Patent Publication Number: US-6993745-B1

Title: Method and system for modeling a legacy computer system

Description:
TECHNICAL FIELD 
     This invention relates in general to the field of computer systems, and more particularly a method and system for reporting XML data from a computer system. 
     CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application relates to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/522,277, entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR APPLYING XML SCHEMA, by Ballantyne, et al., filed concurrently with this application. 
     This application relates to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/522,056, entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REPORTING XML DATA FROM A LEGACY COMPUTER SYSTEM, by Ballantyne, et al., filed concurrently with this application. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     The Internet and e-commerce are rapidly reshaping the way that the world does business. In addition to direct purchases made through the Internet, consumers increasingly depend upon information available through the Internet to make purchasing decisions. Businesses have responded by allowing greater access of information through the Internet both directly to consumers and to other businesses such as suppliers. One result of the increased access to electronic information through the Internet is a decreased dependency and desire for printed “hard copy” information. 
     Extensible Mark-up Language (“XML”) provides an excellent tool for business-to-business electronic commerce and publication of data via the Internet. XML specifies a format that is easily adapted for data transmission over the Internet, direct transfer as an object between different applications, or the direct display and manipulation of data via browser technology. Currently, complex transformations are performed on data output in legacy computer system formats in order to put the data in XML format. 
     One example of the transformation from written reports typically output by legacy computer systems to electronic reports is the telephone bill. Historically, telephone companies have relied on mainframe or legacy computer systems running COBOL code to track and report telephone call billing information. Typically, these legacy computer system reports are printed, copied and distributed to those who need the information. However, conventional legacy computer system report formats are difficult to transmit or manipulate electronically. Yet, the electronic distribution of bills, such as through e-mail, a biller&#39;s web site or at a bill consolidator chosen by the consumer, enhances flexibility and control of bill payment, especially with complex business invoices. 
     Generally, in order to make conventional legacy reports available in different formats, a complex transformation of the data is performed based on a report print stream. One transformation technique is to write a “wrapper” around the legacy computer system. The wrapper includes parsers and generators that transform legacy computer system reports into XML formatted output. Parsers apply a variety of rules to identify and tag data output in a legacy report. For example, a parser might determine that a data field of a telephone bill represents a dollar amount based on the presence of a dollar sign or the location of a decimal point in the data field, or that a data field represents a customer name due to absence of numbers. Once the parser deciphers the legacy report, a generator transforms the legacy computer system data into appropriately tagged XML format. 
     Although the end result of the parsing and transforming process is data in an XML format, the process itself is difficult and expensive to implement and cumbersome to maintain. Without careful study of underlying program logic, it is generally not possible to reliably determine all potential outputs from the legacy computer system. In particular, even a fairly large output sample is almost certain to be incomplete in that some program logic is only rarely exercised. Another difficulty with the parsing and transforming process is that, as changes are made to the underlying program applications of the legacy computer system, the parsing and transforming systems generally require updates that mirror the underlying changes. These downstream changes increase the time and expense associated with maintaining the legacy computer system, and also increase the likelihood of errors being introduced into the XML formatted output. 
     Another difficulty associated with the use of XML is that, although XML dramatically improves the utility of output data, the generation of XML output depends upon underlying programs that adhere to an exacting data structure. For instance, the generation of syntactically correct XML requires adherence to a rigid labeled tree structure so that output data is identified by “tags” and “end tags” associated with the XML data structure as defined by an XML schema. When writing a deeply embedded element of an XML tree, such as a subschema within a defined XML schema, tags corresponding to all of that element&#39;s ancestor elements must also be written. When writing another element, not part of a current XML subschema, the current subschema must be closed off to an appropriate level with balancing closing end tags for the ancestor elements. XML schema also specify type and cardinality constraints on their elements. Thus, substantial and exacting bookkeeping of programs that output XML is necessary with respect to the XML schema in order to minimize errors on the part of programmers. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     Therefore, a need has arisen for a method and system which rapidly and automatically modifies legacy computer systems to produce output in an XML format. 
     A further need exists for a method and system which modifies legacy computer systems to produce output in XML format without altering the underlying legacy computer system program logic or business rules. 
     A further need exists for a method and system which determines write operations of a legacy computer system to allow modification of those nodes so that the legacy computer system outputs data in XML format. 
     A further need exists for a method and system which generates syntactically correct XML output with automated bookkeeping to minimize programming errors. 
     In accordance with the present invention, a method and system is provided that substantially eliminates or reduces disadvantages and problems associated with previously developed methods and systems that transform the output from legacy computer systems into an XML format. The present invention provides XML output by modifying the underlying legacy computer system program applications to report data in XML format instead of transforming the output from the legacy computer system after the data is reported in the format of the legacy computer system. 
     More specifically, a code generation engine automatically modifies legacy computer system program applications to create modified legacy program applications. The modified legacy program applications are run on the legacy computer system so that the data output from the legacy computer system is in XML format. The modified legacy program applications are written in the computer language of the legacy computer system so that the legacy computer system directly produces an XML version of its output without the need to alter the logic or business rules embodied in the unmodified program applications of the legacy computer system. 
     The code generation engine creates the modified program applications in accordance with a modification specification created by a mapping engine. The mapping engine generates the modification specification and context table by mapping a model of write operations of the legacy computer system to an XML schema. The mapping engine provides the modification specification to the code generation engine. The code generation engine creates modified legacy computer system program applications for use on the legacy computer system. A writer engine is an application program loaded on the legacy computer system and written in the language of the legacy computer system. The writer engine is called by the modified program applications to write XML output in the format of the XML schema encoded by the context table. 
     The model used by the mapping engine is generated by a modeling engine which analyzes the legacy computer system to identify and model the write operations, such as with a report data model. The modeling engine determines a list of legacy computer system program applications that report data. The program applications that report data are further analyzed to determine the incidents within each program application at which a write operation exists. A report data model is then compiled with a value and/or type for the data fields of each incident. The report data model is augmented by a formal grammar that simplifies the process of relating write operations to execution paths of legacy computer system program applications. 
