EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: BeyondRecognition: Disruptive Technology Structures the Unstructurable Data

Saturday, May 12, 2012

BeyondRecognition: Disruptive Technology Structures the Unstructurable Data

Beyondrecognition ANNOUNCES IMAGE-BASED DOCUMENT CLUSTERING TECHNOLOgy

Technology groups documents based on an image, not textual, analysis, permitting rapid development of cluster-specific, location-based data extraction rules

GERMANTOWN, TN, April 24, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- John Martin, founder and CEO of BeyondRecognition, LLC, announced today that BeyondRecognition ("BR") has developed software to cluster like documents based on an analysis of document images and to then quickly build cluster-specific, location-based data extraction rules. Those rules combined with BR's innovative glyph-clustering text recognition process permit the extraction of fields of data about a document's attributes or contents

Martin predicted, "Image-based document clustering and the graphical interface for the rapid development of cluster-specific data extraction rules provides a level of accuracy and speed that rivals and in some cases exceeds manual coding. This type of approach may dramatically reduce the volume of basic, objective manual document coding work being done, especially with systems like ours that programmatically detect document boundaries."

Martin also noted, "We're seeing a great deal of interest in this approach in the mortgage and energy sectors. The mortgage industry in particular typically has a relatively finite number of documents in loan files supporting the loan decisions, with definable types of data being of interest on each type of document. Our process could greatly lower the cost of tracking all those data elements during loan initiation, or to quality control the file for audit or sale purposes."

Focus Data Management President and Founder Michael Mulcahy states " text analysis or retrieval system can’t find what isn’t in its index- rendering the knowledge contained therin less than accessible. "

Barbara Johnson, CFA, former executive of USAA Federal Savings Bank, serving as Chief Credit Officer and Senior Vice President of Real Estate Lending Services and now a Principal with Saccadent, a Financial Consulting firm, has reviewed the clustering and data extraction capabilities and offered the comment that, "In today's environment the ability to extract, utilize and match data across a variety of documents is incredibly powerful. This type of technology offers the promise of significantly decreasing the time and cost to process a thoroughly compliant loan from application through origination, audit, sale and servicing. An automated system to confirm all the critical items match throughout the process and are in the appropriate format and location on all documents would be invaluable. Lending is a document-rich industry and the time is perfect for this type of technology."

In the energy sector, BR's glyph clustering technology would also make it possible to search for symbols used on maps to indicate things like radioactive wells, salt-water wells or API number codes.

Martin commented about the BeyondRecognition product development road map, "Because we track the page position of each character and word we will at some point develop true proximity searching where users could specify how many inches or centimeters either vertically or horizontally the search terms needed to be in relation to each other in order to satisfy the search parameters. This could include a relational operator for looking in the same row or the same column or within 'x' rows or 'y' columns. Our standardized output files would also enable search engine providers to incorporate this functionality in their engines."

Regarding electronic discovery, Martin said that, "Some of the e-discovery experts who have reviewed the system have suggested that it might be worthwhile to convert native e-discovery files to image format just to be able to use BR's image-clustering and location-based data extraction capabilities. The BR true proximity/relational search capabilities would provide another reason for taking electronic files to image."

Persons interested in receiving updates about BeyondRecognition should send an email to Info@beyondrecogntion.net.

About BeyondRecognition

BeyondRecognition is a "textnology" company that has developed unique character, word and document attribute recognition and extraction capabilities for analyzing image-based documents. Disclosure of further details is being deferred until one or more patents on the process are filed. BeyondRecognition is working with a select number of companies in the electronic discovery and document management industries. Due to bandwidth considerations, BeyondRecognition will be unable to give detailed consideration to further requests or inquiries until mid-June, 2012. If your company would like to explore licensing or partnership opportunities with BeyondRecognition in that time frame, please email John Martin at jmartin@beyondrecognition.net providing your contact information and a summary of what your interests are.

For more information, visit www.BeyondRecognition.net.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sedona Principles 2nd ed.

1. Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.
2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.
3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each party’s rights and responsibilities.
4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.
5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.
6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.
7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.
8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.
9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.
10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.
11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.
12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.
13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.
14. Sanctions, including spoliation ﬁndings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.
Copyright © 2007 The Sedona Conference®. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.
Go to http://www.thesedonaconference.org/ to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.