U.S. patent application number 12/143884 was filed with the patent office on 2008-10-23 for collaborative email with delegable authorities.
This patent application is currently assigned to INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION. Invention is credited to Kulvir S. Bhogal, Robert J. Kamper.
Application Number | 20080263155 12/143884 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 34116513 |
Filed Date | 2008-10-23 |
United States Patent
Application |
20080263155 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Bhogal; Kulvir S. ; et
al. |
October 23, 2008 |
Collaborative Email With Delegable Authorities
Abstract
Writing a collaborative email document with hierarchical
authorities including establishing a collaborative email document
on an administrator's computer, identifying one or more signatories
for the document, identifying one or more collaborators who are
authorized to view and edit the document, providing to the
collaborators copies of the document for viewing and editing, where
the collaborators' copies reside on collaborators' computers,
updating the copies of the document on collaborators' computers
with revisions from the collaborators, and sending the
collaborative email document from the administrator's computer to
addressees when the document bears valid digital signatures from
all signatories. Typical embodiments also include providing at
least one user authority to delegate signature authority,
establishing a hierarchy of delegation authority for signatures,
establishing at least one authority delegation policy including at
least one rule for automated delegation of signature authority
among signatories and delegating signature authority from at least
one signatory to another.
Inventors: |
Bhogal; Kulvir S.; (Forth
Worth, TX) ; Kamper; Robert J.; (Round Rock,
TX) |
Correspondence
Address: |
INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF)
c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP, P.O. BOX 1469
AUSTIN
TX
78767-1469
US
|
Assignee: |
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION
ARMONK
NY
|
Family ID: |
34116513 |
Appl. No.: |
12/143884 |
Filed: |
June 23, 2008 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
10835336 |
Apr 29, 2004 |
|
|
|
12143884 |
|
|
|
|
10637020 |
Aug 7, 2003 |
|
|
|
10835336 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
709/205 ;
726/28 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/107 20130101;
G06Q 40/00 20130101; G06Q 10/10 20130101; H04L 51/00 20130101; G06F
40/166 20200101 |
Class at
Publication: |
709/205 ;
726/28 |
International
Class: |
G06F 15/16 20060101
G06F015/16; H04L 9/32 20060101 H04L009/32 |
Claims
1. A method for writing a collaborative email document with
delegable authorities, the method comprising: establishing a
collaborative email document on an administrator's computer;
identifying one or more signatories for the document; identifying
one or more collaborators who are authorized to view and edit the
document; providing to the collaborators copies of the document for
viewing and editing, wherein the collaborators' copies reside on
collaborators' computers; updating the copies of the document on
collaborators' computers with revisions from the collaborators; and
sending the collaborative email document from the administrator's
computer to addressees when the document bears valid digital
signatures from all signatories.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising providing to at least
one user authority to delegate signature authority.
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising: establishing a
hierarchy of delegation authority for signatures; establishing at
least one authority delegation policy comprising at least one rule
for automated delegation of signature authority among signatories
in the hierarchy; and delegating signature authority from at least
one signatory to another signatory in accordance with the authority
delegation policy.
4. The method of claim 1 further comprising: establishing at least
one authority delegation policy comprising at least one rule for
automated delegation of signature authority; and delegating
signature authority from at least one signatory to another
signatory in accordance with the authority delegation policy.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein rules for automated delegation of
signature authority comprise: a rule that the signature authority
of a first signatory having a first position in a hierarchy of
delegation authority may be delegated to a second signatory having
a second position in the hierarchy of delegation authority, wherein
the second position is higher in the hierarchy than the first
position; a rule that a first signatory having a first position in
the hierarchy of delegation authority may digitally sign the
collaborative email document only after a second signatory having a
second position in the hierarchy of delegation authority has signed
the collaborative email document, wherein the second position is
higher in the hierarchy than the first position; a rule that
signature authority is to be delegated to a second signatory if a
first signatory does not sign the document within a specified
period of time; and a rule that signature authority may be
delegated during a specified period of time.
6. The method of claim 1 further comprising: establishing one or
more authority delegation type parameters that identify modes of
delegating authority for signatories; assigning at least one
authority delegation type parameter to the collaborative email
document; and delegating signature authority from at least one
signatory to another signatory in accordance with the assigned
authority delegation type parameter.
7. The method of claim 6 wherein modes of delegating authority for
signatories comprise: a mode in which signature authority is
delegated according to authority delegation policies; a mode in
which signature authority is delegated by an originator of the
collaborative email document; and a mode in which one or more
collaborators are authorized to delegate signature authority to at
least one signatory.
8. The method of claim 1 further comprising: establishing time
parameters for writing the collaborative email document; providing
alerts and reminders in accordance with the established time
parameters; and forwarding copies of the collaborative email
document to delegated backup collaborators in accordance with the
established time parameters.
9. The method of claim 1 further comprising providing for at least
one collaborator authority to delegate the authority to view and
edit the collaborative email document.
10. The method of claim 1 further comprising: identifying editable
portions of the email document; and specifying that only certain
collaborators are authorized to view and edit one or more portions
of the document; wherein authority to view and edit one or more
portions of the document includes authority to delegate to another
collaborator the authority to view and edit one or more portions of
the document.
11. A system for writing a collaborative email document with
delegable authorities, the system comprising: means for
establishing a collaborative email document on an administrator's
computer; means for identifying one or more signatories for the
document; means for identifying one or more collaborators who are
authorized to view and edit the document; means for providing to
the collaborators copies of the document for viewing and editing,
wherein the collaborators' copies reside on collaborators'
computers; means for updating the copies of the document on
collaborators' computers with revisions from the collaborators; and
means for sending the collaborative email document from the
administrator's computer to addressees when the document bears
valid digital signatures from all signatories.
12. The system of claim 11 further comprising means for providing
to at least one user authority to delegate signature authority.
13. The system of claim 11 further comprising: means for
establishing a hierarchy of delegation authority for signatures;
means for establishing at least one authority delegation policy
comprising at least one rule for automated delegation of signature
authority among signatories in the hierarchy; and means for
delegating signature authority from at least one signatory to
another signatory in accordance with the authority delegation
policy.
14. The system of claim 11 further comprising: means for
establishing at least one authority delegation policy comprising at
least one rule for automated delegation of signature authority; and
means for delegating signature authority from at least one
signatory to another signatory in accordance with the authority
delegation policy.
15. The system of claim 14 wherein rules for automated delegation
of signature authority comprise: a rule that the signature
authority of a first signatory means for having a first position in
a hierarchy of delegation authority may be delegated to a second
signatory means for having a second position in the hierarchy of
delegation authority, wherein the second position is higher in the
hierarchy than the first position; a rule that a first signatory
means for having a first position in the hierarchy of delegation
authority may digitally sign the collaborative email document only
after a second signatory means for having a second position in the
hierarchy of delegation authority has signed the collaborative
email document, wherein the second position is higher in the
hierarchy than the first position; a rule that signature authority
is to be delegated to a second signatory if a first signatory does
not sign the document within a specified period of time; and a rule
that signature authority may be delegated during a specified period
of time.
16. The system of claim 11 further comprising: means for
establishing one or more authority delegation type parameters that
identify modes of delegating authority for signatories; means for
assigning at least one authority delegation type parameter to the
collaborative email document; and means for delegating signature
authority from at least one signatory to another signatory in
accordance with the assigned authority delegation type
parameter.
17. The system of claim 16 wherein modes of means for delegating
authority for signatories comprise: a mode in which signature
authority is delegated according to authority delegation policies;
a mode in which signature authority is delegated by an originator
of the collaborative email document; and a mode in which one or
more collaborators are authorized to delegate signature authority
to at least one signatory.
18. The system of claim 11 further comprising: means for
establishing time parameters for writing the collaborative email
document; means for providing alerts and reminders in accordance
with the established time parameters; and means for forwarding
copies of the collaborative email document to delegated backup
collaborators in accordance with the established time
parameters.
19. The system of claim 11 further comprising means for providing
for at least one collaborator authority to delegate the authority
to view and edit the collaborative email document.
20. The system of claim 11 further comprising: means for
identifying editable portions of the email document; and means for
specifying that only certain collaborators are authorized to view
and edit one or more portions of the document; wherein authority to
view and edit one or more portions of the document includes
authority to delegate to another collaborator the authority to view
and edit one or more portions of the document.
21. A computer program product for writing a collaborative email
document with delegable authorities, the computer program product
comprising: a recording medium; means, recorded on the recording
medium, for establishing a collaborative email document on an
administrator's computer; means, recorded on the recording medium,
for identifying one or more signatories for the document; means,
recorded on the recording medium, for identifying one or more
collaborators who are authorized to view and edit the document;
means, recorded on the recording medium, for providing to the
collaborators copies of the document for viewing and editing,
wherein the collaborators' copies reside on collaborators'
computers; means, recorded on the recording medium, for updating
the copies of the document on collaborators' computers with
revisions from the collaborators; and means, recorded on the
recording medium, for sending the collaborative email document from
the administrator's computer to addressees when the document bears
valid digital signatures from all signatories.
22. The computer program product of claim 21 further comprising
means, recorded on the recording medium, for providing to at least
one user authority to delegate signature authority.
23. The computer program product of claim 21 further comprising:
means, recorded on the recording medium, for establishing a
hierarchy of delegation authority for signatures; means, recorded
on the recording medium, for establishing at least one authority
delegation policy comprising at least one rule for automated
delegation of signature authority among signatories in the
hierarchy; and means, recorded on the recording medium, for
delegating signature authority from at least one signatory to
another signatory in accordance with the authority delegation
policy.
24. The computer program product of claim 21 further comprising:
means, recorded on the recording medium, for establishing at least
one authority delegation policy comprising at least one rule for
automated delegation of signature authority; and means, recorded on
the recording medium, for delegating signature authority from at
least one signatory to another signatory in accordance with the
authority delegation policy.