     Once the modified program application is loaded on the legacy computer system, the legacy computer system continues to perform its functional operations without change to the underlying business or program logic. When a legacy computer system program application commands the reporting of data, modified instructions provided in the modified program application call the writer engine to output syntactically correct XML data. The writer engine determines the current context of XML output and opens appropriate schema element data structures in conjunction with the context table. The writer engine then analyzes the current schema element data structure and the called schema element to determine the relationship of the called schema element with the current schema element. If the called schema element is a descendant of the current schema element, the writer engine opens the schema element ID tags down through the called schema element and outputs the data from the schema element in syntactically correct XML format. If the schema element is not a descendant of the current schema element, the writer engine finds a mutual ancestor having consistent cardinality, closes the schema element ID tags up to the ancestor schema element and proceeds to open the schema element ID tags down through the called schema element to output data in syntactically correct XML format. In addition, the writer engine supports delayed printing of tags and attributes until such time as a complete syntactic unit is available. 
     The present invention provides a number of important technical advantages. One important technical advantage is the ability to rapidly and automatically modify legacy computer system program applications to enable them to directly produce an XML version of their data output. By modifying the underlying legacy computer system program applications, XML output is made available directly from the legacy computer system without a transformation of the data itself from a legacy computer-system format. Further, the underlying program logic and business rules remain unaltered so that the substantive functions of the legacy computer system need not change. Thus, a business enterprise using a legacy computer system is provided with the greater accessibility to data provided by output in XML format without affecting computed values. 
     Another important technical advantage of the present invention is that modification of the underlying legacy computer program applications is operationally less expensive, complex and time-consuming than transformation of legacy computer system output to an XML format. For instance, once modified program applications are running on the legacy computer system, XML formatted output is available without further action to the data. By comparison, transformation of output to an XML format after the data is reported by the legacy computer system requires action with each data report. Thus, if any changes are made to the underlying legacy program applications, changes must also generally be made to transformation applications that mirror the underlying changes. This further complicates the maintenance of the legacy computer system. 
     Another important technical advantage of the present invention is that, whether or not used with a legacy computer system, the writer engine and context table aid in the generation of syntactically correct XML output. For instance, the writer engine ensures that a command to write an embedded XML element will include tags corresponding to all of the embedded element&#39;s ancestor elements. Also, when an XML element is written that is not part of the current XML subschema, the writer engine will close off the current XML subschema to an appropriate level of an ancestor schema element. Automation of the bookkeeping involved with the XML schema eliminates the risk of syntactic errors associated with XML reports. The delayed printing feature provides a mechanism whereby a program can generate correct XML data even when the sequence of print commands in the original legacy system application program does not map directly onto the order of XML elements prescribed by the XML schema. 
     Another important advantage of the present invention is that tool support manages the complexity of modeling the underlying program logic, resulting in substantially reduced time and expense for modification of a legacy computer system to output XML formatted data. Tools aid in: the determination of the control flow graph of legacy applications; the abstraction out of this graph of a subgraph specifically related to the writing of report lines; the identification of constants and data items that flow into print lines so that the elements that need to be written as tagged XML can be readily identified; and the identification of domain specific information such as locations of headers and footers. Automation through tool support greatly enhances management of program complexity. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       A more complete understanding of the present invention and advantages thereof may be acquired by referring to the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which like reference numbers indicate like features, and wherein: 
         FIG. 1  depicts a block diagram of a code generation system in communication with a legacy computer system; 
         FIG. 2  depicts a flow diagram of the generation of modified legacy program applications to output XML data; 
         FIG. 3  depicts a flow diagram of the generation of a model of the write operations of a legacy program application; 
         FIG. 4  depicts a sample output of a legacy computer system report for a telephone bill; 
         FIG. 5  depicts XML formatted data corresponding to the legacy computer system report depicted by  FIG. 4 ; 
         FIG. 5A  depicts an XML schema for the output depicted in  FIG. 5 ; 
         FIG. 6  depicts a graphical user interface for mapping legacy computer system code to an Extensible Markup Language schema and report data model; 
         FIG. 6A  depicts underlying COBOL code modeled by the report data model of  FIG. 6 ; 
         FIG. 7  depicts a sample Extensible Markup Language schema for outputting address data; 
         FIG. 7A  depicts a tree structure for the schema of  FIG. 7 ; 
         FIG. 7B  depicts a computed data context table for the schema depicted by  FIG. 7 ; and 
         FIG. 8  depicts a flow diagram of an XML print operation that ensures generation of syntactically correct Extensible Markup Language data output. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
     Preferred embodiments of the present invention are illustrated in the figures, like numeral being used to refer to like and corresponding parts of the various drawings. 
     In order to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the use of XML as a medium for e-commerce, businesses will eventually have to either replace existing legacy computer systems or re-write the applications on the legacy computer systems. However, businesses have substantial investments in their existing legacy computer systems and related applications so that wholesale replacement of these systems and applications is not practical in the short term. Legacy computer systems perform essential functions such as billing, inventory control, and scheduling that need massive on-line and batch transaction processing. Legacy computer system applications written in languages such as COBOL remain a vital part of the enterprise applications of many large organizations for the foreseeable future. In fact, this installed base of existing software represents the principal embodiment of many organizations&#39; business rules. Although, in principle, these applications could be hand-modified to output data in XML format, in reality the underlying logic of even a simple report application can be difficult to understand and decipher. 
     Therefore, a tremendous challenge facing many businesses is the rapid and inexpensive adaptation of existing computer systems to take advantage of the opportunities presented by electronic commerce. Even when installing new and updated computer systems, the ever-evolving nature of electronic commerce demands that businesses incorporate flexibility as a key component for new computer systems. XML has become a popular choice for reporting data due to the ease with which XML adapts to essential e-commerce functions, such as transmission over the Internet, direct transfer as an object between different applications and display and manipulation via browser technology. XML&#39;s flexibility results from its inclusion of named tags bracketing data that identify the data&#39;s relationship within an XML schema. However, implementation of XML data reports relies on accurate use of tags to define the output data within the XML schema. Thus, computer systems that implement XML adhere to the XML schema and use exact bookkeeping to obtain accurate reports. 
     The present invention aids in the implementation of XML for reports, both by the modification of legacy computer system program applications to output XML data and by the tracking of XML output within an XML schema to ensure an accurate output, whether or not the XML data originates with a legacy computer system. Referring now to  FIG. 1 , a block diagram depicts a computer system  10  that modifies a legacy computer system  12  to output data in XML format. A code generation system  14  interfaces with legacy computer system  12  to allow the analysis of one or more legacy program applications  16  and the generation of one or more modified legacy program applications  18 . Code generation system  14  also provides a writer engine  20  and context table  22  to legacy computer system  12 . Legacy computer system  12  is then able to directly output XML formatted data when modified legacy program applications  18  call writer engine  20  in cooperation with context table  22  to output syntactically correct XML data. 
