CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
Systems and Methods of Identifying Chunks within Multiple
Documents
RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
displaying document chunks in response to a search request," filed on February
22, 2008
(attorney docket number 69218-5002-US), which is hereby incorporated by
reference in its
entirety.
[0002] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
searching a document for relevant chunks in response to a search request,"
filed on February
22, 2008 (attorney docket number 69218-5003-US), which is hereby incorporated
by
reference in its entirety.
[0003] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
refining a search query based on user-specified search keywords," filed on
February 22, 2008
(attorney docket number 69218-5004-US), which is hereby incorporated by
reference in its
entirety.
[0004] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
displaying and re-using document chunks in a document development
application," filed on
February 22, 2008 (attorney docket number 69218-5005-US), which is hereby
incorporated
by reference in its entirety.
[0005] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
performing a text replacement within multiple documents," filed on February
22, 2008
(attorney docket number 69218-5006-US), which is hereby incorporated by
reference in its
entirety.
[0006] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
refining chunks identified within multiple documents," filed on February 22,
2008 (attorney
docket number 69218-5007-US), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its
entirety.
[0007] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
pipelining multiple document node streams through a query processor," filed on
February 22,
1
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
2008 (attorney docket number 69218-5008-US), which is hereby incorporated by
reference in
its entirety.
[0008] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
semantically annotating documents of different structures," filed on February
22, 2008
(attorney docket number 69218-5009-US), which is hereby incorporated by
reference in its
entirety.
[0009] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
adaptively screening matching chunks within documents," filed on February 22,
2008
(attorney docket number 69218-5010-US), which is hereby incorporated by
reference in its
entirety.
[0010] This application relates to U.S. Patent Application, "Systems and
methods of
identifying chunks within inter-related documents," filed on February 22, 2008
(attorney
docket number 69218-5011-US), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its
entirety.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0011] The present invention relates generally to the field of information
retrieval in a
computer system, in particular to systems and methods of locating information
at different
sources.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0012] The growth of information technology enables a user of a desktop or
laptop
computer to easily access information stored within a large number of
documents at different
locations such as the computer's local hard drive or a remote web server on
the Internet. But
quickly locating the information sought by the user within one or more
documents remains a
challenging task with today's information retrieval technologies.
[0013] In response to search keywords provided by a user, conventional web and
desktop search engines typically return a list of document names with one or
two sentences
from each document that match the search keywords as search results. From the
one or two
matching sentences, the user often has trouble understanding the meaning of
the search
keywords in the context of the document. To determine whether the document has
the user
sought-after information, the user has no choice but to open the document
using its native
2
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
application (e.g., the Microsoft Office application if the document is a Word
document) and
repeat the process if the document does not have the information sought by the
user.
[0014] There are multiple issues with this approach. First, opening a document
using
its native application is a time-consuming operation. Second, and more
importantly, the
native application does not highlight any particular portion of the document
that may contain
the user-provided search keywords. To locate any search keywords within the
document, the
user has to do a new search of the document using a search tool of the native
application. If
the search tool can only look for multiple search keywords in exactly the same
order (which
is often the case), the user may end up finding nothing interesting in the
document even if the
document has a paragraph that contains the multiple search keywords but in a
slightly
different order. Alternatively, if the user limits the search to a subset of
the multiple search
keywords, many instances of the subset of search keywords may be in the
document and the
user could spend a significant effort before finding the document content of
interest.
SUMMARY
[0015] The above deficiencies and other problems associated with conventional
search tools are reduced or eliminated by the invention disclosed below. In
some
embodiments, the invention is implemented in a computer system that has a
graphical user
interface (GUI), one or more processors, memory and one or more modules,
programs or sets
of instructions stored in the memory for performing multiple functions.
Instructions for
performing these functions may be included in a computer program product
configured for
execution by one or more processors.
[0016] One aspect of the invention involves a computer-implemented method
performed by a computer. The computer identifies multiple resource
identifiers, each
resource identifier corresponding to a document at a respective data source.
For at least one
of the resource identifiers, the computer retrieves the corresponding document
from the
respective document source, identifies within the retrieved document a chunk
that satisfies
one or more user-specified search keywords, and displays the identified chunk
and a link to
the identified chunk within the document to the user.
[0017] Another aspect of the invention involves a computer-implemented method
performed by a client computer. After submitting one or more user-specified
search
keywords to a server computer, the client computer receives a set of search
results from the
3
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
server computer, each search result identifying a document located at a
respective document
source that satisfies the search keywords in accordance with a first set of
predefined criteria.
For each identified document, the client computer retrieves the document from
the
corresponding document source, identifies a chunk within the document that
satisfies the
search query in accordance with a second set of predefined criteria, and
displays the
identified chunk and a link to the identified chunk within the document.
[0018] Another aspect of the invention involves a computer system. The
computer
system includes memory, one or more processors, and one or more programs
stored in the
memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors. The one or
more
programs include: instructions for identifying multiple resource identifiers,
each resource
identifier corresponding to a document at a respective data source;
instructions for retrieving
the corresponding document from the respective document source for at least
one of the
resource identifiers; instructions for identifying within the retrieved
document a chunk that
satisfies one or more user-specified search keywords; and instructions for
displaying the
identified chunk and a link to the identified chunk within the document to the
user.
[0019] Another aspect of the invention involves a computer readable storage
medium
having stored therein instructions, which when executed by a computer system
cause the
computer system to: identify multiple resource identifiers, wherein each
resource identifier
corresponds to a document at a respective data source; retrieve the
corresponding document
from the respective document source for at least one of the resource
identifiers; identify
within the retrieved document a chunk that satisfies one or more user-
specified search
keywords; and display the identified chunk and a link to the identified chunk
within the
document to the user.
[0020] Another aspect of the invention involves a graphical user interface on
a
computer display. The graphical user interface includes one or more document
links, each
document link having one or more associated chunks identified within the
corresponding
document as satisfying one or more user-specified search keywords. Each
identified chunk
has an associated chunk link and includes terms matching each of the user-
specified search
keywords. In some embodiments, the terms are highlighted in the chunk in a
visually
distinguishable manner. In response to a user selection of a chunk's chunk
link, the
corresponding document is displayed in a window on the computer display, and
at least a
portion of the chunk is highlighted in the window.
4
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[0021] Some embodiments may be implemented on either the client side or the
server
side of a client-server network environment.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0022] The aforementioned features and advantages of the invention as well as
additional features and advantages thereof will be more clearly understood
hereinafter as a
result of a detailed description of preferred embodiments when taken in
conjunction with the
drawings.
[0023] Figure 1 is a block diagram of an exemplary computer system that
includes a
front end, a search server including a query engine, a cache engine, an index
database, and a
stream engine, and one or more data sources in accordance with some
embodiments.
[0024] Figure 2 is a flowchart illustrative of how the front end processes
user-
provided search keywords in accordance with some embodiments.
[0025] Figure 3 is a flowchart illustrative of how the query engine generates
search
criteria for the user-provided search keywords in accordance with some
embodiments.
[0026] Figure 4 is a flowchart illustrative of how the cache engine produces a
set of
candidate document identifiers for the user-provided search keywords in
accordance with
some embodiments.
[0027] Figure 5 is a flowchart illustrative of how the stream engine processes
candidate documents retrieved from different data sources in accordance with
some
embodiments.
[0028] Figure 6 is a flowchart illustrative of how the cache engine processes
the
candidate documents coming out of the stream engine in accordance with some
embodiments.
[0029] Figure 7 is a flowchart illustrative of how the query engine identifies
relevant
chunks within the candidate documents in accordance with some embodiments.
[0030] Figure 8A is a flowchart illustrative of how the stream engine
generates
semantic data models for different types of documents in accordance with some
embodiments.
5
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[0031] Figure 8B is a flowchart illustrating a first embodiment of how the
query
engine identifies a relevant chunk within a node stream representing a
candidate document.
[0032] Figure 8C is a flowchart illustrating a second embodiment of how the
query
engine identifies a relevant chunk within a node stream representing a
candidate document.
[0033] Figure 9A is a flowchart illustrative of how the stream engine
processes
multiple candidate documents to identify candidate chunks in accordance with
some
embodiments.
[0034] Figure 9B is an exemplary HTML document to be processed by the stream
engine as shown in Figure 9A in accordance with some embodiments.
[0035] Figure 1 OA is a block diagram illustrative of how a query mediator
coordinates the query engine and the stream engine to identify chunks within a
node stream
representing a candidate document in accordance with some embodiments.
[0036] Figure I OB is a flowchart illustrative of how the stream engine
divides the
node stream into multiple sub-streams using a filter model in accordance with
some
embodiments.
[0037] Figure 1 IA is an exemplary XML document to be processed by the stream
engine and the query engine in accordance with some embodiments.
[0038] Figure 1 lB is an exemplary XQuery to be applied to the XML document in
accordance with some embodiments.
[0039] Figure 11 C is a table of input sequences defined by the query engine
in
accordance with some embodiments.
[0040] Figure 11D is a flowchart illustrative of how the query engine
processes node
sub-streams at different input sequences in accordance with some embodiments.
[0041] Figure l lE is a block diagram illustrative of how a node stream
corresponding
to the XML document is divided into multiple node sub-streams by a finite
state machine in
accordance with some embodiments.
6
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[0042] Figure 11F is a block diagram illustrative of the input sequences and
their
associated node sub-streams after the first candidate chunk in the XML
document is
processed in accordance with some embodiments.
[0043] Figure 11 G is the search result of applying the XQuery to the node sub-
streams derived from XML document in accordance with some embodiments.
[0044] Figure 12A is a flowchart illustrative of a first process of
identifying one or
more documents, each document having one or more chunks that satisfy user-
specified search
keywords, in accordance with some embodiments.
[0045] Figure 12B is a flowchart illustrative of a second process of
identifying one or
more document, each document having one or more chunks that satisfy user-
specified search
keywords, in accordance with some embodiments.
[0046] Figures 12C through 12J are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the processes as
shown in Figures
12A and 12B in accordance with some embodiments.
[0047] Figure 13A is a flowchart illustrative of a first process of
identifying within a
document one or more chunks that satisfy user-specified search keywords in
accordance with
some embodiments.
[0048] Figure 13B is a flowchart illustrative of a second process of
identifying within
a document one or more chunks that satisfy user-specified search keywords in
accordance
with some embodiments.
[0049] Figures 13C through 13G are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the processes as
shown in Figures
13A and 13B in accordance with some embodiments.
[0050] Figure 14 is a flowchart illustrative of a process of modeling a
document and
identifying within the document one or more chunks that satisfy user-specified
search
keywords in accordance with some embodiments.
[0051] Figure 15 is a flowchart illustrative of a process of customizing a
search query
based on user-specified search keywords in accordance with some embodiments.
7
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[0052] Figure 16A is a flowchart illustrative of a process of displaying and
re-using
search results based on user instructions in accordance with some embodiments.
[0053] Figures 16B through 16J are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the process as shown
in Figure 16A
in accordance with some embodiments.
[0054] Figure 17A is a flowchart illustrative of a process of finding and
replacing text
strings in connection with a set of search results based on user instructions
in accordance with
some embodiments.
[0055] Figure 17B is a flowchart illustrative of a process of finding and
replacing text
strings within a set of documents based on user instructions in accordance
with some
embodiments.
[0056] Figures 17C through 17E are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the processes as
shown in Figures
17A and 17B in accordance with some embodiments.
[0057] Figure 18A is a flowchart illustrative of a first process of narrowing
search
results based on user instructions in accordance with some embodiments.
[0058] Figure 18B is a flowchart illustrative of a second process of narrowing
search
results based on user instructions in accordance with some embodiments.
[0059] Figures 18C through 18D are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the processes as
shown in Figures
18A and 18B in accordance with some embodiments.
[0060] Figure 19 is a flowchart illustrative of a process of alternatively
processing
document node streams in accordance with some embodiments.
[0061] Figure 20 is a flowchart illustrative of a process of semantically and
contextually annotating documents of different structures in accordance with
some
embodiments.
8
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[0062] Figure 21A is a flowchart illustrative of a first process of screening
matching
chunks within a document based on predefined criteria in accordance with some
embodiments.
[0063] Figure 21 B is an exemplary HTML document illustrative of the process
as
shown in Figure 21A in accordance with some embodiments.
[0064] Figure 21 C is a flowchart illustrative of a second process of
screening
matching chunks within a document based on predefined criteria in accordance
with some
embodiments.
[0065] Figure 21D is a screenshot of a graphical user interface on a computer
display
illustrative of features associated with the processes as shown in Figures 21A
and 21B in
accordance with some embodiments.
[0066] Figure 22A is a flowchart illustrative of a process of identifying
contents
matching a search request within a plurality of inter-related documents in
accordance with
some embodiments.
[0067] Figures 22B through 22D are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the process as shown
in Figure 22A
in accordance with some embodiments.
[0068] Figure 23 is a block diagram of an exemplary document search server
computer in accordance with some embodiments.
[0069] Figure 24 is a block diagram of an exemplary client computer in
accordance
with some embodiments.
[0070] Like reference numerals refer to corresponding parts throughout the
several
views of the drawings.
DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS
[0071] Reference will now be made in detail to embodiments, examples of which
are
illustrated in the accompanying drawings. In the following detailed
description, numerous
specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of
the subject
matter presented herein. But it will be apparent to one skilled in the art
that the subject
9
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
matter may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances,
well-known
methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in
detail so as not to
unnecessarily obscure aspects of the embodiments.
[0072] Figure 1 is a block diagram of an exemplary computer system 100 that
includes a front end 15, a search server 20, and one or more data sources 70
in accordance
with some embodiments. The front end 15 is a software application configured
to receive
and process input from a user 10 such as search keywords and present search
results to the
user 10. The search server 20 further includes a query engine 30, a cache
engine 40, an index
database 50, and a stream engine 60. The data sources 70 include storage
devices such as file
systems on hard drives accessible to the computer system 100 and remote web
servers on the
Internet.
[0073] At runtime, the front end 15 forwards the user-provided search keywords
to
the search server 20 in the form of a search query. In response, different
components within
the search server 20 work in concert to identify a set of candidate documents
that matches the
search keywords and retrieve the contents of the candidate documents from
their respective
locations at local and/or remote data sources 70. The different components
within the search
server 20 then search within the retrieved document contents for chunks that
match the search
keywords and return the identified chunks to the front end 15 in the form of
search results.
[0074] In this application, a document is generally referred to as a data
entity that has
textual content, such as a Microsoft Office document, a plain-text document, a
PDF
document, an email or text message, a web page, etc. A "candidate chunk"
within a
document is a portion of the document that is semantically and contextually
regarded as a
unit of textual content by one skilled in the relevant art. For example,
within a Word
document, a sentence, a paragraph, a table, a figure's caption, the document's
title, header,
and footer are candidate chunks. Similarly, a slide within a PowerPoint
document, a bullet
point within the slide, and a cell or a row within an Excel spreadsheet are
also candidate
chunks. A "chunk" or more specifically a "relevant chunk" served as part of
the search
results is a candidate chunk that satisfies the search keywords in accordance
with predefined
search criteria, e.g., if the candidate chunk includes at least one instance
of one of the search
keywords.
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[0075] Figure 2 is a flowchart illustrative of how the front end 15 processes
user-
provided search keywords in accordance with some embodiments. After receiving
the search
keywords (201), the front end 15 generates a search query using the search
keywords (203).
Depending on the type of data to be processed by the search server 20, the
search query can
be written in different query languages such as structured query language
(SQL) for relational
databases or XQuery for XML data sources. The front end 15 then submits the
search query
to the query engine 30 within the search server 20 (205) for further
processing.
[0076] Figure 3 is a flowchart illustrative of how the query engine 30
generates
search criteria for the user-provided search keywords in accordance with some
embodiments.
After receiving the search query (302), the query engine 30 analyzes the query
(304) and
generates optimized search criteria (306). In some embodiments, the query
engine 30 also
generates one or more path filters from the search query (308). The path
filters are derived
from the user-provided search keywords and search options. The stream engine
60 employs
the path filters to exclude document content that is not part of any candidate
chunks. A more
detailed description is provided below in connection with Figures 10 and 11.
The query
engine 30 submits both the search criteria and the path filters to the cache
engine 40 (310).
[0077] In some embodiments, the query engine 30 generates an optimized
execution
plan for the query according to the capabilities of other components within
the search server
20. For example, if the search query contains a predicate limiting the search
to documents at
the local hard drive that have been updated within the last two days, the
query engine 30 has
two options. One option is that the query engine 30 keeps the predicate to
itself and waits to
apply the predicate to the candidate chunks. In this case, the search server
20 (especially the
stream engine 60) may have processed more candidate documents than necessary.
The other
option is that the query engine 30 pushes the predicate down to the file
system managing the
local hard drive through the index database 50. In this case, only candidate
documents that
have been updated within the last two days are processed and the stream engine
60 is relieved
from additional, unnecessary workload.
