Entity Model Behavior Binding Through Dynamic Artefact Matching

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional object-oriented programming techniques struggle with extensibility and automation of behaviors in complex entity models, requiring recompilation and rigid definition of class structures.

Innovation Solution

An entity is modeled as a collection of artefacts, with behaviors bound by dynamic context matching, allowing autonomous agents to act based on artefact patterns and pre-conditions, enabling flexible and extensible behavior automation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If conventional object-oriented programming techniques are used to model complex entities, then the system structure is well-defined and organized, but the system lacks flexibility and requires recompilation to extend behaviors

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveextensibility of behaviorVSAvoidrigidity of class structure
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies dynamics by transitioning from static class-based behavior definitions to dynamic context-based behavior binding. Behaviors are no longer fixed to specific object types but are dynamically associated with contexts defined by artifact patterns and pre-conditions. This allows the system to adapt behavior bindings at runtime without recompilation, resolving the contradiction between structure and flexibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the parameter of behavior binding from object type identity to context pattern matching. Instead of behaviors being inherent to object classes, they are bound based on matching artifact patterns and pre-conditions. This parameter change enables flexible extension of entity models by adding new contexts and behaviors without altering existing artifact definitions, eliminating the need for recompilation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Adaptability or versatility

If behaviors are bound to artefact types in conventional OOP, then the system maintains clear object identity and structure, but the system requires recompilation to add new behaviors

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveflexibility of behavior automationVSAvoidrecompilation time
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements dynamic behavior binding where behaviors are associated with contexts rather than fixed to artifact types. The runtime engine continuously monitors artifact patterns and pre-conditions, automatically binding behaviors when contexts are satisfied. This dynamic approach eliminates recompilation requirements, as new behaviors can be added by defining new context patterns that the runtime engine will recognize and bind automatically.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The runtime engine performs self-service by automatically monitoring artifact patterns, matching contexts, and binding behaviors without requiring external intervention or recompilation. When new artifacts are added or modified, the runtime engine autonomously evaluates whether new contexts are satisfied and binds appropriate behaviors, eliminating the time loss associated with manual recompilation processes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Adaptability or versatility

If the entity model uses fixed class structures, then the system maintains stability and predictability, but the system lacks extendibility without altering artefact definitions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveextendibility of entity modelVSAvoidstability of artefact definitions
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the system into two independent layers: artifact definitions and behavior contexts. Artifact definitions remain stable and unchanged, while behavior contexts are defined separately as patterns that match artifacts. This segmentation allows the entity model to be extended by adding new context patterns without modifying existing artifact definitions, maintaining both stability and extendibility simultaneously.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces context patterns as intermediaries between artifacts and behaviors. Instead of directly binding behaviors to artifact types, the context pattern acts as a mediator that matches artifact patterns and pre-conditions. This intermediary layer enables extendibility, as new behaviors can be bound by defining new context patterns without altering stable artifact definitions, resolving the contradiction between stability and adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS12307220B1Automating behaviors based on entity modeling
Publication Date: 2025.05.20 HONU AI LTD
  • US12307220B1 patent drawing
  • US12307220B1 patent drawing
  • US12307220B1 patent drawing

AI summary

The present disclosure relates to systems and methods for automating behaviors performed in relation to a modelled entity. An entity model comprising a plurality of artefacts is accessed, each artefact models a feature of a modelled entity. A first subset of artefacts in the entity model is matched with a predefined artefact structure. In response to matching the subset with the first artefact structure, a first behavior associated with the predefined artefact structure is identified. The first behavior is initiated and, based on the initiated first behavior, a new artefact is added to the entity model, or an existing artefact is removed from the entity model, or an existing artefact in the entity model is modified, resulting in an updated entity model.