     Code generation system  14  includes a code generation engine  24 , a mapping engine  26  and a modeling engine  28 . Modeling engine  28  interfaces with legacy computer system  12  to obtain a copy of legacy program applications  16  for automated review and modeling. Modeling engine  28  generates a list of incidents for points in the program at which data is written. For instance, modeling engine  28  may search the source code of the legacy program applications for reporting or writing commands for selected output streams. The list of report incidents are used to model the report functions of the legacy computer system such as by a report data model that lists the values and types of written data fields from the legacy program applications  16 . The list of report incidents is then augmented by a formal grammar that is used to relate the XML schema to the output reported by the legacy program applications. The list of report incidents and the formal grammar are two components of the report data model for the legacy system application program. Intuitively, an incident describes a line in a report, and the formal grammar describes how the application program sequences those lines to form a report. 
     Modeling engine  28  provides the report data model identifying report incidents in the legacy program applications  16  to mapping engine  26  and modeling/mapping graphical user interface  30 . Mapping engine  26  maps the report incidents from the report data model to the XML schema  32  and this relationship between the report data model and XML schema  32  is displayed on modeling/mapping graphical user interface  30 . By establishing the relationship between the report incidents of legacy program application  16  and the XML schema  32 , mapping engine  26  defines a specification for modification of the legacy program applications  16  to output XML data. Modeling/mapping graphical user interface  30  provides information to programmers of the modification specification. Modeling/mapping graphical user interface  30  produces a modification specification and a context table  22 . Optionally, the modeling/mapping graphical user interface  30  allows programmers to create or modify an XML schema. 
     Code generation engine  24  accepts the modification specification, a copy of the legacy program applications  16 , and context table  22  to generate modified legacy program applications  18 . Based on the modification specification, code generation engine  24  generates source code in the computer language of the legacy computer system that is inserted in legacy program applications  16  to command output of XML data and saves the modified source code as modified legacy program applications  18 . The modified legacy program applications  18  may continue to maintain the legacy computer system report instructions so that the modified program applications  18  continue to report data in the legacy computer system format in addition to the XML format. The outputting of both formats aids in quality control by allowing a direct comparison of data from modified and unmodified code. Alternatively, the modified instructions provided by code generation engine  24  may replace report instructions of legacy program applications  16  so that modified legacy program applications  18  report data exclusively in XML format. Writer engine  20  is written in a computer language of legacy computer system  12  and references context table  22  to determine the appropriate XML schema elements for output of data from legacy system  12 . The modified code in modified legacy program applications  18  calls writer engine  20  when outputting data in XML format. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 2 , a simplified flow diagram depicts the process of generation of modified legacy program applications that output data in XML format. The process begins at step  34  in which the legacy code of the legacy program applications  16  is made available to code generation system  14 . For example, a mainframe legacy computer system running COBOL source code downloads a copy of the source code to code generation system  14  for analysis and generation of modified code. 
     At step  36 , code generation system  14  models the legacy program applications to provide a report data model of the write incidents and their underlying grammar from the legacy program applications&#39; code. For instance, a report data model identifies the incidents within the code of legacy program applications  16  at which data to selected output devices are written, including the values and types of the data. At step  38 , the report data model is used to generate a modification specification. The modification specification is generated in conjunction with an XML schema provided at step  40  that defines the data structure for write instructions of the modified legacy program applications  18  to output XML data. 
     At step  42 , the modification specification is used to automatically generate modified legacy code to be run on the legacy computer system  12 . The modified legacy code is run at step  44  so that the modified legacy program applications emit output from legacy system  12  in XML format without requiring further transformation of the output data. 
     The process of modeling legacy computer system  12  is shown in greater detail by reference to  FIG. 3 . Modeling engine  28  extracts a report data model of legacy program applications  16  through an automated analysis of the underlying legacy code. The automated analysis provides improved understanding of the operation of the legacy code and reduces the likelihood of errors regarding the operation and maintenance of the underlying legacy code. Essentially, modeling engine  28  parses the legacy software process into rules to graph its control flow. An abstraction of the control flow produces a report data model that allows understanding of data types and invariant data values written at each write instruction in the report data model. The report data model, when combined with the values and typing of written data fields, provides a model of legacy program applications  16 . 
     Referring to  FIG. 3 , the modeling process starts at step  46  through a determination of the legacy programs&#39; control flow graph. The control flow graph of a particular legacy program application is a directed graph (N, A) in which N contains a node for each execution point of the program application and A contains an arc &lt;n 1 , n 2 &gt;, where n 1  and n 2  are elements of N, if the legacy program application is able to move immediately from n 1  to n 2  for some possible execution state. 
     At step  48 , the write operations of the control flow graph are determined to obtain a data file control graph. Essentially, the control flow graph is abstracted to contain only start nodes, stop nodes, and nodes writing to selected data files. This results in a data file control graph that identifies the write incidents in the legacy program applications. The data file control graph abstracted from a control flow graph (N, A) is a directed graph (N R , A R ) A node n is in the set of nodes N R  if the node n starts a legacy program application, stops a legacy program application or writes to a data file. The arc &lt;n 1 , n m &gt; is in A R  if both n 1  and n m  are in the set of nodes N R  and a sequence of arcs &lt;n 1 , n 2 &gt;, &lt;n 2 , n 3 &gt;, . . . &lt;n m-1 , n m &gt; exists in A where, for i from 2 to m-1, n i  is not in the set of nodes N R . 
     Once the data file control graph is completed, at step  50 , information about the data written at each data file write node is attached to the data file control graph. For instance, the values or the type of each data field written by each node are statically determined via data flow in the control flow graph and are attached to the nodes of the data file control graph. 
     At step  52 , the paths from the start nodes through the data file control graph to the stop nodes are represented in a formal grammar. This formal grammar with the attached data field information form the report data model. This model is an abstract representation of the data files that can be written by the legacy program applications and provides the basis on which a modification specification can be written. 
     The report data model is presented in two parts. First, each write node with its attached data field information is presented as an incident. These incidents are the most basic or leaf sub-expressions of the report data model. Second, the non-leaf sub-expressions of the report data model are presented as rules hierarchically building up from the incidents. 
     The generation and presentation of a report data model of legacy program applications may be illustrated by consideration of a telephone bill example.  FIG. 4  depicts the printed output from a COBOL program for a telephone bill. A typical COBOL program prints the telephone bill in a predetermined format that may include, for example, predetermined paper sizes and column dimensions. The printing of the “TOTAL CALLS” line in  FIG. 4  is the result of a computation of the total number of calls, total time of the calls and the total cost of the calls. As an example of a single node of a control flow graph, the incident derived from COBOL code for outputting the total calls line of  FIG. 4  is as follows:
         Incident  47  loc  414  record PRTEC from RS-LINE
           &lt;LINE  2 &gt;   
             0 : “TOTAL CALLS:”     14 : RECORDS-SELECTED-EDIT loc  266  pic Z,ZZ 9  size  5       19 : “TOTAL TIME:”     53 : RS-HH loc  270  pic  99  size  2       55 : “:”     56 : RS-MM loc  272  pic  99  size  2       58 : “:”     59 : RS-SS loc  274  pic  99  size  2       61 : “ ”     63 : RS-COST loc  276  pic $$$$$. 99  size  8       71 : “ ”       