[0078] Figure 4 is a flowchart illustrative of how the cache engine 40
produces a set
of candidate document identifiers for the user-provided search keywords in
accordance with
some embodiments. After receiving the search criteria from the query engine
(401), the
cache engine 40 submits the search criteria to the index databases 50. In some
embodiments,
the index databases include both a local index database and a remote index
database. The
11
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
local index database manages index information of documents at the local hard
drive and the
remote index database manages index information of documents at a remote
document
server. In some embodiments, the remote index database refers to the index
database of a
third-party search engine.
[0079] For given user search criteria, the cache engine 40 may search the
local index
database (403) if the user is looking for documents at the local hard drive or
the remote index
database (405) if the user is submitting a search request to a third-party
search engine or both.
From these index databases 50, the cache engine 40 receives respective search
results (407),
e.g., in the form of a set of document references such as URIs, and identifies
a candidate
document identifier within each search result (409). Note that a candidate
document is a
document that matches the search query at the document level, but may or may
not at the
chunk level. For example, a PowerPoint document that has slide A matching one
search
keyword and slide B matching another search keyword is a candidate document,
but does not
have any chunk matching the search query. In some embodiments, a universal
resource
identifier (URI) is used as a document identifier. Thus, documents at the
local hard drive and
remote web servers can be referenced in the same manner.
[0080] In some embodiments, the search results returned by the index databases
50
are ordered by the corresponding candidate documents' relevancy to the search
query. Many
well-known algorithms for determining a document's relevancy to a search query
can be
found in the classic book entitled "Automatic Information Organization and
Retrieval" by G.
Salton, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968, which is incorporated here by reference
in its
entirety.
[0081] In some embodiments, a candidate document's relevancy is at least in
part
ranked by the past user activities on the candidate document. For example, a
candidate
document that has been recently accessed by the user, such as browsing,
copying and
updating, is given a higher rank than another candidate document that has
never been
accessed by the user before. In one embodiment, a candidate document's ranking
score is
determined by combining the following two pieces of information:
= The frequency of a search keyword in the document - For each keyword, the
index database 50 may keep information such as a total count of occurrences
of the keyword in a number of documents and a per-document count of the
12
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
occurrences of the keyword. By combining the frequencies of different search
keywords within the same document, a basic ranking score of the document is
computed using a generic inverse frequency algorithm.
= The personalized usage weight of the document - A respective number of
points are assigned to each operation the user applies to the document. For
example, the preview operation of a particular document is given two points,
the re-use of content from the previewed document is given three points, and
the re-use of a specific chunk within the document is given four points. The
total points assigned to the document, when compared against the total points
allocated for the corresponding document type, yields a personalized ranking
score for the document, which may be combined with the aforementioned
basic ranking score to generate a customized ranking score for the document.
[0082] In some embodiments, a document's relevancy to a search query is not
solely
determined at the document level but is, at least in part, determined at the
chunk level. For
example, the index database 50 may maintain information about the locations of
candidate
chunks within each document as well as the distinct ranking information of
different
candidate chunks within the same document relative to different search
keywords, thereby
making it possible to return the relevant chunks within the same document in
an order
consistent with their respective chunk-level ranking scores.
[0083] The cache engine 40 submits a set of candidate document identifiers and
path
filters, if any, generated by the query engine 30 to the stream engine 60 for
further processing
(411).
[0084] For illustration, the aforementioned processes in connection with
Figures 2
through 4 are collectively referred to as the "downstream processes 25" as
shown in Figure 1.
The input to the downstream processes is a search request including one or
more search
keywords and its output is a set of candidate document identifiers that
identify candidate
documents satisfying the search keywords. For example, a document is deemed to
be a
candidate document if it includes at least one instance of each search
keyword. But the fact
that each search keyword has a match in a candidate document does not
guarantee that the
candidate document has a chunk relevant to the search request.
13
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[0085] As noted above, identifying a chunk within a document requires semantic
information about the document. Such information is not available in the index
database 50.
To find out whether a candidate document has any relevant chunk, the search
server 20 needs
to retrieve the document and analyze the document's structure and content to
understand the
relationship between the document's structure and the document's content. The
processes of
retrieving a document, determining whether the document has any relevant
chunks, and
identifying and returning these relevant chunks to the requesting user are
collectively referred
to as the "upstream processes 35" as shown in Figure 1.
[0086] Figure 5 is a flowchart illustrative of how the stream engine 60
processes
candidate documents retrieved from data sources 70 in accordance with some
embodiments.
[0087] After receiving the candidate document identifiers and optional path
filters
from the cache engine (502), the stream engine 60 starts retrieving the
candidate documents
identified by the document identifiers from respective data sources, including
retrieving some
candidate documents from local data sources (504) and/or retrieving some
candidate
documents from remote data sources (506). In some embodiments, local data
sources include
any storage devices affiliated with the computer system 100, such as hard disk
and CD/DVD
drives, and remote data sources include any storage devices that can be
accessed by the
computer system 100 through wired and/or wireless network, such as a web
server on the
Internet and/or a network storage device on the Intranet.
[0088] In some embodiments, a specific user instruction may limit the document
search to local or remote data sources. As shown in Figure 16B, if the user
specifies that the
type of the documents to be searched are Word documents, the stream engine 60
will retrieve
only Word candidate documents from the local data source such as the local
file system. For
each candidate document identifier, the stream engine 60 submits a request for
the
corresponding candidate document to the file system and waits for the file
system to return
the candidate document. But if the user clicks the checkbox next to a web
source such as
"Source A," the stream engine 60 will retrieve the candidate documents
identified by Source
A from their respective remote web hosts. For example, if the candidate
document is an
HTML document hosted by a web server, the stream engine 60 submits an HTTP
request to
the web server for the HTML document and waits for an HTTP response including
the
HTML document from the web server. In some embodiments, the user instruction
may
14
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
explicitly or implicitly request that candidate documents be retrieved from
both local and
remote data sources.
[0089] In some embodiments, the stream engine 60 submits multiple requests for
different candidate documents in parallel or sequentially to the respective
targeted data
source(s). The candidate documents are then retrieved from the respective data
sources and
processed by the stream engine 60 in parallel or sequentially. For
illustration, the following
description in connection with Figure 5 focuses on a single candidate
document. But this by
no means limits the present application to processing documents one by one
sequentially. As
will become more apparent in connection with Figures 9A through 9B below, it
is more
efficient to process multiple candidate documents from different data sources
in parallel in
some embodiments.
[0090] Referring again to Figure 5, the stream engine 60 performs the
following
operations on each candidate document retrieved from a data source:
[0091] 1. Convert the candidate document into a node stream (508
[0092] To reduce the computer system 100's response latency, the stream engine
60
starts converting immediately after receiving a portion of the candidate
document, without
waiting for the entire candidate document to be retrieved. A more detailed
description of the
conversion is provided below in connection with Figure 8A.
[0093] 2. Identify candidate chunks in the node stream (510)
[0094] As noted above, a candidate document includes one or more candidate
chunks.
A candidate chunk within the document, if identified as satisfying the user-
specified search
keywords, is usually more relevant to the user's search interest and therefore
more useful to
the user. A more detailed description of this operation is provided below in
connection with
Figures 8A and 9A.
[0095] 3. Apply the optional path filters to the node stream (512); and
[0096] For a user-specified search query, certain portions of the node stream
are
potentially relevant and other portions are completely irrelevant. It could be
an efficiency
gain if these irrelevant portions are excluded from further consideration. The
path filters
generated by the query engine (operation 308 in Figure 3) can be used to
divide the node
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
stream into multiple node sub-streams, thereby eliminating the irrelevant
portions of the node
stream. In some embodiments, this procedure is optional if the query engine 30
generates no
path filter. A more detailed description of the conversion is provided below
in connection
with Figures I OA- I OB and 1 l A-11 G.
[0097] 4. Submit the node stream (or sub-streams) to the cache engine (514).
[0098] After performing the operations above, the stream engine 60 submits the
node
stream or sub-streams to the cache engine 40. As will be explained below in
connection with
Figure 6, the cache engine 40 may or may not do anything depending on whether
it needs to
index the document represented by the node stream. If it does, the cache
engine 40 invokes
the index database 50 to generate new indexes or update existing indexes for
the document.
Otherwise, the cache engine 40 simply forwards the node stream or sub-streams
to the query
engine 30 for further processing, which is provided below in detail in
connection with
Figures 8A-8C and 11A-11G.
[0099] Figure 6 is a flowchart illustrative of how the cache engine 40
processes the
candidate documents coming out of the stream engine 60 in accordance with some
embodiments.
[00100] After receiving the node stream or sub-streams corresponding to a
candidate
document (601), the cache engine 40 performs different operations based on the
type and
status of the candidate document as well as its destination. For example, if
the candidate
document is a Word document found in the local hard drive of the computer
system 100 and
has not been indexed or its indexes are deemed stale, the cache engine 40 will
request that the
index database 50 generate new indexes or update existing indexes for the
candidate
document (603). Depending on whether the document is requested by an end user
through
the front end 15 or a software agent monitoring the index database 50, the
cache engine 40
may or may not return the node stream to the query engine 30 for further
processing (605).
[00101] If the candidate document is an HTML document at a remote web server,
which is identified through a third-party document source, it may be optional
to index the
HTML document. If so, the node stream or sub-streams will be returned to and
further
processed by the query engine 30 to determine whether it has any relevant
chunk (605).
16
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00102] In sum, in some embodiments the cache engine 40 plays a relatively
lightweight role in the upstream processes 35 especially if the candidate
document is
retrieved from a remote data source to satisfy an end user's search request
and the computer
system 100 does not intend to index the document. Therefore, some of the
embodiments
below assume that the stream engine 60 directly communicates with the query
engine 30 for
clarity.
[00103] Figure 7 is a flowchart illustrative of how the query engine 30
identifies
relevant chunks within the candidate documents in accordance with some
embodiments.
[00104] Upon receipt of the node stream or sub-streams (e.g., path filtering
at the
stream engine 60) (702), the query engine 30 traverses the node stream and
compares the
candidate document's content with the user-specified search keywords. If a
match is found,
the query engine 30 identifies the candidate chunk within the document
corresponding to the
match as one relevant chunk (704) and returns the identified chunk to the
front end 15 to be
displayed to the end user (706).
[00105] In some embodiments (as shown Figure 7), the query engine 30 returns
any
relevant chunk to the front end 15 as soon as the chunks are identified and
this process
repeats until the query engine 30 completely traverses the candidate document
(708). In
some other embodiments, the query engine 30 defers returning any chunk to the
front end 15
until a more specific relevant chunk is found in the node stream. A more
detailed description
of these two approaches is provided below in connection with Figures 8B and
8C,
respectively.
[00106] As noted above, candidate documents arriving at the stream engine 60
are
each converted into a node stream. The node stream is an instance of a data
model of the
corresponding candidate document. For example, the XQuery data model of an XML
document is a tree of nodes. The types of the nodes that appear at different
hierarchical
levels of the tree include: document, element, attribute, text, namespace,
processing
instruction, and comment. Any node in the tree has a unique node identity. The
data model
not only preserves the XML document's entire content but also has metadata
derived from
sources such as XML tags for identifying candidate chunks subsequently.
[00107] Unfortunately, not all candidate documents are structured like an XML
document. For example, a plain-text document is completely unstructured such
that it does
17
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
not have any metadata embedded therein defining a hierarchical structure for
the document.
Without any pre-processing, a node stream corresponding to the plain-text
document loses
the semantic information intrinsic in the content distribution of the document
such that it is
difficult to identify any chunk such as paragraph, headline, or title, within
the node stream to
satisfy a search query. PDF documents have similar problems that make it
challenging to
find relevant chunks within a PDF document.
[00108] Between the structured XML documents and the unstructured plain-text
documents are semi-structured documents such as HTML documents. Unlike the
plain-text
document, an HTML document has a hierarchical structure defined by metadata
embedded in
the HTML document. But the metadata in the HTML document usually does not have
a
deterministic relationship with the content data as the metadata in an XML
document has.
The same HTML tag can be used purely for web page layout purpose at one
location while
carrying a semantic connotation at another location within the same document.
[00109] To expedite the upstream processes and accommodate more types of
documents in the future, it is desired to have a unified approach such that
different types of
documents are processed in the same manner.
[00110] Figure 8A is a flowchart illustrative of how the stream engine 60
generates
semantic data models for different types of documents in accordance with some
embodiments.
[00111] After receiving the raw data of a candidate document, the stream
engine 60
transforms the raw data into an instance of a data model of structured or semi-
structured data
(801). In some embodiments, this operation is straightforward if the candidate
document is
already a structured document like a Microsoft Office 2007 document. In some
other
embodiments, this operation is necessary if the candidate is a plain-text
document without
any structure-related metadata. In this case, the stream engine 60 may insert
metadata into
the document that defines a hierarchical structure for the document's content.
[00112] Based on the class of the raw data (803), the stream engine 60 then
performs
different sets of operations to the data model instance generated previously.
For example, as
noted above, the candidate document may be classified into one of three
categories:
= unstructured documents (805-A) such as plain-text and PDF;
18
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
= semi-structured documents (805-B) such as HTML and RTF; and
= structured documents (805-C) such as XML and Office 2007.
[00113] For an unstructured document, the stream engine 60 applies a set of
natural
language and common formatting based heuristic rules to separate text within
the document
into separate candidate chunks (807). For example, one heuristic rule for
identifying
paragraphs stipulates that any two text segments separated by symbols such as
an end-of-line
(EOL) character or a blank line correspond to at least two separate
paragraphs. Another
heuristic rule stipulates that a text segment matching a predefined text
pattern is deemed to be
a candidate chunk. Consider the following text segment that has two hyphens,
one at the start
of a new line:
This is a bullet list.
What about a page number?
In this case, each line by itself may be a candidate chunk (although it may or
may not be
deemed to be a paragraph). The fact that the two lines have the same text
pattern, i.e., a
hyphen at the start of a new line followed by a text string, may indicate that
the entire text
segment is a candidate chunk at one level of the document's hierarchical
structure and each
line is also a candidate chunk at a lower level of the hierarchical structure.
[00114] Similarly, for a semi-structured document, the stream engine 60 has
another
set of heuristic rules based on the type of the semi-structured document
(809). For a node
stream corresponding to an HTML document, the stream engine 60 identifies
candidate
chunk break nodes within the node stream both dynamically and statically.
[00115] For example, the <p> tag defines a paragraph within the HTML document
and
it is deemed to be a candidate chunk break node. Whenever the <p> tag appears
in an HTML
document, the subsequent document segment following this <p> tag and before
another <p>
tag is identified as a candidate chunk.
[00116] Note that there are many ways of identifying chunk break nodes within
a
semi-structured document known to one skilled in the art. In some embodiments,
the stream
engine 60 applies different sets of customized heuristic rules to different
types of documents.
For a structured document or a semi-structured document for which there is no
customized
solution, the stream engine 60 assumes that there is a strongly-deterministic
relationship
19
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
between the document's content and the document's metadata and a generic set
of rules is
applied to the data model instance to identify possible candidate chunks in
the candidate
document.
[00117] By traversing the node stream, the stream engine 60 generates a data
model
instance for the candidate document that includes semantic annotation (811).
Subsequently,
the semantically-annotated node stream is fed into the query engine 30. The
query engine 30
then applies a search query to the node stream to identify among the candidate
chunks any
that satisfy the search query.
[00118] As noted above in connection with Figure 7, the query engine 30 does
not
have to wait until it traverses the entire node stream before returning any
relevant chunk to
the front end 15. Below are two embodiments of how the query engine 30 returns
identified
chunks after a respective condition is met and before the entire node stream
is traversed.
[00119] Assume that the search query has two keywords, "raining" and "data,"
and the
exemplary candidate document is as follows:
<CO>
It's raining outside ...
<c1>
For XML-based data management,
Raining Data is your choice.
</c1 >
</c0>
[00120] Figure 8B is a flowchart illustrating a first embodiment of how the
query
engine identifies a relevant chunk within a node stream representing a
candidate document.
[00121] The query engine 30 starts the search after receiving a node stream
corresponding to the candidate document above (821). If no more nodes are in
the node
stream (823, no), the query engine 30 assumes that it has completely traversed
the node
stream and the search stops (825). Otherwise, the query engine 30 processes
the next node in
the stream (827).
[00122] Before any further processing, the query engine 30 checks whether it
is in the
middle of accumulating nodes (829). In some embodiments, the query engine 30
begins
accumulating nodes after it encounters the chunk break node of the first
candidate chunk in
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
the node stream. In this example, the chunk break node of the first candidate
chunk is the
<c0> tag, which is the first node in the stream, and the accumulation has not
started yet (829,
no).
[00123] Next, the query engine 30 checks whether the node is a text node
(839). Since
the <c0> tag is not a text node (839, the query engine 30 updates the current
node path to be
"/c0" (841) and checks whether the current node is part of a candidate chunk
(843). Because
the <c0> tag is the chunk break node of the first candidate chunk (843, yes),
the query engine
30 marks the current node path as corresponding to a candidate chunk (845) and
then starts
node accumulation immediately (847).
