Hi Steve, Thanks for the post and interesting suggestions. Tools like slashcode and digg definitely are strong with respect to getting community feedback on linked articles and such. So, for example, if you posted the text of a patent application as an article, one can imagine using these tools for community comments and ratings on those making the comments. My initial questions about this approach are: * How would prior art references be handled? Is it treated like an article? How is it stored? One of the big features of the Peer to patent system will be the ability to submit prior art references. (see Use Cases 7 and 13). In many instances these references could be citations to journal articles, or other formats including URLs or patent numbers. So for example, it could include a title, volume number, year of publication, page numbers, and optional commentary by the person who created the citation. Unlike a news article or URL, there may be no interesting text to read with the citation. Over time, one can imagine accumulating quite a large database of prior art references, which typically consists of pointers to data that is stored somewhere else. So one question with the model of slashcode or digg, is whether these prior art reference metadata would have to be stored in an operational data store (database), or are stored using some other approach. It would seem really hard to avoid using a data store for this information. A community ranked list of the prior art will be forwarded to the patent examiner, so the community input system has to be able to cope with this kind of data. It would be interesting to hear if anyone in the developer community has ideas or thoughts on this subject. Thanks Eric Hestenes Technical Lead eric.hestenes at communitypatent.org ================================== Use Case: http://www.communitypatent.org/use_cases/use_case_7_submit_prior_art/index.html Current Thinking: http://tinyurl.com/ybqhst or http://tools.dotank.nyls.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Peer_2_Patent/developer/use_cases_discussion/uc7_submit_prior_art Steve Midgley <public at misuse.org> wrote: Hi, I've been thinking about the platform decisions for P2P a little and am wondering why this system doesn't just run on top of an existing tool that does basically the same thing? Digg and Slashdot are essentially P2P-like in their functionality. Slashdot's code is open source and available (though ugly). Possibly Digg could be convinced to licensed use for this specific project (esp. b/c Omidyar supports P2P and Digg).. Here's my rationale (I'll use Digg because I think it's a slightly closer fit - Slashdot is roughly equiv..) In Digg, contributors post articles w/links and classify them within topics. Readers can subscribe (RSS) to articles according to topics. Within a topic, users can post comments & links. The value of the comments themselves are also rated by other users using a simple interface. Users themselves can be tracked by the value of their overall contributions. Comments can be "masked" to only allow the most highly rates comments to be seen - they can also be sorted by their rating.. In the P2P world, contributors would be patent holders who publish their work for community review. Readers would be domain experts who self assign to topics and get notified when new patents are posted. Comments would be expert review and discussion. Experts can rate other comments. I don't know the whole problem domain in P2P but I'm wondering why we couldn't start by using a very robust existing system and perhaps make smaller adaptions to fit our needs - rather than building something from scratch? Any input? Best, Steve _______________________________________________ p2patent-developer mailing list p2patent-developer at lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/p2patent-developer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/p2patent-developer/attachments/20061029/ac0855ef/attachment.htm