     Incident  47  describes the data written at the appropriate point in the program by the write instruction at line  414 . The data include the headings of “TOTAL CALLS” and “TOTAL TIME” followed by the accumulated values for the total number of calls, the total time of calls and the total cost of calls. The constant values “TOTAL CALLS” and “TOTAL TIME” are determined by data flow analysis of the legacy application program. 
     The report data model includes grammar rules built up from the write incidents. Once each grammar rule is defined from the appropriate incidents and sub-rules, a report grammar describing the potential output of the legacy program applications for the bill shown in  FIG. 4  is generated as follows:
         Rule  23  [seq  3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 ]   Rule  24  [?  23 ]   Rule  41  [seq  23   24   25 ]   Rule  42  [? 41 ]   Rule  45  [seq  0   1   2   42 ]   Rule  46  [?  45 ]   Rule  50  [seq  24   49 ]   Rule  51  [? 50 ]   Rule  61  [seq  24   47   48   51   23 ]   Rule  62  [?  61 ]   Rule  63  [seq  62   24   25 ]   Rule  64  [* 63 ]   Rule  78  [seq  46   64   24   47   48   50   65   66 ]   Root  79  [seq  78 ]       

     These grammar rules show how the write incidents are combined to represent the output written by the legacy application program. For example, rule  61  consists of the sequence of sub-rules and incidents  24 ,  47 ,  48 ,  51 , and  23 . Data described by each sub-rule or incident is followed sequentially in the data file by the data described by the next sub-rule or incident. That is, in rule  61 , data described by incident  47  is followed immediately by data described by incident  48 . Rule  62  is a conditional rule indicating that data described by  61  may be written to the data file or skipped entirely. Rule  64  is a repeating rule indicating that there is data described by rule  63  that is repeated zero or more times. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 5 , data formatted according to the XML schema of  FIG. 5A  is depicted that provides a data structure for the legacy computer output of  FIG. 4 . The data falls within an opening tag of “&lt;bill&gt;” and a closing tag of “&lt;/bill&gt;”. The “bill” schema includes a “detail-list” subschema that, in turn, includes a “detail-by-phone” subschema. Within the “detail-by-phone” subschema separate tags are defined that report the data from the TOTAL CALLS line of  FIG. 4 . The “total-bill-by-phone” subschema, the “total-time-by-phone” subschema and the “total-calls” subschema define the data printed in the TOTAL CALLS line of the legacy computer system output. 
       FIG. 5A  depicts the XML bill schema used to output the data in  FIG. 5 . The root element of the schema is the element type named “bill”. Its subschemas are types of the subelements. The detail-by-phone subschema of the detail-list subschema of bill includes the data structure reported in the TOTAL CALLS line of  FIG. 4 . 
     Referring now to  FIG. 6 , one example of a display by the modeling/mapping graphical user interface  30  illustrates the mapping relationship between the XML schema, the report data model and the underlying legacy computer program application depicted as COBOL code in  FIG. 6   a . A grammar window  54  lists the report data model grammar rules provided by the report data model of the legacy program applications. An XML schema window  56  depicts the XML schema depicted by  FIG. 5  that is representative of the legacy computer system output depicted by  FIG. 4 . A mapping window  58  depicts the relationship between the variables of the legacy program applications and the XML tags of the XML schema. For instance, RS-TIME is a COBOL variable that is mapped to the “total-time” tag of the XML schema. Rule  79  represents the root or beginning of the grammar provided by the report data model shown above. Within the grammar window, incident  47  falls under rule  78  as an incident called to report the total cost from the legacy program application. 
     Once a relationship is established between the report data model and the XML schema, a modification specification is written, and the generation of modified legacy program applications is automatically performed. The modified legacy program applications are designed to report the data from the legacy computer system along with XML schema tags that describe the nature of the data. For instance, the following is incident  47  having XML tag information and data field type and value information annotated within it:
         Incident  47  loc  414  record PRTEC from RS-LINE
           &lt;LINE  2 &gt;   
             0 : “TOTAL CALLS:” size  14       14 : RECORDS-SELECTED-EDIT loc  266  pic Z,ZZ 9  size  5     tag total-calls-by-phone   id bill\detail-list\detail-by-phone\total-calls-by-phone   type TAG when P         19 : “TOTAL TIME:” size  34       53 : RS-TIME loc  270  pic  99  size  2     tag total-time-by-phone   id bill\total-time   type TAG when P         55 : “:”     56 : RS-MM loc  272  pic  99  size  2       58 : “:” size  1       59 : RS-SS loc  274  pic  99  size  2       61 : “ ” size  2       63 : RS-COST loc  276  pic $$$$$. 99  size  8     tag total-cost   id bill\total-cost   type TAG when P         71 : “ ” size  2         

