2004-11-04 | Johanne Belanger | Apparatus and method for the compilation, assembly, and distribution of product documentation and associated information |
US20040225995A1 (en) * | 2003-02-28 | 2004-11-11 | Kyle Marvin | Reusable software controls |
US20050050088A1 (en) * | 2000-06-21 | 2005-03-03 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for integrating spreadsheets and word processing tables |
US20060085336A1 (en) * | 2004-06-04 | 2006-04-20 | Michael Seubert | Consistent set of interfaces derived from a business object model |
US20060100991A1 (en) * | 2004-10-21 | 2006-05-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for dynamical determination of actions to perform on a selected item in a web portal GUI environment |
US20060168527A1 (en) * | 2004-11-16 | 2006-07-27 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems for exchanging and rendering forms |
US20070174068A1 (en) * | 2005-12-30 | 2007-07-26 | Shai Alfandary | Architectural design for physical inventory application software |
US20070186209A1 (en) * | 2005-12-30 | 2007-08-09 | Stefan Kaetker | Software modeling |
US20070220046A1 (en) * | 2005-12-30 | 2007-09-20 | Gerd Moosmann | Software model business objects |
US20080243852A1 (en) * | 2007-03-26 | 2008-10-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and Methods for Enabling Collaboration in Online Enterprise Applications |
WO2008124156A1 (en) * | 2007-04-09 | 2008-10-16 | Enterra Strategies, Llc | Creating deployable software for implementing a business process using a library of preconfigured processes |
US20080301078A1 (en) * | 2007-05-31 | 2008-12-04 | Mark Proctor | Method and apparatus to abstract away rule languages |
US20090018811A1 (en) * | 2007-07-09 | 2009-01-15 | International Business Machines Corporation | Generation of test cases for functional testing of applications |
US20090063382A1 (en) * | 2007-08-31 | 2009-03-05 | Mark Proctor | Pluggable dialects for a rule engine |
US20090063224A1 (en) * | 2007-09-04 | 2009-03-05 | Ravi Prakash Gorthi | Integrated and platform independent approach to modeling of business rules using business and application domain ontologies |
US20090164971A1 (en) * | 2007-12-19 | 2009-06-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Convention Based UML Modeling Tool |
US20090171811A1 (en) * | 2007-12-31 | 2009-07-02 | Peter Markus A | Architectural Design For Product Catalog Management Application Software |
US20090171716A1 (en) * | 2007-12-31 | 2009-07-02 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for personnel events application software |
US20090249280A1 (en) * | 2008-04-01 | 2009-10-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Upgrading simple applications to full scale solutions |
US20090319984A1 (en) * | 2008-06-24 | 2009-12-24 | Internaional Business Machines Corporation | Early defect removal model |
US7673227B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-03-02 | Microsoft Corporation | User interface for integrated spreadsheets and word processing tables |
US7676843B1 (en) | 2004-05-27 | 2010-03-09 | Microsoft Corporation | Executing applications at appropriate trust levels |
US20100070395A1 (en) * | 2008-09-18 | 2010-03-18 | Andreas Elkeles | Architectural design for payroll processing application software |
US7689929B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-03-30 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems of providing information to computer users |
US20100082689A1 (en) * | 2008-09-30 | 2010-04-01 | Accenture Global Services Gmbh | Adapter services |
US7692636B2 (en) | 2004-09-30 | 2010-04-06 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for handwriting to a screen |
US7712048B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-05-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Task-sensitive methods and systems for displaying command sets |
US7712022B2 (en) | 2004-11-15 | 2010-05-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Mutually exclusive options in electronic forms |
US7721190B2 (en) | 2004-11-16 | 2010-05-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems for server side form processing |
US7725834B2 (en) | 2005-03-04 | 2010-05-25 | Microsoft Corporation | Designer-created aspect for an electronic form template |
US20100138257A1 (en) * | 2008-12-03 | 2010-06-03 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for selling standardized services application software |
US7743063B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-06-22 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems for delivering software via a network |
US7818677B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-10-19 | Microsoft Corporation | Single window navigation methods and systems |
US7865477B2 (en) | 2003-03-28 | 2011-01-04 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for real-time validation of structured data files |
US20110035732A1 (en) * | 2009-08-06 | 2011-02-10 | Wynne Crisman | Method and apparatus for defining and compiling or converting language and user interface system agnostic view definitions to runnable code |
US7900134B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2011-03-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Authoring arbitrary XML documents using DHTML and XSLT |
US7904801B2 (en) | 2004-12-15 | 2011-03-08 | Microsoft Corporation | Recursive sections in electronic forms |
US7913159B2 (en) | 2003-03-28 | 2011-03-22 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for real-time validation of structured data files |
US7925621B2 (en) | 2003-03-24 | 2011-04-12 | Microsoft Corporation | Installing a solution |
US7937651B2 (en) | 2005-01-14 | 2011-05-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Structural editing operations for network forms |
US7971139B2 (en) | 2003-08-06 | 2011-06-28 | Microsoft Corporation | Correlation, association, or correspondence of electronic forms |
US7979856B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2011-07-12 | Microsoft Corporation | Network-based software extensions |
US8001459B2 (en) | 2005-12-05 | 2011-08-16 | Microsoft Corporation | Enabling electronic documents for limited-capability computing devices |
US8078960B2 (en) | 2003-06-30 | 2011-12-13 | Microsoft Corporation | Rendering an HTML electronic form by applying XSLT to XML using a solution |
US8117552B2 (en) | 2003-03-24 | 2012-02-14 | Microsoft Corporation | Incrementally designing electronic forms and hierarchical schemas |
US20120102421A1 (en) * | 2010-10-22 | 2012-04-26 | Bigmachines, Inc. | Methods and apparatus for specifying and applying business rules in a product configurator |
US8200975B2 (en) | 2005-06-29 | 2012-06-12 | Microsoft Corporation | Digital signatures for network forms |
US8311904B2 (en) | 2008-12-03 | 2012-11-13 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for intra-company stock transfer application software |
US8312416B2 (en) * | 2006-04-13 | 2012-11-13 | Sap Ag | Software model business process variant types |
US8315926B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2012-11-20 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for tax declaration application software |
US8316344B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2012-11-20 | Sap Ag | Software model deployment units |
US8315900B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2012-11-20 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for self-service procurement application software |
US8321832B2 (en) | 2006-03-31 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Composite application modeling |
US8321306B2 (en) | 2008-12-03 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for selling project-based services application software |
US8321308B2 (en) | 2008-12-03 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for manual invoicing application software |
US8321250B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for sell from stock application software |
US8321831B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for internal projects application software |
US8326703B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2012-12-04 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for product catalog management application software |
US8326702B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2012-12-04 | Sap Ag | Providing supplier relationship management software application as enterprise services |
US8326706B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2012-12-04 | Sap Ag | Providing logistics execution application as enterprise services |
US8327319B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2012-12-04 | Sap Ag | Software model process interaction |
US8352338B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-01-08 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for time recording application software |
US20130018695A1 (en) * | 2011-07-14 | 2013-01-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | Enterprise Intelligence ('EI') Assembly Analysis In An EI Framework |
US20130018682A1 (en) * | 2011-07-14 | 2013-01-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | Managing Processes In An Enterprise Intelligence ('EI') Assembly Of An EI Framework |
US8359218B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-01-22 | Sap Ag | Computer readable medium for implementing supply chain control using service-oriented methodology |
US8370794B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-02-05 | Sap Ag | Software model process component |
US8374896B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-02-12 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for opportunity management application software |
US8380553B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-02-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for plan-driven procurement application software |
US8380549B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-02-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for embedded support application software |
US8386325B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-02-26 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for plan-driven procurement application software |
US8396761B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-03-12 | Sap Ag | Providing product catalog software application as enterprise services |
US8396749B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-03-12 | Sap Ag | Providing customer relationship management application as enterprise services |
US8396731B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-03-12 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for service procurement application software |