[00124] Following the <c0> tag node, the next node to be processed by the
query
engine 30 is a text node including "It's raining outside ..." In this case,
because the
accumulation has already started (829, yes), the query engine checks if the
text node is part of
a relevant chunk (831). But since no search keyword has been matched so far
(831, no), the
query engine 30 accumulates the text node (837). Because this is a text node
(839, yes), the
query engine 30 then checks whether it is in a candidate chunk (849).
[00125] In this case, the text node is in a candidate chunk (849, yes). The
query engine
applies the search query to the text node (851). But because only the keyword
"raining" finds
a match in the text string, which is a partial match of the search query, no
relevant chunk has
been found yet (853, no) and the query engine 30 returns to process the next
node in the sub-
stream (823). In some embodiments, the query engine 30 records the partial
match result for
subsequent use.
[00126] When the query engine 30 receives the second text node including the
text
string "For XML-based data management," it repeats the same processing steps
827 through
853 described above. In this case, because the two text nodes in combination
match both
keywords, a relevant chunk and its associated node path "/cO/cl" are
identified (855). Next,
the query engine 30 processes the third text node including the text string
"Raining Data is
your choice." Because the third node is already in a relevant chunk (831,
yes), the query
engine 30 checks whether the relevant chunk is completed (833). In some
embodiments, a
chunk is completed if the query engine encounters a node including the end tag
of a candidate
chunk, e.g., </c0> or </cl>.
21
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00127] In this case, because the query engine 30 has not seen any end tag yet
(833,
no), the process continues and the second and third text nodes in combination
also match the
two keywords because both the second and third text nodes are within the
second candidate
chunk (<cl>, </cl>), which is a descendent of the first candidate chunk (<c0>,
</c0>). In
some embodiments, if there is a hierarchical relationship between multiple
relevant chunks,
the query engine 30 first completes the relevant chunk at the lowest level,
which is also
referred to as the more specific relevant chunk, and then outputs this more
specific relevant
chunk to the front end 15 (835). In this example, the more specific relevant
chunk is
<c1>
For XML-based data management,
Raining Data is your choice.
</c1 >
[00128] Note that the query engine 30 does not necessarily stop after
outputting the
more specific relevant chunk (835). Rather, the query engine 30 proceeds to
the next node
that includes the </c0> tag. As a result, the less specific relevant chunk (as
will be described
below in connection with Figure 8C) is the next relevant chunk to be output.
[00129] In some embodiments, the query engine 30 outputs this relevant chunk
to the
front end 15. As a result, the front end 15 may ultimately display two
relevant chunks to the
end user. Alternatively, the front end 15 may compare the two relevant chunks
before
displaying them and choose only one of them, e.g., the more specific one above
or the second
broader one, to be displayed. In some other embodiments, the query engine 30
may choose
not to output the second relevant chunk to the front end 15 if it determines
that the first one is
sufficient to satisfy the end user's search interest.
[00130] Figure 8C is a flowchart illustrating a second embodiment of how the
query
engine 30 identifies a relevant chunk within a node stream representing a
candidate
document. This embodiment is similar to the embodiment described above in
connection
with Figure 8C except that, after a relevant chunk is identified, the query
engine 30
immediately starts outputting nodes in the identified chunk (895) without
waiting for the
completion of the relevant chunk (835 in Figure 8B). Moreover, the query
engine 30 also
outputs subsequent nodes within the same relevant chunk (877), if there are
any, without
waiting for the completion of the relevant chunk (835 in Figure 8B).
22
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00131] Using the same exemplary candidate document above, the query engine 30
outputs the relevant query when it encounters the second text node including
the text string
"For XML-based data management" because both search keywords have matches in
the
relevant chunk. Although this relevant chunk might not be as satisfactory as
the more
specific one, the response latency of this second embodiment is usually
shorter than the
response latency of the first embodiment.
[00132] As described above in connection with Figure 5, the stream engine 60
receives
one or more candidate document identifiers such as URIs from the cache engine
40. For each
URI, the stream engine 60 submits a request to a respective data source to
retrieve the
corresponding candidate document hosted by the data source. If multiple
requests are
submitted to different data sources within a short time period or even in
parallel, the
requested candidate documents may arrive at the stream engine 60
simultaneously or nearly
so.
[00133] In some embodiments, a candidate document such as a web page at a
remote
web server is divided into multiple data packets at the respective data source
and transmitted
back to the stream engine 60 one packet at a time. But due to network traffic
jams, the data
packets from a single data source may arrive at the stream engine 60 out of
their original
transmission order and the data packets from different data sources may arrive
at the stream
engine 60 at different rates. The query engine 30, however, usually requires
that the data
packets of a particular candidate document be analyzed sequentially to
identify relevant
chunks therein and present them to the end user. This is especially true if a
text node that
satisfies a search query is larger than the maximum size of a packet and
therefore has to be
allocated into multiple data packets for network transmission.
[00134] As a result, such a deadlock situation often occurs: on the one hand,
the stream
engine 60 is waiting for a data packet from a first data source to support the
query engine
30's operation; on the other hand, the data packet cannot arrive at the stream
engine 60 on
time due to network delay. At the same time, multiple data packets from a
second data
source may have arrived at the stream engine 60, but they are postponed from
further
processing although they might contain a relevant chunk. If this issue is not
appropriately
resolved, it would significantly increase the computer system's response
latency, causing a
less satisfactory user experience to the end user.
23
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00135] Figure 9A is a flowchart illustrative of how the stream engine 60
processes
multiple candidate documents to identify candidate chunks in accordance with
some
embodiments. For illustration, assume that the stream engine 60 receives two
URIs, UA and
UB, from the cache engine 40, each identifying a candidate document at a
respective data
source. In reality, the stream engine 60 may receive N URIs and therefore
process N node
streams at the same time, N being an integer number varying from a few to a
few hundred.
[00136] Initially, whenever it has bandwidth for processing more URIs (902,
yes), the
stream engine 60 checks whether there are any URI available for processing
(904). If not
(904, no), the stream engine 60 processes existing node streams (912). In this
example, both
UA and UB are available (904, yes). The stream engine 60 chooses one of them
(906), e.g.,
UA, and checks the availability of the corresponding data source (908). If the
data source is
not available (908, no), the stream engine 60 then returns to process the next
URI (902).
Otherwise (908, yes), the stream engine 60 generates a node stream for UA
(910) and then
returns to process the next URI (902). At the end, for each candidate
document, the stream
engine 60 generates a node stream to manage incoming data packets
corresponding to the
document.
[00137] In some embodiments, the stream engine 60 checks the availability of a
data
source repeatedly until a predefined condition is met, e.g., the time elapsed
from the first
check to the last check is beyond a threshold level. If no, the stream engine
60 assumes that
the corresponding document is not available and devotes its resources to
processing other
available candidate documents. Note that the stream engine 60 may perform the
same or
similar exercise repeatedly for each data source from which it has already
received data
packets. If the stream engine 60 fails to receive any data packet from a data
source for a
predefined time period, the stream engine 60 may assume that this data source
is no longer
available and free any resources allocated for this data source and the
corresponding node
stream. By doing so, the overall response latency is below a level of
reasonable tolerance.
[00138] In this example, assume that the stream engine 60 chooses to work on
one of
the two available node streams (902), e.g., the UA node stream, and the first
data packet has
arrived (916). The stream engine 60 processes the data packet (920), such as
verifying its
accuracy, extracting the raw data of the candidate document from the data
packet, and
converting the raw data into one or more nodes in the UA node stream. Next,
the stream
24
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
engine 60 parses the next node in the UA node stream (922) to identify
candidate chunks
within the node stream.
[00139] For each node in the UA node stream, the stream engine 60 determines
if it
corresponds to a new candidate chunk (926) or is within an existing candidate
chunk (928)
until finishing the last one in the node stream (924). In either case (926,
yes) (928, yes), the
stream engine 60 accumulates the node into the candidate chunk (930) and then
determines
whether it has reached the end of the corresponding candidate chunk. If so
(932, yes), the
stream engine 60 sends the candidate chunk to the query engine 30 for further
processing
(934), e.g., determining whether the candidate chunk is a chunk relevant to
the user-specified
search keywords.
[00140] In some embodiments, after sending the candidate chunk to the query
engine
30, the stream engine 60 returns to parse the next one in the node stream
(922) and repeats
the aforementioned operations until it exhausts the last one in the node
stream. In other
words, the stream engine 60 and the query engine 30 may proceed in parallel
and
independently. This mechanism or the like can be very efficient if the
computer system 100
has enough resources, e.g., multiple processors (including co-processors)
and/or a large
amount of memory, or if different components within the computer system 100,
e.g., the
stream engine 60 and the query engine 30, operate on separate threads and
there is a
carefully-maintained thread boundary between the two.
[00141] In some other embodiments, the stream engine 60 pauses after passing
one
candidate chunk to the query engine 30 (934) and resumes processing the node
stream after it
receives feedback from the query engine 30 (936). This mechanism or the like
may be more
feasible if the computer system 100 has limited resources, e.g., a single
processor and/or
limited memory. In this case, the stream engine 60 and the query engine 30
share the same
thread. As a result, the computer system 100 may only need a small amount of
memory to
have a reasonably efficient performance. A more detailed description of this
feedback-based
scheme is provided below in connection with Figures l0A-lOB and 11A-11G.
[00142] As noted above, a candidate chunk is semantically and contextually a
unit
within a candidate document. The process described above in connection with
Figure 8A
may annotate multiple nodes in a node stream, each annotated node
corresponding to a
candidate chunk. These candidate documents may be associated with different
levels of a
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
hierarchical data model of the candidate document. In other words, a small
candidate chunk
can be a descendant of a large candidate chunk.
[00143] Figure 9B is an exemplary HTML document to be processed by the stream
engine as shown in Figure 9A in accordance with some embodiments. From
applying the
corresponding heuristic rules to this HTML document, the stream engine 60
identifies nine
candidate chunks 942 through 958. Note that the first node within each
candidate chunk is
highlighted in Figure 9B. For example, the first node of the candidate chunk
942 is the
<table> tag 960 and the first node of the candidate chunk 956 is the <p> tag
974. The
candidate chunk 956 and the candidate chunk 958 are at the same level in the
hierarchical
data model, both of which are descendants of the larger candidate chunks such
as the
candidate chunk 954.
[00144] When applying the process in Figure 9A to the HTML candidate document
in
Figure 9B, the stream engine 60 receives the node including the <table> tag
960 and a new
candidate chunk 942 is found (924, yes). Subsequently, the stream engine 60
receives the
node including the <td> tag 962 and another new candidate chunk 944 is found
(924, yes).
When the stream engine 60 receives the </p> tag 976, the first complete
candidate chunk 956
is found (930, yes) and the stream engine 60 sends the candidate chunk 956 to
the query
engine 30 (932). Similarly, when the stream engine 60 reaches the </p> tag
980, the second
complete candidate chunk 958 is found (930, yes) and sent to the query engine
30 (932).
When the stream engine 60 reaches the </td> tag 982, the third complete
candidate chunk 954
is found (930, yes) and sent to the query engine 30 (932). Note that the
candidate chunk 954
is the parent of the two candidate chunks 956 and 958 and the candidate chunk
954 does not
have any content outside the two descendant candidate chunks 956 and 958. As
will be
explained below, the query engine 30 identifies the candidate chunk 954 as the
relevant
chunk if the two descendant candidate chunks 956 and 958 in combination
satisfy the user-
specified search keywords.
[00145] Assume that the stream engine 60 has processed the last node in the UA
node
stream, which is one of multiple data packets occupied by a large paragraph in
the
corresponding candidate document, and the stream engine 60 has not received
the last of the
multiple data packets yet. In this case, because there are no more nodes in
the UA node
stream (922, no), the stream engine 60 returns to process the next URI (902).
But as noted
above, there are no more URIs available (904, no) because the stream engine 60
receives only
26
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
two URIs from the cache engine 40 and it has already generated a node stream
for each URI.
The stream engine 60 then has to choose between the UA node stream and the UB
node
stream (912).
[00146] If the stream engine 60 chooses one of the two node streams, e.g., the
UA
node stream, and for some reason the next data packet associated with the UA
node stream
has not arrived at the stream engine 60 after a certain time (918, no), the
stream engine 60
then returns to perform operation 902. In some embodiments, the stream engine
60 does not
randomly choose the next available node stream. Rather, it compares the
available node
streams and selects one node stream that has one or more data packets waiting
to be
processed (912). By doing so, the stream engine 60 effectively reduces the
risk of running
into the deadlock situation described above, which blocks the query engine 30
from
identifying and serving relevant chunks from a different node stream.
[00147] For example, after finishing the last node in the UA node stream, the
stream
engine 60 may choose the UB node stream (912) and start searching for
candidate chunks
within the UB node stream until (i) the UB node stream is completed (914, no)
or (ii) there is
a network traffic jam with the UB node stream (924, no). In either case, the
stream engine 60
repeats the same process described above to work on the UA node stream if it
has newly
received data packets and there is still time for processing the node stream
for a given
response latency threshold.
[00148] In some embodiments, as noted above, a feedback mechanism (936, Figure
9A) is established between the stream engine 60 and the query engine 30. The
description
above illustrates the activities on the stream engine side. The description
below in
connection with Figures 10 and 11 focuses on the query engine side, in
particular, how the
query engine 30 works in concert with the stream engine 60 to identify
relevant chunks in
response to a search request.
[00149] Figure l0A is a block diagram illustrative of how a query mediator
coordinates the query engine 30 and the stream engine 60 to identify chunks
within a node
stream representing a candidate document in accordance with some embodiments.
[00150] As described above, upon receiving a search query, the query engine 30
may
generate one or more path filters (308, Figure 3), the path filters are passed
down to the
stream engine 60 by the cache engine 40 (411, Figure 4), and the stream engine
60 then
27
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
applies the path filters to a node stream (512, Figure 5). Figure 1 OA depicts
these processing
steps in a slightly different manner.
[00151] Upon receiving the search query, the query engine 30 performs query
processing 1010 to define a set of input sequences 1015 for the search query.
The set of input
sequences 1015 further defines one or more path filters, which are used to
build a filter model
1020. In some embodiments, as described below in connection with Figure I OB,
the filter
model 1020 is the same or similar to a deterministic finite state machine
(FSM).
[00152] In addition to defining the path filters, the query engine 30 iterates
the input
sequences 1015 and their associated node sub-streams to identify relevant
chunks. Initially,
because the query engine 30 has not received anything from the stream engine
60, a data
request is submitted to the query mediator 1025. The query mediator 1025 is a
user-
configurable tool through which the user can, e.g., specify the maximum number
of nodes in
memory at any given time and control the rate of node stream consumption by
the query
engine 30.
[00153] In some embodiments, as the query engine 30 iterates each input
sequence
1015 and its associated node sub-stream, it determines whether a desired node
is currently in
memory. If not, the query engine 30 asks the query mediator 1025 for the
desired node until
one of the predefined conditions is met. These conditions include: (i) another
context node
for the input sequence is available; (ii) another fragment or content node of
the current
context node is available; and (iii) the current context node is complete. A
more detailed
description of context nodes is provided below in connection with Figures 1 IA
through 11G.
[00154] In response to the data request, the query mediator 1025 triggers the
stream
engine 60 for further conversion of raw data into the node stream 1030. As a
result, more
nodes are submitted to the filter model 1020. The filter model 1020 feeds
these nodes into
the finite state machine it builds using the path filters to accumulate those
nodes matching the
path filters in their respective sub-streams until one of the predefined
conditions is satisfied.
By then, the query mediator 1025 passes the control back to the input
sequences 1015 and
therefore the query engine 30, which analyzes the node sub-streams to identify
relevant
chunks.
[00155] In sum, this feedback mechanism between the stream engine 60 and the
query
engine 30 ensures that a minimum number of nodes are stored in the computer
system 100's
28
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
memory and processed by the query engine 30 to fulfill the search query, and
that this
process is accomplished without loss of any raw data.
[00156] Figure I OB is a flowchart illustrative of how the stream engine 60
divides the
node stream into multiple sub-streams using a filter model in accordance with
some
embodiments.
[00157] Using the path filters provided by the query engine 30, the stream
engine 60
generates a finite state machine (1034). The input to the finite state machine
is a node stream
corresponding to the raw data of a candidate document and the output is one or
more node
sub-streams, each node sub-stream including a set of nodes that may be
potentially relevant
to the search query. Thus, the finite state machine effectively filters out
nodes that are
deemed to be completely irrelevant to the search query and reduces the amount
of data to be
handled by the query engine 30. Next, the stream engine 60 receives the next
node in the
node stream (1036) and compares the node with the finite state machine (1038)
to determine
if the node belongs to one or more node sub-streams associated with the path
filters.