     The annotated incidents provide the basis for the modification specification which is provided by mapping engine  26  to code generation engine  24  for the creation of modified legacy program applications. For instance, the modification specification for incident  47  is:
         node( 414 , XML-TOTAL-CALLS-ID, ‘total-calls-by-phone’, ‘RECORDS-SELECTED-EDIT’,  266 ).   node( 414 , XML-TOTAL-TIME-ID, ‘total-time-by-phone’, ‘RS-TIME’,  270 ).   node( 414 , XML-TOTAL-BILL-ID, ‘total-bill-by-phone’, ‘RS-COST’,  276 )
 
Note that the data items RS-HH, RS-MM, and RS-SS have been combined under data item RS-TIME.
       

     Code generation engine  24  applies the modification specification to determine the modifications needed for the legacy code to output appropriate tags relating data to the XML schema. For instance, the following code is added by code generation engine  24  in accordance to the modification specification in order to emit XML formatted data from the modified legacy program applications that relate to incident  47 : 
     
       
         
           
               
               
               
             
               
                   
                   
               
             
            
               
                   
                 MOVE RECORDS-SELECTED-EDIT 
                 TO XML-BUFFER 
               
               
                   
                 MOVE XML-TOTAL-CALLS-ID 
                 TO XML-UID 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 CALL ‘XML’ USING 
                 XML-UID 
               
               
                   
                   
                 XML-BUFFER 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 MOVE RS-TIME 
                 TO XML-BUFFER 
               
               
                   
                 MOVE XML-TOTAL-TIME-ID 
                 TO XML-UID 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 CALL ‘XML’ USING 
                 XML-UID 
               
               
                   
                   
                 XML-BUFFER 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 MOVE RS-COST 
                 TO XML-BUFFER 
               
               
                   
                 MOVE XML-TOTAL-BILL-ID 
                 TO XML-UID 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 CALL ‘XML’ USING 
                 XML-UID 
               
               
                   
                   
                 XML-BUFFER 
               
               
                   
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     The modified legacy program application calls writer engine  20  to emit output with tags provided from the XML schema stored in context table  22 . Once modified legacy program applications  18  are loaded onto legacy computer system  12 , writer engine  20  in cooperation with context table  22  is called by modified legacy program applications  18  to output an XML data stream. 
     The pre-computed data necessary to control the accurate writing of embedded XML elements is generated from the XML schema. The pre-computed data consists of a map from an index to depth, start-label, stop-label, parent-index, and other information necessary to generate correct XML. For instance, the XML schema depicted by  FIG. 7  provides a data structure for printing a customer&#39;s name, address and identification.  FIG. 7A  depicts the tree structure of the XML schema shown by  FIG. 7 .  FIG. 7B  depicts the computed data structure of the XML schema shown by  FIG. 7 , including the depth of each element corresponding to the element&#39;s position in the tree structure and an index for each element indicating its ancestor element. For instance, the “Customer” element is the root of the XML schema and has a descendant element of “Address”. The “Street” element is a descendant of the “Address” element, as indicated by the number 3 corresponding to the identification of the “Address” element. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 8 , a flow diagram depicts the process implemented in the write engine to output an XML data stream. The computed data depicted by  FIG. 7B  is applied to the writing of the XML data stream with reference to the XML schema depicted by  FIG. 7 . The process begins at step  100  where an XML print command is called along with identification of the schema element and the value to be printed. For instance, the commands: 
                                                MOVE ‘861 East Meadow’   TO XML-BUFFER           MOVE XML-CUSTOMER-STREET   TO XML-UID                             CALL ‘XML’ USING   XML-UID               XML-BUFFER                        
provide the identification for the “Street” element of the computed data structure.
 
     At step  102 , a test is made to see if the XML printing process has been initiated to emit data. If not, the appropriate data structure or current context is initialized and the identified data file is opened at step  104 . For example, an XML print instruction relating to customer data would result in initialization of the current context that has “Customer” as the root element. At step  106 , a test is performed to determine whether all data of the data structure has been emitted. If all data is emitted, the process proceeds to step  108  where the appropriate XML end tags are emitted and the data file is closed. If, however, the node ID is not at the end of the data structure, then the process proceeds to step  109 . For instance, if the node ID is “City” then the process proceeds to step  109 . 
     At step  109 , a test is performed to determine whether the called node ID is a descendant of the current node. For instance, the “Street” element is a descendant of the “Address” element. Thus, if the “Address” element is the current element and the “Street” element is the called element, then the process proceeds to step  110 . In contrast, if the current element is the “Name” element and the called element is the “Street” element, then the process proceeds to step  112  in order to locate the nearest mutual ancestor node ID having consistent cardinality with the called element. Thus, the mutual ancestor of the “Name” and “Street” elements, the “Customer” element, would be identified. At step  114  the end tags are closed up to the “Customer” element, and the process proceeds to step  110 . The cardinality check at step  112  ensures that, if an ancestor only permits a single occurrence of a descendant, then the descendant is only printed once. For example, if a descendant element is emitted in successive occurrences, the cardinality indicates that, between each emission of the descendant, the ancestor element is closed and a new instance of the ancestor is opened. 
     At step  110 , tags are opened from the identified ancestor down through the called node, and attributes of the nodes along the tree structure are emitted along with appropriate values. At step  116  the process returns to step  100  to accept the next value in the XML data stream. 
     An additional function of writer engine  20  is the delayed processing for writing of data as complete data structures. For instance, writer engine  20  stores attributes, values and text values to a data structure without emitting the data until the all of the attributes, values and text values of the data structure are complete. This delayed processing allows the writer engine  20  to adhere to the sequencing requirements of the XML schema. 
     The sample output below illustrates the need for this capability. 
     Sample Output 
     Send check payable to
     John Doe ABC WIRELESS   111 Mizar P1 P.O. BOX 666666   Pasadena Calif. 93436-1204 DALLAS TX 75263-1111   

