[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bruce,
Your problem is not at the end of the process - it's at the beginning!
People creating patent submissions are using wordprocessors and other tools and
these things are just giant doodle-pads into which you can key anything you
want, anywhere you want it.
So - your only recourse is to create an XML "wrapper" - into which you force
them to cut and paste the relevant components - Abstract, References, blah,
blah as text content - and then their original becomes an attachment.
Good luck!
DW
==============================================================================
Quoting "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV>:
> I think CAM is not useful for me in that patents are not assembled from
> boilerplate. Each one is unique. Even in a large organization that
> produces many patents, only the most trivial of content is reused from
> one patent to the next (company name, attorney name). I could be
> mistaken, but I did not see a really rich content validation mechanism
> in CAM, but a framework within which, in my case, there would still be
> lots of custom work to do. Xpath is cool for validating across
> elements, but most of what I want to do is within a single element in a
> single document (even though there are six to eight thousand per week).
>
>
> Bruce B. Cox
> SA4XMLT
> +1-703-306-2606
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hunsberger, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hunsberger@STJUDE.ORG]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:27 AM
> To: bry@itnisk.com
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Are people really using Identity constraints
> specified in XML schema?
>
> bry@itnisk.com writes:
>
> > To: Hunsberger, Peter
> > >
> > > Many thanks for the link, when I first head of CAM the description
> > > didn't make it sound at all useful (seems to me the name only
> > > partially reflects the intended capabilities). This might be a
> > > standard that we may eventually want to support.
> >
> > Well I don't know anything about patents, unless it were the glory
> > days of patent medicine, the things that made me think about CAM was
> > in the context of content assembly where the content is not in xml
> > format, which I supposed some patents from various offices might not
> > be. When you used the repository term there I immediately thought
> > about CAM's requirements for maintaining transactional integrity.
>
> It was Bruce Cox who was asking from a patent perspective. I don't
> think he saw CAM as being useful there, though I'm still not quite sure
> why.
>
> We're doing development of data management systems for Clinical Trials
> data. The CAM applicability here is not so much in transactional
> assembly as it is in the way CAM allows for layers of customization:
> we've got 100's of open trials that change on a regular basis. They all
> feed in and out of a common database but even within a single protocol
> (and a trial may have many protocols involved) there may be variations
> on how a particular screen is presented and validated depending on the
> context.
>
> > > Questions:
> > >
> > > 1) Just glancing at the spec it appears to have at least
> > some overlap
> > > with Schematron for parts of it. Anyone looked at a Schematron to
> > > CAM(/subcomponent?) conversion or the converse?
> > >
> > glad to hear you say this, I also felt there were some schematron
> > similarities in the constraints of xml documents using xpath
> > obviously, however schematron doesn't really have any
> > merging/assembling capabilities of inputs (meaning merging/assembling
> > towards valid outputs). Personally I would really like seeing some
> > sort of schematron/CAM interactivity, mainly cause it would be more
> > interesting I think than CAM/XSD interactivity.
>
> Yes, CAM obviously tries to do more than Schematron which was why I put
> the "subcomponent" qualification in there. Given the layers of
> validation that CAM targets Schematron seems like a natural fit.
>
> >
> > > 2) Any one using this for anything production like?
> >
> > According to David Webber British Telecomm is using up to 100 CAM
> >templates for "checking field trouble ticket reports on a daily basis"
>
> >I don't know anything about field trouble tickets but supposedly they
> >are troublesome, as well as being about trouble. As I understand they
> >are using JCAM http://jcam.org.uk/ which is at an alpha state, I
> >haven't used it yet, however the spec does seem reasonably clear to me
>
> >and probably wouldn't be too much trouble to implement.
> >
> > >
> > > 3) Any recommended software?
> > >
> > >
> > I'm not sure JCAM can be considered recommended, it's alpha (and I had
>
> > some troubles getting it running), David Webber is as I understand it
>
> > currently working on a project which should see JCAM finished by
> > November.
>
> Looks potentially interesting. Also looks like something where you need
> to have some person power to dedicate to both CAM development and the
> regular line of business if you're going to get anywhere. No such luck
> at the moment (sigh).
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
|
