Data processing: database and file management or data structures – Database design – Data structure types
Reexamination Certificate
1998-10-21
2001-02-06
Von Buhr, Maria N. (Department: 2771)
Data processing: database and file management or data structures
Database design
Data structure types
C707S793000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06185576
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The exponential growth of information within an enterprise which is stored in individual document form has created a need for a reliable mechanism to purge individual documents when no longer legally or otherwise required, as well as locate them in an efficient manner.
In an age when the growth of information contained within documents has been exponential, a missing element is the ability to determine the proper life cycle for a document, and thus, make it possible for the document to be purged on a scheduled basis. However, to safely accomplish this purging process, a document management system typically requires that a significant amount of detail be stored with the document.
Since all retention scheduling is based on the subject matter of a document, it is essential that the system identify the subject matter of all documents in a consistent manner. Additionally, the terms used to identify the subject matter must conform to the terms used in legislation to identify documents as well as the terminology in current use within the enterprise.
The present invention provides a reliable mechanism to accomplish this task.
In systems having this capability, the “type” of document must also be determined. Different types of documents within the same subject matter area may have different retention requirements. The system must be able to determine the type of document at the outset. This “type” information specifies whether a particular document is “official” or “informational” and whether it is also “vital” or “sensitive.” The type of document determines the level of protection afforded and has a direct impact on determining the life-cycle of the document. Additionally, document type impacts the decision as to the media selected to store it, whether electronic, paper or film.
Official documents are those documents identified in a retention schedule as having either administrative or legislative retention requirements. Properly, only official documents are subject to archiving.
Informational documents (largely copies) have their own destruction schedule based on need. They are not archived and their life cycle must not exceed official documents of the same subject. They are destroyed at the office level when their usefulness is over. Normally, informational documents have a substantially shorter life-cycle than official documents pertaining to the same subject.
Vital documents are those that are absolutely essential to the conduct of the enterprise and whose loss would be hugely expensive or would irrefutably damage continued operations.
Sensitive documents contain, for example:
1. Personnel information which provides confidential data.
2. Information that in the hands of a competitor could be used to embarrass or cast a bad image on the enterprise with its customers or the public.
3. Marketing, product development or corporate changes that could sabotage effectiveness.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
A system is disclosed for providing a true interlingual mechanism to achieve uniformity when classifying documents by subject to assist in the management, complying with retention requirements and long term storage of documents of an organization. In this connection, as used herein, the term document includes, without limitation, the hard copy and digitally stored version of the output of a computer program such as a wordprocessor, microfilm or microfiche, correspondence of all types and office folders which themselves may contain documents. Although not a document by this definition, objects such as furniture and the like may also be classified by creating a label (in this case, the document) which contains all of the relevant classification information for the object. Using generic terminology in a hierarchical structure, use of the system directs a user of the system to a single classification for any document. The system captures acronyms, vernacular and industry specific terms, as well as foreign terms, into a thesaurus that can be modified and appended as classification needs change. The system learns as synonyms are added to the hierarchical structure capturing differences in individual perception.
Legislative terminology describes document retention requirements by subject. In this connection, two major issues exist:
1. Documents whose retention is covered by legislative requirements must be retained a prescribed period of time, after a certain event takes place, e.g., after an audit is completed, when the document is superseded, when its purpose has been completed (such as a contract) and for certain corporate documents).
2. Legal penalties exist, including fines, where purging of documents occurs before their legal requirements have been met. On the other hand, retaining documents longer than their legal requirement can have both a “sword and a shield” effect where litigation is concerned.
With billions of documents being filed every day, the volume of documents subject to legislative retention offer additional justification for a system that makes retrieval inexpensive and predictable. Current practices involving the classification of documents make it difficult to identify documents by subject. However, retention legislation identifies documents by subject.
Accordingly, all documents must be identified by subject and ultimately destroyed consistently with the enterprise's official retention schedule.
In most cases legislation is silent as to the specific media to be used to “house” a document, This means that legislative retention requirements apply to all media. For example, if the paper document is destroyed and it continues to exist on magnetic media, the retention schedule is not effective and is not being enforced. This invention provides a reliable structure to accomplish compliance with all legislative retention requirements.
In addition to classifying documents to ensure compliance with legislatively or other required retention schedules, as a bi-product, the invention includes the capability of searching for the location of a particular document. To use the system for the location of any particular document, a descriptive term is entered at a query prompt that the user believes best describes the subject matter of the document in question. If this entry results in a hit, all information pertaining to the document is then available to query. An example of a screen display in which such a query may be made is shown in FIG.
3
. For example, entry of a descriptive term produces a particular subject classification (i.e., a class code as described below).
For a typical user, there is just a small set of documents within his or her responsibility. Thus, once within this relatively small set of documents, if only those assigned a particular class code are deemed to be “hits,” the user is able to easily select the correct document from the set of hits. For users whose responsibility includes a large set of documents such that it would not be feasible to select a desired document from a list of documents assigned a particular class code hit list, a full range of attribute filters would be available to narrow the hits. Examples of such attribute filters include location (physical location such as file cabinet or work station), acronym (class codes, alpha and/or numeric references, i.e., form numbers, department IDs), organizational unit (cost center number, department number), subject description (i.e., class code), label description (e.g., three line description for a particular tangible asset as shown in FIG.
1
. If the entry term does not find a match in the hierarchical structure, the system will search a synonym database for a match. If the search of the synonym database also does not yield the desired document, it must be concluded that the desired document has not been classified.
By arranging terms from the general to the specific in a consistent classification format, the system is able to specify a physical location for a hard copy of a document by office, box, draw and folder, or of a document on magnetic or similar media by diskette lo
Blakely & Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman
Von Buhr Maria N.
LandOfFree
Defining a uniform subject classification system... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Defining a uniform subject classification system..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Defining a uniform subject classification system... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2560703