25. The computer program product of claim 24 wherein rules for
automated delegation of signature authority comprise: a rule that
the signature authority of a first signatory means, recorded on the
recording medium, for having a first position in a hierarchy of
delegation authority may be delegated to a second signatory means,
recorded on the recording medium, for having a second position in
the hierarchy of delegation authority, wherein the second position
is higher in the hierarchy than the first position; a rule that a
first signatory means, recorded on the recording medium, for having
a first position in the hierarchy of delegation authority may
digitally sign the collaborative email document only after a second
signatory means, recorded on the recording medium, for having a
second position in the hierarchy of delegation authority has signed
the collaborative email document, wherein the second position is
higher in the hierarchy than the first position; a rule that
signature authority is to be delegated to a second signatory if a
first signatory does not sign the document within a specified
period of time; and a rule that signature authority may be
delegated during a specified period of time.
26. The computer program product of claim 21 further comprising:
means, recorded on the recording medium, for establishing one or
more authority delegation type parameters that identify modes of
delegating authority for signatories; means, recorded on the
recording medium, for assigning at least one authority delegation
type parameter to the collaborative email document; and means,
recorded on the recording medium, for delegating signature
authority from at least one signatory to another signatory in
accordance with the assigned authority delegation type
parameter.
27. The computer program product of claim 26 wherein modes of
means, recorded on the recording medium, for delegating authority
for signatories comprise: a mode in which signature authority is
delegated according to authority delegation policies; a mode in
which signature authority is delegated by an originator of the
collaborative email document; and a mode in which one or more
collaborators are authorized to delegate signature authority to at
least one signatory.
28. The computer program product of claim 21 further comprising:
means, recorded on the recording medium, for establishing time
parameters for writing the collaborative email document; means,
recorded on the recording medium, for providing alerts and
reminders in accordance with the established time parameters; and
means, recorded on the recording medium, for forwarding copies of
the collaborative email document to delegated backup collaborators
in accordance with the established time parameters.
29. The computer program product of claim 21 further comprising
means, recorded on the recording medium, for providing for at least
one collaborator authority to delegate the authority to view and
edit the collaborative email document.
30. The computer program product of claim 21 further comprising:
means, recorded on the recording medium, for identifying editable
portions of the email document; and means, recorded on the
recording medium, for specifying that only certain collaborators
are authorized to view and edit one or more portions of the
document; wherein authority to view and edit one or more portions
of the document includes authority to delegate to another
collaborator the authority to view and edit one or more portions of
the document.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] This application is a continuation application of and claims
priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/835,336, filed on
Apr. 29, 2004 which is a continuation-in-part of a co-pending US
patent application entitled "COLLABORATIVE EMAIL," having Ser. No.
10/637,020 (Attorney Docket No. AUS920030500US1) and filing date of
Aug. 7, 2003.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] 1. Field of the Invention
[0003] The field of the invention is data processing, or, more
specifically, methods, systems, and products for collaborative
email with delegable authorities.
[0004] 2. Description of Related Art
[0005] Systems for collaboration in developing email documents
generally maintain a master copy of a document in a central
location, record changes in the master copy, and update
collaborators' copies by providing a new copy of the entire
document. This uses a lot of bandwidth, particularly when there are
many revisions over a period of time. There are version control
systems, such as Unix's Source Code Control System or `SCCS` and
the open-source version control system known as the Concurrent
Versions System or `CVS.` Such systems are strongly oriented to
version control for source code documents, however, and do not
integrate very well with collaborative email, lacking, as they do,
support for such collaborative features as automated updates to
certain revision levels or authentication through valid digital
signatures and delegable authorities for signing, viewing, and
editing collaborative email documents. For these reasons, there is
an ongoing need for improvements in systems and methods for
collaborative email.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0006] Method, systems, and products are disclosed for writing a
collaborative email document with hierarchical authorities
including establishing a collaborative email document on an
administrator's computer, identifying one or more signatories for
the document, identifying one or more collaborators who are
authorized to view and edit the document, providing to the
collaborators copies of the document for viewing and editing, where
the collaborators' copies reside on collaborators' computers,
updating the copies of the document on collaborators' computers
with revisions from the collaborators, and sending the
collaborative email document from the administrator's computer to
addressees when the document bears valid digital signatures from
all signatories. Typical embodiments also include providing to at
least one user authority to delegate signature authority. Typical
embodiments also include establishing a hierarchy of delegation
authority for signatures, establishing at least one authority
delegation policy including at least one rule for automated
delegation of signature authority among signatories in the
hierarchy, and delegating signature authority from at least one
signatory to another signatory in accordance with the authority
delegation policy. Typical embodiments also include establishing at
least one authority delegation policy including at least one rule
for automated delegation of signature authority, and delegating
signature authority from at least one signatory to another
signatory in accordance with the authority delegation policy.
[0007] In typical embodiments include rules for automated
delegation of signature authority including a rule that the
signature authority of a first signatory having a first position in
a hierarchy of delegation authority may be delegated to a second
signatory having a second position in the hierarchy of delegation
authority, where the second position is higher in the hierarchy
than the first position, a rule that a first signatory having a
first position in the hierarchy of delegation authority may
digitally sign the collaborative email document only after a second
signatory having a second position in the hierarchy of delegation
authority has signed the collaborative email document, where the
second position is higher in the hierarchy than the first position,
a rule that signature authority is to be delegated to a second
signatory if a first signatory does not sign the document within a
specified period of time, and a rule that signature authority may
be delegated during a specified period of time. Typical embodiments
include establishing one or more authority delegation type
parameters that identify modes of delegating authority for
signatories, assigning at least one authority delegation type
parameter to the collaborative email document, and delegating
signature authority from at least one signatory to another
signatory in accordance with the assigned authority delegation type
parameter.
[0008] Typical embodiments' modes of delegating authority for
signatories include a mode in which signature authority is
delegated according to authority delegation policies, a mode in
which signature authority is delegated by an originator of the
collaborative email document, and a mode in which one or more
collaborators are authorized to delegate signature authority to at
least one signatory. Typical embodiments also include establishing
time parameters for writing the collaborative email document,
providing alerts and reminders in accordance with the established
time parameters, and forwarding copies of the collaborative email
document to delegated backup collaborators in accordance with the
established time parameters.
[0009] Typical embodiments also include providing for at least one
collaborator authority to delegate the authority to view and edit
the collaborative email document. Typical embodiments also include
identifying editable portions of the email document, and specifying
that only certain collaborators are authorized to view and edit one
or more portions of the document, where authority to view and edit
one or more portions of the document includes authority to delegate
to another collaborator the authority to view and edit one or more
portions of the document.
[0010] The foregoing and other objects, features and advantages of
the invention will be apparent from the following more particular
descriptions of exemplary embodiments of the invention as
illustrated in the accompanying drawings wherein like reference
numbers generally represent like parts of exemplary embodiments of
the invention.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0011] FIG. 1 depicts an architecture for a data processing system
in which various embodiments of the present invention may be
implemented.
[0012] FIG. 2 sets forth a block diagram of automated computing
machinery useful in systems for collaborative email according to
embodiments of the present invention.
[0013] FIG. 3 sets forth a line drawing of a data entry screen on
an email client improved according to embodiments of the present
invention.
[0014] FIG. 4 sets forth a database diagram of exemplary data
structures useful in various embodiment of the present
invention.
[0015] FIG. 5 sets forth a flow chart depicting a method for
writing a collaborative email document.
[0016] FIGS. 6A, 6B, and 6C set forth flow charts illustrating
extensions of the method of FIG. 5.
[0017] FIG. 7 sets forth a flow chart illustrating a method of
synchronous communications of revisions.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS
Introduction
[0018] The present invention is described to a large extent in this
specification in terms of methods for collaborative email with
delegable authorities. Persons skilled in the art, however, will
recognize that any computer system that includes suitable
programming means for operating in accordance with the disclosed
methods also falls well within the scope of the present invention.
Suitable programming means include any means for directing a
computer system to execute the steps of the method of the
invention, including for example, systems comprised of processing
units and arithmetic-logic circuits coupled to computer memory,
which systems have the capability of storing in computer memory,
which computer memory includes electronic circuits configured to
store data and program instructions, programmed steps of the method
of the invention for execution by a processing unit. The invention
also may be embodied in a computer program product, such as a
diskette or other recording medium, for use with any suitable data
processing system.
[0019] Embodiments of a computer program product may be implemented
by use of any recording medium for machine-readable information,
including magnetic media, optical media, transmission media, or
other suitable media. Persons skilled in the art will immediately
recognize that any computer system having suitable programming
means will be capable of executing the steps of the method of the
invention as embodied in a program product. Persons skilled in the
art will recognize immediately that, although most of the exemplary
embodiments described in this specification are oriented to
software installed and executing on computer hardware,
nevertheless, alternative embodiments implemented as firmware or as
hardware are well within the scope of the present invention.
DEFINITIONS
[0020] In this specification, the terms "field,". "data element,"
and "attribute," unless the context indicates otherwise, generally
are used as synonyms, referring to individual elements of
information, typically represented as digital data. Aggregates of
data elements are referred to as "records" or "data structures."
Aggregates of records are referred to as "tables" or "files."
Aggregates of files or tables are referred to as "databases." In
the context of tables in databases, fields may be referred to as
"columns," and records may be referred to as "rows." Complex data
structures that include member methods, functions, or software
routines as well as data elements are referred to as "classes."
Instances of classes are referred to as "objects" or "class
objects."
[0021] "CGI" means "Common Gateway Interface," a standard
technology for data communications of resources between web servers
and web clients. CGI provides a standard interface between servers
and server-side `gateway` programs that administer actual reads and
writes of data to and from files systems and databases.
[0022] "Client," "client device," "client machine," or "client
computer" means any computer or other automated computing machinery
capable of administering collaborative email according to
embodiments of the present invention. Examples include personal
computers, PDAs, mobile telephones, laptop computers, handheld
devices, and others as will occur to those of skill in the art.
