Comparing a configuration diagram to an actual system

Details Comparing a configuration diagram to an actual system Comparing a configuration diagram to an actual system

2011-07-26

2011-07-26

Rutten, James D (Department: 2192)

Data processing: software development, installation, and managem

Software program development tool

Modeling

C345S630000, C715S771000, C717S172000, C717S177000

Reexamination Certificate

active

07987445

ABSTRACT:
System and method for determining differences and/or matches between a configuration diagram and an actual system. First information is received regarding a configuration diagram comprising a first plurality of nodes and graphically representing a first system, and second information is received regarding an actual system comprising a plurality components. At least a portion of the nodes may correspond to hardware devices, programs, and/or configuration data of the first system, and may be interconnected. The first and second information is analyzed to determine differences and/or matches between the configuration diagram and the actual system, e.g., between hardware, software, configuration, and/or connectivity, e.g., by traversing the configuration diagram or a data structure representing the diagram, and/or traversing the actual system or a data structure representing the actual system. An indication of the differences and/or matches is displayed on a display device, e.g., textually, or graphically, e.g., via a merged configuration diagram.

REFERENCES:
patent: 4991176 (1991-02-01), Dahbura et al.
patent: 5481741 (1996-01-01), McKaskle et al.
patent: 5633813 (1997-05-01), Srinivasan
patent: 5781720 (1998-07-01), Parker et al.
patent: 5861882 (1999-01-01), Sprenger et al.
patent: 5878050 (1999-03-01), Brahme et al.
patent: 5974254 (1999-10-01), Hsu
patent: 6138270 (2000-10-01), Hsu
patent: 6249882 (2001-06-01), Testardi
patent: 6327617 (2001-12-01), Fawcett
patent: 6463552 (2002-10-01), Jibbe
patent: 6507842 (2003-01-01), Grey et al.
patent: 6546524 (2003-04-01), Chankramath et al.
patent: 6622298 (2003-09-01), Stamm
patent: 6647513 (2003-11-01), Hekmatpour
patent: 6654911 (2003-11-01), Miles
patent: 7069343 (2006-06-01), Goringe et al.
patent: 7120545 (2006-10-01), Benvenga et al.
patent: 7420573 (2008-09-01), Aberg et al.
patent: 2002/0188701 (2002-12-01), Brown et al.
patent: 2003/0097438 (2003-05-01), Bearden et al.
patent: 2003/0101021 (2003-05-01), Shah et al.
patent: 2003/0184595 (2003-10-01), Kodosky et al.
patent: 2004/0075680 (2004-04-01), Grace et al.
patent: 2004/0153869 (2004-08-01), Marinelli et al.
patent: 2005/0240640 (2005-10-01), Kaler et al.
patent: 2006/0156294 (2006-07-01), Fuller, III et al.
patent: 2006/0168182 (2006-07-01), Fuller, III et al.
patent: 2006/0168183 (2006-07-01), Fuller, III et al.
patent: 2006/0190105 (2006-08-01), Hsu et al.
patent: WO8907377 (1989-08-01), None
J.R. Ullmann. An algorithm for subgraph isomorphism. J. ACM, 23(1):31-42, 1976.
F. Luellau, T. Hoepken, and E. Barke. A technology independent block extraction algorithm. In 21st Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference on Design automation, pp. 610-615. IEEE Press, 1984.
M. Takashima, A. Ikeuchi, S. Kojima, T. Tanaka, T. Saitou, and J. Ichi Sakata. A circuit comparison system with rule-based functional isomorphism checking. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM/IEEE conference on Design automation, pp. 512-516. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1988.
Ebeling C. Gemini II: A Second Generation Layout Validation Program, Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), pp. 322-235, 1988.
J. Laski and W. Szermer. Identification of program modifications and its applications in software maintenance. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 282-290, Orlando, FL, Nov. 1992.
Samuel Bates and Susan Horwitz, “Incremental Program Testing using Program Dependence Graphs,” Proceedings ACM Conference on Principles of Programming Languages, 1993.
Susan Horwitz, “Identifying the Semantic and Textual Differences Between Two Versions of a Program,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN' 90 Conferencing on Programming Language, 1990.
H. Kalviainen and E. Oja. Comparisons of attributed graph matching algorithms for computer vision. In STeP-90 Finnish Articifical Intelligence Symposium, University of Oulu. pp. 354-368, 1990.
