Abstract:
Rule based data object matching to determine if two or more objects are similar to allow the objects to be merged into one master data object. The rules explicitly state what conditions are required to consider two or more objects equal. The certainty of the rule may be specified. Examples for the certainty are automatic, manual high, medium and low probability. For example, the certainty “automatic” specifies that the objects can be considered matches and no additional manual verification is needed. The certainty “manual low probability” specifies that there is a low probability that the objects are matches and that a manual verification is needed. Matching rules may be grouped by priority. If matches are not found, the next highest priority group of rules is processed. Hierarchical matching rules may be specified that are able to express similarity of objects considering structured objects containing sub-objects in a hierarchical manner.

Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
       [0001]     1. Field of the Invention  
         [0002]     Embodiments of the invention described herein pertain to the field of computer software. More particularly, but not by way of limitation, one or more embodiments of the invention enable systems to apply a set of rules to determine if two or more data objects are similar in accordance with that the defined set of rules. Subsequent processes make use of the similarity information. Examples are the merging of similar objects to one resulting object and reporting using aggregated information.  
         [0003]     2. Description of the Related Art  
         [0004]     Modern businesses have a need to utilize stored business data to make effective business decisions. When the data in these systems is not shared and made consistent, inefficiencies occur. Achieving consistent data across multiple distributed heterogeneous systems is difficult. Establishing effective communication links between disparate systems is a prerequisite to making the data consistent, but does not alone solve the problem. Even when data is effectively shared throughout an organization, problems still arise in that over the course of time the data may exist in different forms and models. Since the achievement of data consistency is difficult it is common for companies to maintain data in independent realms. For example, because of the difficulties associated with merging data, some companies independently maintain data for each of their different corporate divisions and only utilize such data for business decisions relevant to a particular corporate division. The maintenance of independent systems often occurs during mergers and acquisitions where company systems are almost certainly heterogeneous and typically utilize radically different structures and data models.  
         [0005]     To solve the data consistency problem and leverage the commonalities of data for the benefit of the company, companies typically seek to coordinate interaction between heterogeneous systems by identifying similar and overlapping data and then coordinating the integration of such data in a way that ensures the data stays consistent across different systems. Effectively accomplishing such coordination is difficult at best and tends to lead to organizational inefficiencies. One approach some organizations use is to maintain what is known as master data. Master data may be thought of as the definitive version of a data object. Solutions for coordinating the data, i.e., storing, augmenting and consolidating master data, are generally primitive and lack matching capabilities. Moreover, the fact that master data may exist does little to provide information technology personnel with insight about the process used in determining if an object matches another object.  
         [0006]     Failing to successfully coordinate master data objects yields data object redundancies and inconsistencies that disrupt the business decision-making process and increase the overall cost of doing business. Furthermore, customer service suffers from incomplete data requiring customers to call multiple places within the same company to obtain the required information. In some cases the failure to efficiently service customers causes enough frustration that it begins to result in decreased customer loyalty and leads to a loss of customers.  
         [0007]     Because of the limitations described above there is a need for a system and method that can effectively coordinate master data objects across an enterprise.  
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
       [0008]     One or more embodiments of the invention enable systems to implement a rule-based approach to data object matching that enables the system to determine if two or more objects are similar. Once a set of two or more objects is determined to be similar, the system can merge the object set into one master data object or do any other further processing based on the matching result. The rules define what conditions are required to consider two or more objects as being similar or equal.  
         [0009]     A certainty or confidence may be specified and then associated with each rule. Examples of the different indicators of certainty include, but are not limited to “automatic”, “manual high probability”, “manual medium probability”, and “manual low probability”. For example, the certainty “automatic” specifies that the objects can be considered matches and no additional manual verification is needed. The certainty “manual low probability” specifies that there is a low probability that the objects are truly matches and that a manual verification is needed.  
         [0010]     Matching rules may be grouped by priority in such a way that if any matches are found in one priority group the matching process stops. If matches are not found, the next highest priority group of rules is processed.  
         [0011]     Hierarchical matching rules may be specified that are able to express similarity of objects considering structured objects containing sub-objects in a hierarchical manner.  
         [0012]     If no matching rule is defined a default rule may be applied. The ability to apply a default rule is particularly useful in embodiments of the invention that requires all fields of an object to be used for matching (e.g., two objects match if they are absolutely identical).  