Clients include devices capable of wireless as well as wireline
communications.
[0023] "HDML" stands for `Handheld Device Markup Language,` a
markup language used to format content for web-enabled mobile
phones. HDML is proprietary to Openwave Systems, Inc., and can only
be operated on phones that use Openwave browsers. Rather than WAP,
HDML operates over Openwave's Handheld Device Transport Protocol
("HDTP").
[0024] "HTML" stands for `HyperText Markup Language,` a standard
markup language for displaying web pages on browsers.
[0025] "HTTP" stands for `HyperText Transport Protocol,` a standard
data communications protocol of the World Wide Web. HTTP is a
hyperlinking protocol. In exemplary embodiments of the present
invention, asynchronous communications of revisions are often
implemented by use of hyperlinking protocols. Other examples of
hyperlinking protocols include HDML and WAP.
[0026] "POP" means Post Office Protocol, referring to the standard
protocol for communicating email messages from email servers to
email clients. "POP3" is a standard Post Office Protocol capable of
communicating email messages among email servers and both to and
from email clients, which means that POP3 is now useful as a single
email protocol with no need for SMTP.
[0027] "Server" in this specification refers to a computer or other
automated computing machinery on a network that manages resources,
including documents, and requests for access to such resources. A
"web server," is a server that communicates with clients through
data communications application programs, such as browsers or
microbrowsers, by means of hyperlinking protocols such as HTTP,
WAP, or HDTP, in order to manage and make available to networked
computers documents, digital objects, and other resources. Servers
generally include applications programs that that accept data
communications connections in order to service requests from
clients by sending back responses. Any given computer or program
therefore may be both a client and a server. The use of these terms
in this disclosure refers primarily to the role being performed by
the computer or program for a particular connection or coupling for
data communications, rather than to the computer or program's
capabilities in general.
[0028] "SMTP" means Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, referring to the
standard protocol for communicating email messages from email
clients to email servers and from email servers to other email
servers. It is typical in prior art that SMTP is used to
communicate email messages from source email clients to mailbox
locations, and POP is then used to communicate the email messages
from mailboxes to destination email clients.
[0029] "TCP/IP" refers to two layers of a standard OSI data
communications protocol stack. The network layer is implemented
with the Internet Protocol, hence the initials `IP.` And the
transport layer is implemented with the Transport Control Protocol,
referred to as `TCP.` The two protocols are used together so
frequently that they are often referred to as the TCP/IP suite, or,
more simply, just `TCP/IP.` TCP/IP is the standard data transport
suite for the well-known world-wide network of computers called
`the Internet.`
[0030] "WAP" refers to the Wireless Application Protocol, a
protocol for use with handheld wireless devices. Examples of
wireless devices useful with WAP include mobile phones, pagers,
two-way radios, hand-held computers, and PDAs. WAP supports many
wireless networks, and WAP is supported by many operating systems.
WAP supports HTML, XML, and particularly WML (the Wireless Markup
Language), which is a language particularly designed for small
screen and one-hand navigation without a keyboard or mouse.
Operating systems specifically engineered for handheld devices
include PalmOS, EPOC, Windows CE, FLEXOS, OS/9, and JavaOS. WAP
devices that use displays and access the Internet run
"microbrowsers." The microbrowsers use small file sizes that can
accommodate the low memory constraints of handheld devices and the
low-bandwidth constraints of wireless networks.
Collaborative Email With Delegable Authorities
[0031] Methods and systems according to the present invention
generally implement collaborative email with delegable authorities
by identifying collaborators authorized to view and edit a
collaborative email document as it is being written. Segments of
the document may be identified that only particular collaborators
are authorized to view and edit. Revisions are typically streamed
asynchronously (or synchronously) among collaborators' clients
through one or more servers. Such methods and systems typically
identify an administrator for the document on whose client is
maintained an administrative copy of the document. The
administrator may or may not be an authorized collaborator, but the
administrator's copy of the document may be synchronized to a
current version of the document, so that the administrator may
provide administrative services regarding development of the
document, administrative services such as monitoring document
status, securing valid digital signatures from signatories, and
finally transmitting the final version of the document to
addressees.
[0032] In such systems, the addressees may or may not include the
collaborators, and the signatories may or may not be collaborators.
For example, a manager may assign the manager's secretary to create
a collaborative document, type its initial contents, and act as
administrator for development of the document. The manager may
designate one or more executives as signatories, executives known
to the manager as responsible for the subject area of the document.
The manager may or may not be a signatory. The manager may
designate collaborators who will receive copies of the document to
view and edit while the document is being written. In fact, it may
be said that the collaborative edits or revisions to the document
actually implement the writing of the document. The manager may or
may not be listed as a collaborator.
[0033] Methods for writing a collaborative email document with
hierarchical authorities according to embodiments of the present
invention typically include identifying one or more signatories for
the document. Many such methods include providing to at least one
user authority to delegate signature authority. Such a user may be
an originator of a collaborative email document, an administrator
of a collaborative email document, a collaborator, a signatory, or
another user as will occur to those of skill in the art. According
to this specification, delegation of signature authority is more
than `delegation` in the strictly legal sense. Delegation here
includes not only assignment of an authority possessed by a
delegator, but also assignments by proxy of an authority not
possessed by the delegator--as when a collaborator who is not a
signatory is authorized to delegate to a signatory signature
authority not possessed by the collaborator. Another example is the
delegation by an originator or administrator of a collaborative
email document of signatory authority not possessed by the
originator or administrator. That is, an originator of a
collaborative email document or an administrator who identifies one
or more signatories for a document, in the act of so identifying a
signatory is effectively delegating signature authority to the
signatory so identified. Such an originator or administrator need
have no signature authority in his or her own right.
[0034] Delegation of signature authority may be carried out
according to a hierarchy of delegation authority established for
the purpose of such delegation. Delegation of signature authority
may be carried out according to authority delegation policies
comprising rules for automated delegation of signature authority,
including delegation among signatories in a hierarchy of delegation
authority. In addition, delegation of signature authority may be
carried out according to authority delegation type parameters,
where each such authority delegation type parameter identifies a
mode of delegating authority for signatories. Delegation of
signature authority also may be carried out according to time
parameters and alerts and reminders triggered off the time
parameters. A copy of a collaborative email document may be
forwarded to delegated backup collaborators according to such time
parameters.
[0035] Methods according to embodiments of the present invention
typically include identifying one or more collaborators who are
authorized to view and edit the document. Many such methods include
providing for at least one such collaborator authority to delegate
the authority to view and edit the collaborative email document.
Many methods according to embodiments of the present invention also
include identifying editable portions of a collaborative email
document and specifying that only certain collaborators are
authorized to view and edit one or more portions of the document.
In such methods, authority to view and edit one or more portions of
the document often includes the authority to delegate to another
collaborator the authority to view and edit one or more portions of
the document.
[0036] When the collaborators are finished editing the document,
the administrator may email it to the signatories for digital
signatures. After all required signatures are affixed to the
document, the administrator may `send` the document to its
addressees. In email clients improved according to embodiments of
the present invention, the email client's `send` function typically
is not enabled for sending to addressees until all required
signatures are present. The send button on collaborators' clients
typically is not enabled at all. The administrator's copy is
updated with revisions just as are all the collaborators' copies.
The only thing that distinguishes operation of the administrator's
client from collaborators' email clients is that sending to
addressees typically will eventually become enabled on the
administrator's client (when the document is signed), but not so on
collaborators' clients.
[0037] Exemplary methods, system, and products for collaborative
email with delegable authorities are further explained with
reference to the accompanying drawings, beginning with FIG. 1. FIG.
1 depicts an architecture for a data processing system in which
various embodiments of the present invention may be implemented.
The system of FIG. 1 includes a number of computers coupled for
data communications in networks. Each of the computers depicted may
function as an email client or server according to embodiments of
the present invention.
[0038] The system of FIG. 1 includes networks 102, 104. Networks in
such systems may comprise LANs, WANs, intranets, internets, the
Internet, webs, and the World Wide Web itself. Such networks
comprise media that may be used to provide couplings for data
communications between various devices and computers connected
together within a distributed data processing system. Such networks
may include permanent couplings, such as wire or fiber optic
cables, or temporary couplings made through wireline telephone or
wireless communications.
[0039] In the example of FIG. 1, server 128 and server 105 are
connected to network 102. Storage unit 132 is connected to network
102 through server 105. Revisions records 134 identifying revisions
to a collaborative email document according to embodiments of the
present invention may be stored on storage units like storage unit
132. In addition, several exemplary client devices including a PDA
106, a workstation 108, and a mobile phone 110 are connected to
network 102. Network-enabled mobile phone 110 connects to network
102 through wireless link 116, and PDA 106 connects to network 102
through wireless link 114. In the example of FIG. 1, server 128
couples directly to client workstation 130 and network 104 (which
may be a LAN), which incorporates wireless communication links
supporting a wireless coupling to laptop computer 126 and wireline
protocols supporting a wired coupling to client workstation 112.
Each of these exemplary client devices may support email clients
for collaborative email according to embodiments of the present
invention.
[0040] Client devices and servers in such distributed processing
systems may be represented by a variety of computing devices, such
as mainframes, personal computers, personal digital assistants,
web-enabled mobile telephones, and so on. The particular servers
and client devices illustrated in FIG. 1 are for explanation, not
for limitation. Data processing systems may include additional
servers, clients, routers, other devices, and peer-to-peer
architectures, not shown in FIG. 1, as will occur to those of skill
in the art. Networks in such distributed data processing systems
may support many data communications protocols, TCP/IP, HTTP, WAP,
HDTP, SMS, SMNT, POP, and others as will occur to those of skill in
the art. Various embodiments of the present invention may be
implemented on a variety of hardware platforms in addition to those
illustrated in FIG. 1. FIG. 1 is presented as an example of a
heterogeneous computing environment in which various embodiments of
the present invention may be implemented, not as an architectural
limitation of the present invention.
