Abstract:
A method for filtering a dynamic comparison model includes the steps of determining a plurality of differences between a first model and a second model, and displaying each of the plurality of differences between the first model and the second model to a user via a display. The method also includes the steps of receiving a user-selected one of the plurality of differences between the first model and the second model, and removing the user-selected one of the plurality of differences between the first model and the second model from the display.

Description:
TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates generally to computer-readable medium and methods for filtering a dynamic comparison model. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     Models may be used to help visualize concepts by using symbolic representations. Models may include a group of objects, entities, properties, attributes, or the like. For example, a model may be used to represent a database and the attributes and properties associated with the database. In operation, it may be desirable to compare two models to determine the differences between the models in order to better understand similarities and differences between the models. For example, such a comparison may be helpful to synchronize or bring some level of conformity to the models. By comparing two models and identifying any differences between them, a user more readily may make desired changes to one of both of the models to achieve the desired level of conformity. Existing tools, e.g., software programs, are available that compare different models and identify the differences between the models. Nevertheless, because there may be substantial differences between the models, presentation of all of the differences between the models may overwhelm a user of the software program, and may make it difficult for the user to sift through all of the differences to determine which differences the user considers to be most important. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     Therefore, a need has arisen for systems and methods for filtering a dynamic comparison model that overcome these and other shortcomings of the related art. A technical advantage of the present invention is that a user initially may be presented with all of the differences between two models, but subsequently may select any of the differences and mark the selected differences as “known differences.” The differences which the user designates as known differences may be hidden from the user and saved as data in a memory, such that the presentation of the differences between the models becomes less cluttered to the user, and the user is able to more readily focus on the remaining differences. Moreover, over the course of time, one or both of the models may change. When the user runs the comparison again, all of the differences initially may be presented to the user. The user then may load the previously saved data associated with the comparison between the two models, and to the extent that the differences which the user previously indicated were known differences did not change, the differences which the user previously indicated were known differences may be hidden from the user. Consequently, the user does not have to review all of the differences again to determine which differences the user wishes to mark as known differences, which saves the user time. Nevertheless, if the one or more of the differences which the user previously indicated were known differences changed, those differences may not be filtered out when the user loads the previously saved data. For example, it may be desirable to present the change(s) in the previously known difference to the user, such that the user may determine whether in view of the change(s) the user still wishes to mark the difference as a known difference. 
     According to an embodiment of the present invention, a method for filtering a dynamic comparison model comprises the steps of determining a plurality of differences between a first model and a second model, and displaying each of the plurality of differences between the first model and the second model to a user via a display. The method also comprises the steps of receiving at least one, user-selected difference from the plurality of differences between the first model and the second model, and removing the at least one, user-selected difference from the plurality of differences between the first model and the second model from the display. 
     According to another embodiment of the present invention, a computer-readable medium has computer-readable instructions stored thereon for execution by a processor to perform a method for filtering a dynamic comparison model comprising determining a plurality of differences between a first model and a second model, and displaying each of the plurality of differences between the first model and the second model to a user via a display. The method also comprises the steps of receiving at least one, user-selected difference from the plurality of differences between the first model and the second model, and removing the at least one, user-selected difference from the plurality of differences between the first model and the second model from the display. 
     Other objects, features, and advantages of the present invention will be apparent to persons of ordinary skill in the art in view of the foregoing detailed description of the invention and the accompanying drawings. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       For a more complete understanding of the present invention, needs satisfied thereby, and the objects, features, and advantages thereof, reference now is made to the following description taken in connection with the accompanying drawings. 
         FIG. 1A  is an exemplary standard Entity Relationship model, according to an embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 1B  is an exemplary standard Entity Relationship model, according to an embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 2A  is an exemplary standard object/property model, according to an embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 2B  is an exemplary standard object/property model, according to an embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 3  is an exemplary object model with a comparison model between two standard models, according to an embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 4  is a flow chart of a method for filtering a dynamic comparison model, according to an embodiment of the present invention. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
     Preferred embodiments of the present invention, and their features and advantages, may be understood by referring to  FIGS. 1A-4 , like numerals being used for corresponding parts in the various drawings. 
     A model is a representation that may be used to help illustrate a concept using symbolic representations. It may be beneficial to compare two models to better understand the similarities and the differences between the two models. For example, such a comparison may be helpful to synchronize or bring some level of conformity to the models. By comparing two models and identifying the differences between them, a user more readily may make desired changes to one or both of the models to achieve a desired level of conformity. 