[00158] In some embodiments, the finite state machine performs different
operations
in accordance with different comparison results. For example, the finite state
machine may:
(i) perform a transition operation (1040-A) and move itself from the current
state to a
different one that is associated with the node (1042); (ii) perform a
maintenance operation
(1040-B) and stay at the current state (1044); or (iii) perform a null
operation (1040-C) and
discard the node as irrelevant to the search query (1046). In the last case,
the finite state
machine may also stay at the current state.
[00159] After performing a transition/maintenance operation, the stream engine
60
accumulates the node into a respective node sub-stream (1048). Depending on
whether the
node is a context node (1050-A) or a content node (1050-B), the stream engine
60 may insert
the node into the context node sub-stream (1052) or insert the node into a
node sub-stream
that is associated with the current context node (1054). A more detailed
description of this
accumulation operation is provided below in connection with Figure I IE. Next,
the stream
engine 60 determines whether the node stream is completed (1056). If so (1056,
yes), the
stream engine 60 sends the node sub-streams to the query engine 30 for further
process
(1058). Otherwise (1056, no), the stream engine 60 returns to process the next
node in the
node stream (1036).
29
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00160] To further explain the feedback mechanism between the stream engine 60
and
the query engine 30, Figures 11A through 11G illustrate in detail how a
candidate document
is processed using the feedback mechanism.
[00161] Figure 1 IA is an exemplary XML document 1100 to be processed by the
stream engine 60 and the query engine 30 in accordance with some embodiments.
The XML
document 1100 includes a list of books 1102 through 1108, each book being
identified by its
publication year (the "year" attribute in the <book> tag), its title (the pair
of <title> and
</title> tags), its author (the pair of <author> and </author> tags) including
first name (the
pair of <first> and </first> tags) and last name (the pair of <last> and
</last> tags), its
publisher (the pair of <publisher> and </publisher> tags), and price (the pair
of <price> and
</price> tags).
[00162] Figure 11B is an exemplary XQuery 1110 to be applied to the XML
document
1100 in accordance with some embodiments. The XQuery 1110 searches for any
book in the
XML document "bib.xml" whose publisher is Addison-Wesley and whose publication
year is
later than 1991. The XQuery 1110 requires that the search results be returned
in the form of
a new XML document including a new list of the books matching the two search
criteria,
each book in the new XML document only including the book's title and its
publication year
as an attribute in the <book> tag.
[00163] Figure 11 C is a table 1115 of the five input sequences defined by the
query
engine 30 in accordance with some embodiments. Based on the XQuery 1110, the
query
engine 30 defines five input sequences, each input sequence corresponding to
one tag or tag
attribute within the XML document 1100. Note that the publication year
attribute "@year"
appears twice in the XQuery 1110, one in the where clause and the other in the
return clause,
and corresponds to two separate input sequences. The five input sequences each
have an
associated node sub-stream labeled "Node Sub-Stream (0)" through "Node Sub-
Stream (4)"
and correspond to a respective path filter as shown in the table 1115.
[00164] Different input sequences are associated with different portions of
the XQuery
1110 and therefore have different modes. For example, the <book> tag
associated with the
input sequence "Node Sub-Stream (0)" appears in the for-in clause, but not the
return clause.
Thus, the input sequence "Node Sub-Stream (0)" is presumed to provide context
for the
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
search process and serve in the "Context" mode, and the nodes in the
corresponding node
sub-stream are referred to as "context node sub-stream."
[00165] Similarly, the content of the <publisher> tag associated with the
input
sequence "Node Sub-Stream (1)" is compared with "Addison-Wesley" in the where
clause of
the XQuery 1110. Thus, the input sequence "Node Sub-Stream (1)" is presumed to
provide
content for the search process and serve in the "Content" mode, and the nodes
in the
corresponding node sub-stream are therefore referred to as "content node sub-
stream." The
<title> tag associated with the input sequence "Node Sub-Stream (4)" appears
in the return
clause. Thus, the input sequence "Node Sub-Stream (4)" is presumed to provide
both context
and content for the search process and serve in the "All" mode. In some
embodiments, an
input sequence in the "All" mode has two node sub-streams.
[00166] The "Parent" column in the table 1115 indicates whether an input
sequence is
a child of another input sequence. In this example, the input sequence
associated with the
for-in clause provides basis for the other input sequences associated with the
other parts of
the XQuery 1110. Any node in one of the other four input sequences corresponds
to a
specific node in the input sequence "Node Sub-Stream (0)," which is therefore
deemed to be
the parent input sequence of the other four input sequences.
[00167] Figure I 1D is a flowchart illustrative of how the query engine 30
processes
node sub-streams at different input sequences in accordance with some
embodiments. This
flowchart provides more details of the information flow shown in the block
diagram of Figure
I OA.
[00168] The query engine 30 initializes the stream engine 60 (1120) and
processes the
search query (1122) to define input sequences, path filters, and a finite
state machine that is
used for generating one or more node sub-streams. The query engine 30 then
starts iterating
the next node sub-stream (1124). In this example, the query engine 30 begins
with the
context node sub-stream of Node Sub-Stream (0).
[00169] If the context node sub-stream has no context node (1126, no), the
query
engine 30 then requests more context nodes from the stream engine 60 (1128,
1130).
Consequently, more data packets are retrieved (1132) and parsed (1134) to
provide more
nodes, including context nodes and content nodes, to the query engine 30.
31
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00170] Once a new context node is present in the node sub-stream of Node Sub-
Stream (0) (1126, yes), the query engine 30 applies the search query to the
context node and
its associated nodes in other node sub-streams (1136). If the search criteria
are satisfied
(1138, yes), a relevant chunk has been identified and there is no need to
apply the search
query to the remaining portion of the relevant chunk. Thus, the query engine
30 needs to
quickly reach the end of the relevant chunk through round-tripping the content
nodes in
different node streams (1140). After finishing the content nodes, if the end
of the chunk has
not been reached (1142, no), the query engine 30 may request the stream engine
60 to process
more data packets (1146).
[00171] If the search criteria are not met (1138, no), a relevant chunk has
not been
identified, and the query engine 30 sends a request to the query mediator to
retrieve one or
more content nodes and re-apply the search query. If the stream engine 60 has
more nodes or
node fragments (1144, yes), they will be parsed and submitted to the query
engine 30 (1134).
Otherwise (1144, no), the query engine 30 may request the stream engine 60 to
process more
data packets (1146).
[00172] As shown in Figure 11 C, the XQuery 1110 defines five input sequences
and
therefore five path filters. The stream engine 60 uses these path filters to
build a finite state
machine, which, as shown in Figure I OB, is to divide the original node stream
corresponding
to the XML document 1100 into five node sub-streams. The finite state machine
has an
initial state, which can be any one of the five input sequences.
[00173] Figure 1 lE is a block diagram illustrative of how the node stream is
divided
into multiple node sub-streams by the finite state machine in accordance with
some
embodiments. From the start state (1150), the finite state machine receives a
node including
the <bib> tag. Because this tag is not relevant to any input sequence, the
finite state machine
discards the node. After receiving a node including the <book> tag, the finite
state machine
makes a transition to the state corresponding to Node Sub-Stream (0) and adds
the node into
the corresponding context node stream (1152). Next, the node including the
publication year
attribute is processed and added into the two respective node sub-streams
corresponding to
Node Sub-Stream (2) and Node Sub-Stream (3) (1154).
[00174] Upon receiving a node including the <title> tag, the finite state
machine makes
another transition to the state corresponding to Node Sub-Stream (4). As noted
above in
32
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
connection with Figure 11 C, the input sequence Node Sub-Stream (4) serves in
the "All"
mode. Thus, besides adding the node including the <title> tag into the
corresponding node
sub-stream (1156), the finite state machine adds everything enclosed by the
pair of (<title>,
</title>) tags into the same node sub-stream or a separate node sub-stream
(1158). For
example, if there is a pair of (<subtitle>, </subtitle>) tags within the pair
of (<title>, </title>)
tags, they will be added into the respective node sub-stream because, as
explained above, the
XQuery 1110 requires the return of each matching book's title, including its
subtitle, if
present.
[00175] Similarly, the node including the <publisher> tag is added into the
node sub-
stream corresponding to Node Sub-Stream (1) (1160) and the textual portion
within the pair
of (<publisher >, </publisher>) tags is extracted by a text() function and
added into the same
or a separate node sub-stream (1162). This textual portion is required by the
XQuery 1110 to
check whether the book is published by the publisher Addison-Wesley.
[00176] Figure 11F is a block diagram illustrative of the input sequences and
their
associated node sub-streams after the first candidate chunk in the XML
document is
processed in accordance with some embodiments.
[00177] The node sub-stream "Node Sub-Stream (0)" is first populated with a
context
node "<book>" (1164). Next, the node sub-streams "Node Sub-Stream (2)" and
"Node Sub-
Stream (3)" are each populated with a content node "1994" (1166, 1168). For
the node
including the <title> tag, the stream engine 60 inserts into the node sub-
stream "Node Sub-
Stream (4)" both the <title> tag (1170) and the data descending from the
<title> tag (1172).
For the node including the <publisher> tag, the stream engine 60 is only
interested in its
content and therefore populates the node sub-stream "Node Sub-Stream (1)" with
the textual
portion of the <publisher> tag (1174).
[00178] Figure 11 G is the search result of applying the XQuery 1110 to the
node sub-
streams derived from XML document 1100 in accordance with some embodiments.
The
search result is also an XML document 1180 that includes two books 1182 and
1184 that
satisfy the XQuery 1110. As shown in Figure 11F, the node sub-streams
corresponding to
the five input sequences include all information necessary for generating this
resulting XML
document 1180.
33
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00179] Thus far, detailed descriptions of document-processing schemes in
response to
a search request, including the downstream processes 25 and the upstream
processes 35, are
provided above. These document-processing schemes can be used to implement
various
applications to satisfy different user needs. For illustration, embodiments of
representative
applications are provided below.
[00180] One application of the invention is to improve a user's experience
with the
search results generated by search engines. Although a document identified by
the search
results is relevant to the search keywords, the document may not include any
relevant chunks
because the search engines treat the entire document, not a chunk within the
document, as the
basic unit to be compared with the search keywords. Thus, one aspect of the
invention is to
identify and display relevant chunks within a document in response to a search
request.
[00181] Figure 12A is a flowchart illustrative of a first process of
identifying one or
more documents, each document having one or more chunks that satisfy user-
specified search
keywords, in accordance with some embodiments.
[00182] A computer identifies multiple resource identifiers (1201), each
resource
identifier corresponding to a document at a respective data source. In some
embodiments, a
resource identifier is a URL, which identifies a web page at a remote web
server. In some
embodiments, the resource identifiers are part of search results produced by a
server
computer such as a search engine in response to one or more search keywords
provided by an
end user from a client computer.
[00183] For at least one of the resource identifiers, the computer retrieves
the
corresponding document from the respective document source (1203). If the
document is a
web page hosted by a web server, the computer submits an HTTP request to the
web server
and the web server returns the document in an HTTP response. Within the
retrieved
document, the computer identifies a chunk that satisfies the user-specified
search keywords
(1205) and displays the identified chunk and a link to the identified chunk
within the
document to the user (1207).
[00184] Figure 12B is a flowchart illustrative of a second process of
identifying one or
more document, each document having one or more chunks that satisfy user-
specified search
keywords, in accordance with some embodiments.
34
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00185] A client computer submits one or more user-specified search keywords
to a
server computer (1211). In some embodiments, the server computer is one or
more third-
party search engines. The client computer receives a set of search results
from the server
computer (1213), each search result identifying a document located at a
respective document
source that satisfies the search keywords in accordance with a first set of
predefined criteria.
[00186] For each identified document, the client computer retrieves the
document from
the corresponding document source (1215), identifies a chunk within the
document that
satisfies the search query in accordance with a second set of predefined
criteria (1217), and
displays the identified chunk and a link to the identified chunk within the
document (1219).
In some embodiments, the two sets of predefined criteria are different. For
example, the first
set of criteria requires that all the search keywords be found within a
document, but not
necessarily within a chunk. In contrast, the second set of criteria is
satisfied only if all the
search keywords are found within a chunk.
[00187] Figures 12C through 12J are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the processes as
shown in Figures
12A and 12B in accordance with some embodiments.
[00188] The graphical user interface includes one or more document links, each
document link having one or more associated chunks identified within the
corresponding
document as satisfying one or more user-specified search keywords. In some
embodiments,
each chunk has an associated chunk link and includes terms matching each of
the user-
specified search keywords. The matching terms may also be highlighted in the
chunk in a
visually distinguishable manner (such as in different colors, font types or
combination
thereof). In response to a user selection of a chunk's chunk link, the
corresponding document
is displayed in a window on the computer display and at least a portion of the
chunk is
highlighted in the window.
[00189] In some embodiments, each document link has an associated chunk page-
link
icon for searching chunks within documents that are referenced by the
corresponding
document. In response to a user selection of a document link's associated
chunk page-link
icon, one or more referenced document links are displayed on the computer
display, with
each referenced document link having one or more associated chunks identified
within a
corresponding referenced document as satisfying the user-specified search
keywords.
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00190] In some embodiments, each document link has an associated hide-chunk
icon.
In response to a user selection of a document link's associated hide-chunk
icon, the chunks
associated with the document link and their associated chunk links disappear
from the
computer display.
[00191] In some embodiments, chunks associated with a respective document link
are
displayed in an order consistent with their relative relevancy to the user-
specified search
keywords. In some other embodiments, chunks associated with a respective
document link
are displayed in an order consistent with their relative locations within the
corresponding
document.
[00192] As shown in Figure 12C, through an application 1220 (e.g., a web
browser
window), a user submits three search keywords 1221 from a client computer to a
content
provider such as a search engine. In this example, the application 1220
provides four
different search options for the user to choose. They are:
= "Best Match" option 1226-A - This search option allows the application 1220
to adaptively select one or more chunks satisfying one or more of the user-
specified search keywords according to predefined criteria. In some
embodiments, the "Best Match" option is the default option if the user does
not expressly choose a different one. A more detailed description of this
search option is provided below in connection with Figures 21A through 21D.
= "Match All" option 1226-B - This search option limits the search results to
relevant chunks that satisfy each of three user-specified search keywords.
Thus, a candidate chunk that only includes "einstein" and "bohr," but not
"debate," should not be in the search results responsive to the "Match All"
option, but may be in the search results responsive to the "Best Match"
option.
As shown in Figure 12C, the user expressly chooses the "Match All" option.
= "`Exact' Match" option 1226-C - This search option further limits the search
results to relevant chunks that not only satisfy each of three user-specified
search keywords, but also include an exact match of the search keywords as a
string. Examples of "exact"-matching chunks are shown in Figures 12F and
12G, respectively. Note that this option is different from the string-match
approach, which is variant-sensitive. Under the string-match approach,
36
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
"einstein bohr debates" does not match "Einstein-Bohr debate." But
according to the "`Exact' Match" option, the two sets of terms do match each
other as this search option ignores any non-word characters such as white
space, punctuation, etc., and only requires that the three terms appear in the
same order and have no intervening terms.
= "Match Any" option 1226-D - This search option allows the application 1220
to identify and display any chunk that satisfies at least one of the user-
specified search keywords. Thus, the search results responsive to any of the
three options above are a subset of the search results responsive to the
"Match
Any" option, an example of which is depicted in Figures 121 and 12J.
[00193] The content provider returns a search result 1225 to the client
computer and
the search result 1225 includes an abbreviated document segment identified by
the search
engine as satisfying the search keywords. The client computer retrieves a
document
identified in the search result 1225 (an HTML web page in this example) from a
web server
and identifies one or more chunks 1229-A through 1229-C therein that satisfy
the search
keywords 1221, each chunk having an associated link 1231 to the chunk in the
original web
page. In some embodiments, each of the chunks 1229-A through 1229-C are
different from
the abbreviated document segment because it is a semantically and contextually
consistent
unit within the document without abbreviation.
[00194] In some embodiments, after retrieving a candidate document, the
application
1220 generates a search query using the search keywords and applies the search
query to the
retrieved document to identify relevant chunks within the document.
[00195] In some embodiments, the terms that match the search keywords in the
identified chunk are ordered differently from the user-specified search
keywords. For
example, the term "debate" appears between "Bohr" and "Einstein" in the chunk
1229-B of
Figure 12C.
[00196] In some embodiments, the terms that match the search keywords in the
identified chunk are separated from one another by at least one term not
matching any of the
search keywords. For example, the three terms appearing in the last sentence
of the chunk
1229-A are separated from one another by many other words. Unlike the
conventional string
search, an identified chunk may or may not include an exact match of the
search keywords as
37
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
a string. Rather, the search process according to some embodiments of the
invention includes
tokenization of the search keywords in a text string into atoms and subsequent
search in the
token space according to the atoms, which is variant-agnostic by, e.g.,
ignoring things like
grammatical tense, punctuation, white space, casing, diacritics, etc. in the
search keywords.
For example, in the screenshot of Figure 12C, "Einstein Bohr debate" and
"einstein bohr
debating" are deemed to be identical according to some embodiments of the
invention.