[0041] Although exemplary embodiments in this disclosure are
described generally in terms of client-server architectures, that
is not a limitation of the present invention. On the contrary,
various embodiments of the present invention may be implemented,
for example, in peer-to-peer architectures and in other computer
architectural arrangements as will occur to those of skill in the
art.
[0042] FIG. 2 sets forth a block diagram of automated computing
machinery comprising a computer 106, such as a client device, email
client, or server, useful in systems for collaborative email with
delegable authorities according to embodiments of the present
invention. The computer 106 of FIG. 2 includes at least one
computer processor 156 or `CPU` as well as random access memory 168
("RAM"). Stored in RAM 168 is an application program 152.
Application programs useful in implementing collaborative email
with delegable authorities include Java servlets and CGI scripts
running on servers and email clients on client machines. Also
stored in RAM 168 is an operating system 154. Operating systems
useful in computers according to embodiments of the present
invention include Unix, Linux, Microsoft NT.TM., and others as will
occur to those of skill in the art.
[0043] The computer 106 of FIG. 2 includes computer memory 166
coupled through a system bus 160 to the processor 156 and to other
components of the computer. Computer memory 166 may be implemented
as a hard disk drive 170, optical disk drive 172, electrically
erasable programmable read-only memory space (so-called `EEPROM` or
`Flash` memory) 174, RAM drives (not shown), or as any other kind
of computer memory as will occur to those of skill in the art.
[0044] The example computer 106 of FIG. 2 includes communications
adapter 167 that implements connections for data communications 184
to other computers 182, servers or clients. Communications adapters
implement the hardware level of data communications connections
through which client computers and servers send data communications
directly to one another and through networks. Examples of
communications adapters include modems for wired dial-up
connections, Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) adapters for wired LAN
connections, and 802.11b adapters for wireless LAN connections.
[0045] The example computer of FIG. 2 includes one or more
input/output interface adapters 178. Input/output interface
adapters in computers implement user-oriented input/output through,
for example, software drivers and computer hardware for controlling
output to display devices 180 such as computer display screens, as
well as user input from user input devices 181 such as keyboards
and mice.
[0046] Exemplary embodiments of the present invention are further
explained with reference to FIG. 3. FIG. 3 sets forth a line
drawing of a data entry screen on an email client improved
according to embodiments of the present invention. The data entry
screen of FIG. 3 includes a title line 302 that displays the fact
that the document under edit is a collaborative email document, the
document identification ("465"), and the name of the email client
("Client Name"). In actual embodiments, the Client Name is the
actual name of an email client such as Microsoft's Outlook.TM. or
Qualcomm's Eudora.TM..
[0047] The data entry screen of FIG. 3 includes a horizontal
pull-down menu 304 containing the usual menu items such as `File,`
`Edit,` `View,` and so on. The entry screen of FIG. 3 also includes
a toolbar 306 that includes buttons titled `Display Revisions,`
`Commit Revisions,` `Version Back,` `Version Forward,` `Synch,`
`Sign,` `Send,` and `Delegate.` The email client of FIG. 3 is
programmed to display revisions, or not, in response to operation
of the `Display Revisions` button in the toolbar 306. In the
example of FIG. 3, the following text is displayed for
collaborative email document 465: [0048] Hyperlinks are implemented
in HTML documents by use of the hyperlink anchor element whose
start and end tags are <a> and </a>.
[0049] In this example, `Display Revisions` is set `on,` and the
email client therefore displays revisions representing deleting
`hyperlink` from row 2, column 1 and inserting `anchor` at row 2,
column 1. If `Display Revisions` were set `off,` the text under
edit would be displayed as: [0050] Hyperlinks are implemented in
HTML documents by use of the anchor element whose start and end
tags are <a> and </a>.
[0051] The email client of FIG. 3 is programmed so that in response
to operation of the `Commit Revisions` button in the toolbar 306,
the email client encodes a current set of revisions of the copy of
the document under edit on the client and sends them to a server.
The server may be a web server, for example, making the revisions
available for asynchronous delivery to other clients, or the server
may be an instant messaging server, delivering the revisions
synchronously to available clients. The encoding may be
implemented, for example, as follows, for the exemplary revision
described just above: [0052] d 2 1 hyperlink [0053] i 2 1 anchor
where "d 2 1 hyperlink" encodes "delete the text `hyperlink`
beginning at row 2, column 1," and "i 2 1 anchor" encodes "insert
the text `anchor` beginning at row 2, column 1."
[0054] On a server, revisions so encoded may be stored in data
structures such as those shown in FIG. 4. FIG. 4 shows a database
diagram in which records in a document table 402 are related
one-to-many to records in a collaborator copy table 410 which are
in turn related one-to-many to records in a revision table 422.
Each record in the document table 402 represents a collaborative
email document having an administrative copy and one or more
collaborators' copies. Each record in the document table includes a
document identification field 404, an identification of the
administrator for the document 406, and a status field 408 for the
document. The status field may be used, for example, to note that
the document has been created but not yet distributed to
collaborators, is presently under edit by collaborators, or is
disabled for editing while it is made available for signing by
signatories.
[0055] Each record in the collaborator copy table 410 represents a
copy of a collaborative email document provided to a collaborator
for viewing and editing. Each record in the collaborator copy table
410 includes an identification 412 of the collaborator to whom a
copy was provided. The collaborator identification 412 may be
implemented as, for example, a collaborator's email address. Each
collaborator copy record 410 also includes a document
identification field 404 identifying the document a copy of which
was provided to the collaborator.
[0056] Each collaborator copy record 410 in this example also
includes an identification of the current version 414 of the
document currently provided as a copy to the collaborator. Updating
copies of collaborative email documents on collaborators' clients
with revisions is typically carried out by updating a copy of the
document with all revisions later than a current version identifier
for the copy, and the repository of the current version identifier
for the copy is often a server-side data structure such as the one
shown in FIG. 4. Storing a copy's current version identification
server-side generally means that an update request message from a
client need specify only the collaborator identification 412 and
the document identification 404. That is, the update request
message need not necessarily include the current version number of
the collaborative email on the client because the server tracks the
version identification 414 for that collaborator's copy of that
document and can infer it from the collaborator identification and
the document identification. The server then is programmed to
respond to such an update request message with a response message
transmitting all the revisions later than the current revision
number for the copy identified in the request message--and then
updating the current version identification 414 to the current
version number. This process is referred to generally in this
specification as full synchronization, a process often supported in
email clients improved according to embodiments of the present
invention by a `Synch` button, for example, such as the one shown
in the exemplary toolbar 306 for the email client of FIG. 3.
[0057] An alternative request message requests less than a full
synchronization, such as, for example, the revisions comprising
just the next version, or the revisions comprising a previous
version. That is, email clients according to embodiments of the
present invention are typically programmed to operate in response
to, for example, a `Version Forward` button, such as the one shown
in the example toolbar 306 on FIG. 3, by transmitting to a server a
request for the revisions comprising the next version. `Next
version` means the version just after the version currently
identified in a server-side current version identification such as
the one at reference 414 on FIG. 4. The server then is programmed
to respond to such an update request message with a response
message transmitting only the revisions identified by the next
version number for the copy identified in the request message--and
then updating the current version identification 414 to the next
version number. Once again, in this method, the email client does
not need to advise the server of its current version; the server
knows. The request message need only identify itself as a `next
version only please` message type and provide the collaborator
identification 412 and the document identification 404 for the
pertinent collaborative document.
[0058] Similarly, email clients according to embodiments of the
present invention are typically programmed to operate in response
to a `Version Back` button, such as the one shown in the example
toolbar 306 on FIG. 3, by transmitting to a server a request for
the revisions comprising the previous version. `Previous version`
means the version just before the version currently identified in a
server-side current version identification such as the one at
reference 414 on FIG. 4. The server then is programmed to respond
to such an update request message with a response message
transmitting only the revisions identified by the previous version
number for the copy identified in the request message--and then
updating the current version identification 414 to the previous
version number. Once again, in this method, the email client does
not need to advise the server of its current version; the server
knows. That is, the server knows the current version because the
current client revision number is stored on the server when it
provides the version to the client, and when the client requests a
previous or next version, the server decrements or increments the
version number and sends the specified version to the client. The
request message therefore need only identify itself as a `previous
version only please` message type and provide the collaborator
identification 412 and the document identification 404 for the
pertinent collaborative document.
[0059] Each record in the revision table 422 represents a revision
to a collaborative email document. In addition to the revision
itself 420, which may be string-encoded as described above, each
revision record 422 also includes a collaborator identification 412
of the collaborator who created a revision, a document
identification 404 of the document for which the revision is
intended, a revision identification 416, and a sequence
identification 418 for ordering revisions within a version.
[0060] As mentioned above, email clients according to embodiments
of the present invention are typically programmed so that in
response to operation of a `Commit Revisions` button in a toolbar
like the one shown at reference 306 on FIG. 3, the email client
encodes a current set of revisions of the copy of the document
under edit on the client and sends them to a server. Such a set of
revisions, upon arriving at a server, is given a revision
identification code 416, which may be implemented, for example, as
a sequential integer, 1, 2, 3, and so on. The version
identification code (or `version number`) identifies a set of
revisions from a particular collaborator, when used in correct
order to update copies of the document, as implementing a
particular version of the document.
[0061] In typical embodiments, the email client may be programmed
to provide a sequence number for each revision identifying the
correct order in which the revisions are to be used to update
copies of a collaborative email document. It is clear that the
exemplary revisions mentioned above: [0062] d 2 1 hyperlink [0063]
i 2 1 anchor could not be performed meaningfully in reverse order
because after inserting `anchor` at row 2, column 1, an email
client could not then delete `hyperlink` from the same location.
This explains the usefulness of the sequence identification code
shown at reference 418 on FIG. 4.
