Electrical computers and digital processing systems: multicomput – Remote data accessing
Reexamination Certificate
1996-09-06
2001-04-24
Asta, Frank J. (Department: 2754)
Electrical computers and digital processing systems: multicomput
Remote data accessing
C709S208000, C709S213000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06223214
ABSTRACT:
TECHNICAL FIELD
The present invention generally relates to the field of information management and more particularly relates to a paradigm and conceptual framework for cognitive perception, by clarifying the substantive meaning of quantitative measurements which are made in relation to either a physically observable, or a virtually conceivable, event, or series of events.
BACKGROUND ART
A problem and areas of concern include the preservation of historic artifacts and sites.
RECENT INCENTIVE
Beginning in 1989, we became increasingly involved in the local, national and international preservation community. Through this involvement with historic house museums, and museums housed in modern buildings, we became increasingly concerned that the methods of monitoring museum conditions, relating to the preservation of historic artifacts, were not very informative and, in many ways, were of limited or little use. Buildings are generally complex environments and housing collections of artifacts within a building increases that complexity many times. Looking into environmental monitoring revealed that methods and procedures being used were generally not very informative. Monitoring locations were few and generally not well placed in regard to efficient data collection. The data collected was generally displayed on x-y axis charts or in columnar table format. The data was generally shown as independent information without relationship to anything other than time.
In 1990, we were involved in a one day workshop concerning the various ways a structure can be monitored. The workshop was called “Monitoring of Structures—Why, How and . . . ”. The two main purposes of the workshop were (1) to show practitioners within the Historic Preservation community basic ways to look at and monitor a structure and (2) to have a panel discussion of some of the false standards that many people believed they should be achieving with their monitoring programs.
In preparation for this workshop, we contacted many representatives and manufacturers of monitoring equipment, to learn about their systems and the information that could be provided. The amazing thing that was discovered was that to achieve any complex monitoring program (most monitoring programs should have some levels of complexity—looking for relationships as well as independent and dependent conditions) many different methods of data collection needed to be used, including different types of equipment. Along with, and on top of this, would be the difficulty of viewing the different types of data collected and turning it into something useful that the individuals involved with the structures could understand and use.
Over the next few years there was increased contact with other individuals involved in the investigation of the conditions of structures. Repeatedly the issues that came up were: (1) How to best monitor a condition? and (2) What relevant information could be gleaned out of the accumulated data.
It was hard to know how to correctly interpret much of the data. If many locations were monitored, it would be difficult to work out the relationships and influences between points. Usually more questions than answers came up. Usually there were questions of what else might be happening within a structure that could have influenced the data. The need to standardize the collection and interpretation process was important. The huge commercial niche of manufacturers that build monitoring systems made it possible to use very sophisticated instruments and techniques. The problem was that many times the more sophisticated methods and data only caused more confusion and misinterpretation of the data. The individual points of data were becoming more precise which meant they were interpreted as truth even when the real question as to what they meant had not been worked out. The more individual points of data became important, without the understanding of the relationships between points of data, the worse the situation became. We imagined using the power of the computer to be able to standardize and simplify the ability of individuals to view data in a graphically easy way to interpret symbols. This would allow individuals to look for influences and relationships rather than get lost in the data itself.
Many times there were real needs and value for installing a monitoring system at a historic site. In these situations, efforts were made to influence the historic site into installing a monitoring system. After the historic site would check with other sites as to the success and value of their efforts at monitoring, the usual response would be that there appears to be low added value and high added costs related to monitoring systems. This gets back to the method of collecting data and how the data is viewed and interpreted.
Later, during 1992-1995, as research continued into the monitoring of structures, arrangements were worked out with several prominent sites to install monitoring systems using portable data logging units. Each site had its unique conditions and needs. The sites included: textiles at the Smithsonian Institute's Museum of American History including the Star Spangled Banner; Gunston Hall in Lorton, Va., George Mason's colonial home and at George Washington's Mount Vernon, the Family Tomb including the sarcophagi of George and Martha Washington.
Each site was different from the others in the way management and conservation decisions were made. Each site was a different type of structure with unique problems and conditions that needed to be understood. Each site had its own range of independent and dependent conditions that needed to be tracked or monitored to effectively understand the items that were of concern.
From observations made during the monitoring efforts, we have determined basic problems in monitoring conditions within complex systems. For example, each site has a diverse and complex set of conditions that are independent and dependent of each other. It is the ability to identify the relationships that occur that provide the instructive information. The difficulty in reviewing the data that is collected is the inability to evaluate the relationships that exist. The result from data collection is the accumulation of information usually in numerical form. The data is usually represented in columnar tables or x-y graph form. This method of comprehending data is difficult for individuals to use. Even people experienced with reviewing data in this format have difficulty maintaining enough active information to develop even a simplistic view of relationships.
There are systems available for viewing particular data streams from particular data logging equipment. However, there are real limits to these systems when the desire is to use various types of collected data to view conditions and discover relationships of conditions. The data may come from human observations, instrument readings, instruments connected to data loggers, and existing sources of information. Each system for collecting and viewing data has different formats and requirements.
We have determined that this very process, of collecting and viewing data, itself introduces a level of complexity that makes the main reason for collecting the data, looking for relationships, even more difficult. The method of data collection needs to be presented in an orderly manner, and, equally important, in the terms that allow for an informed dialog to occur. We have also determined that the viewing, collecting, and analyzing of the data is facilitated in an object-oriented application format.
Defining An Object
The classic discussions of Plato and Aristotle, circa 350 BC, introduced a distinction between perceiving the Form of an Object verses perceiving the Substance of an Object. We speak of the “substantive meaning” of an event, thing, or Object. Upon reflection, the terminology inherent in the phrase “substantive meaning” implies that the Substance of an Object is the true and complete measure of an Object and what the Object means, does, or affects by its exis
Blundell J. Bryan
Tufty Robert Mitchell
Asta Frank J.
Donner Irah H.
Koshy Suresh
Kupstas Tod
Pepper Hamilton LLP
LandOfFree
Computer implemented virtual sensor object and tangible... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Computer implemented virtual sensor object and tangible..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Computer implemented virtual sensor object and tangible... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2479917