[00197] In some embodiments, an identified chunk includes an identical
instance of the
search keywords appearing as a phrase. But, as noted above, although the
instance is the
same as the result of a string search, the search keywords are not identified
collectively as a
text string within the chunk.
[00198] In some embodiments, different terms matching different search
keywords in
the identified chunk are highlighted in different manners such as different
colors, different
foreground/background patterns, different font types/sizes, or a combination
thereof. In
Figure 12C, the three terms appearing in each chunk are highlighted using
large, italic, and
underlined font. In some embodiments, the three terms are further
distinguished from one
another using a unique style for each term. For example, the three terms may
have three
completely different styles such as Courier New for "Einstein," Arial for
"Bohr,"
and Monotype Corsiva for " debate." In some other embodiments, the three terms
may have
different background colors, such as gray for "Einstein," green for "Bohr,"
and yellow for
"debate." In yet some other embodiments, the different manners may be combined
to further
distinguish different search keywords appearing in the same chunk.
[00199] In some embodiments, one or more sponsored links (1227, Figure 12C)
are
identified to be associated with at least one of the search keywords and
displayed adjacent the
identified chunk.
[00200] As shown in Figure 12C, there are a chunk page-link icon 1223 and a
hide-
chunk icon 1224 below the search result 1225. In response to a user selection
of the chunk
page-link icon 1223, the computer retrieves documents that are referenced by
the document
identified by the search result 1225 and therefore have page links in the
document. For each
retrieved document, the computer identifies chunks within the document that
satisfy the
search keywords 1221 by apply the same "chunking" process that has been
applied to the
document identified by the search result 1225.
38
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00201] Figure 12D is a screenshot illustrative of the search results after a
user
selection of the chunk page-link icon 1251, including a link 1253-A, 1253-B to
a respective
document and a set of relevant chunks 1255-A, 1255-B identified within the
corresponding
document. The terms that match the search keywords are similarly highlighted
in the
relevant chunks. Note that a user can repeat this process by clicking the
chunk page-link
icons 1254-A, 1254-B associated with the respective documents. In some
embodiments, the
application 1220 applies its default search option, e.g., "Best Match" option
1226-A, for
performing the task associated with the chunk page-link icon 1251. In some
other
embodiments, the user can override the default search option by expressly
selecting another
option.
[00202] Figure 12E is a screenshot illustrative of the search results after
the user clicks
the hide-chunk icons (1224, Figure 12C) associated with the respective search
results. In this
example, the relevant chunks associated with a search result disappear from
the web browser
window and the hide-chunk icons become show-chunk icons 1257A, 1257B. The
relevant
chunks are displayed again in the web browser window after a user selection of
the show-
chunk icons.
[00203] In some embodiments, multiple relevant chunks are identified within a
candidate document and these chunks are displayed in an order consistent with
their relative
locations within the document. Figure 12F is a screenshot that includes
multiple relevant
chunks, each one satisfying the two search keywords "Bohr-Einstein" and
"debates." These
chunks are listed in the web browser window in accordance with their relative
locations in the
web page such that the first chunk 1233-A that appears first in the web page
is displayed
above the other ones and the last chunk 1233-B that appears below the other
chunks is
displayed at the bottom of the web browser window.
[00204] In some embodiments, multiple relevant chunks are identified within a
candidate document and these chunks are displayed in an order consistent with
their relative
relevancy to the search keywords. Figure 12G is another screenshot that
includes the same
set of relevant chunks. Assume that the chunk 1233-B is more relevant than the
chunk 1233-
A. The more relevant chunk 1233-B is displayed above the other less relevant
chunks
including the chunk 1233-A. For illustrative purposes, the two screenshots in
Figures 12F
and 12G are generated using the "`Exact' Match" option 1226-C. Each chunk 1233-
A, 1233-
B includes at least one instance of the two search keywords as a string
(ignoring the casing
39
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
difference). The aforementioned chunk-ordering schemes or the like are equally
applicable
to the other search options.
[00205] In some embodiments, in response to a user selection of the link to an
identified chunk, at least a portion of the identified document is displayed
in a document view
window and the displayed portion includes, at least partially, the identified
chunk. Figure
12H is a screenshot of the web browser window after a user click of the chunk
link 1235. A
document view window 1237 is displayed next to the search results. The
document view
window 1237 displays a portion of the document that includes the relevant
chunk and the
displayed portion includes at least part of the relevant chunk 1239 within the
document. In
this example, the relevant chunk 1239 is highlighted in the document view
window.
Sometimes, the terms matching the search keywords in the relevant chunk 1239
are processed
such that they are visually distinguishable over the rest of the identified
chunk, e.g., using
different colors or font types.
[00206] In some embodiments, for each relevant chunk in the identified
document, the
computer inserts a pair of unique chunk virtual delimiters into the identified
document. This
pair of chunk virtual delimiters uniquely defines the scope of the relevant
chunk within the
identified document, but is invisible to the user when the identified document
is being
rendered by an application. In response to a user request to view the relevant
chunk 1239 in
the document view window 1237, the computer can quickly locate the scope of
the relevant
chunk 1239 within the document by looking for the corresponding pair of chunk
virtual
delimiters and then highlight the chunk in the document view window
appropriately.
[00207] In some embodiments, the HTML tag <span> can be introduced into a
candidate document for forming chunk virtual delimiters. For example, the
following chunk
in an HTML document
<p>This is a candidate chunk.</p>
can be re-defined as:
<span id="chunk-1 "><p>This is a candidate chunk.</p></span>
[00208] The HTML tag <span> has no effect on the appearance of the chunk in a
web
browser window because it has no associated style information. But the pair of
chunk virtual
delimiters (<span id="chunk-1">, </span>) uniquely identifies the chunk's
location in the
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
document, which a web browser application can rely upon to highlight the
chunk's existence
by, e.g., altering its background color. Note that the HTML tag <span> is not
the only choice
of a suitable invisible anchor element. In some other embodiments, it is
possible to use one
or more document-unique, chunk-unique identifiers or the like within the
document as chunk
virtual delimiters to achieve the same or similar effect.
[00209] In some embodiments, for at least one of the resource identifiers,
after the
corresponding document is retrieved from the respective document source, no
relevant chunk
that satisfies each of the search keywords is identified therein. This
scenario happens if the
terms matching the search keywords are distributed in different chunks within
the document.
In this case, the web browser window displays a link to search for chunks that
satisfy any of
the search keywords within the document. In response to a user selection of
the link to search
for chunks that satisfy any of the search keywords within the document, the
retrieved
document is re-processed, and as a result, one or more chunks that satisfy at
least one of the
search keywords is identified in the document. Accordingly, these chunks are
displayed to
the end user.
[00210] Figure 121 is a screenshot that includes a search result 1241 that
satisfies all
the search keywords "Einstein" and "big bang." Because no relevant chunk is
found in the
web page, the web browser window provides a link 1243 to "re-chunk" the web
page to
search for any chunk matching any search keywords. Figure 12J is another
screenshot after
the user click of the link 1243. Note that at least five chunks are identified
in the document,
three chunks 1245 including the keyword "Einstein" and two other chunks 1247
including the
keywords "big bang." But no chunk satisfies all the search keywords. In some
embodiments,
the same set of chunks can be identified in the document through a user
selection of the
"Match Any" option 1226-D.
[00211] Another application of the invention is to identify and display within
a
document relevant chunks satisfying user-specified search keywords while the
user is
browsing the document. Conventionally, a user visiting a web page may be only
interested in
the content of a particular paragraph therein. To find the paragraph, the user-
specified text
string has to exactly match the one in the paragraph. Otherwise, the paragraph
can not be
easily located in the document if the user can provide a few search keywords
but is mistaken
about their exact sequence in the paragraph. Such issues with the conventional
approach
have been solved by the application described below.
41
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00212] Figure 13A is a flowchart illustrative of a first process of
identifying within a
document one or more chunks that satisfy user-specified search keywords in
accordance with
some embodiments.
[00213] A computer displays a portion of a document to a user (1302). Upon
receiving
a user-specified text string that includes multiple search keywords, the
computer identifies a
chunk within the document that satisfies the search keywords (1304) and
displays the
identified chunk to the user (1306). In some embodiments, the identified chunk
is not within
the initially displayed portion of the document. To locate the chunk, the
computer generates
a search query using the search keywords and applies the search query to the
document to
identify the chunk. In some embodiments, the terms that match the search
keywords are
either ordered differently from the search keywords in the user-specified text
string or
separated from one another by at least one term not matching any of the search
keywords.
[00214] Figure 13B is a flowchart illustrative of a second process of
identifying within
a document one or more chunks that satisfy user-specified search keywords in
accordance
with some embodiments.
[00215] While a user is browsing a document through a computer, the computer
receives multiple user-specified search keywords (1312). The search keywords
have a first
sequence. Within the document, the computer identifies at least one chunk that
satisfies the
search keywords (1314) and displays a portion of the document including the
identified
chunk (1316). In some embodiments, the search keywords are highlighted in the
identified
chunk and have a second sequence that is different from the first sequence.
[00216] Figures 13C through 13G are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the second process
as shown in
Figures 13A and 13B in accordance with some embodiments.
[00217] Figure 13C is a screenshot of a web page covering Bohr-Einstein
debates at
www.wikipedia.org. Assuming that a visitor of this web page is interested in
learning about
the experimental apparatus developed by George Gamow, the visitor can enter a
few search
keywords relating to this topic in the input field 1322 and then click the
"Chunk Page" icon
1323.
42
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00218] Figure 13D is a screenshot of the web page including the identified
chunk
1326 that satisfies the user-specified search keywords 1324, i.e., "gamow" and
"experiment."
In this example, the relevant chunk 1326 is actually not a paragraph, but a
caption of a figure
in the document. The sentence 1327 including the two keywords is read as
follows: "George
Gamow's make-believe experimental apparatus for validating the thought
experiment..."
Although the two keywords are separated from each other by other terms, the
figure caption
is identified nonetheless because the two keywords happen to be within the
same chunk.
[00219] Figure 13E is a screenshot illustrative of another embodiment of the
invention
in response to a user selection of the "Chunk Page" icon at the top of the web
browser
window. In this example, the left side of the web browser window displays the
relevant
chunks 1325 identified within the web page. If the web page has multiple
relevant chunks,
the user can easily get an overview of these chunks from the left side of the
web browser.
The right side of the web browser is a document view window that displays the
portion of the
document including the relevant chunk 1326. Thus, this document view window
provides
more contexts for each relevant chunk to the user.
[00220] In some embodiments, like the examples described above in connection
with
Figures 12C through 12J, different terms in the identified chunk that match
different search
keywords are highlighted in different manners such as different colors,
different
foreground/background styles, different font types, or a combination thereof.
[00221] In some embodiments, multiple relevant chunks are identified within a
document, each one appearing at a respective location in the document. In this
case, the web
browser window displays, at least partially, the chunk that appears above the
other chunks in
the document and its associated context.
[00222] Figure 13F is a screenshot of another web page at w w.wiki edia.org.
In
response to the user-specified search keywords 1328 "cosmic," "background,"
and
"radiation," the first relevant chunk 1330 in the web page that matches the
three search
keywords is identified and displayed in a visually distinguishing manner. A
scroll down of
the web page displays additional relevant chunks identified in the web page.
[00223] Sometimes, the first relevant chunk shown in Figure 13F is not
necessarily the
most relevant one. In some embodiments, after identifying multiple chunks
within the
document, the web browser assigns to each chunk a ranking metric indicative of
its relevancy
43
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
to the search keywords and displays in a prominent location, at least
partially, the chunk that
has the highest ranking metric.
[00224] Figure 13G is a screenshot of the same web page shown in Figure 13F.
But
the relevant chunks are now displayed in an order consistent with their
relevancy to the
search keywords. In this case, the relevant chunk 1332 is a section heading,
which is
presumably more relevant than the chunk 1330 shown in Figure 13F.
[00225] In some embodiments, if there is no chunk within the document that
satisfies
each of the search keywords, the web browser, or more specifically, the "Chunk
Page"
toolbar application, may relax its search criteria to look for any chunks in
the document that
satisfy any of the search keywords and display them to the user. In other
words, this feature
is similar to the one described above in connection with Figures 121 and 12J.
[00226] Another application of the invention is to identify relevant chunks
within
unstructured or semi-structured documents. It has been a particular challenge
to identify
chunks within an HTML web page because the HTML syntax allows its user to
produce the
same or similar web page layout using very different metadata.
[00227] Figure 14 is a flowchart illustrative of a process of modeling a
document and
identifying within the document one or more chunks that satisfy user-specified
search
keywords in accordance with some embodiments.
[00228] A computer identifies a document in response to a search request from
a user
(1401). The document includes content data and metadata, and the search
request includes
one or more search keywords. In some embodiments, the document is a semi-
structured
document, e.g., an HTML web page. The content data refers to the document's
content such
as a paragraph, a table, or a list of bullet items, etc. The metadata
specifies how the content
data should be rendered through an application, e.g., a web browser window.
[00229] The computer generates a hierarchical semantic model of the content
data of
the document by applying heuristics to the metadata of the document (1403). In
some
embodiments, the generation of the hierarchical semantic model includes
identifying one or
more candidate chunks in the document, each candidate chunk corresponding to a
respective
subset of the document. As noted above, the HTML web page shown in Figure 9B
has a
hierarchical semantic model, which includes a set of HTML tags at different
levels.
44
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00230] In some embodiments, a first subset of the document associated with a
first
candidate chunk encompasses a second subset of the document associated with a
second
candidate chunk. For example, as shown in Figure 9B, both the candidate chunks
956 and
958 are within the candidate chunk 954, which is, in turn, within the
candidate chunk 952.
There is no overlapping between the candidate chunk 956 and the candidate
chunk 958.
[00231] In some embodiments, the heuristics stipulates that a subset of the
document
is identified as a candidate chunk if the subset of the document has at least
one instance of
predefined metadata. For example, the candidate chunks 956 and 958 are
identified because
each begins with the <p> paragraph tag.
[00232] In some embodiments, the heuristics stipulates that a subset of the
document is
deemed to be a candidate chunk if the subset of the document has at least two
instances of
predefined metadata. For example, two or more instances of the <li> tag
appearing in a web
page one after another are collectively identified as a candidate chunk.
[00233] The computer identifies a chunk within the document by sequentially
scanning
the hierarchical semantic model (1405). The identified chunk includes a subset
of the content
data that satisfies the search keywords and the corresponding metadata. The
computer
returns the identified chunk to the requesting user (1407).
[00234] In some embodiments, assume that there are two search keywords, a
first
search keyword and a second search keyword. While sequentially scanning the
semantic
model, the computer first identifies some content data that is in the first
candidate chunk and
precedes the second candidate chunk as satisfying the first search keyword
(e.g., "It's raining
outside ... ") and then identifies content data in the second candidate chunk
that satisfies the
second search keyword (e.g., "For XML-based data management"). Because both
search
keywords are matched, the first candidate chunk is chosen to be the identified
chunk and
returned to the requesting client.
[00235] In some embodiments, the computer does not return the first chunk
immediately after finding a match for the search keyword. Rather, the computer
continues
scanning the model until identifying content data in the second candidate
chunk that also
satisfies the first search keyword (e.g., "Raining Data is your choice"). In
this case, the
second candidate chunk is returned as the relevant chunk that is more specific
than the first
one.
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00236] In some embodiments, while sequentially scanning the hierarchical
semantic
model, the computer identifies content data that satisfies the first search
keyword in one
candidate chunk and content data that satisfies the second search keyword in
another
candidate chunk. For example, assume that the search keywords are "CAD" and
"job
listings." As shown in Figure 9B, the candidate chunk 956 includes the search
keyword
"CAD" and the candidate chunk 958 includes the search keyword "job listings."
In this case,
the computer chooses the candidate chunk 954, which is the parent of the
chunks 956 and 958
in the hierarchical semantic mode, as the identified chunk. Note that there is
no other content
data or metadata within the candidate chunk 954 besides the two candidate
chunks 956 and
958.
[00237] Another application of the invention is to transform the user-
specified search
keywords into a finely-tuned query. Sometimes, the user-specified search
keywords may
include a special character (e.g., "%") or sequence of characters (e.g., "Jan
22 2008"). This
special character or sequence of characters, if interpreted appropriately, can
help to find the
relevant chunks more efficiently.
[00238] Figure 15 is a flowchart illustrative of a process of customizing a
search query
based on user-specified search keywords in accordance with some embodiments.
[00239] After receiving a search keyword provided by a user (1502), the
computer
selects an archetype for the search keyword (1504). The computer identifies
one or more
search results in accordance with the archetype (1506) and returns at least
one of the search
results to the user (1508).
[00240] In some embodiments, the archetype has an enumerable set of instances
and
the search keyword is associated with one of the instances. For example, if
the user-specified
search keyword is "Tuesday," a possible archetype would be "week," of which
"Tuesday"
represents one of the seven members in the archetype.