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0013]      FIG. 1  illustrates an architectural view of a system utilizing an embodiment of the invention.  
         [0014]      FIG. 2  illustrates a flow chart showing an embodiment of the invention comprising rule based matching.  
         [0015]      FIG. 3  illustrates a flow chart showing an embodiment of the invention comprising priority rule based matching.  
         [0016]      FIG. 4  illustrates a flow chart showing an embodiment of the invention comprising priority and hierarchical object rule based matching.  
         [0017]      FIG. 5  illustrates a flow chart showing an embodiment of the invention comprising priority and hierarchical rule based matching with automatic and manual certainty testing.  
         [0018]      FIG. 6  illustrates a flow chart showing an embodiment of the invention comprising priority and hierarchical rule based matching with automatic certainty testing followed by a manual certainty testing phase.  
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION  
       [0019]     A system and method for rule-based data object matching will now be described. In the following exemplary description numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a more thorough understanding of embodiments of the invention. It will be apparent, however, to an artisan of ordinary skill that the present invention may be practiced without incorporating all aspects of the specific details described herein. In other instances, specific features, quantities, or measurements well known to those of ordinary skill in the art have not been described in detail so as not to obscure the invention. Readers should note that although examples of the invention are set forth herein, the claims, and the full scope of any equivalents, are what define the metes and bounds of the invention.  
         [0020]      FIG. 1  illustrates an architectural view of a system utilizing an embodiment of the invention. Master Data Server  100  comprises an application layer  101  that interfaces with users authorized to view master data. The application layer makes use of adapters  106  that bridge the networks to the disparate databases  107 ,  108 ,  109  and  110 . The adapters may make use of communications technologies such as robust message queuing to ensure that data is reliably transferred. Each adapter may be customized to interface to a specific system or database. Data integrator  102  is utilized by application layer  101  to integrate data from the disparate sources and is configured with cleansing  103 , matching  104 , and mapping  105  modules. Matching module  104  is configured to implement one or more embodiments of the invention. Modifications to data in database  108  for example may be extended to the other databases via mapping module  105  while cleansing module  103  may be utilized to perform initial cleansing or periodic cleansing of data to ensure the master data is appropriately harmonized. Regardless of the functions of the other modules, matching module  104  is charged with the task of performing matches on whatever data objects are presented to it.  
         [0021]     Entry of rules is accomplished via an interface such as a text based interface or a graphical user interface that allows a user to point and click in order to create and modify rules graphically. Any interface that enables the entry of rules is in keeping with the spirit of the invention.  
         [0022]      FIG. 2  illustrates a flow chart of the rule based matching process as it occurs in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. Processing starts at step  200  by executing a rule or by data mining a set of target objects to match against at step  201 . For instance, the system can obtain a group of active objects or instantiate a set of target objects for subsequent processing. A rule is obtained at step  202  and this rule may be a default rule that compares all fields of a source and target object if no user defined rule is specified. The rule is executed and thus the objects are compared at step  203 . If there is a match, the flow of control passes to step  206 . If there are more objects to compare as determined at step  205 , then the process repeats at  201 .  
         [0023]      FIG. 3  illustrates a flow chart of an approach to priority rule based matching. In this embodiment of the invention processing starts at  300  with objects obtained at step  301 . The next highest priority rule is obtained at step  302  and this rule may be a default rule that compares all fields of a source and target object if no user defined rule is specified. The objects are compared at step  303  and if there is a match, the flow of control passes to step  307 . If there are more rules to process as determined at step  305 , then the flow of control passes to step  302 . If there are more objects to compare as determined at step  306 , then the process repeats at step  301 . When there are no more objects to process, control passes to step  307  without producing a match.  
         [0024]      FIG. 4  illustrates a flow chart of an embodiment of the invention that utilizes a priority and hierarchical approach to perform rule based matching of objects. In this embodiment of the invention, processing starts at step  400  with objects obtained at step  401 . Objects obtained at step  401  may comprise related objects such as sub objects of other objects in the repository, sub objects of other objects in the same process chain and/or sub objects of the current object itself. Hence when processing is applied against a set of objects it is also applied as needed to sub objects and/or related objects. The next highest priority rule is obtained at step  402  and this rule may be a default rule that compares all fields of a source and target object if no user defined rule is specified. The objects are compared at step  403  and if there is a match, the flow of control passes to done step  408 . If there are more rules to process as determined at step  405 , then the flow of control passes to step  402 . If there are more sub objects to compare as determined at step  306 , then sub objects are further traversed at step  401 . For instance, if the parent objects match the sub object matching initiates. If there are more objects to compare as determined at step  407 , then the process repeats at step  401 . When there are no more objects to process, control passes to step  408  without producing a match.  
