US 6,925,477 B1Grant

Transferring records between two databases

Issue Date:2005-08-02

•56 Claims

•7 Drawing Sheets

Abstract

In order to transfer data between two databases, a computer program automatically establishes a field map between the record structures of the two databases using information identifying the record structure of one of the databases. The field map is established automatically by correlating a first plurality of the fields of the first database to a second plurality of the fields of the second database to establish a field map. The data stored in the first plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database is then translated in accordance with the field map. The information identifying the record structure of one of the databases identifies the record structure according to a selected field identification protocol identifying the categories and properties of the fields in the record structure of that database. This information may be transmitted to the computer program ahead of any data transfer so that a data transfer protocol, including the field map, may be established prior to the start of the data transfer.

Metadata

Assignee

Intellisync Corporation

Inventors

Darryl G. Champagne
Robert C. Daley
Glen A. Walant

Application Information

Application Number:US 09/052,769

Filing Date:1998-03-31

Priority Date:1998-03-31

Art Unit:2175

Patent Drawings (7 sheets)

Description

[0001] An appendix (appearing now in paper format to be replaced later in microfiche format) forms part of this application. The appendix, which includes a source code listing relating to an embodiment of the invention, includes 95 frames on 1 microfiche.

[0002] This patent document (including the microfiche appendix) contains material that is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.

Background

[0003] This invention relates to transferring records between incompatible databases.

[0004] Databases are collections of data entries which are organized, stored, and manipulated in a manner specified by applications known as database managers (hereinafter, the term “database” also refers to a database manager combined with a database proper). The manner in which database entries or records are organized in a database is known as the record structure of the database. Fields and records of a database may have many different characteristics depending on the database's purpose-and utility.

[0005] Databases can be said to be incompatible with one another when the data structure (or record structure) of one is not the same as the data structure (or record structure) of another, even though some of the content of the records is substantially the same. For example, one database may store names and addresses in the following fields: FIRST_NAME, LAST_NAME, and ADDRESS. Another database may, however, store the same information with the following structure: NAME, STREET_NO., STREET_NAME, CITY_STATE, and ZIP. Although the content of the records is intended to contain the same kind of information, the organization of that information is completely different.

[0006] Often users of incompatible databases want to be able to transfer records from one database to another incompatible database to populate the incompatible database with new records or to synchronize the two databases with one another. To do so, typically, a field map is used which is a set of relationships or correlations between the fields of the two databases to one another. Various types of data structures can be used to represent a field map in computer memory. Field mapping is generally described in the commonly assigned U.S. Pat. No. 5,392,390, incorporated herein by reference.

Summary

[0007] In a first aspect, in order to for example transfer data between two databases, a computer program automatically establishes a field map between the record structures of the two databases using information identifying the record structure of one of the databases. The field map is established automatically by correlating a first plurality of the fields of the first database to a second plurality of the fields of the second database. The data stored in the first plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database is then translated in accordance with the field map.

[0008] Embodiments of this aspect of the invention have the advantage that a computer program does not use a predetermined field map and requires little or no input from the user for establishing the field map.

[0009] In a second aspect, prior to transmitting data between two databases during a data transfer session, information identifying the record structure of the one of the first and second databases is transmitted to a computer program and, based on that information, a data transfer protocol is established. Data stored in a plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database is then transmitted, according to the database transfer protocol, from the first database to the second database.

[0010] Embodiments of this aspect of the invention may include the following advantages. By transmitting the identifying information prior to transmitting the data, the specifics of the data transfer session can be established in the data transfer protocol. In this manner, the efficiency of the data transfer session is increased, for example, by limiting the number of transmitted fields or by limiting the transmitted records to only those which meet a search criteria.

[0011] In a third aspect, in order to transmit data between two databases, information identifying the record structure of one of the two databases is transmitted to a computer program. This transmitted information identifies both the categories and the properties of a plurality of fields of the record structure of one of the two databases. Data stored in a plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database is then transmitted from one of the two databases to the other one of the two databases. The transmitted data is then processed using the identifying information.

[0012] Embodiments of this aspect of the invention, by providing both the categories and properties of the fields, can provide a better picture of the data structure of a database to a computer program. Therefore, the computer program can more accurately process the data transmitted from the database. For example, the computer program can more accurately translate the records of the database to a form compatible with the record structure of another database.

[0013] Preferred embodiments of the invention may include one or more of the following features.

[0014] Data stored in the plurality of fields of the plurality of the records of the first database is transmitted to the second database. The data may be translated before the data is transmitted or may be translated after the data is received at its destination. The transmitted data may be stored in the second database or at least one record of the second database may be synchronized with the transmitted data. Additionally, the first database may be stored on a first computer and the second database on a second computer. In that case, the data is transmitted from the first computer to the second computer.

[0015] All or part of the fields in the data structure of the first computer is mapped onto all or part of the fields in the structure of the second computer.

[0016] The information identifying the record structure of one of the first and second databases identifies the record structure according to a selected protocol, where the selected protocol provides a syntax for identifying the characteristics of a field of that databases.

[0017] The identifying information identifies categories of the fields in the record structure of the one of the first and second databases according to the selected protocol and the fields of the first database are correlated to the fields of the second database based on the identified categories of the fields. The categories of the fields in the record structure of the one of the first and second databases can be classified into a plurality of mapping classes and the fields of the first database are correlated to the second plurality of the fields of the second database based on the plurality of mapping classes. Mapping rules are applied to the plurality of mapping classes to correlate the fields. One of the mapping rules can indicate that fields of the one of the databases having a selected class, if absent in the other one of the databases, are to be mapped to fields having a selected class.

[0018] The fields of the first and second databases are further characterized by having selected properties and the identifying information identifies the selected properties of the fields of one of the first and second databases according to the selected protocol. During translation, the data in the fields is then modified based on the identified properties.

[0019] The identifying information can be transmitted to a computer program where the computer program correlates the fields of the first and second databases to establish the field map. The transmitted information may be in a format according to a selected protocol and then be converted into the identifying information.

[0020] Establishing the data transfer protocol can include correlating the fields of the first database to the fields of the second database to establish a field map, using information identifying the record structure of one of the first and second databases. Establishing the data transfer protocol can also include determining a plurality of fields of the first database to be transmitted based on the plurality of the fields of the first database which were mapped, where the plurality of fields to be transmitted can be less than all of the fields of the records of the first database. Establishing the data transfer protocol can also include determining a plurality of records of the first database to be transmitted based on a selected criterion, where the selected criterion includes a criterion for searching a first database and selecting records matching the selected criterion.

[0021] The invention may be implemented in hardware or software, or a combination of both. Preferably, the technique is implemented in computer programs executing on programmable computers that each include a processor, a storage medium readable by the processor (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or storage elements), at least one input device, and at least one output device. Program code is applied to data entered using the input device to perform the functions described above and to generate output information. The output information is applied to one or more output devices.

[0022] Each program is preferably implemented in a high level procedural or object oriented programming language to communicate with a computer system. However, the programs can be implemented in assembly or machine language, if desired. In any case, the language may be a compiled or interpreted language.

[0023] Each such computer program is preferably stored on a storage medium or device (e.g., ROM or magnetic diskette) that is readable by a general or special purpose programmable computer for configuring and operating the computer when the storage medium or device is read by the computer to perform the procedures described in this document. The system may also be considered to be implemented as a computer-readable storage medium, configured with a computer program, where the storage medium so configured causes a computer to operate in a specific and predefined manner.

[0024] Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the following description of preferred embodiments, including the drawings, and from the claims.

Brief Description of the Drawing

[0025] FIG. 1 shows a remote computer and a host computer connected via a data transfer link.

[0026] FIG. 2 shows a schematic diagram of the components of the remote and host computers of FIG. 1.

[0027] FIG. 3 is a flow chart of a computer implemented method of transferring data.

[0028] FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a computer implemented method of automatically mapping record structures of two databases.

[0029] FIGS. 5A and 5B are flows charts of computer implemented methods of processing data transferred between the host and remote computers.