[00241] In some embodiments, after selecting the archetype, the computer
identifies at
least one query operator for the selected archetype, constructs a search query
using the query
operator, and then executes the search query against one or more data sources.
For example,
for the "week" archetype, the computer may generate a search query that looks
for chunks
including not only the keyword "Tuesday," but any of the seven days within a
week such as
"Sunday," "Monday," etc.
46
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00242] In some embodiments, the query operator has a scope and the search
query is
constructed to limit search results within the scope. For example, assume that
the search
phrase is "discount of 10%." It is likely that the user is not only interested
in chunks having
the phrase "discount of 10%," but also chunks having similar phrases, e.g.,
"discount of
15%." Alternatively, the user may be mistaken when entering the phrase and the
candidate
document actually has no chunk including the phrase "discount of 10%," but
does have
chunks including the phrase "discount of 20%." In this case, the computer may
generate a
search query for discount within the scope of 0% to 100%. As a result, more
relevant chunks
are identified.
[00243] In some embodiments, the query operator has a pattern and the search
query is
constructed to limit search results including the pattern. For example, the
user-specified
phrase "Jan 22 2008" indicates a date pattern. If so, the computer may
generate a search
query accordingly to search for any chunk having the date pattern.
[00244] In some embodiments, after selecting the archetype and before
identifying the
search results, the computer solicits user instructions in connection with the
archetype,
constructs the search query in accordance with the user instructions, and
executes the search
query against the data sources. For example, if the user-specified search
keyword includes
the special character "%," the computer may display a user interface through
which the user
may specify the scope or range associated with that special character, which
is then built into
the search query.
[00245] In some embodiments, based on the user instructions, the computer may
generate feedback to the user instructions and then receive more user
instructions in
connection with the archetype and the feedback. Note that this process may
repeat for
multiple loops until the user submits a search query execution request, which
suggests that
the user is satisfied with the customized search query.
[00246] Another application of the invention is not only to display relevant
chunks
identified within a document but also to re-use them for different purposes.
For example,
when a user composes a Word document using Microsoft Office, the user may like
to view a
slide in a PowerPoint document and, if needed, generate a copy of the slide in
the Word
document. Currently, there is no convenient way to do so other than opening
the PowerPoint
47
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
document in a separate window, manually searching for the slide in the window,
and
manually copying the slide and pasting it into the Word document.
[00247] Figure 16A is a flowchart illustrative of a process of displaying and
re-using
search results based on user instructions in accordance with some embodiments.
[00248] A computer displays an application user interface (1601). The
application
user interface includes a document authoring window and a search results
window. In
response to a search request including one or more user-specified search
keywords, the
computer displays in the search results window a set of search results in a
text-only display
format (1603). In some embodiments, each search result includes a chunk within
a respective
document that satisfies the search keywords. In response to a user request to
view a chunk,
the computer launches a document display window in the application user
interface and
displays therein a portion of the corresponding document that includes the
chunk in its native
display format (1605). In response to a user request to duplicate a segment of
the
corresponding document in the document authoring window, the computer
generates therein
an instance of the segment of the corresponding document in its native display
format (1607).
[00249] Figures 16B through 16J are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the process as shown
in Figure 16A
in accordance with some embodiments.
[00250] The application user interface includes a document authoring window
and a
search results window. A set of search results associated with one or more
user-specified
search keywords is displayed in the search results window in a text-only
display format and
each search result includes one or more chunks identified within a respective
document as
satisfying the user-specified search keywords. In response to a user request
to duplicate a
chunk within a document in the document authoring window, an instance of the
chunk is
displayed in the document authoring window in the document's native display
format. In
some embodiments, two chunks identified within two different documents have
different
native display formats.
[00251] In some embodiments, each chunk in the search results window has an
associated chunk link. In response to a user selection of a respective chunk
link, a document
display window is displayed in the application user interface and a portion of
the
48
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
corresponding document that includes the corresponding chunk is displayed in
the document
display window in the document's native display format.
[00252] In some embodiments, each chunk includes terms that match the user-
specified search keywords an associated chunk link. Different terms matching
different
search keywords are highlighted in the search results window in a visually
distinguishable
manner.
[00253] In some embodiments, the chunks identified within a document are
displayed
in the search results window in an order consistent with their relative
relevancy to the user-
specified search keywords. In some other embodiments, the chunks identified
within a
document are displayed in the search results window in an order consistent
with their relative
locations within the corresponding document.
[00254] Figure 16B is a screenshot of the Microsoft Office 2007 Word
application user
interface 1611. The main region of the user interface is occupied by a
document authoring
window 1613. Above the document authoring window 1613 is an add-in 1615 to
Microsoft
Office 2007. The add-in 1615 includes a keyword(s) input field 1615-A into
which the user
enters search keywords, a document type selection field 1615-B through which
the user
selects the types of candidate documents to be searched, and a web source
field 1615-C
including multiple document sources through which the user can search and re-
use
documents identified by the respective document sources.
[00255] In some embodiments, the set of search results includes a first chunk
within a
first document having a first content type and a second chunk within a second
document
having a second content type, wherein the first content type is different from
the second
content type. Different search keywords in the search results window are
highlighted in
different manners.
[00256] Figure 16C is a screenshot including a search results window 1625 and
the
search phrases 1621 "Einstein general relativity." In this example, the user
limits the
document search to two types of documents 1623, Word and PowerPoint. As
described
above in connection with Figure 1, this search limit is passed down from the
front end 15 (the
add-in 1615 in this example) to the query engine 30 and then to the cache
engine 40. Thus,
the cache engine 40 only looks for Word and PowerPoint documents in the index
database
49
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
50. In this example, one chunk 1627 from a PowerPoint document and another
chunk 1629
from a Word document are shown in the search results window 1625.
[00257] Note that each chunk in the search results window has an associated
content
type, which may be different from the document type of the corresponding
document that
includes the chunk. For example, a Word document may include a PowerPoint
slide or an
Excel spreadsheet. If the PowerPoint slide is identified to be the relevant
chunk, the content
type of the relevant chunk is PowerPoint, not Word, although the PowerPoint
slide is within a
Word document. Similarly, if a row in the Excel spreadsheet is identified to
be the relevant
chunk and the content type of the relevant chunk is therefore Excel, not Word.
These chunks
may or may not be displayed depending upon the embodiment.
[00258] In some embodiments, in response to a user request to duplicate the
first chunk
from the search results window into the document authoring window, the
computer generates
therein an instance of a first segment of the first document, including the
first chunk, in its
native display format. In response to a user request to duplicate the second
chunk from the
search results window into the document authoring window, the computer
generates therein
an instance of a second segment of the second document, including the second
chunk, in its
native display format. Sometimes, the first document and the second document
have
different native display formats.
[00259] Figure 16D is a screenshot including a PowerPoint slide 1633 in the
document
authoring window and the slide 1633 corresponds to the relevant chunk 1627 in
Figure 16C.
To duplicate this slide 1633 in the document authoring window, the user first
selects the
checkbox 1631 next to the text-only version of the slide in the search results
window and then
clicks the duplicate icon 1635 at the top of the search results window.
[00260] Figure 16E is another screenshot including not only the PowerPoint
slide 1633
but also a paragraph 1643, which corresponds to the relevant chunk 1629 in
Figure 16C. To
duplicate this paragraph 1643 in the document authoring window, the user first
selects the
checkbox 1641 next to the text-only version of the paragraph in the search
results window
and then clicks the duplicate icon 1645 at the top of the search results
window.
[00261] Note that a PowerPoint document and a Word document are deemed to have
different native display formats. But relevant chunks in the search results
window are
displayed in a text-only format regardless of whether these chunks are
identified within a
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
PowerPoint document, a Word document, a plain-text document or even a PDF
document.
But when a chunk is duplicated into the document authoring window, the
computer tries to
display the chunk in its native format. Note that a chunk found in a plain-
text or PDF
document will be customized to a native display format associated with the
document
authoring window. In other words, if the document authoring window is a Word
document
authoring window, the chunk is displayed in the Word document's native display
format.
[00262] In some embodiments, the user may like to display a relevant chunk in
its
native display format before re-producing the chunk in the document authoring
window. For
example, in response to a first user selection of the first chunk, the
computer launches a first
document display window in the application user interface and displays therein
a first
document that includes the first chunk in its native display format. In
response to a second
user selection of the second chunk, the computer launches a second document
display
window in the application user interface and displays therein a second
document that includes
the second chunk in its native display format.
[00263] In some embodiments, the application user interface allows multiple
document
display windows associated with different document types to exist
simultaneously. In some
other embodiments, at one time, the application user interface only allows one
document
display window associated with a document type, e.g., by closing the first
document display
window before launching the second document display window in response to the
second
user selection of the second chunk.
[00264] In some embodiments, in response to a user request to view the chunk,
the
computer generates an empty region in the application user interface by
shrinking the
document authoring window and then occupies the empty region with the document
display
window in the application user interface.
[00265] In some embodiments, the portion of the corresponding document in the
document display window includes more information about the search keywords
than the
chunk in the search results window, such as the location of the search
keywords in the
corresponding document or the textual contents adjacent to the search keywords
in the
corresponding document.
[00266] Figure 16F is a screenshot including a document display window 1653 in
the
process of being rendered within the application user interface in response to
a user selection
51
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
of the link 1651. Note that the link 1651 is next to a chunk identified within
a PowerPoint
document. As shown in Figure 16G, the corresponding slide 1657 is displayed in
the
document display window and its location 1659 is highlighted in the document
display
window.
[00267] After viewing a chunk in the document display window, the author may
want
to duplicate the chunk in the document authoring window as well. As shown in
Figures 16H-
16J, respectively, in response to a user request to copy and paste a segment
1657 of the first
document from the first document display window into the document authoring
window, the
computer generates therein an instance 1661 of the segment of the first
document in its native
display format; in response to a user request to copy and paste a segment 1663
of the second
document display window into the document authoring window, the computer
generates
therein an instance 1665 of the segment 1663 of the second document in its
native display
format. This process is similar to the process described above in connection
with Figures
16D and 16E.
[00268] In some embodiments, the document display window is a preview-only
window of the corresponding document (e.g., a PDF document). The user cannot
modify the
document through the preview-only window. In some other embodiments, the
document
display window itself is a document authoring window, which may be another
instance of the
document authoring window (see, e.g., Figure 161) or may be different from the
original
document authoring window (see, e.g., Figure 16G). Sometimes, the search
keywords in the
document display window are also highlighted.
[00269] Another application of the invention is to replace one text string
with another
text string among a set of documents without having to open any of them. For
example, a
user may like to change the name of a subject from A to B within many
documents of
different types that cover the subject. In some cases, the user may like to
limit the change to
certain types of documents or certain locations within the documents.
Currently, the user has
to open each document one by one and manually apply the change. This is not
only time-
consuming but also error-prone.
[00270] Figure 17A is a flowchart illustrative of a process of finding and
replacing text
strings in connection with a set of search results based on user instructions
in accordance with
some embodiments.
52
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00271] A computer receives a user request to replace a first text string with
a second
text string in a first document and a second document (1702). The first text
string in the first
document has a first content type and the first text string in the second
document has a second
content type, which is different from the first content type. The computer
substitutes the
second text string for the first text string in the first document and the
second document
(1704). The replacing second text string in the first document has the first
content type and
the replacing second text string in the second document has the second content
type.
[00272] Figure 17B is a flowchart illustrative of a process of finding and
replacing text
strings within a set of documents based on user instructions in accordance
with some
embodiments.
[00273] After receiving a search request that includes one or more user-
specified
search keywords (1710), a computer identifies a first document and a second
document
(1712), each document having at least one chunk that satisfies the search
keywords. A first
text string in the first document has a first content type and the first text
string in the second
document has a second content type, which is different from the first content
type. After
receiving a user request to replace the first text string with a second text
string (1714), the
computer substitutes the second text string for the first text string in the
first document and
the second document (1716). The replacing second text string in the first
document has the
first content type and the replacing second text string in the second document
has the second
content type.
[00274] Figures 17C through 17E are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the processes as
shown in Figures
17A and 17B in accordance with some embodiments.
[00275] Figure 17C is a screenshot including a search assistant window 1722,
which
occupies the space in the application user interface previously occupied by
the document
display window (see, e.g., Figure 16J). In some embodiments, the search
assistant window
1722 is activated by a user selection of the search assistant icon 1720. The
search assistant
window 1722 includes three tabs, "Search Options," "History," and "Replace."
The
"Replace" tab allows a user to replace one text string 1724 ("Albert Einstein"
in this
example) with another text string 1726 ("A. Einstein" in this example) by
clicking the
"Update Content" button 1727.
53
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00276] In some embodiments, the "Replace" tab provides additional options
1728 for
the user to choose. For example, the user can limit the replacement to the
selected search
results in the search results window or relevant chunks in the identified
documents, which
documents result from a search and display of chunks that satisfy user-
specified search
keywords. Note that the text string 1724 to be replaced does not have to be
related to the
user-specified search keywords. They can be the same or overlapping (as is the
case in
Figure 17C) or completely different.
[00277] In some embodiments, the user can broaden the scope of the replacement
to be
the identified documents including, but not limited to, the relevant chunks.
In some other
embodiments, the user can further expand the scope to cover all the documents
whether or
not they have a relevant chunk.
[00278] In some embodiments, the "Replace" tab also allows the user to specify
the
locations within a document at which the replacement may happen. For example,
Figure 17C
depicts target options 1729 that include multiple locations, each having an
associated
checkbox. Thus, the user can stipulate that the first text string at one or
more user-specified
locations in the first and second documents be replaced by the second text
string by checking
the respective checkboxes. As a result, the computer substitutes the second
text string for the
first text string at the user-specified locations in the first document and
the second document,
respectively. Possible locations within a document include one or more
selected from the
group consisting of title, paragraph, table, header, footer, slide,
spreadsheet, and all.
[00279] In some embodiments, after identifying the first document and the
second
document, the computer displays a first chunk from the first document and a
second chunk
from the second document, each chunk including at least one instance of the
first text string.
The instances of the first text string within the first and second chunks are
displayed in a text-
only display format. As described above, a PowerPoint document and a Word
document are
identified as having chunks satisfying the search phrase "Einstein general
relativity." The
two relevant chunks are displayed in a text-only display format and different
matching terms
therein are highlighted in different colors.
[00280] In some embodiments, the first and second documents may have different
document type. Note that a document's document type is relevant to the
document's distinct
appearance when the document is rendered through its native application. For
example, the
54
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
first text string in the first document may have a first appearance when the
first document is
rendered by its native application and the first text string in the second
document may have a
second appearance that is different from the first appearance when the second
document is
rendered by its native application.
[00281] In this example, the Word document and the PowerPoint document have
different document types because their contents have different appearances
when rendered by
Microsoft Office. Sometimes, a document's suffix may uniquely identify its
document type,
e.g., a document with the suffix ".docx" is a Microsoft Office 2007 Word
document.
Sometimes, a document's suffix cannot uniquely identify its document type,
e.g., documents
like "hello.c" and "hello.java" are probably both plain-text documents and
therefore have the
same document type.
[00282] Figure 17D is a screenshot after the update is completed 1730. In some
embodiments, replacing one text string with another text string does not
trigger an update of
the chunks in the search results window. Thus, the instances 1732, 1734 of the
old text string
"Albert Einstein" still appear in the search results window. To view the
replacing text string,
the user has to perform a new search for the replacing text string.
[00283] As shown in Figure 17E, in response to a new search request including
search
keywords 1740 "Einstein general relativity," the computer updates the chunks
in the search
results window, and as a result, "Albert Einstein" is replaced with "A.
Einstein." Note that
the instances 1742, 1744 of the replacing second text string within the first
and second
chunks are also displayed in the text-only display format.
[00284] In some embodiments, after substituting the second text string for the
first text
string, the computer also replaces the displayed instances of the first text
string within the
first and second chunks in the search results window with respective instances
of the second
text string.
[00285] In some embodiments, the first document includes an original second
text
string that has a content type different from the replacing second text
string. For example, the
Word document may include a PowerPoint slide that has the phrase "A.
Einstein," but not the
phrase "general relativity." Assuming that the user limits the replacement to
the chunks in
the search results window, after the update, when the Word document is
rendered by
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
Microsoft Office, the second text string has at least two different
appearances, one being a
Word appearance and the other being a PowerPoint appearance.
[00286] Note that the methodology enabling the application of text string
finding-and-
replacement can be used for implementing other document-editing features such
as undoing
or reversing last N editing operations (including addition, deletion, and
modification) applied
to a set of documents and redoing or repeating N editing operations (including
addition,
deletion, and modification) applied to the set of documents. The set of
documents may be
located at the same data source or distributed across multiple data sources.
[00287] Another application of the invention is to refine search results using
different
search keywords. For example, after conducting one search using a set of
search keywords, a
user may like to conduct another search among the documents (or chunks)
identified by the
first search using another set of search keywords.
