Data processing: database and file management or data structures – Database design – Data structure types
Reexamination Certificate
1998-07-01
2001-05-15
Hong, Stephen S. (Department: 2176)
Data processing: database and file management or data structures
Database design
Data structure types
C345S215000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06233592
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to an electronic publishing system, and in particular to an electronic publishing system for the delivery of information which is not limited as to storage space and is not governed by predetermined pathways.
BACKGROUND
Conventionally, information is published in document form as a printed publication, or in electronic form but again using the document or book metaphor. In the past, the concept of a “multidimensional space” in electronic publishing has been intuitively understood (that is, instinctively desired). However, a comprehensive display, discussion or treatment has been rejected by publishers and information providers as too difficult to develop and manage. Instead, publishers and information providers have managed large amounts of data:
(1) by limiting the size or coverage of the information space; and
(2) by setting or predetermining the path through that information space.
The effect of this is clearest when the dimension of time is considered. The conventional approach to information storage and publishing is centred on the notion that information is either “current information” (ie, present day) or “historical information” (ie, the day before the present day and all days prior to that). Thus, information is traditionally retained (stored) and/or published (sold) as either current or historical information.
The effect of this has been to leave the end user with a collection of non-integrated repositories and many additional tasks to do before the information is useful to them. For example, the end user is required to:
(1) make most of their own connections between related pieces of information;
(2) do their own analysis of the type and subject of information they require or are seeking; and
(3) find information appropriate to the point in, or period of, time with which they are concerned.
To illustrate the disadvantages of conventional publishing systems, an example of using such conventional techniques and publishing systems to research information is provided. If a person were interested in information regarding the powers of the Secretary under Australian legislation with respect to couples in a family relationship, when and how the Secretary is restricted, and what did the relevant legislation provide prior to that, the person would refer to relevant legal information, which is the Social Security legislation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The relevant provisions are set forth in Table A under the heading “Example Research”. This would be determined by the end user's own knowledge of the broad subject and/or reference to secondary material.
The relevant legislative provision is Section 4, which in conventional electronic legal publishing systems might be found by looking for words or phrases such as “family”, “family relationships”, and “family relationships” AND “social security”, where AND is a logical operator.
Once the above is established, it can be seen from the information found that Section 4 of the Social Security Act, as at 9/8/96, has been amended ten times (see Table A: A1. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION AT 9/8/96.)
There is however nothing in the current Commonwealth Government Reprint, in either the electronic or print versions (see heading EXAMPLE RESEARCH of Table A), that allows the end user to see the text of those amendments or what part(s) of Section 4 were changed by them.
Thus, unless the end user is prepared to refer to many statute books, reading each piece of text against another, the end user is not able to see easily or reliably what section 4 looked like before it was amended by any one of a number of prior amending Acts. However, if the end user has a library complete enough to provide access to the prior amending Acts, the person would eventually determine that Act No 105 of 1995 is the relevant amending Act.
Further, it should be noted that, while the Commonwealth Government Reprint indicates that the Social Security Act was amended by Act No 105 of 1995, it does not indicate what section or schedule in Act No 105 of 1995 actually amended Section 4. This again requires the end user to have access to the amending Acts themselves and renders the information provided by the Reprint as to commencement (see Table A: B. COMMENCEMENT INFORMATION FOR ACT NO 105 OF 1995 CONTAINED IN REPRINT) of little utility without a copy of the amending Act No 105 of 1995 from which it can be established that Section 14 of Act No 105 amended Section 4 of the Social Security Act with respect to powers of the Commissioner (see Table A: D. AMENDING ACT 1995 NO 105 AMENDING SECTION 14).
Eventually, the required information can be found but several pieces of information need to be searched by the end user. This is an arduous, time consuming, tedious and complex task that must be manually repeated for each research topic and if the same search is to be carried out again.
Conventional publishing systems, including electronic publishing systems that typically are speeded-up, paper-based publishing systems, are based on a book-metaphor. The smallest piece of information used by such conventional publishing systems is either (I) an Act or Regulation (in the case of reprints, a whole Act or Regulation is printed again), or (II) a word. Typically, conventional publishing systems choose a word as the smallest piece when legislation is amended. To track such amendments, a lawyer or their assistant may actually use scissors to cut and paste pieces of legislation or the publisher cuts and pastes each word electronically. If a whole Act or Regulation is tracked as in (I) above, it is necessary to store each new version of an Act or Regulation in its entirety.
This has a number of consequences, including:
a) only a few versions of each Act or Regulation are stored;
b) the end user rarely searches more than one reprint at a time;
c) it is very difficult to know which particular section or schedule has changed, to track how that particular section or schedule has changed, to find the relevant section of the Amending Act or Regulation that effected the section or schedule as shown in the reprint;
d) if multiple changes have occurred on a particular section or schedule between reprints, the latest version of the section or schedule can only be seen in the reprint;
e) issues like commencement of the latest version of a particular section or schedule and so-called “Application, Saving or Transitional Provisions” are difficult to recreate; and
f) it is difficult to come to a full understanding of the legislation by means of the reprints.
If every single word is tracked, as in (II) above, a level of complexity results that is difficult to administer and maintain without a large number of errors. For example, some legislative sections and schedules are amended several times annually.
Table 1 provides an example where Section 6 of the Income Tax Assessment Act has been amended 70 times:
TABLE 1
S. 6
am. No. 88, 1936; No. 30, 1939; No. 50, 1942;
No. 3, 1944; No. 6, 1946; No. 44, 1948; No.
48, 1950; No. 1, 1953; No. 65, 1957; No. 55,
1958; No. 85, 1959; Nos. 18 and 108, 1969; No.
17, 1961; No. 69, 1963; No. 110, 1964; No.
103, 1965; No. 85, 1967; Nos. 4, 60 and 87,
1968; No. 93, 1969; No. 54, 1971; Nos. 51 and
164, 1973; No. 216, 1973 (as am. by No. 20,
1974); No. 126, 1974; Nos. 80 and 117, 1975;
Nos. 50, 143 and 205, 1976; Nos. 87 and 172,
1978; No 27, 1979; No. 24, 1980; Nos. 108 and
154, 1981; No. 103, 1983; Nos. 47 and 123,
1984; No. 168, 1985; Nos. 41, 48, 52 and 154,
1986; No. 138, 1987; Nos. 73, 97, 105 and 107,
1989; Nos. 20, 35 and 135, 1990; Nos. 4, 5,
100 and 216, 1991; Nos. 80, 98 and 224, 1992;
Nos. 17, 18, 57 and 82, 1993; Nos. 138 and
181, 1994; Nos. 5 and 169, 1995
It is both difficult and impractical to store the complete amendment history of every word and phrase within section 6. Trying to track all changes on such a detailed level leads to unmanageable complexity.
Largely, the split between historical and present information has come about because of the publishing and information industry's own de
Lessing Abha
Mariani Peter
Schnelle Christoph
Browning Clifford W.
Hong Stephen S.
Time Base Pty Limited
Woodard Emhardt Naughton Moriarty & McNett
LandOfFree
System for electronic publishing does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with System for electronic publishing, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and System for electronic publishing will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2475576