Method and apparatus for group action processing between users of a collaboration system

Abstract

A natural language-based information organization and collaboration tool for a computer system is disclosed. The present invention includes an apparatus and method for processing text expressions in a computer system, the apparatus including: 1) an object database defining an information object with an associated keyword; 2) a user input device for receiving an input text expression; 3) a parsing device for identifying the keyword in the input text expression, the parsing device including functions for linking the input text expression to the information object based on the keyword identified in the input text expression; and 4) a user output device for displaying to the user the identity of the information object to which the input text expression was linked. The apparatus of the present invention further includes supplemental information in the object database which is related to the information object, the user output device further including functions for displaying the supplemental information when a corresponding keyword is identified in the input text expression. The apparatus of the present invention further includes a method and apparatus for collaboration between users of a time and project management system.

Description

FIELD THE INVENTION[0001] The present invention relates to the organization and access to information stored in a computer system. More specifically, the present invention relates to the analysis of natural language input to produce structured information output and the processing of notes in a computer system. The present invention also relates to time and action / project management using a computer system. More specifically, the present invention relates to a method and apparatus for collaboration between two or more persons for time and project management.DESCRIPTION OF RELATED ART[0002] Many application programs exist in the prior art for organizing information in particular ways or for manipulating specific types of information. For example, word processing applications are specifically designed for manipulating text documents in a computer system. Similarly databases in the prior art provide means for structuring data in well defined ways. Further, calendaring systems provide a...

AI Technical Summary

Problems solved by technology

Further, calendaring systems provide a structured way for tracking events or actions required at specified dates and times. Although these prior art applications provide ways for organizing information in particular ways, it is often inconvenient to require a user to switch back and forth between application programs when updates of information are required.

Unfortunately, the system disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,115,504 still requires a user to directly manipulate information categories on a display screen.

In many situations, it is inefficient and inconvenient for a user to pre-organize and explicitly store information in this fashion.

Another disadvantage of the prior art systems described above, is that they do not provide a mechanism for collaboration between users or between applications.

In other words, it is not sufficient to organize one's own To Do lists and calendars.

However, it does not allow negotiation or collaboration between users.

Thus, this method is not useful for collaboration and negotiation between peers.

Another disadvantage of such prior art systems is that they use a client-server system.

This means that persons who are not linked to the same server can not participate in the collaborative environment.

However, this process may not be appropriate for creating augmented keywords for list or project objects.

In addition to being expensive and complex, this limits collaboration to members of the limited group sharing access to the server 2010.

This means that the collaboration system can not be used for interacting with individuals outside of the client-server framework.

The "me" key is a special purpose value utilized because the user's database may or may not contain information identifying the user himself or herself, and it is unreliable to match user names via text comparison.

However, the second call will fail because the parser 300 will not allow two contacts (or lists, projects, or keywords) that differ only by capitalization to exist simultaneously.

Images