[0064] In the exemplary data structures of FIG. 4, the records in
document table 402 are related one-to-many to records in an
authority table 424. Each record in the authority table 424
identifies a user, a collaborator or a user, who eligible to be a
delegate or assignee of authority to sign, view, or edit a
collaborative email document. Each record in the authority table
includes a document identification field 404 that acts as a foreign
key to the document table 402. Each record in the authority table
includes a user identification 426 of a signatory or collaborator
who is eligible to have delegated the authority to sign, view, or
edit the collaborative email document identified in the document
identification field 404. Each record in the authority table
includes an authority type field 428 that identifies the kind of
authority for which the user is eligible to be a delegate. Useful
values for the authority type field may include, for example.
`SIGN` for signature authority, `VIEW` for collaborative authority
to view without editing, and `EDIT` for collaborator authority to
edit a collaborative email document.
[0065] Each record in the authority table also includes a parent
identification field 430 and a child identification field 432 that
may be used as pointers to a parent record and to a child record in
forming a hierarchy of delegation authority, either for signature
authorities or for authority to view and edit. In a tree type
hierarchy, for example, the value of the parent identification
field may be set to `ROOT` to identify the top of a hierarchy, and
the child identification field 432 may be implemented as a list so
that tree nodes may have more than one branch. In authority table
records representing branch nodes in such a tree type hierarchy,
the parent identification field points to the user identification
of a node just above the branch in the hierarchy and the child
identification field can point to a node or nodes just below. In
leaf nodes, the child identification field can be left null. In
this way, a tree type hierarchy of delegation authority can be
formed. The use of a tree type hierarchy in this example is for
explanation, not for limitation. Hierarchies of delegation
authority may be formed in other ways as will occur to those of
skill in the art, and all such ways are well within the scope of
the present invention.
[0066] Methods for writing collaborative email documents with
delegable authorities according to embodiments of the present
invention are further explained with reference to FIG. 5. FIG. 5
sets forth a flow chart depicting a method for writing a
collaborative email document with delegable authorities, where the
method includes establishing 502 a collaborative email document on
an administrator's client. The method of FIG. 5 also includes
identifying 504 one or more collaborators who are authorized to
view and edit the document as it is being written. The
collaborators may be any email users, including signatories and an
administrator for the document.
[0067] Establishing 502 a collaborative email document on an
administrative client may be carried out by opening a new email
document, identifying the document as a collaborative one, and
identifying an administrator for the document. In typical
embodiments, establishing a collaborative email document includes
retaining an administrative copy of the document on an
administrative client while the document is written by one or more
collaborators.
[0068] It is useful to understand that an administrative copy of a
collaborative email document according to embodiments of the
present invention is not a master document according to prior art.
In fact, according to embodiments of the present invention, there
is no `master copy` of a collaborative document against which
revisions are recognized. All copies, including an administrative
copy, here have the same status and eligibility for viewing,
editing, and updating. In fact, if an administrator is also an
authorized collaborator, then all copies are identical, and the
only thing that distinguishes the administrator's copy is that
eventually its administrative client will acquire an enabled `send`
function, while none of the other clients ever will.
[0069] In the present invention, there is no limitation regarding
the initial contents of a collaborative email document. The user
who creates a document, typically the user to be identified as the
administrator for the document, may be an author, writing a first
draft, so that the initial content is substantial. Alternatively,
the administrator may be a clerk who creates on behalf of a
supervisor a completely blank document to be written entirely by
its collaborators.
[0070] Identifying collaborators and administrators may be carried
out by including identifiers for them in meta data in an email
document implemented in HTML format, for example, as shown
here:
TABLE-US-00001 <HTML> <HEAD> <META name="Document
Type" content="Collaborative Email"> <META name="Revision
Number" content="1"> <META name="adminID"
content="MaryJohnson@us.ibm.com"> <META name="collaboratorID"
content="MaryJohnson@us.ibm.com PeteJones@us.ibm.com
JohnSmith@us.ibm.com"> <META name="RevisionAuthority"
content="Mary Johnson@us.ibm.com ALL PeteJones@us.ibm.com Segment1
JohnSmith@us.ibm.com Segment2"> <META
name="DelegateEditAuthority" content="MaryJohnson@us.ibm.com
PeteJones@us.ibm.com"> </HEAD> <BODY>
<SEGMENT1> </SEGMENT1> <SEGMENT2>
</SEGMENT2> </BODY> </HTML>
[0071] In this example, a metadata element named "Document Type" is
used to identify an email document as a collaborative one. A
metadata element named "Revision Number" is used to store the
current revision identification of each copy of the document. The
"Revision Number," although typically stored server-side also, may
advantageously be recorded in the metadata for each copy of a
collaborative document because each collaborator's copy and the
administrative copy may embody different versions of the document
at the same time.
[0072] In the exemplary metadata, a metadata element named
"adminID" records the identity of the administrator of the document
as "MaryJohnson@us.ibm.com." The administrator identification,
although typically stored server-side also, may advantageously be
recorded in the metadata for each copy of a collaborative
document
so that the email client where the copy is revised by a
collaborator or an administrator can know whether that particular
email client is the administrative client for that document.
[0073] The method of FIG. 5 includes providing 505 for at least one
collaborator the authority to delegate the authority to view and
edit the collaborative email document. In the exemplary HTML set
forth above, the metadata element named "DelegateEditAuthority"
identifies Mary Johnson and Pete Jones as collaborators having the
authority to further delegate the authority to view and edit the
collaborative email document. Alternatively or additionally,
authority to delegate the authority to view and edit a
collaborative email may be effected server-side, for example, by
use of a Boolean field in a data record representing a
collaborator, such as the field named `delegateEditAuthority` shown
at reference 415 in the exemplary data structure for the
collaborator copy table 410 in FIG. 4. In such a system, authority
for Mary Johnson and Pete Jones to delegate the authority to view
and edit a collaborative email document would be effected by
setting to `TRUE` the delegateEditAuthority fields in the two
collaborator copy table 410 records bearing in their collaboratorID
fields 412 collaborator identifications for Mary Johnson and Pete
Jones respectively.
[0074] In the HTML example set forth above, a metadata element
named "collaboratorID" records the identities of the collaborators
authorized to view and edit the document in the process of writing
the document. The method of FIG. 5 also includes providing 506 to
the collaborators copies of the document for viewing and editing,
and the collaborators' copies typically reside on collaborators'
clients while the document is being written. In the metadata
example, Mary Johnson, the administrator for the document, is also
identified as a collaborator, which is optional. Providing copies
to collaborators may be implemented by emailing copies from the
administrative client to the collaborators. The `From:` (field 310
on FIG. 3) in email clients according to embodiments of the present
invention is often reserved for the identification of signatories,
and communications of revisions among collaborators are carried out
synchronously or asynchronously as described in this specification.
It is possible, therefore, if an administrator is not listed as a
collaborator, that none of the collaborators will ever know or care
who the administrator is.
[0075] The method of FIG. 5 includes creating 508 revisions in at
least one copy of the document. Revisions are created by recording
changes in a document effected by the usual email client document
editor and encoding them as described above: "d 5 12 hyperlink," "I
5 12 anchor," and so on, for example.
[0076] The method of FIG. 5 includes recording 510 the revisions.
Recording is often carried out by storing them temporarily on the
email client until the collaborator making revisions arrives at a
point where it is desirable to record them on the server as a
version. In email clients according to embodiments of the present
invention, a `commit revisions` function is programmed to transmit
to a server a set of revisions whose implementation represents a
version. That is, in the method of FIG. 5, recording revisions 510
may be implemented by storing the revisions on a server accessible
to collaborators' clients. Many such email clients provide a
toolbar button or other user interface control such as the `Commit
Revisions` button in the toolbar at reference 306 on FIG. 3
programmed to transmit to a server a set of revisions for a
version. Such a transmission of revisions is not a normal email
function of SMTP or POP, for example. Instead, according to
embodiments of the present invention, such transmissions are
effected by use of TCP/IP, HTTP, or some other data communications
protocol as will occur to those of skill in the art.
[0077] In the method of FIG. 5, recording revisions typically
includes storing the revisions with a version identification for
each revision. Storing revisions with versions identifications may
be carried out by storing the version identifications in a
server-side data structure such as that shown at reference 416 on
FIG. 4. Similarly, in the method of FIG. 5, recording revisions
often also includes storing the revisions with a sequence
identification for each revision, so that the revisions can be
sorted or indexed within a version. Storing revisions with sequence
identifications may be carried out by storing the sequence
identifications in a server-side data structure such as that shown
at reference 418 on FIG. 4. Persons of skill in the art will
recognize that implementing a data structure like the revision
table 422 of FIG. 4 with a revision identification 416 and a
sequence identification 418 creates a unique compound key into the
revisions records comprising the revision identification and the
sequence identification in combination. In such embodiments, the
sequence identification may be a sequential integer, unique within
a revision, non-unique across revisions, so that a unique key that
includes the sequence identification also includes the revision
number. Alternatively, the sequence identification may be a time
stamp that identifies the date and time when each revision is made.
Even a time stamp can be ambiguous across revisions, however, so
that a unique key that includes a time stamp as sequence
identification also advantageously includes the revision
number.
[0078] The method of FIG. 5 includes updating 512 the copies of the
document on collaborators' clients with the revisions. Revisions
created on a collaborator's client may be considered already
incorporated into the document copy on that client, and the
revision number on the client side may be updated accordingly, for
example: [0079] <META name="Revision Number" content="2">
[0080] Similarly, in response to the data communications
transmission carrying the revisions of a version to a server, a
server using server-side data structures like those of FIG. 4 is
programmed to update the pertinent collaborator copy record 410
with a new version number 414 for the collaborator copy where the
new version was created. Such a server then creates a revision
record 422 for each revision comprising the new version of the
document.
