As enterprise supply chains and consumer demand chains have beome globalized, they continue to inefficiently share information “one-up/one-down”. Profound "bullwhip effects" in the chains cause managers to scramble with inventory shortages and consumers attempting to understand product recalls, especially food safety recalls. Add to this the increasing usage of personal mobile devices by managers and consumers seeking real-time information about products, materials and ingredient sources. The popularity of mobile devices with consumers is inexorably tugging at enterprise IT departments to shifting to apps and services. But both consumer and enterprise data is a proprietary asset that must be selectively shared to be efficiently shared.
About Steve Holcombe
Unless otherwise noted, all content on this company blog site is authored by Steve Holcombe as President & CEO of Pardalis, Inc. More profile information:
Follow @WholeChainCom™ at each of its online locations:
"SOME new ideas take wing spontaneously. Others struggle to be born. The “semantic web” is definitely in the latter category. But it may have found its midwife in Reuters, a business-information company ....
The idea is that any website can send a jumble of text and code through Calais and receive back a list of “entities” that the system has extracted—mostly people, places and companies—and, even more importantly, their relationships. It will, for instance, be able recognise a pharmaceutical company's name and, on its own initiative, cross-reference that against data on clinical trials for new drugs that are held in government databases. Alternatively, it can chew up a thousand blogs and expose trends that not even the bloggers themselves were aware of.
The system is free to use, for Reuters' objective is to create a “clearinghouse of meaning” that financial-service companies will be able to exploit as a new type of search engine. How the firm will make money has yet to emerge, though selling insights gained from applying the system's own methods for Reuters' benefit is one possibility ...."
Here is a four minute video interview of Chris Saad, Co-founder and CEO of Faraday Media. If you are pressed for time, just catch the first minute and a half. Chris is also Co-founder and Chairperson of Dataportability.org of which Faraday Media is a sponsor. In Part I of this multi-entry blog I began with the video clip called Data Portability – Video that is a promo for Dataportability.org.
Henry Story, a staff engineer for Sun Microsystems, made the following interesting comments on the Sun Babelfish blog about Chris Saad’s Data Portability group and the Data Portability – Video.
“Will the Data Portability group [at Dataportability.org] get the best solution together? …. [O]ne wonders whether XML is not the solution to their problem. Won't XML make data portability possible, if everyone agrees on what they want to port? Of course getting that agreement on all the topics in the world is a never ending process....
But the question is also whether portability is the right issue. Well in some ways it is. Currently each web site has information locked up in html formats … [which makes] it difficult to export the data, which each service wants to hold onto as if it was theirs to own.
Another way of looking at this is that the Data Portability group cannot so much be about technology as policy. The general questions it has to address are question of who should see what data, who should be able to copy that data, and what they should be able to do with it. As a result the policy issue of Data Portability does require one to solve the technical problem of distributed identity: how can people maintain the minimum number of identities on the web? (ie not one per site) Another issue that follows right upon the first is that if one wants information to only be visible to a select group of people - the "who sees what" part of the question - then one also needs a distributed way to be able to specify group membership, be it friendship based or other. The [Data Portability – Video] … makes that point very clearly why having to recreate one's social network on every site is impractical.
Story’s comments are a good setup for what I want to address. And what I want to address is how to make a connection between data portability and what I call the ‘frayed ends and laterals’ of complex product supply chains.
Along the way I want to pay attention to those readers (i.e., the vast majority of the regular, non-techie folks in the world) who are hanging back wondering what an XML object is. Let’s weave in a little history with a simple example, shall we?
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is the main international standards organization for the World Wide Web. W3C is headed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the first web browser and the primary author of the original Uniform Resource Locator (URL), HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and HyperText Markup Language (HTML) specifications. These are the principal technologies that form the basis of the World Wide Web.
For example, consider this product pedigree written in natural language.
Product Pedigree Document Manufacturer ID = Safe Toy Company Product Serial Number = STOY991 Product Description = Painted Toy Product Info To Supply Chain = 0% lead in paint Product Info To Govt Regulator = Less than 600ppm of lead in paint by weight
A beneficial characteristic of the World Wide Web is that you can read language like the foregoing example in a natural way but ‘behind the scenes’ (i.e., behind the web browser interface) this natural language representation can be constructed in different ways for different purposes.
The same natural language representation written as an HTML information object using an HTML authoring software application (also called an HTML editor) would read behind the scenes as follows.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"> <body><p> Product Pedigree Document<br> Manufacturer ID = Safe Toy Company<br> Product Serial Number = STOY991<br> Product Description = Painted Toy<br> Product Info To Supply Chain = 0% lead in paint<br> ProductInfo To Govt Regulator = Less than 600ppm of lead in paint by weight </p></body></html>
Because HTML objects are designed primarily for creating static websites, and not for dynamic information sharing, W3C has further developed standards for structured electronic sharing in the form of Extensible Markup Language (XML) objects for facilitating the emerging Semantic Web.