US8402426B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-03-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for make to stock application software |
US8401928B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-03-19 | Sap Ag | Providing supplier relationship management software application as enterprise services |
US8401936B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2013-03-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for expense reimbursement application software |
US8401908B2 (en) | 2008-12-03 | 2013-03-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for make-to-specification application software |
US8438119B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-05-07 | Sap Ag | Foundation layer for services based enterprise software architecture |
US8442850B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-05-14 | Sap Ag | Providing accounting software application as enterprise services |
US8448137B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-05-21 | Sap Ag | Software model integration scenarios |
US8447657B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2013-05-21 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for service procurement application software |
US20130173527A1 (en) * | 2011-12-30 | 2013-07-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | Life Cycle Management Of Rule Sets |
US20130179798A1 (en) * | 2012-01-06 | 2013-07-11 | Microsoft Corporation | Application dissemination and feedback |
US8487879B2 (en) | 2004-10-29 | 2013-07-16 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for interacting with a computer through handwriting to a screen |
US8510143B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2013-08-13 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for ad-hoc goods movement software |
US8538864B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-09-17 | Sap Ag | Providing payment software application as enterprise services |
US8595077B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-11-26 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for service request and order management application software |
US20140047406A1 (en) * | 2004-11-15 | 2014-02-13 | Peter Ar-Fu Lam | Path driven programming method and programming tool |
US8660904B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2014-02-25 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for service request and order management application software |
US8671035B2 (en) | 2008-12-11 | 2014-03-11 | Sap Ag | Providing payroll software application as enterprise services |
US8671032B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2014-03-11 | Sap Ag | Providing payment software application as enterprise services |
US8671034B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2014-03-11 | Sap Ag | Providing human capital management software application as enterprise services |
US8676617B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2014-03-18 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for self-service procurement application software |
WO2014074116A1 (en) * | 2012-11-12 | 2014-05-15 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Assimilating business rules |
US8819072B1 (en) | 2004-02-02 | 2014-08-26 | Microsoft Corporation | Promoting data from structured data files |
US8818884B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2014-08-26 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for customer returns handling application software |
US8892993B2 (en) | 2003-08-01 | 2014-11-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Translation file |
US8918729B2 (en) | 2003-03-24 | 2014-12-23 | Microsoft Corporation | Designing electronic forms |
US20150186823A1 (en) * | 2013-12-26 | 2015-07-02 | Infosys Limited | Methods, systems and computer-readable media for componentizing a business requirement |
US9313106B2 (en) | 2010-03-19 | 2016-04-12 | Nokia Technologies Oy | Method and apparatus for populating ad landing spots |
US20170090697A1 (en) * | 2015-09-24 | 2017-03-30 | Casio Computer Co., Ltd. | Sales data processing apparatus and sales data processing method |
US9646278B2 (en) | 2011-07-14 | 2017-05-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Decomposing a process model in an enterprise intelligence (‘EI’) framework |
US9659266B2 (en) | 2011-07-14 | 2017-05-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Enterprise intelligence (‘EI’) management in an EI framework |
US10373066B2 (en) * | 2012-12-21 | 2019-08-06 | Model N. Inc. | Simplified product configuration using table-based rules, rule conflict resolution through voting, and efficient model compilation |
US10685312B2 (en) * | 2009-02-26 | 2020-06-16 | Oracle International Corporation | Techniques for semantic business policy composition |
US10776705B2 (en) | 2012-12-21 | 2020-09-15 | Model N, Inc. | Rule assignments and templating |
US20210073655A1 (en) * | 2019-09-11 | 2021-03-11 | Sap Se | Rule mining for rule and logic statement development |
US11074643B1 (en) | 2012-12-21 | 2021-07-27 | Model N, Inc. | Method and systems for efficient product navigation and product configuration |
US11676090B2 (en) | 2011-11-29 | 2023-06-13 | Model N, Inc. | Enhanced multi-component object-based design, computation, and evaluation |
Families Citing this family (175)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
AU2001259689A1 (en) | 2000-05-09 | 2001-11-20 | Fair, ISAC and Company | Approach for re-using business rules |
US20020108099A1 (en) * | 2000-10-11 | 2002-08-08 | Charles Paclat | Method for developing business components |
US7814198B2 (en) | 2007-10-26 | 2010-10-12 | Microsoft Corporation | Model-driven, repository-based application monitoring system |
US6658432B1 (en) * | 2001-06-20 | 2003-12-02 | Microstrategy, Inc. | Method and system for providing business intelligence web content with reduced client-side processing |
US7072900B2 (en) * | 2001-11-28 | 2006-07-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for developing topography based management systems |
US7146351B2 (en) * | 2001-11-28 | 2006-12-05 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for analyzing software components using calibration factors |
US20040039720A1 (en) * | 2001-12-31 | 2004-02-26 | Hodges Donna K. | Method for providing platform independent business rules |
US7774791B1 (en) * | 2002-04-24 | 2010-08-10 | Informatica Corporation | System, method and computer program product for data event processing and composite applications |
US20040098407A1 (en) * | 2002-06-25 | 2004-05-20 | Frank Westendorf | Methods and systems for processing data in an automatic data proessing system |
US7743065B2 (en) * | 2002-06-27 | 2010-06-22 | Siebel Systems, Inc. | System and method for cross-referencing information in an enterprise system |
US20040019809A1 (en) * | 2002-07-23 | 2004-01-29 | Sheinis Joseph Igor | System and method for providing entity-based security |
US7689442B2 (en) * | 2002-10-31 | 2010-03-30 | Computer Science Corporation | Method of generating a graphical display of a business rule with a translation |
US20040085357A1 (en) * | 2002-10-31 | 2004-05-06 | Childress Allen B. | Method of generating a graphical display of a business rule and associated business rule elements |
US7676387B2 (en) * | 2002-10-31 | 2010-03-09 | Computer Sciences Corporation | Graphical display of business rules |
US7134113B2 (en) * | 2002-11-04 | 2006-11-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for generating an optimized suite of test cases |
US7412658B2 (en) * | 2002-11-14 | 2008-08-12 | Sap Ag | Modeling system for graphic user interface |
US7318162B2 (en) * | 2002-12-18 | 2008-01-08 | Sas Institute Inc. | Computer-implemented system and method for managing data integrity validation rules |
US8230445B2 (en) * | 2003-01-14 | 2012-07-24 | International Business Machines Corporation | Event management method and system |
US7490331B2 (en) * | 2003-03-04 | 2009-02-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Mapping to and from native type formats |
US7516145B2 (en) * | 2003-03-31 | 2009-04-07 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for incrementally transforming and rendering hierarchical data files |
US9781154B1 (en) | 2003-04-01 | 2017-10-03 | Oracle International Corporation | Systems and methods for supporting information security and sub-system operational protocol conformance |
US10063523B2 (en) | 2005-09-14 | 2018-08-28 | Oracle International Corporation | Crafted identities |
US10275723B2 (en) | 2005-09-14 | 2019-04-30 | Oracle International Corporation | Policy enforcement via attestations |
US6976144B1 (en) * | 2003-05-06 | 2005-12-13 | Pegasystems, Inc. | Methods and apparatus for digital data processing with mutable inheritance |
US20040252128A1 (en) * | 2003-06-16 | 2004-12-16 | Hao Ming C. | Information visualization methods, information visualization systems, and articles of manufacture |
GB0314800D0 (en) * | 2003-06-25 | 2003-07-30 | Hyfinity Ltd | System and associated methods for software assembly |
US7530015B2 (en) * | 2003-06-25 | 2009-05-05 | Microsoft Corporation | XSD inference |
US7707548B2 (en) * | 2003-07-22 | 2010-04-27 | Verizon Business Global Llc | Integration of information distribution systems |
US7519952B2 (en) * | 2003-07-28 | 2009-04-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Detecting an integrity constraint violation in a database by analyzing database schema, application and mapping and inserting a check into the database and application |
US7895064B2 (en) | 2003-09-02 | 2011-02-22 | Computer Sciences Corporation | Graphical input display in an insurance processing system |
WO2005024719A1 (en) * | 2003-09-04 | 2005-03-17 | David James Hamilton | Expert system with simplified language |
US20050060317A1 (en) * | 2003-09-12 | 2005-03-17 | Lott Christopher Martin | Method and system for the specification of interface definitions and business rules and automatic generation of message validation and transformation software |
US7945691B2 (en) * | 2003-09-15 | 2011-05-17 | Sap Ag | Data conveyance management |
US7444314B2 (en) * | 2003-12-01 | 2008-10-28 | International Business Machines Corporation | Methods and apparatus for business rules authoring and operation employing a customizable vocabulary |
US20050119932A1 (en) * | 2003-12-02 | 2005-06-02 | Hao Ming C. | System and method for visualizing business agreement interactions |
US7430711B2 (en) * | 2004-02-17 | 2008-09-30 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for editing XML documents |
DE102004008258A1 (en) * | 2004-02-19 | 2005-09-01 | Siemens Ag | Configurable and dynamically changeable object model |
US20050203956A1 (en) * | 2004-03-09 | 2005-09-15 | Dweck Jay S. | Systems and methods for facilitate state transitions for managed business objects |