         [0025]      FIG. 5  illustrates a flow chart of the invention that utilizes a priority and hierarchical rule based approach to matching with automatic and manual certainty testing. In this embodiment of the invention, processing starts at step  500  with objects obtained at step  501 . Objects obtained at step  501  may comprise related objects such as all sub objects of other objects in the repository, all sub objects of other objects in the same process chain or all sub objects of the current object itself. The next highest priority rule is obtained at step  502  and this rule may be a default rule that compares all fields of a source and target object if no user defined rule is specified. The objects are compared at step  503  and if there is a match, the flow of control passes to the certainty test at step  509 . If the certainty value of the match is automatic then control flows to done step  508 . If the certainty value of the match is manual, then the user is queried to determine if the match is valid or not at step  510 . If the user confirms a valid match at step  511 , then flow of control passes to step  508 . If the user determines that there is a false match at step  511 , then flow of control passes to step  505  in order to check for more rules. If there are more rules to process as determined at step  505 , then the flow of control passes to step  502 . If there are more sub objects to compare as determined at step  506 , then sub objects are further traversed at step  501 . If there are more objects to compare as determined at step  507 , then the process repeats at step  501 . When there are no more objects to process, control passes to step  508  without producing a match.  
         [0026]      FIG. 6  illustrates a flow chart of the invention that utilizes a priority and hierarchical rule based approach to matching with automatic and manual certainty testing. In contrast to the embodiment illustrated in  FIG. 5 , the manual certainty testing is performed subsequent to the automatic certainty testing. In this example the user decision is not part of the matching but part of the subsequent processing of the matching result which is independent of the matching itself. Objects obtained at step  501  may comprise related objects such as all sub objects of other objects in the repository, all sub objects of other objects in the same process chain or all sub objects of the current object itself. The next highest priority rule is obtained at step  502  and this rule may be a default rule that compares all fields of a source and target object if no user defined rule is specified. The objects are compared at step  503  and if there is a match, then the match result is saved at  600  for subsequent manual processing. If there is no match at  503 , then processing continues for all rules at  505 . If there are more rules to process as determined at step  505 , then the flow of control passes to step  502 . If there are more sub objects to compare as determined at step  506 , then sub objects are further traversed at step  501 . If there are more objects to compare as determined at step  507 , then the process repeats at step  501 . When there are no more objects to process, control passes to step  601  where saved matches are retrieved (if there are no matches then processing completes and this is not shown as an output from  601  for ease of illustration). If the certainty of the match is set to automatic, then the next match is retrieved at  601 . If the certainty value of the match is manual, then the user is queried to determine if the match is valid or not at step  510 . If the user confirms a valid match at step  511 , then the match is saved as a true match at  603  to determine if there are more saved matches to check. If there are more matches to check control passes to  601  where the next saved match is retrieved. If there are no more matches to process then the process ends at  508 .  
         [0027]     A graphical user interface may be utilized to input the rules and a parser may provide a mechanism for validating the syntax of the rules. Text based or any other type of interface may also be used in order to allow a user to enter rules.  
         [0028]     The operators for use in the rule based matching are described in the following tables:  
         [0029]     Source-Field Modification Operators:  
         [0030]     These operators are applied to the source-field.  
                                   Operator   Description                   LEFT(field, n)   Extract the left n characters from field       RIGHT(field, n)   Extract the right n characters from field       SUBSTRING(field, start-pos, n)   Extract n characters from field starting           with start-pos       ADD_PREFIX(field, string)   Adds a prefix-string to the source field       ADD_SUFFIX(field, string)   Adds a suffix-string to the source field                  
 
         [0031]     Operators for Comparing Source and Target:  
         [0032]     These operators generally comprise three parameters, the two values and a fuzziness parameter. The fuzziness parameter is optional and if not specified yields a rule with no fuzziness utilized in a match using the rule. The default value for fuzziness is 0 which means that no fuzziness is specified by the rule. The fuzzy evaluation may consider sounds-like, transposition of letters, doubling of a letter, adjacent-on-keyboard or any other algorithm for specifying near matches to signify true matches.  