Description

[0030] We will describe various embodiments of computer programs and systems for transferring records between a database stored on a remote computer and an incompatible database stored on a host computer in detail below. It should be noted that the term “computer” as used here includes any device being capable of manipulating electronic data and typically having a processor and memory. Such a device can be, but is not limited to, a hand held computer, a personal digital assistant, and a personal computers such as a desktop computer or a notebook computer. Such a device can also be an electronic device having some “intelligence” or processing capability, such as an “intelligent” paging device or cellular telephone. It should also be noted we will use the terms “host” and “remote” for conveniently differentiating between the components of a first computer and a second computer and the programs running on the first and second computers. The first and second computers may be in any other type of relationship such as peer to peer, client/server, etc.

[0031] Briefly, in some embodiments described here, at the time of a data transfer session between the remote and host computers, the fields of the records of the remote database are dynamically and automatically mapped to the fields of the records of the host database. The fields are dynamically mapped in that a computer program generates a field map without having any previous information as to the data structure of at least one of the databases. This information is provided during the data transfer session. The fields are automatically mapped in that a computer program generates a field map during the data transfer session based on a set of predetermined criteria. The computer program does not use a predetermined field map and requires little or no input from the user for generating the field map. The map is then used to translate records of the remote database into a format compatible with the data structure of the host database.

[0032] To enable such dynamic and automatic mapping, in some embodiments, the remote computer sends the host computer a record structure data packet. The record structure data packet, based on a predefined field identification protocol, identifies the characteristics of the record structure of the remote database to the host computer. The host computer then uses that information to generate a field map for the two databases.

[0033] We will now describe an example of a computer system which may execute various embodiments of the programs described here for transferring data between two databases. Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, a host computer 10 and a remote computer 30 are connected via a data transfer link 50. Data transfer link 50 may be implemented by a data transfer medium and data transfer devices 28, 38 in each of the host and remote computers using that data transfer medium. Data transfer devices 28 and 38 may be, for example, standard network interfaces, infra red ports, or telephone modems. The data transfer medium may in turn be a data communication network, infra red signals, or telephone lines.

[0034] Each of the host and remote computers 10, 30 includes a long term storage device storing a database (respectively, referred to as host database 32 and remote database 34), which may be a database of a personal information manager (PIM) application. Each of the host and remote computers 10, 30 further includes a memory 14, 34 and a central processing unit (CPU) 16, 36. Each of the memory 14, 34 stores at least two types of computer software programs (which may be stored on a long term storage medium and loaded into memory 14, 34): host and remote data transfer programs 22, 42 for transferring records between the host and remote computers 10, 30 and host and remote data processing programs 24, 44 for processing the transferred records by, for example, populating or synchronizing the records of the database stored in the long term storage with the transferred records. It should be noted that data transfer programs 22, 42 typically constitute a module in either data processing programs 24, 44 or databases 12, 32.

[0035] Host and remote databases 12, 32 each has a record structure specifying the organization of the data in each of the records of the database. Each record typically includes a number of fields. In order to facilitate communicating the record structure of these databases between remote computer 30 and host computer 10, data transfer programs 22, 42 use a field identification protocol. A field identification protocol provides a syntax for identifying and communicating characteristics of a field of a database. It provides two types of information: information identifying a “category” for the field and information identifying a “property” of a field.

[0036] The category of a field defines the type of information the field is designed or meant to contain. Databases are generally designed to store data for a particular application, for example, airline reservations, medical records, etc. In the case of personal information manager (PIM) applications, several types of databases are typically used, where the type of a database corresponds to the type of data stored in the database: appointments, “to do” lists, address books, expense records, general notes records, and e-mails. For these types of databases, a field identification protocol preferably provides a comprehensive list of field categories such that the fields of most, if not all, of commercially available PIM databases can be categorized according to the categories in the field identification protocol. (The same can also be done for other types of databases.) For example, in the case of an address book type database, the categories may include: name, last name, first name, middle initial, address, street name, city, state, home telephone number, business telephone number, etc. Then, for example, the record structure of remote database 32 may include a field that is of the category “name”. The record structure of host database 12 may include equivalent fields of the categories “last name,” “first name,” and “middle initial,” but not necessarily a field of the category “name”. In other embodiments, the field identification protocol provides a list of field categories for a selected group of databases or for those databases designed to conform to the protocol.

[0037] The property of a field indicates the limits or rules imposed on the manner in which data is stored in that field. The property of a field is in addition to the category of that field and is typically database specific. The property of a field can be the number of bytes used to store the data in that field. The property of a field can also include one or more rules governing the permissible content of the data, such as one or more rules from the following exemplary list of rules:

- [0038] rules on the permissible format in which the data is stored; for example, for a date field, a rule may specify whether the date is stored in the year/month/day or month/day/year format or, for a text field, a rule may specify whether a text field stored in ASCII with end of line markers or in ASCII without end of line markers;
- [0039] rules on the permissible range of data; for example, for a “to do” list priority field, the range of data may be limited to the numbers between one and three;
- [0040] rules on the permissible maximum allowable size of a field, for example, a text field may be limited to 500 characters.
  These rules are also discussed in the following U.S. patent applications of the assignee hereof, incorporated in by reference herein: “Synchronization of Recurring Records in Incompatible Databases”, Ser. No. 08/752,490, filed on Nov. 13, 1996 (hereinafter, “'490 application”), currently U.S. Pat. No. 5,943,676, issued Aug. 24, 1999, “Synchronization of Databases with Record Sanitizing and Intelligent Comparison,” Ser. No. 08/749,926, filed Nov. 13, 1996 (hereinafter, “'926 application”), now abandoned “Synchronization of Databases with Date Range,” Ser. No. 08/748,645, filed Nov. 13, 1996 (hereinafter, “'645 application”), now U.S. Pat. No. 6,141,664, issued on Oct. 31, 2000. In the '490, '926, and '645 applications, examples of these rules are referred to as rules of data value.

[0041] As mentioned, a field identification protocol provides a syntax for remote and host data transfer programs 22, 42 to communicate with one another the data structure of their respective databases. Such a syntax includes, for example, assigning to each field category a designation (for example, a numerical, alphabetical, or alphanumerical code or name) identifying that field category, such as “Addr” for address, “Tell” for the first telephone number, “Appt:date” for a date field of an appointment type record. The syntax also includes a manner of communicating the possible properties of the various fields, for example, by using designations (for example, a numerical, alphabetical, or alphanumerical code or name) identifying a type of property, such as “field_size” for designating the number of bytes in a field, “ApptDate_format” for designating a format of a date field, “value_range” for designating the range of permissible values, or “maximum_text_size” for designating the maximum number of the characters in a text field.

[0042] Generally, a record structure of a database can be mapped to a record structure of another database based on the categories of the fields of the databases, as will be described below. However, in some circumstances, the properties of the fields can affect the accuracy of the mapping. For example, the content of a field or the number of bytes representing a field may have to be modified during translating the field according to the map so that a field fits the record structure of the other database. (This process is described as “sanitization” in the '490, '926, and '645 applications.) Therefore, the records of the two databases can be more accurately mapped and translated if both the categories and the properties of the fields of the databases are known.

[0043] Referring to FIG. 3, we will now describe in detail how data transfer programs 22, 42 use field identification protocols for generating a field map and transfer the records of remote database 32 to host computer 10. We will then describe how data processing programs 24, 44 process the transferred records.

[0044] Referring to FIG. 3, steps 305-335 together constitute a data transfer protocol agreement segment 300. In these steps, host and remote data transfer programs 22, 42 communicate with one another and agree to a data transfer protocol to be used for the rest of the data transfer session. The data transfer protocol delineates the specifics of how the data is to be transferred between the two computers. The data transfer protocol may delineate, for example, that only some of the fields of the records are to be transferred, that the remote database translate the records to the records of the host database prior to transmitting the records to the host database, or that only those records fitting a particular criteria, such as a database search criteria, are to be transferred.

[0045] To begin the data transfer session, one of the remote or host computers 10, 20 initiates a data transfer session (step 305). Remote data transfer program 42 then sends a record structure data packet including information identifying the record structure of remote database 32 to host computer 10 (step 310). To identify the record structure of the remote database to the host database, remote data transfer program 42 uses a field identification protocol, which we will refer to as the “external field identification protocol”. Using the external field identification protocol, remote data transfer program 42 constructs the record structure data packet to include the appropriate information and codes which identify the categories and properties of the fields of the records of remote database 32. In some embodiments, only the categories of the fields are identified.

[0046] Host data transfer program 22 uses the record structure packet from remote data transfer program 42 to automatically map the records of remote database 12 to the records of host database (step 320).