US7996290B2 (en) * | 2004-03-09 | 2011-08-09 | Goldman Sachs & Co. | Financial transaction modeling system |
US7613666B1 (en) | 2004-04-23 | 2009-11-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Generating a class model from a business vocabulary to represent facts expressible in the business vocabulary |
US7802231B2 (en) * | 2004-04-30 | 2010-09-21 | Microsoft Corporation | Generating programmatic interfaces from natural language expressions of authorizations for provision of information |
US7526734B2 (en) * | 2004-04-30 | 2009-04-28 | Sap Ag | User interfaces for developing enterprise applications |
US7620935B2 (en) * | 2004-04-30 | 2009-11-17 | Microsoft Corporation | Generating programmatic interfaces from natural language expressions of authorizations for request of information |
US8074220B2 (en) * | 2004-05-21 | 2011-12-06 | Computer Associates Think, Inc. | System and method for interfacing an application to a distributed transaction coordinator |
US7665063B1 (en) | 2004-05-26 | 2010-02-16 | Pegasystems, Inc. | Integration of declarative rule-based processing with procedural programming |
US7499850B1 (en) | 2004-06-03 | 2009-03-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Generating a logical model of objects from a representation of linguistic concepts for use in software model generation |
US7590620B1 (en) * | 2004-06-18 | 2009-09-15 | Google Inc. | System and method for analyzing data records |
US7613676B2 (en) | 2004-07-27 | 2009-11-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Generating a database model from natural language expressions of business rules |
US8050907B2 (en) * | 2004-07-30 | 2011-11-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Generating software components from business rules expressed in a natural language |
US7490105B2 (en) | 2004-09-15 | 2009-02-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Externalized selection middleware for variability management |
US8006245B2 (en) * | 2004-09-30 | 2011-08-23 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for state management and workflow control |
US20060074933A1 (en) * | 2004-09-30 | 2006-04-06 | Microsoft Corporation | Workflow interaction |
US7496886B2 (en) * | 2004-09-30 | 2009-02-24 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and system for providing cross project commitments |
US7827499B2 (en) * | 2004-10-29 | 2010-11-02 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Hierarchical dataset dashboard view |
US7437376B2 (en) * | 2004-12-20 | 2008-10-14 | Microsoft Corporation | Scalable object model |
US8224863B2 (en) * | 2004-12-29 | 2012-07-17 | Alcatel Lucent | Equivalence class-based method and apparatus for cost-based repair of database constraint violations |
US8335704B2 (en) | 2005-01-28 | 2012-12-18 | Pegasystems Inc. | Methods and apparatus for work management and routing |
US7613671B2 (en) | 2005-02-15 | 2009-11-03 | Fair Isaac Corporation | Approach for re-using business rules |
US8731983B2 (en) * | 2005-02-24 | 2014-05-20 | Sap Ag | System and method for designing effective business policies via business rules analysis |
US20060251975A1 (en) * | 2005-05-03 | 2006-11-09 | General Electric Company | System and method for retrieving radiographic images |
US7526419B2 (en) * | 2005-05-24 | 2009-04-28 | International Business Machines Corporation | Methods for reconstructing data from simulation models |
US7543228B2 (en) * | 2005-06-27 | 2009-06-02 | Microsoft Corporation | Template for rendering an electronic form |
US8219967B2 (en) * | 2005-07-25 | 2012-07-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for enabling enterprise project management with service oriented resource and using a process profiling framework |
ATE383634T1 (en) * | 2005-09-12 | 2008-01-15 | Siemens Schweiz Ag | CONFIGURATION OF A HAZARD REPORTING SYSTEM CENTRAL CENTER |
US20070106705A1 (en) * | 2005-11-07 | 2007-05-10 | Vikram Chalana | System and method for integrating data between computer systems |
US7921406B1 (en) * | 2005-12-12 | 2011-04-05 | The Mathworks, Inc. | Incorporating technical computing into a DBMS |
US7716634B2 (en) * | 2006-01-19 | 2010-05-11 | Medseek Inc. | System and method for building and modifying software applications |
US7640222B2 (en) * | 2006-03-03 | 2009-12-29 | Pegasystems Inc. | Rules base systems and methods with circumstance translation |
US7562340B2 (en) * | 2006-03-23 | 2009-07-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for graphically building business rule conditions |
US8924335B1 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2014-12-30 | Pegasystems Inc. | Rule-based user interface conformance methods |
US20070233902A1 (en) * | 2006-03-30 | 2007-10-04 | Alan Trefler | User interface methods and apparatus for rules processing |
US8538786B2 (en) * | 2006-06-07 | 2013-09-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method, system and program product for generating an implementation of a business rule including a volatile portion |
US10268970B2 (en) * | 2006-06-07 | 2019-04-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method, system and program product for generating an implementation of business rules linked to an upper layer business model |
US7924283B1 (en) | 2006-09-19 | 2011-04-12 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Time relevance-based visualization of data |
US8773436B1 (en) | 2006-09-27 | 2014-07-08 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Pixel charts with data dependent display spaces |
US20080103735A1 (en) * | 2006-10-27 | 2008-05-01 | Roger Morenc | System and method for defining the frequency of product maintenance |
US8209662B2 (en) * | 2006-12-04 | 2012-06-26 | Microsoft Corporation | Application retargeting |
US9348881B1 (en) | 2006-12-29 | 2016-05-24 | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp | Visual content query for multi-dimensional datasets |
US20080177556A1 (en) * | 2007-01-19 | 2008-07-24 | Long Fung Cheng | Business object status management |
US8963969B2 (en) * | 2007-01-31 | 2015-02-24 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Providing an automated visualization of a collection of data values divided into a number of bins depending upon a change feature of the data values |
US8250525B2 (en) * | 2007-03-02 | 2012-08-21 | Pegasystems Inc. | Proactive performance management for multi-user enterprise software systems |
US8069129B2 (en) * | 2007-04-10 | 2011-11-29 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Editing and compiling business rules |
AU2013202388A1 (en) * | 2007-04-10 | 2013-05-02 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Editing and compiling business rules |
US8024396B2 (en) * | 2007-04-26 | 2011-09-20 | Microsoft Corporation | Distributed behavior controlled execution of modeled applications |
US8924843B1 (en) | 2007-04-30 | 2014-12-30 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Visualizing a plurality of times series in corresponding cell-based lines of a display region |
US7921363B1 (en) | 2007-04-30 | 2011-04-05 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Applying data thinning processing to a data set for visualization |
US7941742B1 (en) | 2007-04-30 | 2011-05-10 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Visualizing growing time series data in a single view |
US7760203B1 (en) | 2007-04-30 | 2010-07-20 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Graphic color-pixel-based visual-analytic representations for datasets |
CA2688509C (en) * | 2007-05-31 | 2017-02-28 | Informatica Corporation | Distributed system for monitoring information events |
US8000986B2 (en) | 2007-06-04 | 2011-08-16 | Computer Sciences Corporation | Claims processing hierarchy for designee |
US8010390B2 (en) * | 2007-06-04 | 2011-08-30 | Computer Sciences Corporation | Claims processing of information requirements |
US8010391B2 (en) | 2007-06-29 | 2011-08-30 | Computer Sciences Corporation | Claims processing hierarchy for insured |
US20080307312A1 (en) * | 2007-06-08 | 2008-12-11 | Infosys Technologies Ltd. | User interface development tools |
US7970892B2 (en) * | 2007-06-29 | 2011-06-28 | Microsoft Corporation | Tuning and optimizing distributed systems with declarative models |
US8239505B2 (en) | 2007-06-29 | 2012-08-07 | Microsoft Corporation | Progressively implementing declarative models in distributed systems |
US8022952B2 (en) * | 2007-07-31 | 2011-09-20 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Generating a visualization to show mining results produced from selected data items and attribute(s) in a selected focus area and other portions of a data set |
US8230386B2 (en) | 2007-08-23 | 2012-07-24 | Microsoft Corporation | Monitoring distributed applications |
US20090089237A1 (en) * | 2007-09-28 | 2009-04-02 | General Electric Company | Method and system for remotely updating detection knowledge of systems |
US7937354B2 (en) * | 2007-10-15 | 2011-05-03 | Sap Ag | Providing results from external rule engines based on rule engine vocabularies |
US8099720B2 (en) | 2007-10-26 | 2012-01-17 | Microsoft Corporation | Translating declarative models |
US8181151B2 (en) | 2007-10-26 | 2012-05-15 | Microsoft Corporation | Modeling and managing heterogeneous applications |
US8225308B2 (en) | 2007-10-26 | 2012-07-17 | Microsoft Corporation | Managing software lifecycle |
US7926070B2 (en) | 2007-10-26 | 2011-04-12 | Microsoft Corporation | Performing requested commands for model-based applications |
US7974939B2 (en) | 2007-10-26 | 2011-07-05 | Microsoft Corporation | Processing model-based commands for distributed applications |
US20090112654A1 (en) * | 2007-10-29 | 2009-04-30 | Red Hat, Inc. | Continuous quality assurance in a business rule management system |
US20100269094A1 (en) * | 2007-11-13 | 2010-10-21 | Roman Levenshteyn | Technique for automatically generating software in a software development environment |
US7991630B2 (en) | 2008-01-18 | 2011-08-02 | Computer Sciences Corporation | Displaying likelihood values for use in settlement |
US8427478B2 (en) * | 2008-01-25 | 2013-04-23 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Displaying continually-incoming time series that uses overwriting of one portion of the time series data while another portion of the time series data remains unshifted |
US7962436B2 (en) * | 2008-02-28 | 2011-06-14 | Sap Ag | Enhanced call-back service using rule engine |
US8234621B2 (en) * | 2008-03-12 | 2012-07-31 | Siemens Aktiengesellschaft | Rule based instantiation of software- and system development processes |