     Models may be represented using various hierarchical components. For example, a model may include one or more entities or one or more objects. Each entity may include one or more attributes, and each object may include one or more properties. Various types of models may be used to illustrate concepts using visual representations. For example, an object model may include any physical or logical description of data that is to be defined, processed, or retrieved by implemented code. An object model generally represents categories of data. Based on the hierarchical structure of models, objects may own or be owned by other objects. An object owns another object when the objects are in a hierarchical relationship and the owning object is at a higher level than the owned object. Each entity may include one or more attributes, and each object may include one or more properties that are relevant to the model. 
     In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a process of comparing two models results in a collection of comparison nodes that hold information about the comparison. For example, the attributes of one model may be compared to the attributes of a second model, and the comparison may be stored as a collection of comparison nodes. In this manner, the results of the comparison may be reviewed and/or the models may be brought into some higher level of conformity with one another, as desired by a user. 
     In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, comparison nodes may be represented as an object/property model using an underlying modeling engine. One such modeling engine is CA, Inc.&#39;s AllFusion™ ERwin™ Data Modeler modeling engine. Models within an object/property model may be referred to as graphs. Modeling a comparison model or comparison graph allows for representing similar and dissimilar aspects of the compared models. 
     In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, models may be represented in IDEF1x format. IDEF1x is a standard for diagramming schemas that will be familiar to those of ordinary skill in the art. Reference materials may be found at http://www.idef.com.  FIGS. 1A and 1B  illustrate exemplary schemas in IDEF1x notation. In an IDEF1x model, entities and attributes are types of objects.  FIG. 1A  shows a schema representation of Model M 1  from  FIG. 2A . Model M 1   32  includes a single Entity, E/ 1   34 . Entity E/ 1   34  includes two Attributes, a  36  and b  38 .  FIG. 1B  shows a schema representation of Model M 2  from  FIG. 2B . Model M 2   42  includes a single Entity, E/ 1   44 . Entity E/ 1   44  includes three Attributes, a  46 , b  48 , and c  50 . In another embodiment, models may be in XML, flat, or comma-separated format. In order to bring the models of  FIGS. 1A and 1B  into conformity, a user may create attribute “C” in the Model of  FIG. 1A , or delete attribute “C” from the Model of  FIG. 1B . 
       FIGS. 2A and 2B  are simplified object/property models of actual data that may be found in ERwin.  FIG. 2A  shows a first Model, M 1   102 . Model M 1   102  includes a single Object, O 1   104 . Object O 1   104  includes two Properties, P 1   106  and P 2   108 .  FIG. 2B  shows a second Model, M 2   202 . Model M 2   202  includes a single Object, O 1   204 . Object O 1   204  includes three Properties, P 1   206 , P 2   208 , and P 3   210 . As shown in  FIG. 2B , Model M 2   202  in  FIG. 2  differs from Model M 1   102  in  FIG. 2A  by the third Property P 3   210 . Similar approaches may be used when an object belongs to one model, but does not belong to another model. 
       FIG. 3  shows a Comparison Model, CM  322 , which contains objects indicating the comparison state between models, objects, and properties. The hierarchy of the objects in Comparison Model CM  322  matches the hierarchy of Models M 1   302  and M 2   342 . The objects in Comparison Model CM  322  hold references to the two models. As shown in  FIG. 3 , Comparison Model CM  322  contains the comparison state between Models M 1   302  and M 2   342 . Object CO 1   324  contains the comparison state for Objects O 1   304  and O 1   344 . Similarly, the Comparison Model CM  322  contains the comparison state for each of the properties in Models M 1   302  and M 2   342 . For illustrative purposes,  FIG. 3  shows cross-hatched comparison objects with a comparison state set to “Not Equal.” 
     Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0225030 A1, which is entitled “Method and System for Generating Dynamic Comparison Models,” the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, describes a method for generating a dynamic comparison model which indicates the differences between Model M 1  and Model M 2 . The known method of generating a dynamic comparison model described in Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0225030 A1 is substantially the same as the method of generating a dynamic comparison model in the present invention. Therefore, a discussion of the method of generating a dynamic comparison model is omitted from this application. 