         [0033]     If the operators only comprise one field, or one field and an optional fuzziness value, then both target and source fields have the same name.  
         [0034]     If the target-value exists normalized, the source-value is automatically normalized before any of the comparing operators is called. The normalized target-value is used for comparison.  
                                   Operator   Description                   EQUAL(field-source, field-target,   (modified) source and target are       fuzziness, compare)   equal and both are not null       COMPARE (fuzziness)   comparison operation           (e.g., distance, sounds           like, adjacent on keyboard, etc . . .)       CONTAINS(field-source, field-   (modified) source is contained       target, fuzziness, compare)   in target and both are not null       STARTS_WITH(field-source,   target starts with (modified) source       field-target, fuzziness, compare)   and both are not null       ENDS_WITH(field-source, field-   target ends with (modified) source       target, fuzziness, compare)   and both are not null       NULL(field, source/target)   field of source or target is null       NORMALIZE(field-source, field-   normalize a source and/or target field       target)   if either is specified, (for example           for a text field make all           characters upper case).                  
 
         [0035]     The examples shown below contain often one field value only. If this is the case, the field name of source and target are the same.  
         [0036]     Logical Operators.  
         [0037]     The following logical operators can be used to build up complex rules  
                                                   Operator   Description                           exp1 AND exp2   Logical AND of expression1               and expression2           exp1 OR exp2   Logical OR of expression1               and expression2           NOT(exp)   Logical NOT of expression                      
 
         [0038]     Sub-objects (e.g. addresses or material segments) related objects (e.g. a vendor of a product) are addressed using the OBJECT operator.  
         [0039]     For matching it is assumed that one (sub) object at a time is compared to either all sub objects of other objects in the repository, all sub objects of other objects in the same process chain or all sub objects of the current object itself.  
         [0040]     If no matching rules for sub objects are defined the sub objects should not be used for determining matching results.  
         [0041]     The following parameters are used in matching sub objects specified within the OBJECT-BEGIN and OBJECT-END operator pair, for example:  
         [0042]     OBJECT-BEGIN(FIELD, SELECTION, ANY/ALL)  
         [0043]     OBJECT-END  
                                                   Parameter   Description                           SELECTION   Selects a subset of the fields relevant for               matching e.g. for a plant dependent sub object               the selection plant = 1000           ANY   If any (one or more) sub objects of the current               object matches the sub objects of the other               object the sub objects match.           ALL   If all sub objects of the current object match the               sub objects of the other object the sub objects               match                      
 
         [0044]     The following examples show various combinations of operators for performing various matches.  
         [0045]     Example 1 shows three rules that may be performed in the order shown thereby providing a priority for the rules. The example shows an automatic certainty rule that will result in a positive match if both the target and source objects have the same values for DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) and TAX (e.g., tax identification number) respectively. In the next highest priority rule, a high certainty manual rule that allows a user to verify that a match exists for a source or target object that has a NULL value for TAX if both the source and target objects have the same DUNS value. Finally, the next highest priority rule specifies the converse test with respect to the last described rule, i.e., if both source and target objects have the same value for TAX and either one has a NULL value for DUNS then the object is probably the same and is left for the user to decide manually.  
       EXAMPLE 1  
       [0046]     AUTO: EQUAL(DUNS) AND EQUAL(TAX)  
         [0047]     MANUAL(high): EQUAL(DUNS) AND (NULL(TAX, source) OR NULL(TAX, target))  
         [0048]     MANUAL(high): EQUAL(TAX) AND (NULL(DUNS, source) OR NULL(DUNS, target))  
         [0049]     Example 2 shows two rules with some data manipulation commands. First, the PARTNUMBER is normalized in both the source and the target. In one or more embodiments of the invention the command as specified may operate on only the source unless a comma is placed before the field name meaning that the source field would not be normalized while the target value would be normalized. Next the leftmost 20 characters of the PARTNUMBER are extracted, then an automatic certainty rule is specified requiring both source and target to contain the PARTNUMBER. The next rule begins with a command to extract the rightmost 18 characters from the PARTNUMBER, the field of which is already normalized as per the first command in the rule group. A manual certainty rule is then specified if the 18 rightmost PARTNUMBER characters match the target field PARTNUMBER.  