[0047] We will describe the automatic mapping process in detail below in reference to FIG. 4. However, briefly, host data transfer program 22 uses a series of automatic field mapping rules to correlate the fields in the record structure of remote database 32 to the fields in the record structure of host database 12. Hence, host data transfer program 22 develops a field map for mapping the records of the remote database to the records of the host database.

[0048] Referring to FIG. 4, host data transfer program 22 uses an internal field identification protocol which may be different from the external field identification protocol. Therefore, host data transfer program 22 first converts the information in the record structure packet received from remote data transfer program 42 into a format in accordance with its internal field identification protocol (step 405). This allows host data transfer program 22 to be able to receive data structure packets based on any number of external field identification protocols and support those packets by merely converting them into its own internal field identification protocol.

[0049] In steps 410-430, host data transfer program 22, automatically correlates the fields of the records of the remote database to the fields of the records of the host database to develop a field map. We will now describe an exemplary method used by host data transfer program 22. In this exemplary method, the internal field identification protocol not only provides a manner for classifying fields based on the categories and properties, but also divides the field categories into, for example, five field classes for automatic mapping: generic, high priority, common, free, and application specific fields.

[0050] The first class designates the field categories which are present in the record structure of most, if not all, databases of a specific type (e.g. address book database). In other words, the first class designates fields that are “generic” for the type of database being mapped. For example, for an address book type database, such fields would include name, address, and telephone. According to the automatic mapping rules, host data transfer program 22 maps generic fields of one database to the generic fields of the other database (step 410). In some cases, a group of fields in one database contain the same information as a single field in another database. For example, one database may have a “name” field while the other database may have separate “first name”, “middle initial”, and “last name” fields. In that case, the group of fields is mapped to the single field.

[0051] Other four classes designate field categories which are not generic to the type of database being mapped. According to the automatic mapping rules, these other fields are mapped in a pre-specified order of priority, if there are suitable fields in the other database for them. The first of these non-generic classes are the fields that are designated to have high priority for mapping. Host data transfer program 22 maps these fields first and maps them to an unmapped field of the other database (step 415). The second non-generic class designates the common fields which are the fields which most commonly are present in the type of database being mapped but it is not uncommon for a database of this type not to contain them. For example, in the case of address book databases, most, but not all, databases have fields for notes or for a second set of address and telephone number. According to the automatic mapping rules, host data transfer program 22 maps common fields of the remote database to the common fields and, based on user preferences, free fields (for the third non-generic class, described below) of the host database based on their category and properly designation (step 420).

[0052] The third non-generic class designates free fields and the fourth non-generic class designates database specific fields. Free fields are those fields which do not fall into any of the previous classes. Host data transfer program 22 maps high priority fields to the free fields and, based on user preferences, common fields of the other database (step 425). Database specific fields are those fields which are unique to a database and are typically not supported by another database. They are therefore not mapped. In this case, in some embodiments, the user maps the database specific field. At the end of this process, the data structures of the remote and host databases are mapped onto one another.

[0053] As stated above, another aspect of mapping is using the field property information to determine whether the received data needs to be modified for proper translation. To determine what modification is necessary, the properties of the field of the remote database and the mapped field or fields of host database 12 are compared. It is then determined what changes are necessary to make the remote database records to conform to the properties of the fields of the host database records. For example, if a field in the remote database is a four-byte field and it is mapped onto a two-byte field, then the field needs to be trimmed. (Similar data modifications may also be performed on host database records to conform them to remote database records when sending the host database records to the remote database, for example, at the end of synchronization.)

[0054] Referring back to FIG. 3, after automatically mapping remote database 32 to host database 12 (step 320), data transfer program 22 then determines whether the number of fields of the records to be transferred should be limited (step 325). It may be the case that some of the fields of remote database 32 were not mapped to the fields of host database 12, for example, because host database 12 does not support as many fields or some particular types of fields. In that case, if remote database 32 and data transfer program 42 support such a limited data transfer, host data transfer program 22 sends a packet identifying the particular fields to be sent (step 330). Remote data transfer program 42 analyzes the received packet and limits the future data transfer to those records (step 335). At this point, host and remote data transfer have agreed to a data transfer protocol establishing the number of fields to be transferred and the map to be used.

[0055] The data transfer protocol may also contain other features. For example, as mentioned above, in some embodiments, host data transfer program 22 may also request that the remote database to translate the remote database records using the map developed in step 320 before transmitting the records. In some embodiments, host data transfer program 22 may request that remote data transfer program 42 transmit only those records fitting a particular search criteria, specified based on the database record structure received from remote data transfer program 42.

[0056] As it is readily apparent, establishing a data transfer protocol at the beginning of the session provides a variety of advantages. Host database transfer program 22 can develop a field map which can be used throughout the data transfer session. Additionally, the map can be sent to remote data transfer program 42 for translating the records prior to transmitting them. Moreover, host and remote database transfer programs 22, 42 can limit the amount of data transferred during the session by remote data transfer program 42 by limiting the number of transmitted fields or by limiting the transmitted records to only those which meet a search criteria.

[0057] After agreeing to a data transfer protocol for the duration of the data transfer session, remote data transfer program then sends the data contained in the records of remote database 32, based on the agreed upon data transfer protocol (step 340). Host computer then processes the received data, as will be described below in reference to FIGS. 5A and 5B.

[0058] Referring to FIGS. 5A and 5B, after receiving the data from remote database 32, data processing program 24 processes the received records of remote database 32. In some embodiments, data processing program 24 simply populates the first database with new records corresponding to the received records. Referring to FIG. 5A, data processing program 24 uses the previously developed map to translate the received fields of remote database 32 (step 505). Data processing program 24 then stores the mapped fields as new records in host database 12, thereby populating the host database with the received records of the first database (step 510).

[0059] In other embodiments, host data processing program 24 synchronizes the records of host database 12 with the received records of remote database 32 (or those fields which were received). Referring to FIG. 5B, as in step 505 in FIG. 5A, data processing program 24 uses the previously developed map to translate the received fields of remote database 32 (step 550). Data processing program 24 then proceeds to synchronize host database 12 with the received records of remote database 32. Host data processing program can, for example, use methods of synchronization described in the '490, '926, and '645 applications; U.S. patents of the assignee hereof, Puma Technology, Inc. of San Jose, Calif., incorporated by reference herein: U.S. Pat. No. 5,392,390 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,684,990; and U.S. patent applications of the assignee hereof, incorporated in by reference herein: “Synchronization of Databases,” filed on Nov. 5, 1997, Ser. No. 08/964,751 (hereinafter, the “'751 application”); “Distributed Synchronization of Databases”, filed on Sep. 11, 1997, Ser. No. 08/927,922 (hereinafter, the “'922 application”), now U.S. Pat. No. 6,044,381, issued on Mar. 28, 2000; “Synchronization of Databases Using Filters,” by David Morgan and David Boothby, filed on Mar. 5, 1998, Ser. No. 09/036,400, (hereinafter, the “filter application”), now U.S. Pat. No. 6,212,529, issued on Apr. 3, 2001. Briefly, host data processing program 24 synchronizes the records of the host and remote databases using a history file that contains records representative of the records of the two databases at the end of a previous synchronization. Host data processing program 24 uses the history file to determine, for example, which records have been changed, added or deleted since the previous synchronization and which records of the two databases correspond to one another. Host data processing program 24 can also synchronize the two programs without using a history file where, for example, a history file is not available or can not be used. Additionally, remote data processing program 44 can perform some data processing to enable distributed synchronization where a portion of the synchronization process is performed on remote computer 30, as described the '751, '922, and filter applications.

[0060] After synchronization, host data transfer program 24 translates back those remote database records which need to be updated as a result of synchronization (step 560). Host data transfer program 24 then transmits those records to remote database 32.

[0061] Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims.

[0062] For example, remote data transfer program 42 can develop a map based on a record structure data packet from host data transfer program 22. Remote data transfer program 42 can then automatically map the two databases and then use the map to translate the records before transmitting them to the host data transfer program 22.

[0063] In other embodiments, instead of agreeing to data transfer protocol at the beginning of a data transfer, the field category and property information may be send with each record and then processed by the other computer.

[0064] In some embodiments, the host and remote databases, and all relevant programs described here, are stored on a single computer and the processing and transferring of data is performed on the same computer. In other embodiments, a field identification protocol supporting only field categories is used.