     According to an embodiment of the present invention, after the dynamic comparison model is generated, the dynamic comparison model may be filtered. Referring to  FIG. 4 , a method  400  for filtering a dynamic comparison model is depicted. In step  402 , a plurality of differences between Model M 1  and Model M 2  may be determined, and in step  404 , each of the plurality of differences between Model M 1  and Model M 2  may be displayed to a user via a display. For example, the differences between Model M 1  and Model M 2  may be determined and displayed in accordance with any of the methods described in Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0225030 A1. Moreover, those of ordinary skill in the art readily will understand that a display may comprise any means by which a user may view an image, such as a monitor, a screen, a wall receiving a projected image, a hologram, or the like. In step  406 , a user selects one or more of the differences between Model M 1  and Model M 2 , and in step  408 , the user-selected difference(s) are removed from the display, such that the user-selected differences are hidden from the user. For example, because there may be substantial differences between Model M 1  and Model M 2 , presentation of all of the differences between Model M 1  and Model M 2  may overwhelm the user, and may make it difficult for the user to sift through all of the differences to determine which differences the user considers to be most important. By allowing the user to filter out some of the differences, such that the filtered differences are hidden from the user, the presentation of the differences between Model M 1  and Model M 2  becomes less cluttered to the user, and the user is able to more readily focus on the remaining differences. In addition, the user may de-select a previously selected difference, such that the previously hidden difference again becomes viewable to the user. In step  410 , each of the user-selected differences are saved as data in a memory, e.g., when the user selects the option to save the user-selected differences. 
     Over the course of time, one or both of Model M 1  and Model M 2  may change, and the user subsequently may wish to compare a changed Model M 1  with Model M 2 , Model M 1  with a changed Model M 2 , and/or the changed Model M 1  with the changed Model M 2 . Therefore, in step  412 , the user changes Model M 1 , and original Model M 1  is updated to reflect such changes. Although in this example Model M 1  is changed, those of ordinary skill in the art readily will understand that either of Model M 1  and Model M 2 , or both, may be changed by the user. In step  414 , a plurality of differences between changed Model M 1  and Model M 2  may be determined, and in step  416 , each of the plurality of differences between changed Model M 1  and Model M 2  may be displayed to the user via the display. At this time, there may be substantial differences between changed Model M 1  and Model M 2 , presentation of all of the differences between changed Model M 1  and Model M 2  may overwhelm the user, and may make it difficult for the user to sift through all of the differences to determine which differences the user considers to be most important. Nevertheless, in step  406  the user selected one or more of the differences between Model M 1  and Model M 2 , and step  410  those differences were saved as data in the memory. Therefore, in step  418  the user may request that the previously saved data be retrieved, and in step  420  the data is retrieved. 
     In step  422 , for each of the differences which were saved in step  410 , it is determined whether the saved difference between Model M 1  and Model M 2  corresponds to one of the plurality of differences between changed Model M 1  and Model M 2 . If the saved difference between Model M 1  and Model M 2  corresponds to one of the plurality of differences between changed Model M 1  and Model M 2 , then in step  424 , the difference is removed from the display. Specifically, if the user previously marked the difference as a known difference, then there is no need to continue to display the difference to the user and the difference may be removed from the display, which saves the user from having to go back and re-select all of the differences which the user selected when the user compared Model M 1  with Model M 2 . Nevertheless, if in step  422  the saved difference between Model M 1  and Model M 2  does not correspond to one of the plurality of differences between changed Model M 1  and Model M 2 , then the difference is not removed from the display. Specifically, if the saved difference between Model M 1  and Model M 2  changed when Model M 1  changed, it may be desirable to show the user the change because otherwise the user will not know about the change. 
     After the appropriate differences between changed Model M 1  and Model M 2  are removed from the display in step  424 , in step  426  the user selects one or more of the differences between changed Model M 1  and Model M 2 , and in step  428 , the user-selected difference(s) are removed from the display, such that the user-selected differences are hidden from the user. Moreover, in step  430 , each of the user-selected differences are saved as data in the memory, e.g., when the user selects the option to save the user-selected differences. This process may continue for any number of changes to Model M 1  or Model M 2 , or both. 
     While the invention has been described in connection with preferred embodiments, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that other variations and modifications of the preferred embodiments described above may be made without departing from the scope of the invention. Other embodiments will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art from a consideration of the specification or practice of the invention disclosed herein. The specification and the described examples are considered as exemplary only, with the true scope and spirit of the invention indicated by the following claims.