EP2113837B1 (en) * | 2008-04-30 | 2018-11-14 | Accenture Global Services Limited | Computer implemented method for generating interrelated computer executable files, computer-based system and computer program product |
US20090326924A1 (en) * | 2008-06-27 | 2009-12-31 | Microsoft Corporation | Projecting Semantic Information from a Language Independent Syntactic Model |
US20090326925A1 (en) * | 2008-06-27 | 2009-12-31 | Microsoft Corporation | Projecting syntactic information using a bottom-up pattern matching algorithm |
CA2729304C (en) * | 2008-06-30 | 2016-12-13 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Data logging in graph-based computations |
US8073716B2 (en) * | 2008-07-03 | 2011-12-06 | FirstBest Systems, Inc. | Methods for digital management of underwriting insurance contracts |
US8073717B2 (en) * | 2008-07-03 | 2011-12-06 | FirstBest Systems, Inc. | Systems for digital management of underwriting insurance contracts |
US8271935B2 (en) | 2008-07-09 | 2012-09-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Methods and tools for data-driven application engineering |
US9639331B2 (en) | 2008-07-09 | 2017-05-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | Service interface creation and modification for object-oriented services |
US8694959B2 (en) | 2008-09-30 | 2014-04-08 | Ics Triplex Isagraf Inc. | Multi language editor |
US9880086B2 (en) * | 2008-10-28 | 2018-01-30 | Entit Software Llc | Non-overlapping visualization of data records of a scatter plot |
US9298789B2 (en) * | 2009-01-23 | 2016-03-29 | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp | Placement of cells in bins to provide non-overlapping visualization of data points of a scatter plot |
KR101613110B1 (en) * | 2009-01-30 | 2016-04-18 | 아브 이니티오 테크놀로지 엘엘시 | Processing data using vector fields |
US8751464B1 (en) | 2009-02-11 | 2014-06-10 | Avnet, Inc. | Integrated version control in a business intelligence environment |
US7945589B1 (en) | 2009-02-11 | 2011-05-17 | Bsp Software Llc | Integrated change management in a business intelligence environment |
US20100217737A1 (en) * | 2009-02-20 | 2010-08-26 | Ajay Shama | Method and system for business rules management |
US8843435B1 (en) | 2009-03-12 | 2014-09-23 | Pegasystems Inc. | Techniques for dynamic data processing |
US8643646B2 (en) * | 2009-03-16 | 2014-02-04 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Constructing a cell-based cluster of data records of a scatter plot |
US8468492B1 (en) | 2009-03-30 | 2013-06-18 | Pegasystems, Inc. | System and method for creation and modification of software applications |
US8769507B2 (en) * | 2009-05-14 | 2014-07-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | Dynamic optimization of mobile services |
US10445675B2 (en) * | 2009-06-03 | 2019-10-15 | Oracle International Corporation | Confirming enforcement of business rules specified in a data access tier of a multi-tier application |
US20100325550A1 (en) * | 2009-06-17 | 2010-12-23 | Chien Yaw Wong | Rfid systems |
US20110029926A1 (en) * | 2009-07-30 | 2011-02-03 | Hao Ming C | Generating a visualization of reviews according to distance associations between attributes and opinion words in the reviews |
US8527446B2 (en) | 2009-11-09 | 2013-09-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Information integrity rules framework |
US20110320438A1 (en) * | 2010-06-29 | 2011-12-29 | Alcatel-Lucent Canada, Inc. | Rule summary |
US9020872B2 (en) | 2010-12-21 | 2015-04-28 | International Business Machines Corporation | Detecting missing rules with most general conditions |
US9367432B2 (en) * | 2010-12-24 | 2016-06-14 | Tata Consultancy Services Limited | Testing system |
US8880487B1 (en) | 2011-02-18 | 2014-11-04 | Pegasystems Inc. | Systems and methods for distributed rules processing |
US9154539B2 (en) | 2011-03-21 | 2015-10-06 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Consolidating event data from different sources |
US8887125B1 (en) * | 2011-04-19 | 2014-11-11 | Misys Ireland Limited | Systems and methods for dynamic artefact substitution |
US8826227B2 (en) * | 2011-06-08 | 2014-09-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | Computer aided visualization of a business object model lifecycle |
US8884966B2 (en) | 2011-08-24 | 2014-11-11 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Visualizing a scatter plot using real-time backward rewrite |
US8661065B2 (en) * | 2011-08-30 | 2014-02-25 | Sas Institute Inc. | Systems and methods for providing a data glossary management system |
US8805771B2 (en) * | 2011-09-19 | 2014-08-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | Contextual feedback of rules proximity based upon co-occurence history in a collaborative rule editing system |
US8930285B2 (en) | 2011-10-21 | 2015-01-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | Composite production rules |
US9195936B1 (en) | 2011-12-30 | 2015-11-24 | Pegasystems Inc. | System and method for updating or modifying an application without manual coding |
US9064245B2 (en) | 2012-02-22 | 2015-06-23 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Generating a calendar graphical visualization including pixels representing data records containing user feedback |
US9064009B2 (en) | 2012-03-28 | 2015-06-23 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Attribute cloud |
US9087143B2 (en) | 2012-03-30 | 2015-07-21 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Overlaying transparency images including pixels corresponding to different heirarchical levels over a geographic map |
US10699038B2 (en) | 2012-03-30 | 2020-06-30 | Litmus Blue Technology LLC | Configurable representation of domain models |
US8954371B2 (en) * | 2012-06-15 | 2015-02-10 | Software Ag Usa, Inc. | Systems and/or methods for dynamic selection of rules processing mode |
US9703822B2 (en) | 2012-12-10 | 2017-07-11 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | System for transform generation |
US9280612B2 (en) | 2012-12-14 | 2016-03-08 | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp | Visualizing a relationship of attributes using a relevance determination process to select from candidate attribute values |
US9003382B2 (en) * | 2013-02-18 | 2015-04-07 | Red Hat, Inc. | Efficient just-in-time compilation |
US10346388B2 (en) | 2013-05-03 | 2019-07-09 | Sap Se | Performance and quality optimized architecture for cloud applications |
CA2924826A1 (en) | 2013-09-27 | 2015-04-02 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Evaluating rules applied to data |
US9412070B2 (en) | 2013-10-10 | 2016-08-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automatically deriving context when extracting a business rule |
US20150149390A1 (en) * | 2013-11-25 | 2015-05-28 | Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated | Method and system for creating an intelligent digital self representation |
US9606903B2 (en) * | 2014-06-06 | 2017-03-28 | Paypal, Inc. | Unit test automation for business rules and applications |
US10469396B2 (en) | 2014-10-10 | 2019-11-05 | Pegasystems, Inc. | Event processing with enhanced throughput |
US10235686B2 (en) | 2014-10-30 | 2019-03-19 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | System forecasting and improvement using mean field |
US10540628B2 (en) * | 2015-09-17 | 2020-01-21 | International Business Machines Corporation | Hierarchical business rule model |
US10127264B1 (en) | 2015-09-17 | 2018-11-13 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | Techniques for automated data analysis |
US9760344B1 (en) | 2016-02-23 | 2017-09-12 | Bank Of America Corporation | Rules engine having an interactive, dual, side-by-side display |
CA3021724C (en) * | 2016-04-19 | 2024-01-02 | Cognitive Seeds Llc | Cloud-based system and method to track and manage objects |
WO2021030578A1 (en) | 2019-08-14 | 2021-02-18 | Sundel Michael B | Cloud-based system and method to track and manage objects |
US10698599B2 (en) | 2016-06-03 | 2020-06-30 | Pegasystems, Inc. | Connecting graphical shapes using gestures |
US10698647B2 (en) | 2016-07-11 | 2020-06-30 | Pegasystems Inc. | Selective sharing for collaborative application usage |
US10120652B2 (en) * | 2017-02-16 | 2018-11-06 | Wipro Limited | System and method for representing software development requirements into standard diagrams |
US10782960B2 (en) * | 2017-06-06 | 2020-09-22 | Ab Initio Technology Llc | User interface that integrates plural client portals in plural user interface portions through sharing of one or more log records |
US10757169B2 (en) | 2018-05-25 | 2020-08-25 | Model N, Inc. | Selective master data transport |
US11048488B2 (en) | 2018-08-14 | 2021-06-29 | Pegasystems, Inc. | Software code optimizer and method |
US20210055716A1 (en) * | 2019-08-20 | 2021-02-25 | Gafcon, Inc. | Data harmonization across building lifecycle |
US11132181B1 (en) | 2020-07-30 | 2021-09-28 | International Business Machines Corporation | Computer enhanced and automatic computer-generated integrated development environment reconfiguration |
US11567945B1 (en) | 2020-08-27 | 2023-01-31 | Pegasystems Inc. | Customized digital content generation systems and methods |
US11568350B2 (en) | 2020-09-30 | 2023-01-31 | Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions Holdings Corporation | Retail user interface for dynamic behavior configuration |
Citations (62)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US580225A (en) * | 1897-04-06 | Metal-polish | ||
US4941102A (en) * | 1988-09-16 | 1990-07-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Two-step debugger for expert systems |
US4959799A (en) * | 1987-11-05 | 1990-09-25 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Inference method and system |
US5259066A (en) * | 1990-04-16 | 1993-11-02 | Schmidt Richard Q | Associative program control |
US5418957A (en) * | 1992-03-09 | 1995-05-23 | Narayan; Rom | Network data dictionary |
US5668978A (en) * | 1992-11-09 | 1997-09-16 | Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. | Apparatus and method for synthesizing program specification from independent sets of tables |
US5745901A (en) * | 1994-11-08 | 1998-04-28 | Kodak Limited | Workflow initiated by graphical symbols |
US5754857A (en) * | 1995-12-08 | 1998-05-19 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Distributed asynchronous workflow on the net |
US5802253A (en) * | 1991-10-04 | 1998-09-01 | Banyan Systems Incorporated | Event-driven rule-based messaging system |
US5826250A (en) * | 1996-06-19 | 1998-10-20 | Pegasystems Inc. | Rules bases and methods of access thereof |
US5844554A (en) * | 1996-09-17 | 1998-12-01 | Bt Squared Technologies, Inc. | Methods and systems for user interfaces and constraint handling configurations software |