Claims

Certificate of Correction present

The claims shown below may not include correction changes. Use the corrected PDF for authoritative text.

1. A computer implemented method of transferring data between a first database and a second database storing records of data, the first database being characterized by a first record structure determining fields of the records of the first database, and the second database being characterized by a second record structure determining fields of the records of the second database, the method comprising the steps of:

establishing a field map relating the fields of the first and second databases, substantially without user input, by correlating a first plurality of the fields of the first database to a second plurality of the fields of the second database using information identifying the record structure of at least one of the first and second databases, and

translating the data stored in the first plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database in accordance with the field map,

wherein the identifying information identifies the record structure according to a selected protocol, and

wherein the selected protocol provides a syntax for identifying the characteristics of a field of the one of the first and second databases.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising transmitting from the first database to the second database data stored in the plurality of fields of the plurality of the records of the first database.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein the data is translated before the data is transmitted.

4. The method of claim 2 further comprising storing the transmitted data in the second database.

5. The method of claim 2 further comprising synchronizing at least one record of the second database with the transmitted data.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein the first database is stored on a first computer and the second database is stored on a second computer.

7. The method of claim 1 wherein the first plurality of the records of the first database includes all of the records of the first database.

8. The method of claim 1 wherein the identifying information identifies categories of the fields in the record structure of the one of the first and second databases according to the selected protocol and wherein the correlating includes correlating the first plurality of the fields of the first database to the second plurality of the fields of the second database based on the categories of the fields.

9. The method of claim 8 wherein the categories of the fields in the record structure of the one of the first and second databases are classified into a plurality of mapping classes and wherein the correlating further includes correlating the first plurality of the fields of the first database to the second plurality of the fields of the second database based on the plurality of mapping classes.

10. The method of claim 9 wherein the correlating further includes applying a plurality of mapping rules to the plurality of mapping classes.

11. The method of claim 10 wherein one of the mapping rules indicates that fields of the one of the first and second databases having a selected class, if absent in the other one of the first and second databases, are mapped to fields having a different selected class.

12. The method of claim 1 wherein the fields of the first and second databases are characterized by having selected properties and the identifying information identifies the selected properties of the fields in the record structure of one of the first and second databases according to the selected protocol, and wherein translating the data includes modifying the data based on the properties of the fields of the first and second databases.

13. The method of claim 1 further comprising transmitting the identifying information to a computer program wherein the computer program performs the correlating.

14. The method of claim 1 wherein the selected protocol classifies the fields in the record structure of the one of the first and second databases based on categories of the fields.

15. The method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of the records of the first database includes all of the records of the first database.

16. A computer implemented method of transferring data in a first database stored on a first computer to a second computer storing a second database, wherein the first and second databases store records of data and the first and second databases are each characterized by a record structure, the method comprising the steps of:

initiating a data transfer session between the first and second databases,

transmitting to a computer program information identifying the record structure of at least one of the first and second databases, the identifying information being provided substantially without user input,

establishing a data transfer protocol based on the identifying information,

transferring, according to the database transfer protocol, from the first database to the second database data stored in a plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database,

wherein the identifying information identifies the record structure according to a selected protocol, and

wherein the selected protocol provides a syntax for identifying the characteristics of a field of the one of the first and second databases.

17. The method of claim 16 wherein establishing the data transfer protocol includes:

correlating a second plurality of the fields of the first database to a third plurality of the fields of the second database to establish a field map, using the information identifying the record structure of one of the first and second databases.

18. The method of claim 17 wherein establishing the data transfer protocol further includes:

determining the first-mentioned plurality of fields of the first database based on the second plurality of the fields of the first database, where the first-mentioned plurality of fields of the records of the first database is less than all of the fields of the records of the first database.

19. The method of claim 17 wherein establishing the data transfer protocol further includes:

determining the plurality of records of the first database based on a selected criterion.

20. The method of claim 19 wherein the selected criterion includes a criterion for searching a first database and selecting records matching the selected criterion.

21. The method of claim 16 further comprising storing the transmitted data in the second database.

22. The method of claim 16 further comprising synchronizing at least one record of the second database with the transmitted data.

23. The method of claim 16 wherein the first database is stored on a first computer and the second database is stored on a second computer.

24. A computer implemented method of transferring data in a first database stored on a first computer to a second computer storing a second database, wherein the first and second databases store records of data and the first and second databases are each characterized by a record structure, the method comprising the steps of:

transmitting to a computer program information identifying the record structure of at least one of the first and second databases, the information being generated substantially without user input, and the information identifying categories and properties of a plurality of fields of the record structure of the one of the first and second databases, a category identifying the type of information stored in a field, and a property identifying limits or rules imposed on data stored in a field,

transferring from the first database to the second database data stored in a plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database, and

processing the transferred data using the identifying information,

wherein the identifying information identifies the record structure according to a selected protocol, and

wherein the selected protocol provides a syntax for identifying the characteristics of a field of the one of the first and second databases.

25. The method of claim 24 wherein the properties include a rule of data value for a field of the record structure of the one of the first and second databases.

26. The method of claim 24 wherein the properties include a size parameter for a field of the record structure of the one of the first and second databases.

27. The method of claim 24 wherein the processing includes synchronizing at least one record of the second database with the transmitted data.

28. The method of claim 24 wherein the first database is stored on a first computer and the second database is stored on a second computer.

29. Computer software resident on a computer readable medium for transferring data between a first database and a second database storing records of data, the first database being characterized by a first record structure determining fields of the records of the first database, and the second database being characterized by a second record structure determining fields of the records of the second database, the computer software containing instructions for:

translating the data stored in the first plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database in accordance with the field map,

wherein the identifying information identifies the record structure according to a selected protocol, and

wherein the selected protocol provides a syntax for identifying the characteristics of a field of the one of the first and second databases.

30. The computer software of claim 29 further containing instructions for transmitting from the first database to the second database data stored in the plurality of fields of the plurality of the records of the first database.

31. The computer software of claim 30 wherein the data is translated before the data is transmitted.

32. The computer software of claim 30 further containing instructions for storing the transmitted data in the second database.

33. The computer software of claim 30 further containing instructions for synchronizing at least one record of the second database with the transmitted data.

34. The computer software of claim 30 wherein the first database is stored on a first computer and the second database is stored on a second computer.

35. The computer software of claim 29 wherein the first plurality of the records of the first database includes all of the records of the first database.

36. The computer software of claim 29 wherein the identifying information identifies categories of the fields in the record structure of the one of the first and second databases according to the selected protocol and wherein the correlating includes correlating the first plurality of the fields of the first database to the second plurality of the fields of the second database based on the categories of the fields.

37. The computer software of claim 36 wherein the categories of the fields in the record structure of the one of the first and second databases are classified into a plurality of mapping classes and wherein the correlating further includes correlating the first plurality of the fields of the first database to the second plurality of the fields of the second database based on the plurality of mapping classes.

38. The computer software of claim 37 wherein the correlating farther includes applying a plurality of mapping rules to the plurality of mapping classes.

39. The computer software of claim 38 wherein one of the mapping rules indicates that fields of the one of the first and second databases having a selected class, if absent in the other one of the first and second databases, are mapped to fields having a different selected class.

40. The computer software of claim 29 wherein the fields of the first and second databases are characterized by having selected properties and the identifying information identifies the selected properties of the fields in the record structure of one of the first and second databases according to the selected protocol, and wherein translating the data includes modifying the data based on the properties of the fields of the first and second databases.

41. The computer software of claim 29 wherein the computer software includes a computer program and the computer software farther containing instructions for transmitting the identifying information to the computer program wherein the computer program performs the correlating.

42. The computer software of claim 29 wherein the selected protocol classifies the fields in the record structure of the one of the first and second databases based on categories of the fields.

43. Computer software resident on a computer readable medium for transferring data in a first database stored on a first computer to a second computer storing a second database, wherein the computer software includes a computer program and the computer software, wherein the first and second databases store records of data and the first and second databases are each characterized by a record structure, the computer software containing instruction for:

initiating a data transfer session between the first and second databases,

transmitting to the computer program information identifying the record structure of at least one of the first and second databases, the identifying information being provided substantially without user input,

establishing a data transfer protocol based on the identifying information,

transferring, according to the database transfer protocol, from the first database to the second database data stored in a plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database,

wherein the identifying information identifies the record structure according to a selected protocol, and

wherein the selected protocol provides a syntax for identifying the characteristics of a field of the one of the first and second databases.