     Two addresses are printed side by side on the page. One is the customer address and the other is the remitter address. Thus, a single line of output contains interleaved elements from two distinct subschemas, according to the target XML schema shown below. 
     Target XML Schema 
     
         
         
           
             &lt;ElementType name=“name”\&gt; 
             &lt;ElementType name=“address”\&gt; 
             &lt;ElementType name=“phone-number”\&gt; 
             &lt;ElementType name=“city-state-zip”\&gt; 
             &lt;ElementType name=“customer”&gt;
           &lt;element type=“name”\&gt;   &lt;element type=“address”\&gt;   &lt;element type=“city-state-zip”\&gt;   
         
             &lt;\ElementType&gt; 
             &lt;ElementType name=“remitter”\&gt;
           &lt;element type=“name”\&gt;   &lt;element type=“address”\&gt;   &lt;element type=“city-state-zip”\&gt;   
         
             &lt;\ElementType&gt; 
             &lt;ElementType name=“bill-header”&gt;
           &lt;element type=“customer”\&gt;   &lt;element type=“remitter”\&gt;   
         
             &lt;\ElementType&gt; 
           
         
       
    
     A complete customer address subschema must be emitted before the remitter address subschema. Due to the structure of the legacy code (shown below) it is necessary to buffer up the remitter address components while writing the XML structure for the customer. In addition to its other bookkeeping roles, the context table provides storage for this buffering operation. 
     The original legacy code can be seen below: 
     Fragment of Legacy COBOL Data Declarations 
     
         
         
           
               05  HL-BILL-HEADER- 10 .
             10  FILLER PIC X( 49 ) VALUE SPACES.     10  FILLER PIC X( 32 ) VALUE “Send check payable to”.     
               05  HL-BILL-HEADER- 11 .
             10  FILLER PIC X VALUE SPACES.     10  HLS-CUSTOMER-NAME PIC X( 40 ) VALUE SPACES.     10  HLS-REMITTANCE-NAME PIC X( 40 ) VALUE SPACES.     
               05  HL-BILL-HEADER- 12 .
             10  FILLER PIC X VALUE SPACES.     10  HLS-CUSTOMER-ADDRESS PIC X( 40 ) VALUE SPACES.     10  HLS-REMITTANCE-ADDRESS PIC X( 40 ) VALUE SPACES.     
               05  HL-BILL-HEADER- 13 .
             10  FILLER PIC X VALUE SPACES.     10  HLS-CT-ST-ZIP PIC X( 40 ) VALUE SPACES.     10  HLS-REMITTANCE-CT-ST-ZIP PIC X( 40 ) VALUE SPACES.
 
Fragment of Legacy COBOL Procedural Code
     
             WRITE BILL-RECORD FROM HL-BILL-HEADER- 10  AFTER  2   
             WRITE BILL-RECORD FROM HL-BILL-HEADER- 11   
             WRITE BILL-RECORD FROM HL-BILL-HEADER- 12   
             WRITE BILL-RECORD FROM HL-BILL-HEADER- 13   
           
         
       
    
     The modified code is shown below, with comments describing the successive operations. 
     Modified Legacy COBOL Procedural Code 
     
         
         
           
             Unchanged, since it does not emit anything 
             relevant to the schema
           WRITE BILL-RECORD FROM HL-BILL-HEADER- 10  AFTER  2     
         
             Emit the customer name
           MOVE HLS-CUSTOMER-NAME TO XML-VALUE   MOVE CUSTOMER-NAME-ID TO XML-TAG   CALL “XML” USING XML-TAG XML-VALUE   
         
             Deferred write of remitter name
           MOVE HLS-REMITTANCE-NAME TO XML-VALUE   MOVE REMITTER-NAME-ID TO XML-TAG   CALL “XML-SET-NODE-VALUE” USING XML-TAG XML-VALUE   
         
             WRITE BILL-RECORD FROM HL-BILL-HEADER- 11   
             Emit the customer address
           MOVE HLS-CUSTOMER-ADDRESS TO XML-VALUE   MOVE CUSTOMER-ADDRESS-ID TO XML-TAG   CALL “XML” USING XML-TAG XML-VALUE   
         
             Deferred write of remitter address
           MOVE HLS-REMITTANCE-ADDRESS TO XML-VALUE   MOVE REMITTER-ADDRESS-ID TO XML-TAG   CALL “XML-SET-NODE-VALUE” USING XML-TAG XML-VALUE   
         
             WRITE BILL-RECORD FROM HL-BILL-HEADER- 12   
             Emit customer city-state-zip
           MOVE HLS-CT-ST-ZIP TO XML-VALUE   MOVE CUSTOMER-CITY-STATE-ZIP-ID TO XML-TAG   CALL “XML” XML-TAG XML-VALUE   
         
             Deferred write of remitter city-state-zip
           MOVE HLS-REMITTANCE-CT-ST-ZIP TO XML-VALUE   MOVE REMITTER-CITY-STATE-ZIP-ID TO XML-TAG   CALL “XML-SET-NODE-VALUE” USING XML-TAG XML-VALUE   
         
             WRITE BILL-RECORD FROM HL-BILL-HEADER-13 
             Write of deferred remitter node with subnodes.
           MOVE XML-REMITTER-ID TO XML-TAG   CALL “XML-WRITE-NODE” USING XML-TAG   
         
           
         
       
    