US5870719A (en) * | 1996-07-03 | 1999-02-09 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Platform-independent, usage-independent, and access-independent distributed quote configuraton system |
US5875330A (en) * | 1994-02-28 | 1999-02-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Tool for defining complex systems |
US5886693A (en) * | 1995-10-20 | 1999-03-23 | Araxsys, Inc. | Method and apparatus for processing data across a computer network |
US5915115A (en) * | 1993-02-11 | 1999-06-22 | Talati; Kirit K. | Control system and method for direct execution of software application information models without code generation |
US5918210A (en) * | 1996-06-07 | 1999-06-29 | Electronic Data Systems Corporation | Business query tool, using policy objects to provide query responses |
US5917489A (en) * | 1997-01-31 | 1999-06-29 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for creating, editing, and distributing rules for processing electronic messages |
US6016477A (en) * | 1997-12-18 | 2000-01-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for identifying applicable business rules |
US6041312A (en) * | 1997-03-28 | 2000-03-21 | International Business Machines Corporation | Object oriented technology framework for accounts receivable and accounts payable |
US6041213A (en) * | 1997-11-28 | 2000-03-21 | Nec Corporation | Compact image forming apparatus capable of smooth double side printing in a short time |
US6067531A (en) * | 1998-07-21 | 2000-05-23 | Mci Communications Corporation | Automated contract negotiator/generation system and method |
US6115686A (en) * | 1998-04-02 | 2000-09-05 | Industrial Technology Research Institute | Hyper text mark up language document to speech converter |
US6148290A (en) * | 1998-09-04 | 2000-11-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Service contract for managing service systems |
US6199047B1 (en) * | 1997-12-31 | 2001-03-06 | Csg Systems, Inc. | Apparatus and method for an event rating engine |
US6249905B1 (en) * | 1998-01-16 | 2001-06-19 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Computerized accounting system implemented in an object-oriented programming environment |
US6272482B1 (en) * | 1998-08-14 | 2001-08-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Managing business rules using jurisdictions |
US6275848B1 (en) * | 1997-05-21 | 2001-08-14 | International Business Machines Corp. | Method and apparatus for automated referencing of electronic information |
US6314415B1 (en) * | 1998-11-04 | 2001-11-06 | Cch Incorporated | Automated forms publishing system and method using a rule-based expert system to dynamically generate a graphical user interface |
US6330711B1 (en) * | 1998-07-30 | 2001-12-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for dynamic application and maintenance of programs |
US6341369B1 (en) * | 1998-12-03 | 2002-01-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and data processing system for specifying and applying rules to classification-based decision points in an application system |
US6389588B1 (en) * | 1999-02-04 | 2002-05-14 | Relativity Technologies | Method and system of business rule extraction from existing applications for integration into new applications |
US6453356B1 (en) * | 1998-04-15 | 2002-09-17 | Adc Telecommunications, Inc. | Data exchange system and method |
US6456986B1 (en) * | 1998-07-29 | 2002-09-24 | American Management Systems, Incorporated | Decision network based event pricing system in a component based, object oriented convergent customer care and billing system |
US6473748B1 (en) * | 1998-08-31 | 2002-10-29 | Worldcom, Inc. | System for implementing rules |
US6484149B1 (en) * | 1997-10-10 | 2002-11-19 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for viewing product information, and methods for generating web pages |
US6487566B1 (en) * | 1998-10-05 | 2002-11-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Transforming documents using pattern matching and a replacement language |
US6523027B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-02-18 | Accenture Llp | Interfacing servers in a Java based e-commerce architecture |
US6532465B2 (en) * | 1998-03-12 | 2003-03-11 | Bruce Hartley | Operational system for operating on client defined rules |
US6601233B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-07-29 | Accenture Llp | Business components framework |
US6609128B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-08-19 | Accenture Llp | Codes table framework design in an E-commerce architecture |
US6620204B1 (en) * | 1997-11-25 | 2003-09-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automated HTML test page and test data generation for javascript objects |
US6633878B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-10-14 | Accenture Llp | Initializing an ecommerce database framework |
US6640249B1 (en) * | 1999-08-31 | 2003-10-28 | Accenture Llp | Presentation services patterns in a netcentric environment |
US6662164B1 (en) * | 1998-05-19 | 2003-12-09 | Trilogy Development Group, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining commission |
US6714928B1 (en) * | 1999-03-19 | 2004-03-30 | Sybase, Inc. | Development system providing HTML database control object |
US6718535B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2004-04-06 | Accenture Llp | System, method and article of manufacture for an activity framework design in an e-commerce based environment |
US6744761B1 (en) * | 1998-12-28 | 2004-06-01 | Nortel Networks Limited | Workflow manager |
US6745381B1 (en) * | 1997-12-12 | 2004-06-01 | International Business Machines Coroporation | Method and apparatus for annotating static object models with business rules |
US6745382B1 (en) * | 2000-04-13 | 2004-06-01 | Worldcom, Inc. | CORBA wrappers for rules automation technology |
US6751657B1 (en) * | 1999-12-21 | 2004-06-15 | Worldcom, Inc. | System and method for notification subscription filtering based on user role |
US6754886B1 (en) * | 1998-11-30 | 2004-06-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for storing java objects in devices having a reduced support of high-level programming concepts |
US6775658B1 (en) * | 1999-12-21 | 2004-08-10 | Mci, Inc. | Notification by business rule trigger control |
US6789252B1 (en) * | 1999-04-15 | 2004-09-07 | Miles D. Burke | Building business objects and business software applications using dynamic object definitions of ingrediential objects |
US6810429B1 (en) * | 2000-02-03 | 2004-10-26 | Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc. | Enterprise integration system |
US6826579B1 (en) * | 1999-02-06 | 2004-11-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Generating event-condition-action rules from process models |
US6850922B1 (en) * | 2000-07-14 | 2005-02-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | Business logic support |
US6851105B1 (en) * | 1999-10-05 | 2005-02-01 | Borland Software Corporation | Method and system for generating, applying, and defining a pattern |
US6853994B1 (en) * | 2000-08-30 | 2005-02-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Object oriented based, business class methodology for performing data metric analysis |
US6898783B1 (en) * | 2000-08-03 | 2005-05-24 | International Business Machines Corporation | Object oriented based methodology for modeling business functionality for enabling implementation in a web based environment |
US6970844B1 (en) * | 1999-08-27 | 2005-11-29 | Computer Sciences Corporation | Flow designer for establishing and maintaining assignment and strategy process maps |
US7254584B1 (en) * | 2000-05-17 | 2007-08-07 | Aol Llc | Relationship-based inherited attributes system |
US7340406B1 (en) * | 2000-09-21 | 2008-03-04 | Netscape Communications Corporation | Business rules system |
Family Cites Families (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
EP0525258A1 (en) * | 1991-07-29 | 1993-02-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Generation of rules-based computer programs |
CA2176164A1 (en) * | 1995-05-19 | 1996-11-20 | Hosagrahar Visvesvaraya Jagadish | Method for managing rule conflicts in active rule-based systems |
US5802255A (en) * | 1995-06-23 | 1998-09-01 | The United States Of America As Represented By The Administrator Of The National Aeronautics And Space Administration | System and method for creating expert systems |
-
2001
- 2001-11-26 US US09/994,477 patent/US7020869B2/en not_active Expired - Lifetime
- 2001-11-29 AU AU2002228679A patent/AU2002228679A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2001-11-29 EP EP01989800A patent/EP1337952A4/en not_active Withdrawn
- 2001-11-29 WO PCT/US2001/044892 patent/WO2002044854A2/en not_active Application Discontinuation
-
2006
- 2006-02-06 US US11/350,448 patent/US20060129978A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (63)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US580225A (en) * | 1897-04-06 | Metal-polish | ||
US4959799A (en) * | 1987-11-05 | 1990-09-25 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Inference method and system |
US4941102A (en) * | 1988-09-16 | 1990-07-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Two-step debugger for expert systems |
US5259066A (en) * | 1990-04-16 | 1993-11-02 | Schmidt Richard Q | Associative program control |
US5802253A (en) * | 1991-10-04 | 1998-09-01 | Banyan Systems Incorporated | Event-driven rule-based messaging system |
US5418957A (en) * | 1992-03-09 | 1995-05-23 | Narayan; Rom | Network data dictionary |
US5668978A (en) * | 1992-11-09 | 1997-09-16 | Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. | Apparatus and method for synthesizing program specification from independent sets of tables |
US5915115A (en) * | 1993-02-11 | 1999-06-22 | Talati; Kirit K. | Control system and method for direct execution of software application information models without code generation |
US5875330A (en) * | 1994-02-28 | 1999-02-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Tool for defining complex systems |
US5745901A (en) * | 1994-11-08 | 1998-04-28 | Kodak Limited | Workflow initiated by graphical symbols |
US5886693A (en) * | 1995-10-20 | 1999-03-23 | Araxsys, Inc. | Method and apparatus for processing data across a computer network |
US5754857A (en) * | 1995-12-08 | 1998-05-19 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Distributed asynchronous workflow on the net |
US5918210A (en) * | 1996-06-07 | 1999-06-29 | Electronic Data Systems Corporation | Business query tool, using policy objects to provide query responses |
US5826250A (en) * | 1996-06-19 | 1998-10-20 | Pegasystems Inc. | Rules bases and methods of access thereof |
US5870719A (en) * | 1996-07-03 | 1999-02-09 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Platform-independent, usage-independent, and access-independent distributed quote configuraton system |