44. The computer software of claim 43 wherein establishing the data transfer protocol includes:

45. The computer software of claim 44 wherein establishing the data transfer protocol further includes:

46. The computer software of claim 44 wherein establishing the data transfer protocol further includes:

determining the plurality of records of the first database based on a selected criterion.

47. The computer software of claim 46 wherein the selected criterion includes a criterion for searching a first database and selecting records matching the selected criterion.

48. The computer software of claim 43 further containing instructions for storing the transmitted data in the second database.

49. The computer software of claim 43 further containing instructions for synchronizing at least one record of the second database with the transmitted data.

50. The computer software of claim 43 wherein the first database is stored on a first computer and the second database is stored on a second computer.

51. The computer software of claim 43 wherein the plurality of the records of the first database includes all of the records of the first database.

52. Computer software resident on a computer readable medium for transferring data in a first database stored on a first computer to a second computer storing a second database, wherein the first and second databases store records of data and the first and second databases are each characterized by a record structure, the computer software containing instruction for:

transferring from the first database to the second database data stored in a plurality of fields of a plurality of the records of the first database, and

processing the transferred data using the identifying information,

wherein the identifying information identifies the record structure according to a selected protocol, and

wherein the selected protocol provides a syntax for identifying the characteristics of a field of the one of the first and second databases.

53. The computer software of claim 52 wherein the properties include a rule of data value for a field of the record structure of the one of the first and second databases.

54. The computer software of claim 52 wherein the properties include a size parameter for a field of the record structure of the one of the first and second databases.

55. The computer software of claim 52 wherein the processing includes synchronizing at least one record of the second database with the transmitted data.

56. The computer software of claim 52 wherein the first database is stored on a first computer and the second database is stored on a second computer.

Patent Citations (146)

Patent	Date	Inventor	Cited By
US4162610(A)	1979-07-01	Levine	Applicant
US4432057(A)	1984-02-01	Daniell et al.	Applicant
US4807154(A)	1989-02-01	Scully et al.	Applicant
US4807155(A)	1989-02-01	Cree et al.	Applicant
US4807182(A)	1989-02-01	Queen	Applicant
US4817018(A)	1989-03-01	Cree et al.	Applicant
US4819156(A)	1989-04-01	DeLorme et al.	Applicant
US4819191(A)	1989-04-01	Scully et al.	Applicant
US4827423(A)	1989-05-01	Beasley et al.	Applicant
US4831552(A)	1989-05-01	Scully et al.	Applicant
US4866611(A)	1989-09-01	Cree et al.	Applicant
US4875159(A)	1989-10-01	Cary et al.	Applicant
US4939689(A)	1990-07-01	Davis et al.	Applicant
US4956809(A)	1990-09-01	George et al.	Applicant
US4980844(A)	1990-12-01	Demjanenko et al.	Applicant
US5065360(A)	1991-11-01	Kelly	Applicant
US5124912(A)	1992-06-01	Hotaling et al.	Applicant
US5134564(A)	1992-07-01	Dunn et al.	Applicant
US5136707(A)	1992-08-01	Block et al.	Applicant
US5142619(A)	1992-08-01	Webster, III	Applicant
US5155850(A)	1992-10-01	Janis et al.	Applicant
US5170480(A)	1992-12-01	Mohan et al.	Applicant
US5187787(A)	1993-02-01	Skeen et al.	Applicant
US5197000(A)	1993-03-01	Vincent	Applicant
US5201010(A)	1993-04-01	Deaton et al.	Applicant
US5210868(A)	1993-05-01	Shimada et al.	Applicant
US5220540(A)	1993-06-01	Nishida et al.	Applicant
US5228116(A)	1993-07-01	Harris et al.	Applicant
US5237678(A)	1993-08-01	Kuechler et al.	Applicant
US5251151(A)	1993-10-01	Demjanenko et al.	Applicant
US5251291(A)	1993-10-01	Malcolm	Applicant
US5261045(A)	1993-11-01	Scully et al.	Applicant
US5261094(A)	1993-11-01	Everson et al.	Applicant
US5272628(A)	1993-12-01	Koss	Applicant
US5276876(A)	1994-01-01	Coleman et al.	Applicant
US5278978(A)	1994-01-01	Demers et al.	Examiner
US5278982(A)	1994-01-01	Daniels et al.	Applicant
US5283887(A)	1994-02-01	Zachery	Applicant
US5293627(A)	1994-03-01	Kato et al.	Applicant
US5301313(A)	1994-04-01	Terada et al.	Applicant
US5315709(A)	1994-05-01	Alston, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US5323314(A)	1994-06-01	Baber et al.	Applicant
US5327555(A)	1994-07-01	Anderson	Applicant
US5333252(A)	1994-07-01	Brewer, III et al.	Examiner
US5333265(A)	1994-07-01	Orimo et al.	Applicant
US5333316(A)	1994-07-01	Champagne et al.	Applicant
US5339392(A)	1994-08-01	Risberg et al.	Applicant
US5339434(A)	1994-08-01	Rusis	Applicant
US5355476(A)	1994-10-01	Fukumura	Applicant
US5375234(A)	1994-12-01	Davidson et al.	Applicant
US5392390(A)	1995-02-01	Crozier	Examiner
US5396612(A)	1995-03-01	Huh et al.	Applicant
US5412801(A)	1995-05-01	de Remer et al.	Applicant
US5421012(A)	1995-05-01	Khoyi et al.	Applicant
US5434994(A)	1995-07-01	Shaheen et al.	Applicant
US5444851(A)	1995-08-01	Woest	Applicant
US5455945(A)	1995-10-01	VanderDrift	Applicant
US5463735(A)	1995-10-01	Pascucci et al.	Applicant
US5475833(A)	1995-12-01	Dauerer et al.	Applicant
US5511188(A)	1996-04-01	Pascucci et al.	Applicant
US5519606(A)	1996-05-01	Frid-Nielsen et al.	Applicant
US5530853(A)	1996-06-01	Schell et al.	Applicant
US5530939(A)	1996-06-01	Mansfield, Jr et al.	Applicant
US5557518(A)	1996-09-01	Rosen	Applicant
US5560005(A)	1996-09-01	Hoover et al.	Applicant
US5568402(A)	1996-10-01	Gray et al.	Applicant
US5581753(A)	1996-12-01	Terry et al.	Applicant
US5581754(A)	1996-12-01	Terry et al.	Applicant
US5583793(A)	1996-12-01	Gray et al.	Applicant
US5596574(A)	1997-01-01	Perlman et al.	Applicant
US5600834(A)	1997-02-01	Howard	Applicant
US5608865(A)	1997-03-01	Midgely et al.	Applicant
US5613113(A)	1997-03-01	Goldring	Applicant
US5615109(A)	1997-03-01	Eder	Applicant
US5615364(A)	1997-03-01	Marks	Applicant
US5619689(A)	1997-04-01	Kelly	Applicant
US5623540(A)	1997-04-01	Morrison et al.	Applicant
US5630081(A)	1997-05-01	Rybicki et al.	Examiner
US5649182(A)	1997-07-01	Reitz	Applicant
US5659741(A)	1997-08-01	Eberhardt	Applicant
US5666530(A)	1997-09-01	Clark et al.	Applicant
US5666553(A)	1997-09-01	Crozier	Examiner
US5671407(A)	1997-09-01	Demers et al.	Applicant
US5682524(A)	1997-10-01	Freund et al.	Applicant
US5684984(A)	1997-11-01	Jones et al.	Applicant
US5684990(A)	1997-11-01	Boothby	Examiner
US5689706(A)	1997-11-01	Rao et al.	Applicant
US5701423(A)	1997-12-01	Crozier	Examiner
US5704029(A)	1997-12-01	Wright, Jr.	Applicant
US5706452(A)	1998-01-01	Ivanov	Applicant
US5706509(A)	1998-01-01	Tso	Applicant
US5708812(A)	1998-01-01	Van Dyke et al.	Applicant
US5708840(A)	1998-01-01	Kikinis et al.	Applicant
US5710922(A)	1998-01-01	Alley et al.	Applicant
US5727202(A)	1998-03-01	Kucala	Applicant
US5729735(A)	1998-03-01	Meyering	Applicant
US5737539(A)	1998-04-01	Edelson et al.	Applicant
US5745712(A)	1998-04-01	Turpin et al.	Examiner
US5758083(A)	1998-05-01	Singh et al.	Applicant
US5758150(A)	1998-05-01	Bell et al.	Applicant
US5758337(A)	1998-05-01	Hammond	Applicant
US5758355(A)	1998-05-01	Buchanan	Applicant
US5778388(A)	1998-07-01	Kawamura et al.	Applicant
US5781908(A)	1998-07-01	Williams et al.	Applicant
US5790789(A)	1998-08-01	Suarez	Applicant
US5809494(A)	1998-09-01	Nguyen	Applicant
US5813009(A)	1998-09-01	Johnson et al.	Applicant
US5813013(A)	1998-09-01	Shakib et al.	Applicant
US5819272(A)	1998-10-01	Benson	Applicant
US5819274(A)	1998-10-01	Jackson, Jr.	Applicant
US5832218(A)	1998-11-01	Gibbs et al.	Applicant
US5832489(A)	1998-11-01	Kucala	Applicant
US5838923(A)	1998-11-01	Lee et al.	Applicant
US5845293(A)	1998-12-01	Veghte et al.	Applicant
US5857201(A)	1999-01-01	Wright, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US5870759(A)	1999-02-01	Bauer et al.	Applicant
US5870765(A)	1999-02-01	Bauer et al.	Applicant
US5875242(A)	1999-02-01	Glaser et al.	Applicant
US5877760(A)	1999-03-01	Onda et al.	Applicant
US5878415(A)	1999-03-01	Olds	Applicant
US5884323(A)	1999-03-01	Hawkins et al.	Examiner
US5884324(A)	1999-03-01	Cheng et al.	Applicant
US5884325(A)	1999-03-01	Bauer et al.	Applicant
US5892909(A)	1999-04-01	Grasso et al.	Applicant
US5897640(A)	1999-04-01	Veghte et al.	Applicant
US5924094(A)	1999-07-01	Sutter	Applicant
US5926816(A)	1999-07-01	Bauer et al.	Applicant
US5926824(A)	1999-07-01	Hashimoto	Examiner
US5928329(A)	1999-07-01	Clark et al.	Applicant
US5943676(A)	1999-08-01	Boothby	Examiner
US5956508(A)	1999-09-01	Johnson et al.	Applicant
US5966714(A)	1999-10-01	Huang et al.	Applicant
US5974238(A)	1999-10-01	Chase, Jr.	Examiner
US5995980(A)	1999-11-01	Olson et al.	Applicant
US5999947(A)	1999-12-01	Zollinger et al.	Applicant
US6098078(A)	2000-01-01	Gehani et al.	Applicant
US6081806(A)	2000-06-01	Chang et al.	Applicant
US6125369(A)	2000-09-01	Wu et al.	Applicant
US6141664(A)	2000-10-01	Boothby	Examiner
US6212221(B1)	2001-04-01	Wakayama et al.	Applicant
US6216131(B1)	2001-04-01	Liu et al.	Applicant
US6247135(B1)	2001-06-01	Feague	Applicant
US6272074(B1)	2001-08-01	Winner	Applicant
US6330568(B1)	2001-12-01	Boothby et al.	Examiner
US6401104(B1)	2002-06-01	LaRue et al.	Examiner
US2001/0014890(A1)	2001-08-01	Liu et al.	Examiner