     The resulting output for this particular example can be seen below. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                 XML OUTPUT 
               
               
                 &lt;bill-header&gt; 
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                   
                 &lt;customer&gt; 
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                   
                 &lt;name&gt;John Doe&lt;/name&gt; 
               
               
                   
                 &lt;address&gt;111 Mizar P1&lt;/address&gt; 
               
               
                   
                 &lt;city-state- zip&gt; Pasadena CA 93436-1204&lt;/city-state-zip&gt; 
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                   
                 &lt;/customer&gt; 
               
               
                   
                 &lt;remitter&gt; 
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                   
                 &lt;name&gt;ABC WIRELESS&lt;/name&gt; 
               
               
                   
                 &lt;address&gt; P. O. BOX 666666&lt;/address&gt; 
               
               
                   
                 &lt;city-state-zip&gt;DALLAS TX 75263-1111&lt;/city-state-zip&gt; 
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                   
                 &lt;/remitter&gt; 
               
            
           
           
               
            
               
                 &lt;/bill-header&gt; 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     An XML schema may impose cardinality constraints on the component elements. For example, in the schema below C, C1 and C2 may each appear only once within their respective parents. It is important to ensure this property when producing an instance of this schema.
         &lt;ElementType name=“C1”&gt;   &lt;ElementType name=“C2”&gt;   &lt;ElementType name=“C”&gt;
           &lt;element type=“C1” maxOccurs=“1”/&gt;   &lt;element type=“C2” maxOccurs=“1”/&gt;   
           &lt;ElementType&gt;   &lt;ElementType name=“A”&gt;
           &lt;element type=“C” maxOccurs=“1”/&gt;   
           &lt;/ElementType&gt;       

     Some of the precomputed elements of the context table that represent the schema rooted at “A” are shown in the table below. 
                                             ID   Label   Depth   Parent   Cardinality                  1   &lt;A&gt;    1   0   n       2   &lt;C&gt;    2   1   1       3   &lt;C1&gt;   3   2   1       4   &lt;C2&gt;   3   2   1                    
The ID column holds the unique identifier associated with each element. The Cardinality column indicates a constraint on the number of occurrences of an element within its parent. ‘n’ means there may be zero or more. ‘1’ indicates that there should be exactly 1.
 
     The table below shows how this information is used dynamically as XML-PRINT commands are executed. (Note that the COUNT column of the CONTEXT shows the change in the value of the cardinality count with respect to a particular schema element.) 
     
       
         
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 CONTEXT 
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 STATE 
                 STACK 
                 COUNT 
                 COMMAND 
                 OUTPUT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 0 
                 [ ] 
                 A =1 
                 XML-PRINT C1, V11 
                 &lt;A&gt; 
               
               
                 1 
                 [A] 
                 C =1 
                   
                 &lt;C&gt; 
               
               
                 2 
                 [A,C] 
                 C1=1 
                   
                 &lt;C1&gt;V11&lt;/C1&gt; 
               
               
                 3 
                 [A,C] 
                 C2=1 
                 XML-PRINT C2, V21 
                 &lt;C2&gt;V21&lt;/C2&gt; 
               
               
                 4 
                 [A,C] 
                 C1=0 
                 XML-PRINT C1, V12 
                 &lt;/C&gt; 
               
               
                   
                   
                 C2=0 
               
               
                 5 
                 [A] 
                 C =0 
                   
                 &lt;/A&gt; 
               
               
                 6 
                 [ ] 
                 A =2 
                   
                 &lt;A&gt; 
               
               
                 7 
                 [A] 
                 C =1 
                   
                 &lt;C&gt; 
               
               
                 8 
                 [A,C] 
                 C1=1 
                   
                 &lt;C1&gt;V12&lt;/C1&gt; 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     The initial state, 0, includes an empty stack and no cardinality counts associated with any schema element. The command to print V11 as a schema element C1 causes a check of the state, the output of the &lt;A&gt; and &lt;C&gt; ancestor labels, and the output of the labeled V11 element. The STACK is modified to record the current context of an open &lt;A&gt; and &lt;C&gt; and the cardinality counts for A, C and C1 are set to 1. 
     The command to print V21 as a schema element C2 causes a check of the state. The STACK as regards the ancestors of C2 is correct, so the only printing operation is the output of the labeled V21 element. The STACK is unchanged. The cardinality count for C2 is set to 1. 
     The command to print V12 labeled by schema element C1 causes a check of the state. The STACK in state  3  as regards the ancestors of C1 is correct. However, the cardinality count for C1 is equal to 1 which is the permitted cardinality of elements of this type. We therefore close C and reset the cardinality counts for its children, C1 and C2. At this point it can be seen that the cardinality count for C is equal to 1 which is the permitted cardinality of elements of this type. We therefore close A and reset the cardinality count for C to 0. At this point (state  6 ) the stack is empty, and we output the ancestor labels &lt;A&gt; and &lt;C&gt;, output the labeled V12 element, modify the STACK to record the current context of an open &lt;A&gt; and &lt;C&gt; and set the cardinality counts for C and C1 to 1 and A to 2. 
     Now, consider the case where the maximum occurrence of elements of type C has no upper bound. That is, the element definition of C within A is changed to:
         &lt;element type=“C” maxOccurs=“n”\&gt;
 
The third print step now becomes simpler, as shown in the table below:
       

     
       
         
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 CONTEXT 
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 STATE 
                 STACK 
                 COUNT 
                 COMMAND 
                 OUTPUT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 0 
                 [ ] 
                 A =1 
                 XML-PRINT C1, V11 
                 &lt;A&gt; 
               
               
                 1 
                 [A] 
                 C =1 
                   
                 &lt;C&gt; 
               
               
                 2 
                 [A,C] 
                 C1=1 
                   
                 &lt;C1&gt;V11&lt;/C1&gt; 
               
               
                 3 
                 [A,C] 
                 C2=1 
                 XMT-PRINT C2, V22 
                 &lt;C2&gt;V22&lt;/C2&gt; 
               
               
                 4 
                 [A,C] 
                 C1=0 
                 XML-PRINT C1, V12 
                 &lt;/C&gt; 
               