US5844554A (en) * | 1996-09-17 | 1998-12-01 | Bt Squared Technologies, Inc. | Methods and systems for user interfaces and constraint handling configurations software |
US5917489A (en) * | 1997-01-31 | 1999-06-29 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for creating, editing, and distributing rules for processing electronic messages |
US6057841A (en) * | 1997-01-31 | 2000-05-02 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for processing electronic messages with rules representing a combination of conditions, actions or exceptions |
US6041312A (en) * | 1997-03-28 | 2000-03-21 | International Business Machines Corporation | Object oriented technology framework for accounts receivable and accounts payable |
US6275848B1 (en) * | 1997-05-21 | 2001-08-14 | International Business Machines Corp. | Method and apparatus for automated referencing of electronic information |
US6484149B1 (en) * | 1997-10-10 | 2002-11-19 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for viewing product information, and methods for generating web pages |
US6620204B1 (en) * | 1997-11-25 | 2003-09-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automated HTML test page and test data generation for javascript objects |
US6041213A (en) * | 1997-11-28 | 2000-03-21 | Nec Corporation | Compact image forming apparatus capable of smooth double side printing in a short time |
US6745381B1 (en) * | 1997-12-12 | 2004-06-01 | International Business Machines Coroporation | Method and apparatus for annotating static object models with business rules |
US6016477A (en) * | 1997-12-18 | 2000-01-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for identifying applicable business rules |
US6199047B1 (en) * | 1997-12-31 | 2001-03-06 | Csg Systems, Inc. | Apparatus and method for an event rating engine |
US6249905B1 (en) * | 1998-01-16 | 2001-06-19 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Computerized accounting system implemented in an object-oriented programming environment |
US6532465B2 (en) * | 1998-03-12 | 2003-03-11 | Bruce Hartley | Operational system for operating on client defined rules |
US6115686A (en) * | 1998-04-02 | 2000-09-05 | Industrial Technology Research Institute | Hyper text mark up language document to speech converter |
US6453356B1 (en) * | 1998-04-15 | 2002-09-17 | Adc Telecommunications, Inc. | Data exchange system and method |
US6662164B1 (en) * | 1998-05-19 | 2003-12-09 | Trilogy Development Group, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining commission |
US6067531A (en) * | 1998-07-21 | 2000-05-23 | Mci Communications Corporation | Automated contract negotiator/generation system and method |
US6456986B1 (en) * | 1998-07-29 | 2002-09-24 | American Management Systems, Incorporated | Decision network based event pricing system in a component based, object oriented convergent customer care and billing system |
US6330711B1 (en) * | 1998-07-30 | 2001-12-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for dynamic application and maintenance of programs |
US6272482B1 (en) * | 1998-08-14 | 2001-08-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Managing business rules using jurisdictions |
US6473748B1 (en) * | 1998-08-31 | 2002-10-29 | Worldcom, Inc. | System for implementing rules |
US6148290A (en) * | 1998-09-04 | 2000-11-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Service contract for managing service systems |
US6487566B1 (en) * | 1998-10-05 | 2002-11-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Transforming documents using pattern matching and a replacement language |
US6314415B1 (en) * | 1998-11-04 | 2001-11-06 | Cch Incorporated | Automated forms publishing system and method using a rule-based expert system to dynamically generate a graphical user interface |
US6754886B1 (en) * | 1998-11-30 | 2004-06-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for storing java objects in devices having a reduced support of high-level programming concepts |
US6341369B1 (en) * | 1998-12-03 | 2002-01-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and data processing system for specifying and applying rules to classification-based decision points in an application system |
US6744761B1 (en) * | 1998-12-28 | 2004-06-01 | Nortel Networks Limited | Workflow manager |
US6389588B1 (en) * | 1999-02-04 | 2002-05-14 | Relativity Technologies | Method and system of business rule extraction from existing applications for integration into new applications |
US6826579B1 (en) * | 1999-02-06 | 2004-11-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Generating event-condition-action rules from process models |
US6714928B1 (en) * | 1999-03-19 | 2004-03-30 | Sybase, Inc. | Development system providing HTML database control object |
US6789252B1 (en) * | 1999-04-15 | 2004-09-07 | Miles D. Burke | Building business objects and business software applications using dynamic object definitions of ingrediential objects |
US6718535B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2004-04-06 | Accenture Llp | System, method and article of manufacture for an activity framework design in an e-commerce based environment |
US6633878B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-10-14 | Accenture Llp | Initializing an ecommerce database framework |
US6523027B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-02-18 | Accenture Llp | Interfacing servers in a Java based e-commerce architecture |
US6609128B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-08-19 | Accenture Llp | Codes table framework design in an E-commerce architecture |
US6601233B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-07-29 | Accenture Llp | Business components framework |
US6970844B1 (en) * | 1999-08-27 | 2005-11-29 | Computer Sciences Corporation | Flow designer for establishing and maintaining assignment and strategy process maps |
US6640249B1 (en) * | 1999-08-31 | 2003-10-28 | Accenture Llp | Presentation services patterns in a netcentric environment |
US6851105B1 (en) * | 1999-10-05 | 2005-02-01 | Borland Software Corporation | Method and system for generating, applying, and defining a pattern |
US6751657B1 (en) * | 1999-12-21 | 2004-06-15 | Worldcom, Inc. | System and method for notification subscription filtering based on user role |
US6775658B1 (en) * | 1999-12-21 | 2004-08-10 | Mci, Inc. | Notification by business rule trigger control |
US6810429B1 (en) * | 2000-02-03 | 2004-10-26 | Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc. | Enterprise integration system |
US6745382B1 (en) * | 2000-04-13 | 2004-06-01 | Worldcom, Inc. | CORBA wrappers for rules automation technology |
US7254584B1 (en) * | 2000-05-17 | 2007-08-07 | Aol Llc | Relationship-based inherited attributes system |
US6850922B1 (en) * | 2000-07-14 | 2005-02-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | Business logic support |
US6898783B1 (en) * | 2000-08-03 | 2005-05-24 | International Business Machines Corporation | Object oriented based methodology for modeling business functionality for enabling implementation in a web based environment |
US6853994B1 (en) * | 2000-08-30 | 2005-02-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Object oriented based, business class methodology for performing data metric analysis |
US7340406B1 (en) * | 2000-09-21 | 2008-03-04 | Netscape Communications Corporation | Business rules system |
Non-Patent Citations (5)
Title |
---|
Grosof et al. "A declarative approach to business rules in contracts: courteous logic programs in XML", 1999, EC '99 Proceedings of the 1st ACM conference on Electronic commerce, pages 68-77. * |
ILOG, "ILOG Rules Creating Intelligent Applications", November 10, 1999, retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/19991110182548/http://www.ilog.com/products/rules/intelligent.cfmhttps://web.archive.org/web/19991110182548/http://www.ilog.com/products/rules/intelligent.cfm. * |
ILOG, "ILOG Rules White Paper", 1997, retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/20000816161314/http://www.ilog.com/products/rules/whitepaper.pdf. * |
Krovvidy et al. "Business Rules for Automating Business Policy", 1999, American Association for Artificial Intelligence Technical Report WS-99-09. * |
Loveland et al. "Detecting Ambiguity: an Example in Knowledge Evaluation", 1983, IJCAI'83 Proceedings of the Eighth international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1, pages 182-184. * |
Cited By (137)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US7979856B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2011-07-12 | Microsoft Corporation | Network-based software extensions |
US7673227B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-03-02 | Microsoft Corporation | User interface for integrated spreadsheets and word processing tables |
US20050050088A1 (en) * | 2000-06-21 | 2005-03-03 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for integrating spreadsheets and word processing tables |
US7743063B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-06-22 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems for delivering software via a network |
US7779027B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-08-17 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods, systems, architectures and data structures for delivering software via a network |
US9507610B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2016-11-29 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Task-sensitive methods and systems for displaying command sets |
US7689929B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-03-30 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems of providing information to computer users |
US7900134B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2011-03-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Authoring arbitrary XML documents using DHTML and XSLT |
US8074217B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2011-12-06 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems for delivering software |
US7712048B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-05-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Task-sensitive methods and systems for displaying command sets |
US7818677B2 (en) | 2000-06-21 | 2010-10-19 | Microsoft Corporation | Single window navigation methods and systems |
US20040220815A1 (en) * | 2000-08-18 | 2004-11-04 | Johanne Belanger | Apparatus and method for the compilation, assembly, and distribution of product documentation and associated information |
US20040225995A1 (en) * | 2003-02-28 | 2004-11-11 | Kyle Marvin | Reusable software controls |