[00288] Figure 18A is a flowchart illustrative of a first process of narrowing
search
results based on user instructions in accordance with some embodiments.
[00289] After receiving a first user request including a first set of search
keywords
(1801), a computer identifies a first set of chunks within multiple documents
(1803). Each
chunk includes terms matching the first set of search keywords. The computer
displays at
least a portion of the first set of chunks (1805), including highlighting the
terms matching the
first set of search keywords in the displayed portion in a first manner. After
receiving a
second user request to search among the documents for documents that satisfy a
second set of
search keywords (1807), the computer identifies a second set of chunks within
the documents
(1809). Each chunk includes terms matching the second set of search keywords.
The
computer displays at least a portion of the second set of chunks (1811),
including
highlighting the terms matching the second set of search keywords in the
displayed portion in
a second manner that is different from the first manner.
[00290] Figure 18B is a flowchart illustrative of a second process of
narrowing search
results based on user instructions in accordance with some embodiments.
[00291] After receiving a first user request including a first set of search
keywords
(1821), a computer identifies multiple documents (1823). Each document
includes at least
one chunk that satisfies the first set of search keywords. After receiving a
second user
56
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
request to search among the chunks in the identified documents for chunks that
satisfy a
second set of search keywords (1825), the computer identifies a subset of the
chunks (1827).
Each chunk in the subset satisfies the second set of search keywords.
[00292] Note that a user can repeat any of the two processes above for many
times by
providing different sets of search keywords for each search step until a
predefined condition
is met, e.g., the chunks of the user's interest have been found or no chunk is
identified. At
any time, the user can roll back the search process to a previously-identified
set of chunks
and try a different set of search keywords that has not been used previously.
[00293] Figures 18C through 18D are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the processes as
shown in Figures
18A and 18B in accordance with some embodiments.
[00294] The graphical user interface includes a first set of search results
displayed in a
text-only display format, each search result including one or more chunks
identified within a
respective document as satisfying a first set of search keywords. In response
to a user request
to search among the identified chunks for chunks that satisfy a second set of
search
keywords, the first set of search results is replaced by a second set of
search results. Each
search result in the second set includes one or more chunks identified within
a respective
document as satisfying both the first set of search keywords and the second
set of search
keywords. In some embodiments, two chunks identified within two different
documents have
different native display formats. In some embodiments, the second set of
search keywords
includes at least one search keyword that is not present in the first set of
search keywords.
[00295] In some embodiments, terms matching the first set of search keywords
and
terms matching the second set of search keywords within a respective chunk are
highlighted
in a visually distinguishable manner.
[00296] In some embodiments, the chunks identified within a respective
document as
satisfying the first set of search keywords are displayed in an order
consistent with their
relative relevancy to the first set of search keywords, and the chunks
identified within a
respective document as satisfying both the first set of search keywords and
the second set of
search keywords are displayed in an order consistent with their relative
relevancy to the
second set of search keywords. In some other embodiments, the chunks
identified within a
respective document as satisfying any of the first and second sets of search
keywords are
57
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
displayed in an order consistent with their relative locations within the
corresponding
document.
[00297] Figure 18C is a screenshot including a first set of relevant chunks
1833
identified within a PowerPoint document as satisfying the search keyword 1831
"A.
Einstein." In some embodiments, the chunks 1833 are ordered by their
respective relevancy
to the search keywords 1831. In this example, the chunk 1835-B has a relative
lower ranking
metric when compared with the other chunks above (e.g., 1835-A) and is
therefore displayed
at the bottom of the search results window. In some embodiments, if the subset
of chunks
includes a first chunk and a second chunk, the computer displays the first
chunk ahead of the
second chunk in response to the first user request and displays the second
chunk ahead of the
first chunk in response to the second user request.
[00298] Figure 18D is a screenshot including a second set of relevant chunks
1843
identified within the PowerPoint document as satisfying the search keyword
1841
"gravitation." Note that the second set of search keywords 1841 can be
completely different
from the first set of search keywords 1831. In this example, the user has
selected the
checkbox next to the "Search Within Results" icon 1847. Accordingly, the
search for the
second set of chunks is limited to the documents identified as having chunks
that satisfy the
search keywords 1831. In this case, it is possible that the second set of
chunks includes at
least one chunk that is not included in the first set of chunks. In some
embodiments, the
search for the second set of chunks is further limited to the chunks 1833 that
are identified by
the first search.
[00299] In some embodiments, the second set of chunks includes at least one
chunk
that is included in the first set of chunks. For example, the chunks 1845-A,
1845-B in Figure
18D are the same as the respective chunks 1835-A, 1835-B in Figure 18C. In
some
embodiments, the chunks 1835-A, 1835-B are displayed in an order consistent
with their
relevancy to the first set of search keywords 1831 in the first set of chunks
and the chunks
1845-A, 1845-B are displayed in an order consistent with their relevancy to
the second set of
search keywords 1841 in the second set of chunks
[00300] In some embodiments, the terms in the chunks 1843 matching the first
set of
search keywords 1831 and the terms in the chunks 1843 matching the second set
of search
58
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
keywords are highlighted in different manner (e.g., different colors, font
type, etc.). In this
example, the matching terms are displayed using larger, italic, and underlined
font.
[00301] At any time, if the user is unsatisfied with the identified chunks
1843, the user
can bring back the previously-identified chunks by clicking the "Previous"
link 1849-A and
restart the search process by entering a different set of search keywords.
Similarly, the user
can skip some search results by clicking the "Next" link 1849-B.
[00302] Another application of the invention is to minimize the response
latency by
alternatively processing different node streams to identify the relevant chunk
within a node
stream as quickly as possible.
[00303] Figure 19 is a flowchart illustrative of a process of alternatively
processing
document node streams in accordance with some embodiments.
[00304] The computer identifies a first candidate document at a first data
source and a
second candidate document at a second data source in response to a request
from a user
(1902). The request includes one or more keywords. In some embodiments, the
request is a
search including one or more search keywords. The computer generates a first
node stream
for the first candidate document and a second node stream for the second
candidate document
using data packets received from the respective first and second data sources
(1904). The
computer alternatively processes the first node stream and the second node
stream until a
candidate chunk is identified therein (1906). In some embodiments, the
candidate chunk
includes a set of nodes within a respective data source. Optionally, the
computer returns the
candidate chunk as a relevant chunk to the user if the candidate chunk
satisfies the keywords
(1908). Note that the first data source and the second data source may or may
not be the
same one. For example, they may be two different web servers. Thus, each
candidate
document can be an HTML web page.
[00305] In some embodiments, the computer submits an HTTP request to the first
data
source and receives an HTTP response from the first data source. The HTTP
response may
include multiple data packets corresponding to the first candidate document.
After receiving
one of the data packets from the first data source, the computer extracts one
or more nodes
from the data packet and inserts the one or more nodes into the first node
stream. Sometimes,
the computer may extract only a node fragment from the data packet if the node
is too large
to fit in a single data packet. In this case, the computer then forms a node
by combining the
59
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
node fragment with another node fragment, which may be extracted from a
previous data
packet, and insert the formed node (if the node is now complete) into the
first node stream.
[00306] In some embodiments, after processing nodes currently in the first
node
stream, the computer waits for more nodes to appear in the first node stream.
If no new node
appears in the first node stream for a first amount of time, the computer may
suspend
processing the first node stream and switch to process nodes currently in the
second node
stream and identify the candidate chunk in the second node stream, if there is
any one.
[00307] In some embodiments, after processing the nodes currently in the
second node
stream, the computer may switch back to process nodes currently in the first
node stream if
no new node appears in the second node stream for the first amount of time and
identify the
candidate chunk in the first node stream, if there is any one.
[00308] In some embodiments, the computer may discard processing results
associated
with one of the first node stream and the second node stream if no new node
appears in the
node stream for a second amount of time, which should be no less than and
preferably longer
than the first amount of time. For example, if there is a network traffic jam
and the computer
has not received any data packet from a remote data source for a relatively
long period of
time, the computer can stop working on the corresponding node stream and use
the resources
associated with the node stream for other purposes, e.g., processing another
node stream.
[00309] Note that the HTTP-related example above is for illustrative purposes.
The
process is equally applicable to any communication protocol in which response
latency is a
concern, such as other TCP/IP based network protocols, file transfer protocol
(FTP), or the
like.
[00310] Another application of the invention is to provide a unified data
model for
documents having different structure types such as a strictly-structured XML
document, a
semi-structured HTML web page, and an unstructured plain-text document. This
unified data
model simplifies the process of identifying relevant chunks therein in
response to a set of
search keywords.
[00311] Figure 20 is a flowchart illustrative of a process of semantically
annotating
documents of different structures in accordance with some embodiments.
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00312] After retrieving a document from a data source (2001), the computer
generates
a customized data model (e.g., a hierarchical data mode) for the document in
accordance with
its structure type (2003). In some embodiments, the structure type can be
structured, semi-
structured, and unstructured. The computer identifies one or more candidate
chunks within
the customized data model in accordance with a set of heuristic rules
associated with the
structure type (2005). Optionally, the computer selects one of the candidate
chunks that
satisfies one or more search keywords and returns it to an end user as a
relevant chunk
(2007).
[00313] In some embodiments, the data source is a web server and the document
is an
HTML web page that includes multiple pairs of HTML tags. In this case, the
computer
identifies a first subset of the HTML web page between a first pair of HTML
tags as a first
candidate chunk if the first pair of HTML tags satisfies one of the set of
heuristic rules. If
necessary, the computer recursively identifies a second subset of the HTML web
page within
the first subset of the HTML web page between a second pair of HTML tags as a
second
candidate chunk if the second pair of HTML tags satisfies one of the set of
heuristic rules.
[00314] In some embodiments, for a plain-text document, the computer generates
the
data model by heuristically inserting metadata such as XML tags into the data
model. The
document contents following different XML tags are identified to be different
candidate
chunks if they have predefined textual patterns. For example, a paragraph
separated by blank
lines is a candidate chunk and a sentence following a hyphen is also a
candidate chunk if it is
deemed to be part of a list of items.
[00315] Another application of the invention is to adaptively select matching
chunks
from a plurality of candidate chunks identified within a candidate document in
response to a
search request so as to improve the usability of the chunks to the end user.
[00316] As noted above in connection with Figure 12C, because the "`Exact'
Match"
and "Match All" options require all the search keywords find their matches in
a chunk, they
may ignore a chunk that, although highly relevant, fails to satisfy one of the
search keywords.
Alternatively, these two search options may return a chunk that, although
satisfying all the
search keywords, is too long to retain the benefits an ideal chunk should
offer, e.g., being
both precise and efficient in locating the information of the user's search
interest. The latter
61
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
case is especially true if the candidate document has a hierarchical data
model and the search
keywords spread over multiple layers of the data model.
[00317] On the other hand, the "Match Any" option accepts any chunk that
satisfies at
least one search keyword. This could end up with returning too many short
chunks to a user,
which is equally frustrating because the user has to review many remotely
matching chunks
before locating the information of the user's search interest or concluding
that no such
information is in the document.
[00318] Fortunately, the "Best Match" option, as will be described below, can
successfully avoid the issues associated with these more polarized search
options by
screening out chunks that are potentially more distractive and presenting only
chunks that
satisfy a set of carefully-chosen criteria to the user.
[00319] Figure 21A is a flowchart illustrative of a first process of screening
matching
chunks within a candidate document based on predefined criteria in accordance
with some
embodiments. In this application, a "matching chunk" is defined as a candidate
chunk that
matches at least one search keyword. Certainly, a matching chunk could be an
all-match if it
matches all the search keywords and even an exact-match if it matches the
search keywords
in exactly the same order.
[00320] Assume that a set of matching chunks within the candidate document
have
been identified and they are fed into a computer in an order consistent with
their respective
locations in the document. The computer begins the adaptive process by
checking if there is
any more matching chunk to be further processed (2102). If so (2102, yes), the
computer
receives the next matching chunk (2104) and checks if the matching chunk meets
the current
minimum matching level set for the document (2106).
[00321] In some embodiments, a matching chunk is characterized by one or more
attributes such as its matching level to the corresponding search request and
its length. For
example, the matching level of a matching chunk may be the total count of
unique search
keywords found within the chunk and the chunk's length may be the total count
of words or
non-white-space characters in the chunk. Initially, the computer assigns a
minimum
matching level, e.g., one unique keyword per chunk, and a range of accepted
chunk length,
e.g., 50-70 words per chunk, to the candidate document.
62
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00322] If the matching level of the next matching chunk is below the minimum
matching level (2106, no), the computer invalidates the matching chunk (2110)
and proceeds
to the next one in the pipeline. If the matching level of the next matching
chunk is above the
minimum matching level (2106, yes), the computer checks whether the chunk's
length is
within the range of accepted chunk length (2108). If the length of the chunk
is outside the
scope of accepted chunk length (2108, no), either too long or too short, the
computer repeats
the same procedure of invalidating the matching chunk (2110) and proceeds to
the next one
in the pipeline.
[00323] Otherwise (2108, yes), the computer inserts the matching chunk into a
respective queue in accordance with the chunk's match level (2112). In some
embodiments,
matching chunks having different total counts of unique search keywords are
put into
separate queues. In some other embodiments, matching chunks having different
sets of
unique search keywords are grouped into separate queues. In either case, the
computer
calculates the current total count of matching chunks within the different
queues (2113).
[00324] If the total count of matching chunks is greater than a predefined
threshold,
e.g., 10 chunks per document, the computer updates the document's current
minimum
matching level (2114) by, e.g., increasing the minimum matching level by one.
As a result, at
least one queue of matching chunks has a matching level less than the updated
minimum
matching level. In some embodiments, the computer invalidates the entire queue
of matching
chunks, re-determines the current total count of matching chunks, and repeats
this procedure
until the total count of matching chunks is less than the threshold.
Certainly, the computer
should not invalidate any matching chunk if the total count of matching chunks
is less than
the predefined threshold.
[00325] After updating the current minimum matching level, the computer checks
whether the current minimum matching level has reached the maximum matching
level
associated with the search request (2116). In some embodiments, the maximum
matching
level is defined by identifying a best-matching chunk such as an all-match
chunk or an exact-
match chunk. If true (2116, yes), the computer outputs all the best-matching
chunks it has
accumulated in one or more queues to the user (2118). By doing so, the
computer effectively
reduces the latency by serving the presumably most relevant chunks to the user
while
continuously processing the other matching chunks. Otherwise (2116, no), the
computer
proceeds to the next one in the pipeline. In some embodiments, the operations
2116, 2118
63
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
are optional and the computer postpones returning any chunk to the user until
after processing
all the matching chunks.
[00326] At the end of the aforementioned process, the computer should filter
out most,
if not all, the distractive chunks that are presumably of little interest to
the user and is now
ready to serve the remaining matching chunks in the queues to the user.
Assuming that the
computer has queued multiple groups of matching chunks (2120, yes), it begins
with serving
a group of currently best-matching chunks to the user (2122). After that, the
computer
checks if the total count of matching chunks that have been served exceeds the
predefined
threshold or not (2124). If so (2124, yes), the computer stops the process of
serving any more
matching chunks even if there are additional queues of un-served matching
chunks. By
keeping the total count of served matching chunks below the threshold, the
computer can
avoid overwhelming the user with too many chunks in the search results view.
Otherwise
(2124, no), the computer repeats the process of serving the group of second
best-matching
chunks until the predefined threshold is met. In some embodiments, the
computer stops
serving any matching chunk if no more matching chunks are left in any queue
(2120, no).
This may occur even if the total count of served matching chunks has not
reached the
predefined threshold.
[00327] In some embodiments, the matching chunks identified within a document
having a hierarchical data model are queued in an order such that a descendant
matching
chunk always precedes its ancestor matching chunks if they appear in the same
queue. This
ordering guarantees that the computer first serve the more refined descendant
matching chunk
before encountering any of the ancestor matching chunks because, as noted
above, the
serving process proceeds from perfect-matching chunks to less perfect ones.
After serving
the more refined descendant matching chunk, the computer also invalidates all
the ancestor
matching chunks in the same queue since none of them are presumably more
relevant than
the descendant chunk.
[00328] According to the aforementioned process, the matching chunks are
served in
an order consistent with their relevancy to the search request, which may be
different from
the order of the chunks' locations in the document. For example, a best-
matching chunk
served before the other matching chunks may be located at the end of the
document and vice
versa. In some embodiments, the computer may apply a two-phase process to
ensure that the
64
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
matching chunks be served in an order consistent with their locations in the
candidate
document:
= Phase One - The computer screens the matching chunks as described
above, including assigning a monotonically increasing chunk identifier to
each matching chunk based on the matching chunk's location in the
document and invalidating any chunk and its ancestors that fail to meet
any of the predefined criteria, without serving any chunk to an end user.
= Phase Two - The computer sorts the surviving matching chunks within
different queues in accordance with their respective chunk identifiers such
that the first matching chunk to be served is located above the other
matching chunks in the same document and outputs the matching chunks
in this new sorted order.