With gracious assistance from my good friend and collaborator, Dr. Marvin Stone, here’s an example of a granular XML information object created in an XML editor that would be naturally represented through a web browser as above.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> <Pedigree> <ManufacturerID>Safe Toy Company</ManufacturerID> <ProductSerialNumber>STOY991</ProductSerialNumber> <ProductDescription>Painted Toy</ProductDescription> <ProductInfoToSupplyChain>0% lead in paint</ProductInfoToSupplyChain> <ProductInfoToGovtRegulator>Less than 600ppm of lead in paint by weight</ProductInfoToGovtRegulator> <OtherData>Document Type Definitions</OtherData> </Pedigree>
This type of granular XML object works fine for short, vertically integrated supply chains covered by one or two enterprise systems where a small number of supply chain participants agree on what they want to port. But due to prevalent fear factors (and other policies) that prevent or otherwise affect information sharing along lengthy, complex information supply chains, there is a critical need for a more refined XML tool.
Here’s an example of a hypothetical, author-controlled XML object that would be created/authored/constructed using an extension to the foregoing XML editor that we could call an A-XML editor extension (i.e., author-controlled XML editor extension).
In the process of being authored by the toy manufacturer, this A-XML object would be constructed to point to a central repository of uniquely identified data containing the toy manufacturer's unique ID, the unique identifiers of the painted toy’s pedigree, and a unique identifier of the toy manufacturer's information sharing permissions.
Once distributed by the manufacturer/author to a lengthy supply chain, this A-XML object would provide greater control, visibility and traceability one-share, two-shares, three-shares, etc. away from the author. As other supply chain participants access the A-XML object (using a compatible XML editor) to confirm the toy’s pedigree, the toy manufacturer would be provided with supply chain visibility never before experienced.
For instance, the data element "0% lead in paint" uniquely identified as 66221 would be accessible by any supply chain participant registered with the central repository and using a compatible XML editor. The data element "Less than 600ppm of lead in paint by weight" uniquely identified as 66333 would only be accessible by permitted government regulators also registered with the central repository. (For those of you concerned with the ethics of representing one thing to consumers while reporting something else to the government, check out Are Food Labels Reliable?)
“Unscrupulous supply chain participants will always try to hide in the ‘fog’ of their supply chains. The manufacturers of safe products want to differentiate themselves from the manufacturers of unsafe products. But, again, fear factors keep the good manufacturers from posting information online that may put them at a competitive disadvantage to downstream competitors.”
There’s a chicken and egg effect here, isn’t there? That is, which comes first, policy or technology?
Here’s one answer.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Don’t get rid of the supply chain enterprise and legacy systems that are already providing useful information sharing without the data ownership characteristics of a tool like A-XML. But in the context of an emerging Semantic Web that will lean heavily upon software-as-a-service, consider the missing and incomplete information that is not being shared from the frayed ends and laterals of complex product supply chains.
And, ask yourself, could there be both a technological and socio-political connection made between data portability and supply chain traceability?
Saul Hansell authored this Bits Blog on the New York Times website on April 7, 2008.
Here's an excerpt:
"Of all the companies building advertising systems based on data gathered from Internet service providers, the one that is farthest along in the United States is NebuAd.
Robert Dykes, a long time Silicon Valley executive who started the company two years ago, says it has been up and running since last fall and will soon be monitoring the activities of 10 percent of Internet users in the country, mainly customers of small and medium Internet service providers." (emphasis added)
What follows is my submission to the Office of Outside Submissions for Xerox Corporation. I made it soon after I received word that Australia would be issuing a Notice of Acceptance regarding Pardalis' parent U.S. patent for the Common Point Authoring™ system.
July 2, 2007
Office of Outside Submissions XEROX CORPORATION Mailstop 0147-55F E-mailed to xigwebmaster@crt.xerox.com 800 Phillips Road Faxed to 585-231-8479 Webster, NY 13580-9720
This submission is made without the signing of a Xerox non-confidential disclosure agreement because all references are to publicly available information. Notwithstanding, accompanying this submission is a signed and dated Outside Submissions Agreement.
Pardalis, Inc. has received a Notice of Acceptance from the Australian Government regarding Pardalis'U.S. Patent #6,671,696 issued in 2003 and entitled “Informational object authoring and distribution system”. The Notice of Acceptance signifies that the issuance of an equivalent Australian patent will soon be forthcoming. Significantly, Xerox’s 1993 U.S. patent #5,220,657 was specifically distinguished by the Australian patent examiners from Pardalis' 696 patent.