US8918729B2 (en) | 2003-03-24 | 2014-12-23 | Microsoft Corporation | Designing electronic forms |
US8117552B2 (en) | 2003-03-24 | 2012-02-14 | Microsoft Corporation | Incrementally designing electronic forms and hierarchical schemas |
US7925621B2 (en) | 2003-03-24 | 2011-04-12 | Microsoft Corporation | Installing a solution |
US7865477B2 (en) | 2003-03-28 | 2011-01-04 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for real-time validation of structured data files |
US7913159B2 (en) | 2003-03-28 | 2011-03-22 | Microsoft Corporation | System and method for real-time validation of structured data files |
US9229917B2 (en) | 2003-03-28 | 2016-01-05 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Electronic form user interfaces |
US20040205200A1 (en) * | 2003-04-08 | 2004-10-14 | Nikhil Kothari | Integrating online community and program development environments |
US7395312B2 (en) * | 2003-04-08 | 2008-07-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Integrating online community and program development environments |
US8078960B2 (en) | 2003-06-30 | 2011-12-13 | Microsoft Corporation | Rendering an HTML electronic form by applying XSLT to XML using a solution |
US9239821B2 (en) | 2003-08-01 | 2016-01-19 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Translation file |
US8892993B2 (en) | 2003-08-01 | 2014-11-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Translation file |
US7971139B2 (en) | 2003-08-06 | 2011-06-28 | Microsoft Corporation | Correlation, association, or correspondence of electronic forms |
US8429522B2 (en) | 2003-08-06 | 2013-04-23 | Microsoft Corporation | Correlation, association, or correspondence of electronic forms |
US9268760B2 (en) | 2003-08-06 | 2016-02-23 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Correlation, association, or correspondence of electronic forms |
US8819072B1 (en) | 2004-02-02 | 2014-08-26 | Microsoft Corporation | Promoting data from structured data files |
US7676843B1 (en) | 2004-05-27 | 2010-03-09 | Microsoft Corporation | Executing applications at appropriate trust levels |
US7774620B1 (en) | 2004-05-27 | 2010-08-10 | Microsoft Corporation | Executing applications at appropriate trust levels |
US8655756B2 (en) | 2004-06-04 | 2014-02-18 | Sap Ag | Consistent set of interfaces derived from a business object model |
US20060085336A1 (en) * | 2004-06-04 | 2006-04-20 | Michael Seubert | Consistent set of interfaces derived from a business object model |
US7692636B2 (en) | 2004-09-30 | 2010-04-06 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for handwriting to a screen |
US20060100991A1 (en) * | 2004-10-21 | 2006-05-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for dynamical determination of actions to perform on a selected item in a web portal GUI environment |
US8487879B2 (en) | 2004-10-29 | 2013-07-16 | Microsoft Corporation | Systems and methods for interacting with a computer through handwriting to a screen |
US20140047406A1 (en) * | 2004-11-15 | 2014-02-13 | Peter Ar-Fu Lam | Path driven programming method and programming tool |
US7712022B2 (en) | 2004-11-15 | 2010-05-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Mutually exclusive options in electronic forms |
US9459838B2 (en) * | 2004-11-15 | 2016-10-04 | Peter Ar-Fu Lam | Path driven programming method and programming tool |
US7721190B2 (en) | 2004-11-16 | 2010-05-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems for server side form processing |
US20060168527A1 (en) * | 2004-11-16 | 2006-07-27 | Microsoft Corporation | Methods and systems for exchanging and rendering forms |
US7904801B2 (en) | 2004-12-15 | 2011-03-08 | Microsoft Corporation | Recursive sections in electronic forms |
US7937651B2 (en) | 2005-01-14 | 2011-05-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Structural editing operations for network forms |
US7725834B2 (en) | 2005-03-04 | 2010-05-25 | Microsoft Corporation | Designer-created aspect for an electronic form template |
US8200975B2 (en) | 2005-06-29 | 2012-06-12 | Microsoft Corporation | Digital signatures for network forms |
US8001459B2 (en) | 2005-12-05 | 2011-08-16 | Microsoft Corporation | Enabling electronic documents for limited-capability computing devices |
US9210234B2 (en) | 2005-12-05 | 2015-12-08 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Enabling electronic documents for limited-capability computing devices |
US8660904B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2014-02-25 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for service request and order management application software |
US8402426B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-03-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for make to stock application software |
US20070174068A1 (en) * | 2005-12-30 | 2007-07-26 | Shai Alfandary | Architectural design for physical inventory application software |
US8407664B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-03-26 | Sap Ag | Software model business objects |
US8380553B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-02-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for plan-driven procurement application software |
US8396731B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-03-12 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for service procurement application software |
US8522194B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-08-27 | Sap Ag | Software modeling |
US8370794B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-02-05 | Sap Ag | Software model process component |
US8321831B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for internal projects application software |
US8676617B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2014-03-18 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for self-service procurement application software |
US20080275713A9 (en) * | 2005-12-30 | 2008-11-06 | Shai Alfandary | Architectural design for physical inventory application software |
US8316344B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2012-11-20 | Sap Ag | Software model deployment units |
US8448137B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2013-05-21 | Sap Ag | Software model integration scenarios |
US8327319B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2012-12-04 | Sap Ag | Software model process interaction |
US20070186209A1 (en) * | 2005-12-30 | 2007-08-09 | Stefan Kaetker | Software modeling |
US20070220046A1 (en) * | 2005-12-30 | 2007-09-20 | Gerd Moosmann | Software model business objects |
US8326703B2 (en) | 2005-12-30 | 2012-12-04 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for product catalog management application software |
US8442850B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-05-14 | Sap Ag | Providing accounting software application as enterprise services |
US8538864B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-09-17 | Sap Ag | Providing payment software application as enterprise services |
US8326702B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2012-12-04 | Sap Ag | Providing supplier relationship management software application as enterprise services |
US8396749B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-03-12 | Sap Ag | Providing customer relationship management application as enterprise services |
US8396761B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-03-12 | Sap Ag | Providing product catalog software application as enterprise services |
US8438119B2 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2013-05-07 | Sap Ag | Foundation layer for services based enterprise software architecture |
US8321832B2 (en) | 2006-03-31 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Composite application modeling |
US8312416B2 (en) * | 2006-04-13 | 2012-11-13 | Sap Ag | Software model business process variant types |
US20080243852A1 (en) * | 2007-03-26 | 2008-10-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and Methods for Enabling Collaboration in Online Enterprise Applications |
WO2008124156A1 (en) * | 2007-04-09 | 2008-10-16 | Enterra Strategies, Llc | Creating deployable software for implementing a business process using a library of preconfigured processes |
US20080301078A1 (en) * | 2007-05-31 | 2008-12-04 | Mark Proctor | Method and apparatus to abstract away rule languages |
US8418135B2 (en) * | 2007-05-31 | 2013-04-09 | Red Hat, Inc. | Method and apparatus to abstract away rule languages |
US20090018811A1 (en) * | 2007-07-09 | 2009-01-15 | International Business Machines Corporation | Generation of test cases for functional testing of applications |
US8683446B2 (en) * | 2007-07-09 | 2014-03-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Generation of test cases for functional testing of applications |
US20090063382A1 (en) * | 2007-08-31 | 2009-03-05 | Mark Proctor | Pluggable dialects for a rule engine |
US7904402B2 (en) * | 2007-08-31 | 2011-03-08 | Red Hat, Inc. | Pluggable dialects for a rule engine |
US20090063224A1 (en) * | 2007-09-04 | 2009-03-05 | Ravi Prakash Gorthi | Integrated and platform independent approach to modeling of business rules using business and application domain ontologies |
US20090164971A1 (en) * | 2007-12-19 | 2009-06-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Convention Based UML Modeling Tool |
US8510143B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2013-08-13 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for ad-hoc goods movement software |
US20090171811A1 (en) * | 2007-12-31 | 2009-07-02 | Peter Markus A | Architectural Design For Product Catalog Management Application Software |
US8671034B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2014-03-11 | Sap Ag | Providing human capital management software application as enterprise services |
US8401936B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2013-03-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for expense reimbursement application software |
US8671032B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2014-03-11 | Sap Ag | Providing payment software application as enterprise services |
US20090171716A1 (en) * | 2007-12-31 | 2009-07-02 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for personnel events application software |
US8671033B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2014-03-11 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for personnel events application software |
US8315900B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2012-11-20 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for self-service procurement application software |
US8447657B2 (en) | 2007-12-31 | 2013-05-21 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for service procurement application software |