[00329] Note that there are many other approaches of outputting chunks in an
order
consistent with their locations in the document. For example, the computer may
generate a
chunk linked-list during initial data model generation or matching chunk
screening process
such that each chunk includes a reference to the next chunk in the document.
After the
screening process, the computer can output the result matching chunks in an
order consistent
with their locations in the document by navigating the chunk linked-list and
skipping
invalidated chunks.
[00330] Figure 21B is an exemplary HTML document 2130 illustrative of the
process
as shown in Figure 21A in accordance with some embodiments. For illustration,
the HTML
document 2130 includes five matching chunks, each chunk having a unique chunk
ID "cid."
[00331] Assume that there are seven user-specified search keywords,
"Scintillating
Examples of the Best Match Algorithm." Further assume that the predefined
threshold of
total chunk count is two (2), the range of accepted chunk length is 30-200
characters, and the
initial minimum matching level is one keyword per chunk. The five matching
chunks, each
satisfying at least one of the seven search keywords, are fed into the
computer in the order (as
represented by their chunk IDs) of #2, #3, #1, #5, #4.
[00332] According to the flow chart shown in Figure 21A, chunks #2 and #3 are
both
placed in Queue 4, which contains the chunks matching four search keywords,
although the
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
two chunks do not have the same four search keywords. Chunk #1 is placed in
Queue 6,
which contains the chunks matching six search keywords. Since three chunks
have been
placed into different queues, exceeding the threshold, the computer updates
the current
minimum matching level from "one keyword per chunk" to "four keywords per
chunk."
[00333] Although containing four matching keywords, chunk #5 is nonetheless
invalidated because its length (26 characters) is outside the range of
accepted chunk length.
In contrast, chunk #4, which is a parent of chunk #5, is placed in Queue 4 for
containing the
same four matching keywords and being longer than 30 characters.
[00334] After processing all the matching chunks, the computer begins
outputting the
matching chunks within different queues. In this example, the computer outputs
the chunks
in an order consistent with their respective relevancy to the search request.
Thus, chunk #1 in
Queue 6 is first served to the user. As noted above, the export of chunk #1
also causes the
invalidation of chunks #2 and #3 in Queue 4 because they are descendants of
chunk #1.
Because Queue 5 is empty, the computer proceeds to Queue 4, which has only
chunk #5 left
for output. Finally, the computer stops the process after examining the queues
of matching
chunks with a matching level no less than the current minimum matching level.
[00335] Figure 21 C is a flowchart illustrative of a second process of
screening
matching chunks within a document based on predefined criteria in accordance
with some
embodiments.
[00336] A computer identifies within a document multiple matching chunks in
response to a search request from a user (2142). In some embodiments, the
search request
includes one or more search keywords and each of the multiple matching chunks
matches at
least one of the search keywords. The computer partitions the matching chunks
into multiple
groups (2144). The matching chunks within a respective group have an
associated matching
level to the search request. In some embodiments, the partition is a queuing
process wherein
chunks containing the same number of matching keywords are placed in the same
queue.
The computer returns one or more groups of the matching chunks to the user in
an order
consistent with their respective matching levels to the search request (2136).
In some
embodiments, the computer displays a respective relevancy indicator adjacent
each of the
returned matching chunks, indicating the relevancy between the corresponding
matching
chunk and the search request. The relevancy indicator can be formed using
image, text,
66
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
number or the like to give the user an intuitive impression as to the matching
chunk's
proximity to the search keywords.
[00337] In some embodiments, each of the search keywords has an associated
weight
indicative of its relevance to the user's search interest. Different search
keywords may have
the same weight or different weights. Some of the search keywords may even
have an
associated weight of zero. For instance, in the example described above in
connection with
Figure 21B, the keyword "the" may be given a weight of zero and therefore have
no impact
on the search results.
[00338] In some embodiments, the matching level of a respective group of
matching
chunks is, at least partially, determined by summing the weights of unique
search keywords
within one of the matching chunks. For example, the matching level of a
respective group of
matching chunks may be, at least partially, determined by the number of unique
search
keywords within one of the matching chunks. If all the search keywords
(including "the") are
given the same weight, chunks #2 and #3 would have the same matching level and
therefore
be put in the same group.
[00339] In some embodiments, to partition the matching chunks into multiple
groups,
the computer selects one of the matching chunks, determining the chunk's
matching level and
length, and invalidates the chunk if its matching level is less than a minimum
matching level
or if its length is outside a predefined range of acceptable chunk length. If
the selected
matching chunk satisfies all the criteria including the minimum matching level
and the
predefined range of acceptable chunk length, the computer inserts the chunk
into one of the
groups of matching chunks. As noted above, the length of the matching chunk
can be the
total word count of the textual content of the matching chunk, or
alternatively, the total
character count of the textual content of the matching chunk after white-space
normalization.
[00340] In some embodiments, after selecting a matching chunk that satisfies
all the
criteria, the computer compares the chunk's matching level to the matching
level of a
respective group of matching chunks until identifying a group of matching
chunks whose
matching levels are the same or similar to the selected chunk's matching level
and then adds
the chunk to the group of matching chunks.
[00341] In some embodiments, after placing a matching chunk within a group or
exporting a matching chunk to the end user, the computer checks whether there
are any
67
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
chunks within the same group that are descendants of the newly-placed or newly-
exported
matching chunk in a hierarchical data model of the document. If so, the
computer then
invalidates the descendant matching chunks from the group of matching chunks
because they
are redundant chunks from the user's perspective.
[00342] In some embodiments, after inserting one matching chunk into a group
of
matching chunks, the computer determines a total count of matching chunks
whose matching
levels are no less than the minimum matching level and updates the current
minimum
matching level if the total count of matching chunks is greater than a
predefined count
threshold. Additionally, the computer may invalidate at least a subset of one
of the groups of
matching chunks whose matching levels are less than the updated minimum
matching level.
[00343] In some embodiments, if there are multiple groups of matching chunks
(e.g.,
Queue 6 and Queue 4 in the example shown in Figure 21B), the computer selects
among the
groups of matching chunks a group of matching chunks that has a highest
matching level
(e.g., Queue 6) and returns the selected group of matching chunks to the user.
If there are
still groups of matching chunks left, the computer then returns to select a
group of matching
chunks having a next highest matching level (e.g., Queue 4) until the total
count of the
returned matching chunks is not less than a predefined count threshold.
[00344] Figure 21D is a screenshot of a graphical user interface on a computer
display
illustrative of features associated with the processes as shown in Figures 21A
and 21B in
accordance with some embodiments. In this example, the search keywords box
includes five
search keywords 2150, "distance between earth and moon," and the "Best Match"
search
option is chosen for selecting matching chunks.
[00345] Based on these search keywords, it is not difficult to appreciate that
the user is
probably interested in knowing the spatial distance between the earth and the
moon. But as
shown in Figure 21D, the search result 2154 provided by a generic search tool
is not
satisfactory because it has nothing to do with the answer expected by the user
although all the
four search keywords are present in the search result (note that the term
"and" is treated as a
stop-word with no weight).
[00346] In contrast, a process according to some embodiments of the invention
identifies multiple matching chunks within the same document, 2152-A through
2152-C,
different chunks having different numbers of search keywords. In this example,
the matching
68
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
chunks are ordered by their matching levels to the search keywords. Therefore,
the matching
chunk 2152-A appears before the other two chunks because it includes at least
one instance
of each of the four search keywords, which is essentially an all-match chunk.
But this chunk
does not have the answer to the user's question either. Actually, it is the
second matching
chunk 2152-B that, although having no match for the search keyword "between,"
has the
answer to the user's question, that is, the phrase 2156 "distance from the
Earth to the Moon is
384,403 km." Thus, the user receives a satisfactory answer to his or her
question from the
matching chunks without visiting any of the candidate documents. Note that the
same
matching chunk 2152-B would have been ignored by the "Match All" and "`Exact'
Match"
options because it does not have the keyword "between."
[00347] Another application of the invention is to search a set of inter-
related
documents for contents matching a search request. This application is
different from the
conventional search tools, which always treat the Internet as the search space
and perform all
the searches in the entire search space no matter how irrelevant most of the
documents in the
space are to the user-specified search keywords. Consequently, many documents
identified
by the conventional search tool, although have nothing to do with the user's
search interest,
end up occupying prominent spots in the search results window. If a user is
allowed to
narrow the search space to a small set of user-specified documents, it is
possible for a
computer to produce more relevant search results at a fraction of the cost
wasted by the
conventional search tools.
[00348] Figure 22A is a flowchart illustrative of a process of identifying
contents
matching a search request within a plurality of inter-related documents in
accordance with
some embodiments. In this application, a first document is inter-related to a
second
document if the first document includes a document link that either directly
references the
second document or indirectly references the second document by referencing a
third
document that directly or indirectly references the second document. The first
document is
also inter-related to the second document if they are both directly or
indirectly referenced by
a third document. As such, different documents referenced by respective
document links
within an HTML web page are referred to as "inter-related documents." In this
case, the
HTML web page is called "primary document" and the documents referenced by the
web
page are called "secondary documents."
69
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
[00349] A computer receives a request to search one or more secondary
documents
(2201). At least one of the secondary documents is associated with a primary
document. The
computer searches at least a subset of the secondary documents for documents
that satisfy the
search request (2203) and identifies at least one secondary document that
satisfies the search
request (2205).
[00350] In some embodiments, the computer first displays the primary document
(e.g.,
a web page) on a display device (e.g., a computer monitor) before receiving
the search
request from a user. The primary document includes one or more document links,
each
document link referencing one of the secondary documents. After identifying
the secondary
document, which may be another web page or the like, the computer displays at
least a
portion of the identified secondary document to the user. The displayed
portion of the
secondary document preferably includes one or more search keywords in the
search request.
[00351] In some embodiments, the computer locates within the identified
secondary
document one or more chunks that satisfy the search request using the
approaches as
described above and displays one or more of the identified chunks to the user.
[00352] In some embodiments, the primary document includes many document links
pointing to a large number of secondary documents, many of which may have
nothing to do
with the user's search interest. For example, many web pages include links to
boilerplate-
type secondary documents such as "About Us," "Contact Us," "Sitemap,"
"Disclaimer," etc.
Searching out these secondary documents rarely returns any useful search
results. Thus, in
some embodiments, rather than searching all the secondary documents referenced
by the
primary document, the user is allowed to select a subset of secondary
documents to be
searched by identifying document links associated with the user-selected
secondary
document.
[00353] For example, each of the subset of secondary documents can be selected
by a
respective mouse click of the corresponding document link in the primary
document.
Alternatively, the computer defines a region in the primary document using an
input device
and then identifies document links within the defined region as the user-
selected document
links. For example, the computer presses down a mouse's button at a first
location and drags
the mouse from one location to another location until releasing the mouse's
button at a
second location. By doing so, the user-selected region is a rectangle area
defined by the first
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
location and the second location and all the document links falling into this
rectangle area are
document links to secondary documents to be further searched in response to a
search
request.
[00354] In some embodiments, the computer searches both the primary and
secondary
documents for chunks that satisfy the search request, and as a result,
identifies at least one
chunk in the primary document and at least one chunk in one of the secondary
documents,
both chunks satisfying the search request. The chunks associated with the
primary and
secondary documents are visually separated by a bar such that it is intuitive
for a user to
distinguish chunks identified within the primary document and chunks
identified within the
secondary documents.
[00355] In some embodiments, the search of secondary documents is a recursive
process. In response to a user request to search a secondary document, the
computer
recursively retrieves the secondary document and documents referenced by this
secondary
document. Thus, the search results may not only include chunks identified
within the
primary document but also chunks within a secondary document that is
indirectly referenced
by the primary document.
[00356] Figures 22B through 22D are screenshots of a graphical user interface
on a
computer display illustrative of features associated with the process as shown
in Figure 22A
in accordance with some embodiments.
[00357] Figure 22B is a screenshot of a web browser window rendering a web
page
identified by the URL 2211 lg~t s://ww .rai ingdataoco rlproducts/index.litm].
There are two
user-specified search keywords 2213 "tigerlogic xdms" in the search box. The
screenshot
depicts at least chunks 2217-A through 2217-D that match the two search
keywords. The
web page includes many document links. Some of the document links (e.g., links
2219) are
likely to be related to the search keywords 2213 and others (e.g., links 2220)
probably have
nothing to do with the search keywords 2213. In this example, the user avoids
searching
secondary documents associated with the links 2220 by either mouse-clicking
the links or
defining a rectangle region covering the links.
[00358] After a user mouse-click of the "Chunk Page Links" icon 2215, the
computer
generates a plurality of chunks identified within the primary document and the
secondary
documents identified by the links 2219 as shown in the screenshot of Figure
22C. Note that
71
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
the search results 2221 associated with the primary document (including the
chunks 2217-A
through 2217-C) are separated from the search results 2225 and 2229, which are
associated
with the two secondary documents identified by the two links 2219, each
including a
respective set of matching chunks 2227's and 2231's. Figure 22D is another
screenshot that
only depicts the search results from the secondary documents, nothing from the
primary
document.
[00359] Figure 23 is a block diagram of an exemplary document search server
2300
computer in accordance with some embodiments.
[00360] The exemplary document search server 2300 typically includes one or
more
processing units (CPU's) 2302, one or more network or other communications
interfaces
2310, memory 2312, and one or more communication buses 2314 for
interconnecting these
components. The communication buses 2314 may include circuitry (sometimes
called a
chipset) that interconnects and controls communications between system
components. The
document search server 2300 may optionally include a user interface, for
instance a display
and a keyboard. Memory 2312 may include high speed random access memory and
may also
include non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage
devices. Memory
2312 may include mass storage that is remotely located from the CPU's 2302. In
some
embodiments, memory 2312 stores the following programs, modules and data
structures, or a
subset or superset thereof:
= an operating system 2316 that includes procedures for handling various basic
system
services and for performing hardware dependent tasks;
= a network communication module 2318 that is used for connecting the document
search server 2300 to other servers or computers via one or more communication
networks (wired or wireless), such as the Internet, other wide area networks,
local
area networks, metropolitan area networks, and so on;
= a system initialization module 2320 that initializes other modules and data
structures
stored in memory 2312 required for the appropriate operation of the document
search
server 2300;
= a query engine 2322 for processing a user-driven search query and preparing
relevant
chunks in response to the search query;
72
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
= a cache engine 2324 for identifying candidate documents in response to the
search
query;
= a stream engine 2326 for retrieving candidate documents and identifying
candidate
chunks therein; and
= an index database 2328 for storing index information of a number of
candidate
documents 2330 accessible to the document search server 2300.
[00361] Figure 24 is a block diagram of an exemplary client computer 2400 in
accordance with some embodiments.
[00362] The exemplary client computer 2400 typically includes one or more
processing units (CPU's) 2402, one or more network or other communications
interfaces
2410, memory 2412, and one or more communication buses 2414 for
interconnecting these
components. The communication buses 2414 may include circuitry (sometimes
called a
chipset) that interconnects and controls communications between system
components. The
client computer 2400 may include a user input device 2410, for instance a
display and a
keyboard. Memory 2412 may include high speed random access memory and may also
include non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage
devices. Memory
2412 may include mass storage that is remotely located from the CPU's 2402. In
some
embodiments, memory 2412 stores the following programs, modules and data
structures, or a
subset or superset thereof:
= an operating system 2416 that includes procedures for handling various basic
system
services and for performing hardware dependent tasks;
= a network communication module 2418 that is used for connecting the client
computer 2400 to the document search server 2300 or other computers via one or
more communication networks (wired or wireless), such as the Internet, other
wide
area networks, local area networks, metropolitan area networks, and so on;
= a system initialization module 2419 that initializes other modules and data
structures
stored in memory 2412 required for the appropriate operation of the client
computer
2400;
= a web browser 2420 for retrieving and displaying candidate documents
including web
pages from remote web servers;
73
CA 02716345 2010-08-23
WO 2009/105708 PCT/US2009/034771
= a search toolbar 2425 attached to the web browser 2420 for identifying
relevant
chunks within the retrieved candidate document and displaying the relevant
chunks;
= one or more applications 2430 such as Microsoft Office Word application
2431,
Microsoft Office PowerPoint application 2433, Microsoft Office Excel
application
2435, etc.; and
= an add-in application 2437 attached to the Microsoft Office applications for
displaying relevant chunks associated with user-specified search keywords and
re-
using the relevant chunks based on user instructions.
[00363] The foregoing description, for purpose of explanation, has been
described with
reference to specific embodiments. However, the illustrative discussions above
are not
intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms
disclosed. Many
modifications and variations are possible in view of the above teachings. For
example, the
aforementioned processes of identifying a relevant chunk within a document are
by no means
limited to a particular language such as English. Actually, the same processes
are equally
applicable to documents written in other languages and/or multi-lingual
documents. The
embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles
of the
invention and its practical applications, to thereby enable others skilled in
the art to best
utilize the invention and various embodiments with various modifications as
are suited to the
particular use contemplated.
74