Pardalis' mission is to promote the sharing of confidential, trustworthy and traceable data along complex and poorly coordinated supply chains with innovative Common Point Authoring™ methods for protecting the granular ownership rights of information producers. Pardalis' 696 patent is also known as the parent patent for the Common Point Authoring™ system. The critical benefit and characteristic of the Common Point Authoring™ system is granular information ownership. In addition go the 696 patent, Pardalis also holds a continuation patent in U.S. Patent #7,136,869 entitled "Common point authoring system for tracking and authenticating objects in a distribution chain", issued on November 14, 2006. Mr. James Graziano, out of the Denver office for Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, D.C., has been our patent attorney since the filing of the 696 patent.
The Xerox 657 patent is a significant, long-standing patent that covers collaborative document editing systems where multiple parties share in the creation of a single document. In contrast, Pardalis' 696 patent involves the creation by multiple parties of many documents in the form of informational objects without the necessity of any collaboration, and, additionally with the critical use of a plurality of granular immutable data elements.
Before the action taken by the Australian examiners, Pardalis' 696 patent had previously been distinguished by U.S. patent examiners from Microsoft’sU.S. Patent #5,511,197 entitled ‘Method and system for network marshalling of interface pointers for remote procedure calls’ (issued April 23, 1996), Microsoft’sU.S. Patent #5,724,588 also entitled ‘Method and system for network marshalling of interface pointers for remote procedure calls’ (issued March 3, 1998), Microsoft’sU.S. Patent #6,493,719 entitled ‘Method and system for scripting for system management information’ (issued December 10, 2002), IBM’sU.S. Patent #6,438,560 entitled ‘Reuse of immutable objects during object creation’ (issued August 20, 2002), and SAP AG'sU.S. Patent #7,225,302 entitled ‘Method and software application for avoiding data loss’ (issued May 29, 2007).
What is particularly significant about being distinguished for the first time from Xerox's 657 patent is that the Xerox patent is a document collaboration patent while the Microsoft, IBM and SAP AG patents are computer run-time patents. The approach taken by the Australian examiners provides additional validation, from a fresh, new direction previously not taken by the U.S. patent examiners, to the seminal nature of the Common Point Authoring ™ system.
Pardalis’ Common Point Authoring ™ system represents much more than a simple, iterative-step improvement in the use of informational objects for either run-time efficiencies or document collaboration. It represents instead a paradigm shift in the application of object-oriented programming to provide previously unseen means for granular information ownership. More detailed information is available in Pardalis’ recent white paper, Banking on Granular Information Ownership, retrievable from Pardalis’ homepage.
This information is being submitted for review with intent of opening a dialogue with Xerox regarding opportunities for business development revolving around Xerox’s 657 patent and Pardalis’ 696 patent. Furthermore, Xerox’s 657 patent is rapidly approaching the end of its enforceable lifetime, and I would like to explore opportunities with Xerox for essentially ‘extending’ the life of Xerox’s 657 patent via licensing of Pardalis’ 696 patent. The 696 patent will be enforceable into at least the year 2021.
The market trends and the future applications of the Common Point Authoring system point to a vast and growing market. The growth in on-demand businesses, the increased privacy efforts by the government, massive growth in corporate data, and the increasing privacy concern of individuals all drive the vast potential for Pardalis’ technology. In a partnership between Xerox and Pardalis, implementing this unique granular information ownership solution would be a key market differentiator for Xerox and would bring about a strong competitive advantage for its customers.
This concludes the outside submission by Pardalis, Inc.
Best regards,
Steven Holcombe, CEO Pardalis, Inc.
Never have received any response from Xerox (which I assume is not unusual).
The following is my comment submitted to the Economist.com regarding their article Everywhere and nowhere published March 19, 2008.
The premise of the article is that "[s]ocial networking will become a ubiquitous feature of online life [but t]hat does not mean it is a business".
"Online companies like Facebook and MySpace employ solutions to disclose how they handle people's information. However, little direct, on-demand control is provided to the actual owners of the information. This is the niche in which these online companies can truly provide a service for which people and businesses are willing to pay.
People want to share their entire personal health records with a personal physician but only share precise, granular parts of it with an impersonal insurance company. But ‘fear factors’ are still keeping people from becoming comfortable with posting their personal health information into online accounts.
In an age when international product supply chains are providing dangerous toys and potential ‘mad cow’ meat products to unsuspecting consumers, the manufacturers of safe products want to differentiate themselves from the manufacturers of unsafe products. But, again, fear factors keep the good manufacturers from posting information online that may put them at a competitive disadvantage to downstream competitors.
The business opportunity is for the Facebooks and the MySpaces of the world to provide their users with data ownership’controls for granularly monitoring and tracking the use of their information as it is shared one-step, two-steps, three-steps, etc., down a business supply chain, or likewise within a network of strangers."
Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 3:00AM 