[0081] Updating other collaborators' copies is then carried out by
request/response communications between the collaborators' clients
and the server. A collaborator client sends an HTTP request message
for an update, either an update to the next version after the one
presently installed on the client or a request for a full update
all the way from the client's current version to the latest version
available. A request for a full update all the way from the
client's current version to the latest version available is called
a synchronization request. The email client of FIG. 3, for example,
is programmed to transmit a request for a next version in response
to operation of the `Version Forward` button in its toolbar 306.
The email client of FIG. 3 is also programmed to transmit a request
for a full update all the way from the client's current version to
the latest version available in response to operation of the
`Synch` button in its toolbar 306.
[0082] In addition to requesting a next version and full
synchronization, a client can also request a previous version. When
a server receives such a request, the server provides in a response
message the revisions defining a previous version, and the
requesting email client implements those revisions in reverse
order, thereby creating on that email client a previous version of
the document. The email client of FIG. 3, for example, is
programmed to transmit a request for a previous version in response
to operation of the `Version Back` button in its toolbar 306.
[0083] Methods of collaborative email with delegable authorities as
illustrated in FIG. 5 also often include identifying 516 editable
portions of a collaborative email document. In such methods,
identifying 504 one or more collaborators typically also includes
specifying 518 that only certain collaborators are authorized to
view and edit one or more portions of the document. In such
methods, authority to view and edit one or more portions of the
document often includes authority to delegate to another
collaborator the authority to view and edit one or more portions of
the document. Such authority to delegate the authority to view and
edit one or more portions of the document may be defined as part of
the authority to view and edit, or it may be separately effected in
metadata in a document template or in separate server-side data as
described above in connection with the discussion of the
`delegateEditAuthority` field 415 on FIG. 4.
[0084] Identifying 516 editable portions of a collaborative email
document may be implemented by use of templates or by inserting
markup identifying the editable portions. Moreover, authorization
for only certain collaborators to edit one or more portions of the
document advantageously may be recorded in the document itself--or
in each copy of the document--so that such limitations on
authorization are easily available to each collaborator's email
client. In the following exemplary email document implemented in
markup format, for example:
TABLE-US-00002 <HTML> <HEAD> <META
name="RevisionAuthority" content="MaryJohnson@us.ibm.com ALL
PeteJones@us.ibm.com Segment1 JohnSmith@us.ibm.com Segment2">
</HEAD> <BODY> <SEGMENT1> </SEGMENT1>
<SEGMENT2> </SEGMENT2> </BODY> </HTML>,
editable portions of a document are identified, in the document
itself, by the markup elements <SEGMENT1> </SEGMENT1>
<SEGMENT2> </SEGMENT2>. Specifying 518 that only
certain collaborators are authorized to view and edit one or more
portions of the document in this example is carried out by use of
the metadata:
TABLE-US-00003 <META name="RevisionAuthority"
content="MaryJohnson@us.ibm.com ALL PeteJones@us.ibm.com Segment1
JohnSmith@us.ibm.com Segment2">,
[0085] which specifies that Mary Johnson is authorized to view and
edit the entire document, Pete Jones is authorized to view and edit
Segment 1, and John Smith is authorized to view and edit Segment
2.
[0086] For further explanation, FIG. 6A sets forth a flow chart
illustrating an extension of the method of FIG. 5. That is, the
method of FIG. 6A includes establishing a collaborative email
document 502, identifying collaborators 504, and so on, as in the
method of FIG. 5. In addition, however, the method of FIG. 6A
includes establishing 612 a hierarchy 614 of delegation authority
for signatures; establishing 616 at least one authority delegation
policy 618 that includes rules for automated delegation of
signature authority among signatories in the hierarchy; and
delegating 620 signature authority from at least one signatory to
another signatory in accordance with the authority delegation
policy. It is useful to note that not all embodiments of the
present invention that include delegating signature authority
require a hierarchy of delegation authorities to do so. Delegations
of signature authority may advantageously and alternatively be made
from a flat list, from linked lists, from direct user input in
response to a prompt requesting identification of delegates, and so
on, as will occur to those of skill in the art.
[0087] Establishing 614 a hierarchy of delegation authority for
signatures may be carried out, for example, by use of data
structures such as those exemplified in FIG. 4. Using an email
client program adapted according to embodiments of the present
invention, a user may establish 614 a hierarchy of delegation
authority 614 by operating a user interface such as the one on the
exemplary email client illustrated in FIG. 3 by, for example,
selecting the `CollabOptions` button on toolbar 304 and then
selecting the `Establish Hierarchy Of Delegation Authority` entry
320 from the resulting pop-up menu 314. Selecting the `Establish
Hierarchy Of Delegation Authority` entry 320 in turn presents a
data entry screen (not shown) through which a user may enter
records in a records in an authority table such as the one
illustrated, for example, at reference 424 on FIG. 4. As mentioned
above, records in an authority table 424 may be used to identify a
user, a collaborator, a signatory, or another user, who is eligible
to be a delegate or assignee of authority to sign a collaborative
email document. Such records 424 may include a document
identification field 404 as a foreign key to a document table 402.
Each record in the authority table may include a user
identification 426 of a signatory or collaborator who is eligible
to have delegated the authority to sign the collaborative email
document identified in the document identification field 404. Each
record in the authority table may include an authority type field
428 that identifies the kind of authority for which the user is
eligible to be a delegate--in this example, signature authority
rather than edit authority or authority to view. Such records may
include a parent identification field 430 and a child
identification field 432 as pointers to a parent record and to one
or more child records forming a hierarchy of delegation authority
for signature authority.
[0088] Establishing 616 an authority delegation policy 618 that
includes rules for automated delegation of signature authority
among signatories in the hierarchy may be carried out by
establishing such rules for automated delegation of signature
authority in a rules base, database, or other data structure
available on-line at run time to email clients adapted according to
embodiments of the present invention. Using an email client program
adapted according to embodiments of the present invention, a user
may establish 616 an authority delegation policy 618 that includes
rules for automated delegation of signature authority among
signatories in the hierarchy by operating a user interface such as
the one on the exemplary email client illustrated in FIG. 3 by, for
example, selecting the `CollabOptions` button on toolbar 304 and
then selecting the `Establish Authority Delegation Policy` entry
316 from the resulting pop-up menu 314. Selecting the `Establish
Authority Delegation Policy` entry 316 in turn presents a data
entry screen (not shown) through which a user may enter rules for
automated delegation of signature authority that operate together
as an authority delegation policy. Examples of rules forming an
authority delegation policy include the following: [0089] a rule
that the signature authority of a first signatory having a first
position in a hierarchy of delegation authority may be delegated to
a second signatory having a second position in the hierarchy of
delegation authority, where the second position is higher in the
hierarchy than the first position; [0090] a rule that a first
signatory having a first position in the hierarchy of delegation
authority may digitally sign the collaborative email document only
after a second signatory having a second position in the hierarchy
of delegation authority has signed the collaborative email
document, where the second position is higher in the hierarchy than
the first position; [0091] a rule that signature authority is to be
delegated to a second signatory if a first signatory does not sign
the document within a specified period of time; and [0092] a rule
that signature authority may be delegated during a specified period
of time.
[0093] The preceding ruleset is exemplary and non-exclusive. Other
rules as will occur to those of skill in the art may be used to
make up an authority delegation policy and all such rules are well
within the scope of the present invention.
[0094] The method of FIG. 6A includes identifying 602 one or more
signatories for the document. Identifying the signatories may be
implemented by programming an email client, such as the one shown
in FIG. 3, to accept as input through its `From:` field 310 more
than one entry of signatory identification, JaySchwarz@us.ibm.com,
MikeWilliams@us.ibm.com, and so on, and treat each of them as a
signatory. In such embodiments, there is no limitation regarding
when the signatories are to be identified. That is, they may be
identified when the document is first created by an administrator,
or later, after all the collaborators are finished revising the
document. In this sense, a collaborative email document according
to the present invention is different from ordinary emails in that
it may arrive in the in-boxes of collaborators with no entry in its
`From:` field, because, for example, no one has yet decided who
must authorize the ultimate promulgation of the document to
addressees. Consider an email announcement of a new corporate
policy to be sent to hundreds of addressees. The email is created
by a clerk in a corporate planning department and revised by
several collaborators. Then later, after the collaborators are
satisfied with the contents of the document, it is decided whether
the president of the company will sign it and whether one or more
vice presidents will sign it.
[0095] Delegating 620 signature authority from at least one
signatory to another signatory in accordance with an authority
delegation policy 618 may be carried out as identifications of
additional signatories, that is, by programming an email client,
such as the one shown in FIG. 3, as described above, to accept as
input through its `From:` field 310 additional entries of
signatories with newly delegated signature authority. Such
delegations of signature authority may occur at almost any time
during development of a collaborative email document. That is,
signature authority may be delegated when the document is first
created by an administrator or later during the writing of the
document, when, for example, a collaborator or a signatory having
authority to make delegations delegates signature authority to one
or more new signatories.
[0096] Delegations may be cumulative or exclusive. That is, in some
systems according to embodiments of the present invention, a
delegation of signature authority from one signatory to another is
implemented to eliminate the first signatory's signature authority.
In other systems according to embodiments of the present invention,
a delegation of signature authority from one signatory to another
is cumulative, both signatories now have signature authority. And
some systems do both, identifying whether delegations are
cumulative or exclusive with a parameter in a data structure such
as those illustrated on FIG. 4.
[0097] The method of FIG. 6A includes providing 604 to each
signatory, including newly delegated signatories, a copy of the
document for signing. To the extent that signatories are also
collaborators, they may already have copy of the document, and they
may affix their signatures as soon as revisions are concluded.
Signatories who are not collaborators may be emailed a copy of the
document, typically from the administrator, to obtain their
signatures. In the email client of FIG. 3, for example, the toolbar
306 includes a button labeled `Sign,` where the email client is
programmed to email the document to signatories. It is common in
embodiments of this invention that the `Sign` button, the ability
to send a document to a signatory, is only enabled on the
administrator's email client, so that there is administrative
control over the process of affixing signatures to the
document.