       EXAMPLE 2  
       [0050]     MODIFY: NORMALIZE(PARTNUMBER)  
         [0051]     MODIFY: LEFT(PARTNUMBER, 20)  
         [0052]     AUTO: CONTAINS(PARTNUMBER)  
         [0053]     MODIFY: RIGHT(PARTNUMBER, 18)  
         [0054]     MANUAL(medium): CONTAINS(PARTNUMBER)  
         [0055]     Example 3 shows two rules. First an automatic certainty rule is specified if both source and target object have equal DUNS values AND the specified sub objects related to ADDRESS in the source or target match their normalized POSTAL_CODE and CITY and STREET and NUMBER. In addition, a manual high certainty rule follows that specifies that sub objects related to the ADDRESS, namely POSTAL CODE and CITY and STREET must be equal for the user to manually confirm that the objects are indeed a match.  
       EXAMPLE 3  
       [0056]     AUTO: EQUAL(DUNS) AND  
         [0057]     OBJECT-BEGIN(ADDRESS, *, ANY) 
        NORMALIZE(POSTAL_CODE)        
 
         [0059]     EQUAL(POSTAL_CODE) AND EQUAL(CITY) AND EQUAL(STREET) AND EQUAL(NUMBER).  
       OBJECT-END(ADDRESS)  
       [0060]     MANUAL(high): OBJECT-BEGIN(ADDRESS, *, ANY).  
         [0061]     (EQUAL(POSTAL_CODE) OR EQUAL(CITY)) AND EQUAL(STREET)  
         [0062]     OBJECT-END(ADDRESS)  
         [0063]     Example 4 shows a variation of the above rule where a SELECTION has been made for a plant number (PLANTNR) equal to 100. I.e., for a plant dependent sub object, the selection plant=100 specifies what sub objects should be used in the match.  
       EXAMPLE 4  
       [0064]     AUTO: EQUAL(GTIN).  
         [0065]     OBJECT-BEGIN(PLANTDATA, PLANTNR=100, ALL)  
         [0066]     AUTO: EQUAL . . .  
         [0067]     OBJECT-END  
         [0068]     Example 5 shows a manual medium certainty rule wherein the PARTNUMBER of the source being equal to the GTIN of the target satisfies the rule, OR the PARTNUMBER of the source and the UPC of the target satisfies the rule, OR both the source and target PARTNUMBERS are equal.  
       EXAMPLE 5  
       [0069]     MANUAL(medium): EQUAL(source=PARTNUMBER, target=GTIN) OR EQUAL(source=PARTNUMBER, target=UPC) OR EQUAL(source=PARTNUMBER, target=PARTNUMBER)  
         [0070]     Example 6 shows a manual high certainty rule that is satisfied when the DESCRIPTION field of the source CONTAINS the GTIN field of the target.  
       EXAMPLE 6  
       [0071]     MANUAL(high): CONTAINS(source=DESCRIPTION, target=GTIN).  
         [0072]     U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/577,268 entitled “Timeshared Electronic Catalog System And Method” filed May 23, 2000, U.S. Pat. No. 6,754,666 entitled “Efficient Storage And Access In A Database Management System” filed Aug. 21, 2000, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/643,316 entitled “Data Indexing Using Bit Vectors” filed Aug. 21, 2000, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/643,207 entitled “Data Editing And Verification User Interface” filed Aug. 21, 2000, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/960,902 entitled “Method And Apparatus For Structuring, Maintaining, And Using Families Of Data” filed Sep. 20, 2001, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/022,056 entitled “Method And Apparatus For Transforming Data” filed Dec. 12, 2001, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/960,541 entitled “Method And Apparatus For Dynamically Formatting And Displaying Tabular Data In Real Time” filed Sep. 20, 2001, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/172,572 entitled “Method And Apparatus For Generating And Utilizing Qualifiers And Qualified Taxonomy Tables” filed Jun. 13, 2002, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/990,293, entitled “Accelerated System And Methods For Synchronizing, Managing, And Publishing Business Information” filed Nov. 15, 2004, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/990,292 entitled “System And Method For Dynamically Constructing Synchronized Business Information User Interfaces” filed Nov. 15, 2004, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/990,294 entitled “System And Method For Dynamically Modifying Synchronized Business Information Server Interfaces” filed Nov. 15, 2004, are all hereby incorporated herein by reference.  
         [0073]     While the invention herein disclosed has been described by means of specific embodiments and applications thereof, numerous modifications and variations could be made thereto by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope of the invention set forth in the claims.