               
                   
                   
                 C2=0 
               
               
                 5 
                 [A] 
                 C =2 
                   
                 &lt;C&gt; 
               
               
                 6 
                 [ ] 
                 C1=1 
                   
                 &lt;C1&gt;V12&lt;/C1&gt; 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     The first two XML-PRINT operations proceed as before. Because there may be an arbitrary number of C subelements of A there is no need to close the A and open a new one. We close C, setting the STACK to [A], and reset the cardinality counts for C&#39;s descendents, C1 and C2. We open a new C and increment C&#39;s cardinality count to 2. Finally the labeled V12 element is output, and the cardinality count for C1 is set to 1. 
     Finally, contrast the previous examples to the case where there is no upper bound on the occurrence of any element. That is, the element definitions of C, C1 and C2 are changed to:
         &lt;element type=“C1” maxOccurs=“n”/&gt;   &lt;element type=“C2” maxOccurs=“n”/&gt;   &lt;element type=“C” maxOccurs=“n”/&gt;       

     The state changes as seen in the table below: 
     
       
         
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 CONTEXT 
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 STATE 
                 STACK 
                 COUNT 
                 COMMAND 
                 OUTPUT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1 
                 [ ] 
                 A =1 
                 XML-PRINT C1, V11 
                 &lt;A&gt; 
               
               
                 2 
                 [A] 
                 C =1 
                   
                 &lt;C&gt; 
               
               
                 3 
                 [A, C] 
                 C1=1 
                   
                 &lt;C1&gt;V11&lt;/C1&gt; 
               
               
                 4 
                 [A, C] 
                 C2=1 
                 XML-PRINT C2, V22 
                 &lt;C2&gt;V22&lt;/C2&gt; 
               
               
                 5 
                 [A, C] 
                 C1=2 
                 XML-PRINT C1, V12 
                 &lt;C1&gt;V12&lt;/C1&gt; 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     The first and second calls work as before. The third call becomes even simpler. Because there may be an arbitrary number of C1 subelements of C there is no need to close the C and open a new one. The labeled V12 element is output, and the cardinality count for C1 is incremented to 2. 
     When modifying legacy code certain difficulties arise in deciding when to print schema data that is contained in headers and footers. Consider the example of telephone invoices. The output of an invoicing program may consist of a sequence of invoices. Each invoice may take up a single page or multiple pages. When the invoice occupies multiple pages, its header is typically repeated. As a result, sometimes the header is introducing a new invoice schema element, and at other times it is mere page decoration of the human readable output. In order to recognize the need to close the current invoice tag and open a new one, it is necessary to know that there is some unique identifier associated with each invoice instance and that when the value of this ‘key’ changes, the current invoice is closed and a new one opened. To enable this computation the context table contains a boolean identifier for key elements and the current values for these elements. This check is performed at the same time as the cardinality check. 
     The present invention has a number of important business applications that relate to e-commerce and to more efficient use of legacy computer reports by brick-and-mortar businesses. One example is that internal reports otherwise printed on paper for manual inspection are instead available for storage on a database in XML format. Once electronically stored, the reports are available as electronic information assets for review by a browser or other electronic analysis. The reports are also much simpler to store in a data warehouse. 
     Another commercial application is as Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) middleware for transfer of data between applications. Setting up transfer of data from structured databases, such as those using XML formats, is relatively straightforward since data definitions may be treated as semantic tags. In contrast, typical legacy computer system reports are unstructured since they represent data generated according to business logic instead of a data structure. By modifying underlying legacy applications to directly output XML formatted data, the outputted data is more easily treated as structured data files for integration in a suite of enterprise applications. 
     Another commercial application is Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment (EBPP). In order to provide electronic billing from typical legacy computer systems, a parser is generally used to parse untagged invoice data files and then tag the data files with semantically meaningful identifiers. Parsers are expensive and difficult to set up and maintain. In contrast, modification of underlying legacy computer system code to directly output XML formatted data saves time, requires less expertise and expense, and provides data in a recognized format for e-commerce. Thus, businesses with legacy computer systems may output XML formatted reports that allow the business to take advantage of advances taking place in e-commerce, such as automatic bill payment. For instance, individual telephone customers could receive their telephone bill by e-mail containing a web link to a site that provides the individual&#39;s bill detail. 
     Another commercial application is archival of billing statements. Banks, for example, maintain large archives of customer billing statements as reduced photographic copies on microfiche or as print streams on optical disk systems. Retrieval systems for these archives are complex and difficult to maintain. Data extraction from the print streams is a recent improvement, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,031,625 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,031,625), but such a system still requires processing of print streams after they have been output from the legacy application. In contrast, modifying the underlying legacy computer code so it directly produces XML formatted billing statements makes archiving and retrieval of billing statements much simpler. For example, the XML statements can be stored in a relational database for easy retrieval. In addition, the retrieved statements, because they have an XML representation, become directly viewable, for example, using browser technology. 
     Another commercial application is in business intelligence, which seeks to analyze electronic information assets to determine business behaviors, such as purchasing or selling behaviors. Syndicated data providers obtain data for intelligence analysis through reports that are parsed on a distributor or purchaser basis. This detailed parsing can be even more complicated than the parsing used to support EBPP function. Thus, direct generation of XML formatted data from a legacy computer system providing invoice reports is even more efficient in the business intelligence role than in electronic billing and other applications since detailed data analysis is available without applying detailed parsing systems. 
     Overall the direct generation of XML formatted data from a legacy computer system reduces friction in information networks by making the transfer of information simpler. This reduces the cost of tracking information, the manual effort to exchange and analyze business information, and reduces the time associated with obtaining valuable business intelligence from existing data sources. By making data available in semantically meaningful form, customers can automatically analyze their suppliers for Vendor Relationship Management, suppliers can automatically analyze their customers for Customer Relationship Management, and manufacturers can automatically analyze markets for their products for Market Intelligence. 
     Although the present invention has been described in detail, it should be understood that various changes, substitutions and alterations can be made hereto without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.