Edward H. Sussenguth, Jr. A Graph-Theoretic Algorithm for Matching Chemical Structures. p. 36-43, 1964.
Stephen H. Unger. GIT—A Heuristic Program for Testing Pairs of Directed Line Graphs for Isomorphism. Communications of the ACM, vol. 7, No. 1, Jan. 1964. p. 26-34.
D.G. Corneil and C.C. Gotlieb. An Efficient Algorithm for Graph Isomorphism. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1970. p. 51-64.
H.G. Barrow, A.P. Ambler, and R.M. Burstall. “Some Techniques for Recognising Structures in Pictures,” in Frontiers of Pattern Recognition, 1972.
A.T. Berztiss. A Backtrack Procedure for Isomorphism of Directed Graphs. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 20, No. 3, Jul. 1973. p. 365-377.
Ronald C. Read and Derek G. Corneil. The Graph Isomorphism Disease. The Journal of Graph Theory, vol. 1, 1977. p. 339-363.
D.G. Corneil and D.G. Kirkpatrick. A Theoretical Analysis of Various Heuristics for the Graph Isomorphism Problem. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, vol. 9, No. 2, May 1980. p. 281-297.
Wen-Hsiang Tsai and King-Sun Fu. Error-Correcting Isomorphisms of Attributed Relational Graphs for Pattern Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 9, No. 12, Dec. 1979. p. 757-768.
Brendan D. McKay. Practical Graph Isomorphism. Congressus Numerantium, vol. 30, 1981. p. 45-87.
I. Ablasser and U. Jager. Circuit Recognition and Verification Based on Layout Information. 18th Design Automation Conference, 1981. p. 684-689.
Miles Ohlrich, Carl Ebeling, Eka Ginting, and Lisa Sather. SubGemini: Identifying SubCircuits using a Fast Subgraph Isomorphism Algorithm. 30th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 1993. p. 31-37.
Communication from foreign patent office for application No. PCT/US2006/001334, mailed on Oct. 2, 2006.
Susan Horwitz, Jan Prins and Thomas Reps; “Integrating Noninterfering Versions of Programs”; ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS); Jul. 1989; pp. 345-387; vol. 11, Issue 3.
Tom Mens; “Conditional Graph Rewriting as a Domain-Independent Formalism for Software Evolution”; Proceedings of the International Workshop on Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance; 2000; 17 pages.
Tom Mens; “A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging”; IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering; May 2002; pp. 449-462; vol. 28, No. 5.
“Using Simulink Version 4”, Jun. 2001, pp. 1, 3.2, 4.5, 12.14-21; Mathworks.
“Using SimuLink Version 5”, 2002, 50 pages, Mathworks.
“SimuLink Performance Tools”, Website, 2002, 4 pages, Mathworks.
“SimDiff User Manual”, Ensoft Corporation, Apr. 12, 2006, 17 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2006/001335 mailed Jun. 21, 2006.
International search report and written opinion for application No. PCT/US2006/001333 mailed Jul. 3, 2006.
Jeff Kramer, Jeff Magee and Ken Ng; “Graphical Configuration Programming”; Computer; Oct. 1999; pp. 53-65; vol. 22, Issue 10; Los Alamitos, CA, U.S.A.
Henrik Baerbak Christensen; “Modularisation of Software Configuration Management”; Joint Modular Languages Conference; Sep. 6, 2000; pp. 1-13.
Kim Letkeman; “Comparing and merging UML models in IBM Rational Software Architect: Part 1”; Jul. 12, 2005; 29 pages.
“Model Based Collaboration Made Easy”; I-Logix RealTimes quarterly newsletter; Dec. 2005; 5 pages; vol. V, Issue 17, http://www.ilogix.com
ewsletter-detail.aspx?id=1342.
“SimDiff 2.0”; 1 page; ENSOFT datasheet, 2006.
“SimDiff User Manual Version 2.0”; Apr. 12, 2006; 17 pages; ENSOFT.
“Simulink Performance Tools 1”; Oct. 2002; 4 pages; The MathWorks.
“Using Simulink Version 5”; Jul. 2002; 50 pages; The MathWorks.
Akhil Mehra, John Grundy and John Hosking; “A Generic Approach to Supporting Diagram Differencing and Merging for Collaborative Design”; International Conference on Automated Software Engineering; Nov. 2005; 10 pages.
“Using Simulink, Merging Model Differences

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

Comparing a configuration diagram to an actual 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 Comparing a configuration diagram to an actual system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Comparing a configuration diagram to an actual system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2668079