[0098] The method of FIG. 6A includes affixing 606 to the document
a digital signature for each signatory. In this context,
`signature` generally refers to a digital signature. A digital
signature is a data structure containing a hashed digest of the
contents of a collaborative email document encrypted with a
signatory's private key from a public/private key pair of an
asymmetric cryptosystem. Email clients generally are equipped with
the ability to affix digital signatures to email documents. In
Microsoft Outlook.TM., for example, a digital signature function is
available, when an email document is open for editing, through the
pull-down menus at View/Options/Security.
[0099] Checking validity of a digital signature is accomplished by
decrypting the hashed digest from the signature with a signatory's
public key, hashing a new digest of the current contents of the
document, and comparing the new digest with the decrypted digest
from the signature. If the new digest and the decrypted digest from
the signature are identical, the signature is considered valid.
They will not be identical if revisions to the document are entered
after the signature is affixed to the document.
[0100] When the document is provided 604 to signatories for
signing, therefore, in many embodiments of the present invention,
the document advantageously is first disabled 603 for revision. A
document may be disabled for revisions, for example, by encoding
that fact in a data element dedicated to that purpose, such as, for
example, the `status` field 408 in the exemplary data structures of
FIG. 4. Such a status field may be given a value such as `LOCKED,`
for example, and a server supporting the revision table may then be
programmed to exclude or reject revisions received from
collaborators while the document is so locked.
[0101] Some embodiments do not implement disabling of revisions
during signing. In some embodiments that do implement disabling of
revisions during signing, a signatory who is also a collaborator
may go ahead and affix a signature that may be rendered invalid by
a later revision. In such embodiments, as shown in FIG. 6A, methods
for collaborative email advantageously may include determining 610
whether the digital signatures in a document are valid, and, if
they are not, providing 606 the document again to one or more
signatories for re-signing. In this way, a method such as the one
illustrated by FIG. 6A may send a collaborative email document from
an administrative client to addressees only when the document bears
valid digital signatures from all signatories.
[0102] The method of FIG. 6A includes sending 608 the signed
document from the administrative client to addressees. Unlike
ordinary emails, the `From:` field in a collaborative email
arriving at addressees' in-boxes identifies the signatories of the
document rather than its actual sender. The actual sender is
typically an administrator who may or may not be known to the
addressees. In this context, what the `From:` field communicates is
that the contents of the document are communicated to its
addressees with the authority of the signatories.
[0103] At this point in processing, the identities of the
administrator and the collaborators may be of little concern to the
addressees. The collaborators often in effect develop a document
for mailing on behalf of signatories who have authority over the
subject matter of the document. It is therefore the identity of the
signatories rather than the identify of the developers of the
document that will often be considered more pertinent to
addressees. The collaborators, the administrator, and the
signatories may or may not be among the addressees.
[0104] For further explanation, FIG. 6B sets forth a flow chart
illustrating an extension of the method of FIG. 5. That is, the
method of FIG. 6B includes establishing a collaborative email
document 502, identifying collaborators 504, and so on, as in the
method of FIG. 5. In addition, however, the method of FIG. 6B
includes establishing 622 one or more authority delegation type
parameters 624 that identify modes of delegating authority for
signatories; assigning 626 at least one authority delegation type
parameter 624 to the collaborative email document; and delegating
628 signature authority from at least one signatory to another
signatory in accordance with the assigned authority delegation type
parameter 630. Establishing one or more authority delegation type
parameters that identify modes of delegating authority for
signatures is implemented, for example, by a software developer,
system developer, or system administrator configuring an email
client or server according to embodiments of the present invention
with one or more supported authority delegation type parameters
identifying supported modes of delegating authority. A supported
mode is one that the email client and server are programmed to
effect. Delegation type parameters and the modes of delegation they
identify may include the following, for example: [0105]
_NO_DELEGATION--meaning that no further delegation of signature
authority is permitted after an originator or administrator
initially identifies signatories [0106] _BY_POLICY--meaning that
delegation is to be carried out according to an authority
delegation policy, cumulatively with other modes of delegation
[0107] _BY_POLICY_ONLY meaning that delegation is to be carried out
exclusively according to an authority delegation policy, to the
exclusion of other modes of delegation [0108] _BY_ORIGINATOR
meaning that delegation may be carried out by the originator of the
collaborative email document, cumulatively with other modes of
delegation [0109] _BY_ORIGINATOR_ONLY--meaning that delegation may
be carried out only by the originator of the collaborative email
document, to the exclusion of other modes of delegation [0110]
_BY_ANY_CONTRIBUTOR-- meaning that signature authority may be
delegated by any contributor [0111]
_BY_SPECIFIED_CONTRIBUTORS--meaning that signature authority may be
delegated by one or more specified contributors [0112]
_BY_ANY_SIGNATORY--meaning that signature authority may be
delegated by any signatory [0113]
_BY_SPECIFIED_SIGNATORIES--meaning that signature authority may be
delegated by one or more specified signatories
[0114] This description of modes of delegation and the parameters
identifying them is presented for explanation of exemplary
embodiments, not for limitation. Other modes of delegation and
other delegation type parameters may occur to those of skill in the
art, and the use of all such modes of delegation and all such
delegation type parameters are well within the scope of the present
invention.
[0115] Assigning 626 an authority delegation type parameter 624 to
a collaborative email document is implemented, for example, by
providing data entry features in an email client according to
embodiments of the present invention such as that illustrated by
the `CollabOptions` menu item in the horizontal menu 304 on FIG. 3,
which, when invoked, presents pop-up menu 314 which in turn
presents menu item 318 for assigning an authority delegation type
parameters to the collaborative email document under edit. Invoking
menu item 318 for assigning an authority delegation type parameter
provides a further pop-up selection list or data entry tool (not
shown) through which authority delegation type parameters supported
in the email client may be entered for use in the current
document-entered, that is, into a data structure of the kind
illustrated, for example, as an Authority Delegation Type Table 434
on FIG. 4. The Authority Delegation Type Table 434 includes a
document identification field 404 that functions as a foreign key
to the document table 402, thereby associating one or more
authority delegation type parameters 436 with a particular
collaborative email document.
[0116] Using an email client program adapted according to
embodiments of the present invention, a user may establish 614 a
hierarchy of delegation authority 614 by operating a user interface
such as the one on the exemplary email client illustrated in FIG. 3
by, for example, selecting the `CollabOptions` button on toolbar
304 and then selecting the `Establish Hierarchy Of Delegation
Authority` entry 320 from the resulting pop-up menu 314. Selecting
the `Establish Hierarchy Of Delegation Authority` entry 320 in turn
presents a data entry screen (not shown) through which a user may
enter records in a records in an authority table such as the one
illustrated, for example, at reference 424 on FIG. 4.
[0117] Delegating 628 signature authority from at least one
signatory to another signatory in accordance with an assigned
authority delegation type parameter 630 is carried out in this
example by an authorized user's invoking the `Delegate` button on
toolbar 306 on the email client illustrated on FIG. 3. In this
example, the `Delegate` function is programmed to delegate
signature authority according to authority delegation type
parameters assigned to the document and the modes of delegation
they identify. That is, is the _NO_DELEGATION parameter is assigned
to the document, no delegation is permitted; if the_BY_POLICY
parameter is assigned to the document, delegation is carried out
according to an authority delegation policy cumulatively with other
modes of delegation; if the_BY_POLICY_ONLY parameter is assigned to
the document, delegation is carried out only according to an
authority delegation policy exclusively with respect to other modes
of delegation; and so on according to which authority delegation
type parameters are assigned to the document under edit.
[0118] For further explanation, FIG. 6C sets forth a flow chart
illustrating an extension of the method of FIG. 5. That is, the
method of FIG. 6C includes establishing a collaborative email
document 502, identifying collaborators 504, and so on, as in the
method of FIG. 5. In addition, however, the method of FIG. 6C
includes establishing 632 time parameters 634 for writing the
collaborative email document; providing 636 reminders and alerts in
accordance with the established time parameters 634; and forwarding
638 copies of the collaborative email document to delegated backup
collaborators in accordance with the established time parameters.
Time parameters are implemented as data elements that establish
time limits within which collaborators are to complete editing of a
collaborative email document and time limits within which
signatories are to sign a document. Using an email client program
adapted according to embodiments of the present invention, a user
may establish 632 time parameters 634 by operating a user interface
such as the one on the exemplary email client illustrated in FIG. 3
by, for example, selecting the `CollabOptions` button on toolbar
304 and then selecting the `Establish Time Parameters` entry 322
from the resulting pop-up menu 314. Selecting the `Establish
[0119] Time Parameters` entry 322 in turn presents a data entry
screen (not shown) through which a user may enter time parameters
for a collaborative email document so that they are stored, for
example, in a data structure such as the one illustrated at
reference 409 on FIG. 4. Reminders typically are implemented as
separate email messages or instant text messages reminding a
collaborator, a signatory, or an administrator of a time limit or
deadline to be met in the future. Alerts typically are implemented
as separate email messages or instant text messages reminding a
collaborator, a signatory, or an administrator of a time limit or
deadline that has passed. Forwarding 638 copies of the
collaborative email document to delegated backup collaborators in
accordance with the established time parameters typically is
carried out when a time limit or deadline has passed without
completion of the editing required by the deadline. Forwarding
copies to delegated backup collaborators may be implemented, for
example, by emailing copies from an administrative client to the
delegated backup collaborators. The `From:` field (310 on FIG. 3)
in email clients according to embodiments of the present invention
is often reserved for the identification of signatories, and
communications of revisions among collaborators, including
delegated backup collaborators are carried out synchronously or
asynchronously as described in this specification.
[0120] Updating 512 copies of a collaborative email document with
revisions is typically carried out by communicating the revisions
asynchronously to the collaborators and to the administrative
client. Asynchronous communication of revisions is useful because
the collaborators' clients may not be on-line on the network to
receive the revisions at the time when they are created.