US8407663B2 (en) * | 2008-04-01 | 2013-03-26 | Microsoft Corporation | Upgrading simple applications to full scale solutions |
US20090249280A1 (en) * | 2008-04-01 | 2009-10-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Upgrading simple applications to full scale solutions |
US8352904B2 (en) | 2008-06-24 | 2013-01-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Early defect removal model |
US20090319984A1 (en) * | 2008-06-24 | 2009-12-24 | Internaional Business Machines Corporation | Early defect removal model |
US8818884B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2014-08-26 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for customer returns handling application software |
US8380549B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-02-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for embedded support application software |
US8359218B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-01-22 | Sap Ag | Computer readable medium for implementing supply chain control using service-oriented methodology |
US8321250B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for sell from stock application software |
US8401928B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-03-19 | Sap Ag | Providing supplier relationship management software application as enterprise services |
US8315926B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2012-11-20 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for tax declaration application software |
US8595077B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-11-26 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for service request and order management application software |
US8352338B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-01-08 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for time recording application software |
US8374896B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-02-12 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for opportunity management application software |
US8386325B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2013-02-26 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for plan-driven procurement application software |
US20100070395A1 (en) * | 2008-09-18 | 2010-03-18 | Andreas Elkeles | Architectural design for payroll processing application software |
US8326706B2 (en) | 2008-09-18 | 2012-12-04 | Sap Ag | Providing logistics execution application as enterprise services |
US8332870B2 (en) * | 2008-09-30 | 2012-12-11 | Accenture Global Services Limited | Adapter services |
US20100082689A1 (en) * | 2008-09-30 | 2010-04-01 | Accenture Global Services Gmbh | Adapter services |
US8321306B2 (en) | 2008-12-03 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for selling project-based services application software |
US20100138257A1 (en) * | 2008-12-03 | 2010-06-03 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for selling standardized services application software |
US8738476B2 (en) | 2008-12-03 | 2014-05-27 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for selling standardized services application software |
US8401908B2 (en) | 2008-12-03 | 2013-03-19 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for make-to-specification application software |
US8311904B2 (en) | 2008-12-03 | 2012-11-13 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for intra-company stock transfer application software |
US8321308B2 (en) | 2008-12-03 | 2012-11-27 | Sap Ag | Architectural design for manual invoicing application software |
US8671035B2 (en) | 2008-12-11 | 2014-03-11 | Sap Ag | Providing payroll software application as enterprise services |
US10878358B2 (en) | 2009-02-26 | 2020-12-29 | Oracle International Corporation | Techniques for semantic business policy composition |
US10685312B2 (en) * | 2009-02-26 | 2020-06-16 | Oracle International Corporation | Techniques for semantic business policy composition |
US20110035732A1 (en) * | 2009-08-06 | 2011-02-10 | Wynne Crisman | Method and apparatus for defining and compiling or converting language and user interface system agnostic view definitions to runnable code |
US9313106B2 (en) | 2010-03-19 | 2016-04-12 | Nokia Technologies Oy | Method and apparatus for populating ad landing spots |
US20120102421A1 (en) * | 2010-10-22 | 2012-04-26 | Bigmachines, Inc. | Methods and apparatus for specifying and applying business rules in a product configurator |
US20130018682A1 (en) * | 2011-07-14 | 2013-01-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | Managing Processes In An Enterprise Intelligence ('EI') Assembly Of An EI Framework |
US9639815B2 (en) * | 2011-07-14 | 2017-05-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | Managing processes in an enterprise intelligence (‘EI’) assembly of an EI framework |
US9646278B2 (en) | 2011-07-14 | 2017-05-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Decomposing a process model in an enterprise intelligence (‘EI’) framework |
US9659266B2 (en) | 2011-07-14 | 2017-05-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Enterprise intelligence (‘EI’) management in an EI framework |
US20130018695A1 (en) * | 2011-07-14 | 2013-01-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | Enterprise Intelligence ('EI') Assembly Analysis In An EI Framework |
US11676090B2 (en) | 2011-11-29 | 2023-06-13 | Model N, Inc. | Enhanced multi-component object-based design, computation, and evaluation |
US8892499B2 (en) * | 2011-12-30 | 2014-11-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Life cycle management of rule sets |
US20130173527A1 (en) * | 2011-12-30 | 2013-07-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | Life Cycle Management Of Rule Sets |
US20130179798A1 (en) * | 2012-01-06 | 2013-07-11 | Microsoft Corporation | Application dissemination and feedback |
WO2014074116A1 (en) * | 2012-11-12 | 2014-05-15 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Assimilating business rules |
US10373066B2 (en) * | 2012-12-21 | 2019-08-06 | Model N. Inc. | Simplified product configuration using table-based rules, rule conflict resolution through voting, and efficient model compilation |
US10776705B2 (en) | 2012-12-21 | 2020-09-15 | Model N, Inc. | Rule assignments and templating |
US11074643B1 (en) | 2012-12-21 | 2021-07-27 | Model N, Inc. | Method and systems for efficient product navigation and product configuration |
US20150186823A1 (en) * | 2013-12-26 | 2015-07-02 | Infosys Limited | Methods, systems and computer-readable media for componentizing a business requirement |
US10534504B2 (en) * | 2015-09-24 | 2020-01-14 | Casio Computer Co., Ltd. | Sales data processing apparatus and sales data processing method |
US20170090697A1 (en) * | 2015-09-24 | 2017-03-30 | Casio Computer Co., Ltd. | Sales data processing apparatus and sales data processing method |
US20210073655A1 (en) * | 2019-09-11 | 2021-03-11 | Sap Se | Rule mining for rule and logic statement development |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US20020120917A1 (en) | 2002-08-29 |
AU2002228679A1 (en) | 2002-06-11 |
WO2002044854A2 (en) | 2002-06-06 |
EP1337952A2 (en) | 2003-08-27 |
EP1337952A4 (en) | 2006-12-06 |
US7020869B2 (en) | 2006-03-28 |
WO2002044854A3 (en) | 2002-09-12 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US7020869B2 (en) | Business rules user interface for development of adaptable enterprise applications | |
Naujokat et al. | CINCO: a simplicity-driven approach to full generation of domain-specific graphical modeling tools | |
US7171646B2 (en) | Generating source code for object oriented elements with language neutral transient meta model and correlating display of names, symbols and code | |
US7917890B2 (en) | Enterprise-scale application development framework utilizing code generation | |
US9916134B2 (en) | Methods and systems for accessing distributed computing components through the internet | |
US7051316B2 (en) | Distributed computing component system with diagrammatic graphical representation of code with separate delineated display area by type | |
US7080350B2 (en) | Method for developing Web applications, development support system and storage medium for storing programs developed according to the method | |
US6701381B2 (en) | Data processing system and development method | |
US6993710B1 (en) | Method and system for displaying changes of source code | |
US20020112225A1 (en) | Methods and systems for animating the interaction of objects in an object oriented program | |
Turau | A framework for automatic generation of web-based data entry applications based on XML | |
Sanchez et al. | Towards a clean architecture for android apps using model transformations | |
AU2014100798A4 (en) | A visual role and transition based method and system for developing complex web applications | |
Zadahmad et al. | Domain-specific model differencing in visual concrete syntax | |
Seidl et al. | Generative software product line development using variability-aware design patterns | |
Kulkarni | Model driven development of business applications: a practitioner's perspective | |
Kennard et al. | Separation anxiety: stresses of developing a modern day separable user interface | |
Van Gorp et al. | CAViT: a consistency maintenance framework based on transformation contracts | |
Rath et al. | Declarative specification of domain specific visual languages | |
Mohan et al. | Model driven development of graphical user interfaces for enterprise business applications–experience, lessons learnt and a way forward | |
Barzdins et al. | Metamodel Specialization for Graphical Language and Editor Definition. | |
Fuksa | Redesigning the Hamster Simulation | |
Rintala | Architecture design of a configuration management system | |
Ráth | Event-driven model transformations in domain-specific modeling languages | |
Martín et al. | A KDM-Based Approach for Architecture Conformance Checking in Adaptive Systems |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: CORTICON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., CALIFORNIA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:ABRARI, PEDRAM;ALLEN, MARK J.F.;REEL/FRAME:020182/0714 Effective date: 20020110 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, MASSACHUSETTS Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:CORTICON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;REEL/FRAME:030350/0624 Effective date: 20130502 |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, NEW YORK Free format text: SECURITY INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:034504/0178 Effective date: 20141202 Owner name: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT Free format text: SECURITY INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:034504/0178 Effective date: 20141202 |