Non-Patent Literature (148)

USSN 08/927,922, filed Sep. 11, 1997.Applicant
USSN 08/964,751, filed Nov. 05, 1997.Applicant
USSN 09/036,400, filed Mar. 05, 1998.Applicant
Chapura, Inc., 3 Compare, http://www.chapura.com/3compare.html (1997).Applicant
Cobb et al., “Paradox 3.5 Handbook 3rd Edition,” Bantam, pp. 803-816 (1991).Applicant
“FRx Extends Reporting Power of Platinum Series: (IBM Desktop Software's Line of Accounting Software),” Doug Dayton, PC Week, v. 8, n. 5, p. 29(2) (Feb. 4, 1991).Applicant
IntelliLink Brochure (1990).Applicant
“Logical Connectivity: Applications, Requirements, Architecture, and Research Agenda,” Stuart Madnick & Y. Richard Wang, MIT, Systems Sciences, 1991 Hawaii Int'l, vol. 1, IEEE (Jun. 1991).Applicant
“Open Network Computing—Technical Overview,” Sun Technical Report, Microsystems, Inc., pp. 1-32 (1987).Applicant
Organizer Link II Operation Manual, Sharp Electronics Corporation (No date).Applicant
“The Big Picture (Accessing Information on Remote Data Management System,” UNIX Review, v. 7, n. 8, p. 38(7) (Aug. 1989).Applicant
User Manual for Connectivity Pack for the HP 95LX, Hewlett Packard Company (1991).Applicant
User Manual for PC-Link for the B.O.S.S. and the PC-Link for the B.O.S.S., Traveling Software, Inc. (1989).Applicant
Zahn et al., Network Computing Architecture, pp. 1-11; 19-31; 87×115; 117-133; 187-199; 201-209 (1990).Applicant
USSN 08/749,926, filed Nov. 13, 1996.Applicant
USSN 08/752,490, filed Nov. 13, 1996.Applicant
USSN 08/748,645, filed Nov. 13, 1996.Applicant
Alfieri, “The Best of WordPerfect Version 5.0,” Hayden Books, pp. 153-165, 429-435 (1988).Applicant
“Automatically Synchronized Objects,” Research Disclosure #29261, p. 614 (Aug. 1988).Applicant
Chapura, Inc., PilotMirror Features Page, http://www.chapura.com/features.html (1997).Applicant
Oracle 7™ Server SQL Manual Release 7.3, Feb. 1996.Applicant
Lomet, D., Using timestamping to optimize two phase commit; Parallel and Distributed Information Systems, 1993, Proceeding of the Second International Conference, Jan. 20-22, 1993: pp. 48-55.Applicant
Oracle 7 Distributed Database Technology and Symmetric Replication, Oracle White Paper, Apr. 1995.Applicant
Oracle 7™ Server SQL Manual Release 7.3, Feb. 1996.Applicant
Oracle 7™ Server SQL Manual Release 7.3, Feb. 1996.Applicant
Quaglia, F. et al., Grain Sensitive Event Scheduling in Time Warp Parallel Discrete Event Simulation, Fourteenth Workshop on Parallel Distributed Simulation, PADS 2000, May, 28-31, 2000: pp. 173-180.Applicant
Salzberg, B., Timestamping After Commit, Procs. Of the Third Int. Conf. On Parallel and Distributed Information Systems, Sep., 28-30, 1994: pp. 160-167.Applicant
Zhang et al., Impact of Workload and System Parameters on Next Generation Cluster Scheduling Mechanisms, IEEE Trans. On Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 12, No. 9, Sep. 2001: pp. 967-985.Applicant
IntelliLink for Windows User's Guide, Version 3.0, IntelliLink Corporation (1993).Applicant
Database Subsetting Tool: Introduction to DST and DST Designer's Guide, Syware, Inc. (1993).Applicant
Sarin, “Robust Application Design in Highly Available Distributed Databases,” Proc. 5th Symp. Reliability in Distributed Software and Database Systems, pp. 87-94 (Jan 13-15, 1986, Los Angeles).Applicant
Distributed Management of Replicated Data: Final Report, Computer Corporation of America (Oct. 9, 1984).Applicant
Sarin et al., “Overview of SHARD: A System for Highly Available Replicated Data”, Computer Corporation of America (Apr. 8, 1988).Applicant
SRI Int'l, Network Reconstitution Protocol, RADC-TR-87-38, Final Technical Report (Jun. 1987).Applicant
Danberg, “A Database Subsetting Tool” (patent application) (Apr. 12, 1993).Applicant
Lamb et al., “The Objectstore Database System,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 50-63 (Oct. 1991).Applicant
TT Interchange, Time Technology, AVG Sales & Marketing Ltd. (1995).Applicant
Goldberg et al., “Using Collaborative Filtering to Weave an Information Tapestry,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 35, No. 12, pp. 61-70 (Dec. 1992).Applicant
Now Up-to-Date Version 2.0 User's Guide, Now Software, Inc. (1992).Applicant
An Introduction to DataPropagator Relational Version 1, IBM Corporation (1993).Applicant
Data Propagator Relational Guide Release 1, IBM Corporation (May 1994).Applicant
DataPropagator Relational Guide Release 2, IBM Corporation (Dec. 1994).Applicant
DataPropagator NonRelational Guide MVS/ESA Version 2 Utilities Guide, IBM Corporation (Jul. 1994).Applicant
DPROPR Planning and Design Guide, IBM Corporation (Nov. 1996).Applicant
DataPropagator Relational Capture and Apply/400 Version 3, IBM Corporation (Jun. 1996).Applicant
DataPropagator Relational Capture and Apply for OS/400 Version 3, IBM Corporation (Nov. 1996).Applicant
Newton Connection Utilities User's Manual for the Macintosh Operating System, Apple Computer, Inc. (1996).Applicant
Newton Connection Utilities User's Manual for Windows, Apple Computer, Inc. (no date).Applicant
Newton Connection Utilities User's Manual for Macintosh, Apple Computer, Inc. (no date).Applicant
Newton Backup Utility User's Guide for the Windows Operating System, Apple Computer, Inc. (1995).Applicant
Newton Backup Utility User's Guide for the Macintosh Operating System, Apple Computer, Inc. (1995).Applicant
Newton Utilities User Manual, Apple Computer, Inc. (1995).Applicant
FileMaker Pro Server Administrator's Guide, Claris Corporation (1994).Applicant
Connectivity Pack User's Guide for the HP 200LX and the HP 100LX, Hewlett Packard (no date).Applicant
Lotus cc:Mail Release 2, Lotus Development Corporation (1991-1993).Applicant
User's Guide Lotus Organizer Release 1.0, Lotus Deelopment Corporation (1992).Applicant
FileMaker Pro User's Guide, Claris Corporation (1990, 1992).Applicant
Poesio et al., “Metric Constraints for Maintaining Appointments: Dates and Repeated Activities” (no date).Applicant
Slater, “Newton's Legacy; 3COM and Microsoft Battle for Market Share; Apple Newton, 3Com Palm III, Microsoft Palm-size PC personal digital assistant; Product Information”, Information Access Company (1998).Applicant
Negrino, “ACT 2.5.1, ACT for Newton 1.0”, UMI, Inc. (1996).Applicant
Zilber, “Toy story; personal digital assistants; Product Information”, Information Access Company (1996).Applicant
Wingfield, “Desktop to Newton connectivity”, UMI, Inc. (1996).Applicant
“Now Software Announces Updated Synchronization Software for Newton 2.0 Devices; Now Synchronize Simultaneously Updates MessagePad, Now Up-to-Date & Contact”, Business Wire, Inc. (1995).Applicant
“Claris Ships FileMaker Pro 3.0 for Macintosh and Windows”, Business Wire, Inc. (1995).Applicant
Alsop, “Distributed Thinking; Realizing the gravity of its PDA problems, Apple has drawn me back to Newton”, InfoWorld Media Group (1995).Applicant
Rubin, “Now Software stays in sync; Now Synchronize file synchronization software for Macs and Newton PDAs; Software Review; EvaluationBrief Article”, Information Access Company (1995).Applicant
“Now Calendar/Scheduler/Contact Mgr for Mac Update”, Post-Newsweek Business Information Inc. (1995).Applicant
Staten, “csInStep middleware lets Newton talk to PIMs; Concierge Software LC's csInStep; Brief Article; Product Announcement; Brief Article”, Information Access Company (1995).Applicant
Baum, “Designing Moble applications; A new approach needed for on-the-road systems”, Info World Media Group (1994).Applicant
Parkinson, “Remote users get in sync with office files; News Analysis”, Information Access Company (1994).Applicant
Adly, “HARP: A Hierarchical Asynchronous Replication Protocol for Massively Replicated Systems,” Computer Laboratory, Cambridge University, United Kingdom (undated).Applicant
Adly et al., “A Hierarchical Asynchronous Replication Protocol for Large Scale Systems,” Computer Laboratory, Cambridge University, United Kingdom, Computer Science Department, Alexandria University, Egypt (undated).Applicant
Alexander, “Designed, sold, delivered, serviced,” Computerworld Client/Server Journal, pp. 43 (Oct. 01, 1995).Applicant
“All I need is a miracle; computer-aided educational packages; Small Wonders,” Coastal Associates Publishing L.P. (Mar. 1992).Applicant
Alonso et al., “Database System Issues in Nomadic Computing,” Matsushita Information Technology Laboratory, New Jersey (undated).Applicant
Badrinath et al., “Impact of Mobility on Distributed Computations,” Operating Systems Review (Apr. 1, 1993).Applicant
Barbara et al., “Sleeper and Workaholics: Caching Strategies in Mobile Environments (Extended Version)” (Aug. 29, 1994).Applicant
Bowen, M. et al., Achieving Throughput and Functionality in a Common Architecture: The Datacycle Experiment, IEEE, pp. 178, 1991.Applicant
Brandel, “New offerings fuel revival of PIM,” Computerworld, p. 39 (Sep. 12, 1994).Applicant
Broderson, “InfoPad-An Experiment in System Level Design and Intregration,” (Mar. 01, 1997).Applicant