Asynchronous communication of revisions is carried out by use of
server-side data structures such as those shown in FIG. 4, for
example. The email clients may be programmed to transmit the
revisions in a standard message format such as HTTP (the HyperText
Transport Protocol), WAP (the Wireless Access Protocol), HDTP (the
Handheld Device Transport Protocol), or others as will occur to
those of skill in the art. The server may support a Java Servlet or
a CGI script, or other server-side functionality as will occur to
those of skill in the art, for receiving the revisions and
recording them in a database supporting data structures similar to
the exemplary ones set forth in FIG. 4. In this way, the revisions
are stored on the server and remain available for download to
collaborators' email clients when the clients go on-line on the
network to retrieve the revisions for updating their copies of the
documents.
[0121] The exact method of updating a copy of a document on an
email client may be determined or selected by one or more setup
parameters in the client. Updating a copy of a document by
downloading revisions from a server may be carried out, for
example, every time an email client is activated and at periodic
intervals so long as the email client is operative. The periodic
updates may be programmed to continue in background as long as the
email client is running on a client machine even when the local
copy of the document is not open for editing, so that when the copy
opened for editing, it is likely to be fully synchronized with the
latest revisions. Alternatively, a collaborator may wish to view
the revisions since his or her last review of the document one at a
time, stepping through them by use of, for example, a `Version
Forward` button like the one illustrated in the toolbar at
reference 306 on the email client of FIG. 3. In this case, the
collaborator would turn off the email client's setup parameter for
automatic background updates.
[0122] In addition to asynchronous updates implemented through a
server, updating 512 the collaborators' copies of a collaborative
email document with revisions may be carried out by communicating
the revisions synchronously to one or more collaborators as the
revisions are made. Synchronous communications of revisions may be
implemented by use of messages in an instant messaging protocol.
Examples of instant messaging protocols useful with various
embodiments of the present invention include the Instant Messaging
and Presence Protocol ("IMPP") specified by the IMPP Working Group
of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Mitre Corporation's
Simple Instant Messaging and Presence Service ("SIMP").
[0123] For further explanation, FIG. 7 sets forth a flow chart
illustrating a method of synchronous communications of revisions.
In the method of FIG. 7, updating 512 copies of a collaborative
email document with revisions includes identifying 702 collaborator
clients that are available for synchronous communications of
revisions. Instant messaging services generally define and support
`presence services` that provide indications whether an instant
messaging client is on-line. Email clients capable of supporting
synchronous communications of revisions according to embodiments of
the present invention often are improved to support messaging and
presence detection through one or more instant messaging protocols.
The method of FIG. 7 includes communicating 704 revisions
synchronously to collaborator clients that are available for
synchronous communications, typically carried out by transmitting
the revisions in instant messages to all collaborators' email
clients that are determined to be presently on-line and available
for instant messaging.
[0124] Updating copies of documents synchronously affects their
version identifications. In the method of FIG. 7, therefore,
updating the collaborators' copies includes updating 706 current
version identifications for the copies of the document on
collaborator's clients that are available for synchronous
communications. Updating current version identifications may be
implemented with HTTP messages, for example, from a client to a
server that maintains server-side data structures like those shown
in FIG. 4. Such a server typically supports server-side
functionality such as a Java servlet or a CGI script programmed to
update version identifications in response to a message from a
client bearing a collaborator identification 412 and a document
identification 404.
[0125] By way of further explanation, it is noted that synchronous
updates and asynchronous updates are advantageously employed
together. When synchronous communications of revisions are employed
for collaborators' copies that are not synchronized with the latest
revisions, there is a risk that the asynchronous revisions will be
applied to a copy out of proper sequence, thereby causing confusion
in the copy of the document on that collaborator's client.
Synchronous communications of revisions therefore are beneficially
implemented for collaborators copies of a document after
collaborators' copies are synchronized with the latest revisions
from an asynchronous source of revisions.
[0126] In the method of FIG. 7, for example, identifying 702
collaborator clients that are available for synchronous
communications of revisions typically also includes determining
whether collaborators copies are synchronized with the latest
revisions. Determining whether collaborators copies are
synchronized with the latest revisions may be accomplished by
comparing a current version identification (414 on FIG. 4) for each
collaborator's copy of a document with the latest revision
identification 416 in a revision table such as the one exemplified
at reference 422 on FIG. 4. To the extent that it is determined
that the version of a collaborator's copy on an email client that
is `present,` available for synchronous communications of
revisions, is not the current version of the document, that copy
may be updated by applying all the revisions later than its current
revision number--and then updating its current version
identification 414 to the latest version number.
[0127] It will often be the case that some collaborators on a
document engage in synchronous communications of revisions when
other collaborators on the same document are unavailable for
synchronous communications of revisions. Email clients according to
embodiments of the present invention therefore often transmit all
revisions for storage on a server for later asynchronous downloads
by the other collaborators at their convenience. In this way, even
a collaborator who begins a synchronous session with other
collaborators and logs off in the middle of the session, can later
obtain the intervening revisions by asynchronous download from the
server. When such a collaborator logs off during synchronous
communication of revisions, the email client advantageously records
the current version identification for that collaborator's copy of
the document in a data structure such as that shown at reference
414 in FIG. 4, for example. When the collaborators log off at the
end of synchronous communication of revisions, their email clients
advantageously record the current version identification for each
collaborator's copy of the document in a data structure such as the
exemplary one shown at reference 414 in FIG. 4.
[0128] An exemplary use case is now presented by way of further
explanation of the construction and operation of systems and
methods for writing collaborative email documents with delegable
authorities for signing, viewing, and editing the documents: Using
an email client program adapted according to embodiments of the
present invention, a user operates a user interface such as the one
on the exemplary email client illustrated in FIG. 3 to create a
collaborative email document by, for example, selecting the
`CollabOptions` button on toolbar 304 and then selecting the
`Create Collaborative Email Document` entry 315 from the resulting
pop-up menu 314.
[0129] The user then may identify signatories of the collaborative
email document by entering them manually in the `FROM` field or by
selecting them from a predefined group list. In one embodiment, the
originating user also may select a template for the document to be
created, which may have one or more sections, that is, identified
editable portions. At this time, the user may operate a control
such as the one named `Establish Authority Delegation Type
Parameters,` shown at reference 318 on FIG. 3, to actuate authority
delegation type parameters, thereby making effective one or more
modes of delegating signature authority. Authority delegation type
parameters may include, for example, the following: [0130]
NO_delegation [0131] Delegation by_policy_only [0132] Delegation
by_originator only [0133] Delegation by_all_collaborators [0134]
Delegation by_specified_collaborators
[0135] The originating use also selects at this time the
collaborators to the document in addition to the signers of the
document. The user may enter the collaborators through a data entry
field such as the one shown at reference 312 on FIG. 3. The user
may select collaborators from a predefined list. A predefined list
may be implemented in a table on the email client or in a server
for collaborative email. Alternatively, a predefined list may be
embedded as part of a template for a collaborative email document,
a template which the user may or may not be granted authority to
amend. If delegations of signature authority by contributor is a
supported mode of delegation and the authority delegation type
parameter
`_Delegation by_specified_collaborators` is actuated, the email
client is programmed to prompt the originator to enter or select
those collaborators allowed to delegate. Alternately, a default
listing of specified collaborators with delegation authority is
included as a part of the template, which the originator may or may
not be authorized to override.
[0136] Collaborators to the document may be restricted to viewing
or editing one or more parts of the document. Signatories may (or
may not) be designated as collaborators also and so therefore may
have rights to edit for the entire document or parts of the
document. Rights to edit all or parts of the document may be
assigned as part of the template for the document. Collaborators
may have the option to further delegate reading, editing, and
signing rights. Default rights to edit or sign also may be
commemorated in a template for the collaborative email document,
and an originator or a collaborator may or may not be assigned the
authority to override template defaults.
[0137] One or more of the signers of the document may indicate
approval of the content at any time by, for example, selecting a
button such as the one labeled `Sign` in the toolbar shown at
reference 306 on FIG. 3. If a signatory's delegate signs the
document or a portion of the document, the document may display
"signed by" the contributor or "signed by [delegate name] for
[collaborator name]. In one embodiment, for example, a signatory
may have delegated edit authority for a plurality of document
sections to one or more delegates. Once the delegates have
completed their edits, the signatory may then be provided with the
option to sign the document. As an option, a person delegating edit
authority on portions of the document may automatically approve and
digitally sign the document upon approval by all of those to whom
the document or its sections have been delegated.
[0138] The draft document is saved a signatory's digital signature
and forwarded to other signatories for their signatures. Additional
edits may be made after the first signatory signs. If a second
signatory adds edits, the second form of the signed document does
not match the original signed document, thereby rendering the first
signature invalid, and the draft is again forwarded to all
signatories with an indication of the differences between the two
signed documents. Delegated authorities apply to the document in
draft form, to the document after it has been signed by less than
all signatories, and to additional edits applied after signing by
less than all signatories.
[0139] The draft document may be opened for viewing or editing by a
plurality of collaborators and signatories, and an instant
messaging or VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) session may also
be opened. Thus, instead of forcing the sending of multiple
versions among signatories, a meeting may be scheduled during which
the signatories agree on a final edition and attach their digital
signatures to a final form of the document. This exemplary
synchronous procedure, by comparison with the round-robin method
described above, provides a convenient way of arranging multiple
signatures and sending the collaborative email document. In this
example, delegated authorities apply to a document in draft form,
to a document signed by less than all signatories, and to
additional edits applied after signing by less than all
signatories, as well as to edits affected during instant messaging
and/or VOIP sessions.
[0140] It will be understood from the foregoing description that
modifications and changes may be made in various embodiments of the
present invention without departing from its true spirit. The
descriptions in this specification are for purposes of illustration
only and are not to be construed in a limiting sense. The scope of
the present invention is limited only by the language of the
following claims.
* * * * *