Demers et al., “The Bayou Architecture: Support for Data Sharing Among Mobile Users,” Computer Science Laboratory, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, California (undated).Applicant
DeVoe et al., “SOFTWARE: Day-Timer Organizer 2.0 based on format of paper-based PIM,” InfoWorld, vol. 17 (Aug. 21, 1995).Applicant
Froese, “File System Support for Weakly Connected Operation,” pp. 229-238 (undated).Applicant
Greenberg et al., “Real Time Groupware as a Distributed System: Concurrency Control and its Effect on the interface,” Procs. Of the ACM CSCW Conf. On Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Oct. 22-26, North Carolina, ACM Press (Jan. 01, 1994).Applicant
Guy, “Ficus: A Very Large Scale Reliable Distributed File System,” Technical Report CSD-910018, Computer Science Dept. UCLA (Technical Report) (Jun. 03, 1991).Applicant
Guy et al., “Implementation of the Ficus Replicated File System, ” appeared in Procs. Of the Summer USENIX Conf., Anaheim, CA, pp. 63-71 (Jun. 01, 1990).Applicant
Haber, “Renegade PIMS,” Computerworld, p. 109 (Dec. 12, 1994).Applicant
Hammer et al., “An Approach to Resolving Semantic Heterogeneity in a Federation of Autonomous, Heterogeneous Database Systems,” Computer Science Department, University of Southern California (undated).Applicant
Hammer et al., “Object Discovery and Unification in Federated Database Systems,” University of Southern California (undated).Applicant
HP and IntelliLink connect HP 95LX with HP NewWave; IntelliLink for the HP NewWave; product announcement, HP Professional (Aug. 1991).Applicant
“HP announces expanded memory version of palmtop PC, introduces 1-Megabyte HP 95LX and 1-Megabyte memory cards,” Business Wire, Inc. (Mar. 4, 1992).Applicant
Huston et al., “Disconnected Operation of AFS,” CITI Technical Report 93-3, Center for Information Technology Integration, Univerisity of Michigan (Jun. 18, 1993).Applicant
IBM Dictionary of Computing, Tenth Edition, 1993, pp. 268, 269, 31 _.Applicant
IBM Dictionary of Computing, Tenth Edition, 1993, pp. 165, 268, 349, 370, 417.Applicant
IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, Fourth Edition, 1988, p. 372, 368, 509, 563.Applicant
Imielinski, “Mobile Computing —DataMan Project Perspective,” Rutgers Universtiy (undated) .Applicant
Informix, Informix Guide to SQL: Tutorial; Version 7.1, 1994.Applicant
“IntelliLink 2.2: the software connection from desktop to palmtop; Software Review; IntelliLink 2.2; Evalution,” PC Magazine (Apr. 28, 1992).Applicant
“IntelliLink transfers palmtop, PC data; communcaitions software from IntelliLink Inc; brief article; Product Announcement,” PC Week (Nov. 18, 1991).Applicant
Jacobs et al., “A Generalized Query-by-Example Data Manipulation Language Based on Database Logic,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. SE-9, No. 1 (Jan. 1993).Applicant
Jenkins, “Users Struggle with E-mail Woes,” Computerworld, p. 97 (Oct. 24, 1994).Applicant
Johnson et al., “Hierarchical Matrix Timestamps for Scalable Update Propagation,” submitted to the 10th Int. Workshop on Distributed Algorithms (Jun. 25, 1996).Applicant
Joshi et al., “A Survey of Mobile Computing Technologies and Applications,” (Oct. 29, 1995).Applicant
Kistler et al., “Disconnected Operation in the Coda File System,” School of Computer Science, Carnegie Melon University, Pennsylvania (undated).Applicant
Krill, “Networking: Tech Update,” InfoWorld, vol. 18 (Feb. 12, 1996).Applicant
Kumar et al., “Log-Based Directory Resolution in the Coda File System, ” School of Computer Science, Carnegie Melon University, Pennsylvania (undated).Applicant
Larson et al., “Theory of Attribute Equivalence in Databases with Application to Schema Integration,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 15, No. 4, Apr. 1989.Applicant
Mannino et al., “Matching Techniques in Global Schema Design,” IEEE 1984.Applicant
Marshall, “Product Reviews: Windows contact managers,” InfoWorld, vol. 18 (Mar. 25, 1996).Applicant
McGoveran, “Distributed not yet delivered,” Computerworld, p. 112 (Jun. 6, 1994).Applicant
Meckler Corporation, “Palmtop-to-desktop linkage software,” Database Searcher (Jun. 1992).Applicant
Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Second Edition, 1994, p. 164.Applicant
Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Second Edition, 1994, pp. 105, 217, 227, 228.Applicant
Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997, pp. 194, 228, 234, 449.Applicant
Milliken, “Resource Coordination Objects: A State Distribution Mechanism,” (DRAFT) (Dec. 10, 1993).Applicant
Nash, “Replication falls Short,” Compter world, p. 65 (Nov. 21, 1994).Applicant
Noble et al., “A Research Status Report for Adaptation for Mobile Data Access,” School of Computer Science, Carnegie Melon University (undated).Applicant
Oracle7 Server Distributed Systems, Vol. II: Replicated Data, Release 7.3 (Feb. 1996).Applicant
“PackRat PIM gets older and wiser with Release 4.0; PIM update sports enhanced interface, greater ease of use,” InfoWorld (Dec. 23, 1991).Applicant
“Palmtop PCs: power by the ounce; Hardware Review; overview of six evaluations of palm-top computers; includes related articles on Editor's Choices, suitability-to-task ratings, impressions by individual users; evaluation,” PC Magazine (Jul. 1991).Applicant
“Pen-based PCs ready for prime time; includes related article on comparison of operating systems, list of vendors of pen-based products,” PC-Computing (Nov. 1991).Applicant
Perera, “Synchronization Schizophrenia,” Computerworld Client/Server Journal, p. 50 (Oct. 1, 1995).Applicant
Petersen et al., “Bayou: Replicated Database Services for World-wide Applications,” Computer Science Laboratory, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, California (undated).Applicant
“Product comparsion: Atari Portfolio, Casio Executive BOSS, HP 95LX, Poqet PC, Psion series 3, sharp Wizard,” InfoWorld (Dec. 16, 1991).Applicant
“Product Comparison: Personal information managers,” InfoWorld, vol. 17 (Aug. 07, 1995).Applicant
Qu et al., Technical Report entitled “Mobile File Filtering,” TR-CS-97-02-Australian National University (Feb. 1, 1997).Applicant
Radosevich, “Replication mania,” Computerworld Client/Server Journal, p. 53 (Oct. 1, 1995).Applicant
Ratner et al., “The Ward Model: A Replication Architecture for Mobile Environments,” Department of Computer Science, University of California (undated).Applicant
Reiher et al., “Peer-to-Peer Reconciliation Based Replication for Mobile Computers,” UCLA (undated).Applicant
Reiher et al., “Resolving File Conflicts in the Ficus File System,” Department of Computer Science, University of California (undated).Applicant
Ricciuti, “Object database server,” InfoWorld, vol. 18 (Jan. 29, 1996).Applicant
“Riding the NewWave from PC to Palmtop: IntelliLink lets NewWave users transfer files,” InfoWorld (Jun. 3, 1991).Applicant
Saltor et al., “Suitability of data models as canonical models for federated databases,” Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain (undated).Applicant
Satyanarayanan, “Coda: A Highly Available File System for a Distributed Workstation Environment, ” School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (undated).Applicant
Satyanarayanan, “Fundamental Challenges in Mobile Computing,” School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (undated).Applicant
Satyanarayanan, “Mobile Information Access,” IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 3, No. 1 (Feb. 1996).Applicant
Sherman, “Information Technology: ‘What Software Should I Use to Organize My Life’,” (undated).Applicant
Sheth et al., “A Tool for Integrating Conceptual Schemas and User Views,” IEEE 1988.Applicant
Schilit et al., “The ParcTab Mobile Computing System,” Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, California (undated).Applicant
SPI Database Software Technologies Record Displays: Record 2, Ser. No. TDB0291.0094 and Record 4, Ser. No. iets0901.0073 (undated).Applicant
Staten, “PowerMerge 2.0 ships; syncs moved filed,” MacWeek, vol. 8, p. 38(1) (Jan. 3, 1994).Applicant
Tait, Doctoral Thesis entitled “A File System for Mobile Computing,” (Jan. 1, 1993).Applicant
Tolly, “Enhanced Notes 4.0 gets thumbs-up, ” Computerworld, p. 54 (Dec. 18, 1995).Applicant
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1986, pp. 114, 436, 440, 462, 573, 597, 620, 717, 906, 963, 979, 989, 1000, 1053, 1130, 1142, 1152, 1162, 1166,.Applicant
Wiederhold, Gio, Database Design, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983, p. 2.Applicant
Wiederhold, Gio, and Qian Xiaolei, Consistency Control of Replicated Data In Federal Database, IEEE, pp. 130-132. 1990.Applicant
Zaino, “Tapping the Top Values in PDAs —Personal digital assistants that sell for as little as $300 can put a PC in the palm of your hand. Get the scoop on 8 contenders,” HomePC, pp. 97 (Oct. 1, 1996).Applicant
Zisman et al., “Towards Inoperability in Heterogenous Database Systems,” Imperial College Research Report No. DOC 95/11 (Dec. 1, 1995).Applicant

Abstract

Description

Background

[0003] This invention relates to transferring records between incompatible databases.

Summary

[0013] Preferred embodiments of the invention may include one or more of the following features.

[0015] All or part of the fields in the data structure of the first computer is mapped onto all or part of the fields in the structure of the second computer.

[0024] Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the following description of preferred embodiments, including the drawings, and from the claims.

Brief Description of the Drawing

[0025] FIG. 1 shows a remote computer and a host computer connected via a data transfer link.

[0026] FIG. 2 shows a schematic diagram of the components of the remote and host computers of FIG. 1.

[0027] FIG. 3 is a flow chart of a computer implemented method of transferring data.

[0028] FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a computer implemented method of automatically mapping record structures of two databases.

[0029] FIGS. 5A and 5B are flows charts of computer implemented methods of processing data transferred between the host and remote computers.

Description

- [0038] rules on the permissible format in which the data is stored; for example, for a date field, a rule may specify whether the date is stored in the year/month/day or month/day/year format or, for a text field, a rule may specify whether a text field stored in ASCII with end of line markers or in ASCII without end of line markers;
- [0039] rules on the permissible range of data; for example, for a “to do” list priority field, the range of data may be limited to the numbers between one and three;
- [0040] rules on the permissible maximum allowable size of a field, for example, a text field may be limited to 500 characters.
  These rules are also discussed in the following U.S. patent applications of the assignee hereof, incorporated in by reference herein: “Synchronization of Recurring Records in Incompatible Databases”, Ser. No. 08/752,490, filed on Nov. 13, 1996 (hereinafter, “'490 application”), currently U.S. Pat. No. 5,943,676, issued Aug. 24, 1999, “Synchronization of Databases with Record Sanitizing and Intelligent Comparison,” Ser. No. 08/749,926, filed Nov. 13, 1996 (hereinafter, “'926 application”), now abandoned “Synchronization of Databases with Date Range,” Ser. No. 08/748,645, filed Nov. 13, 1996 (hereinafter, “'645 application”), now U.S. Pat. No. 6,141,664, issued on Oct. 31, 2000. In the '490, '926, and '645 applications, examples of these rules are referred to as rules of data value.