On 16:43 19/08/03, Alex Rousskov said:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, jfcm wrote:
> At 23:41 18/08/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> >
> >That's fine, but you need a better definition of a domain and/or
> >operator. The original "OPES domain is the area of reponsibility of
> >an operator" does not imply the above explanation.
> >
> >Also, since you leave domain boundaries for the operator to decide,
> >you need to explain how conflicts (two operators think they are
> >responsible for the same domain and instruct their processors to
> >update the trace accordingly) and misses (no operator claims
> >responsibility for a domain/processor).
>
> I must go. But I think better anyway to proceed with a general
> response and see what you objet as I do not understand your
> question. So I suppose there is confusion to clarify.
>
> Let stick to the Airline image. And let take the following analogy
> (different of the one I took with Markus, but as good and clearer
> here).
>
> A jet = processor
> An airline = domain - area of responsibility of the ariline operator.
> An alliance (or a tour or a travel I organize, etc.) = a system
>
> Are all your questions answered or not?
> If not where are you difficulties coming from?
> The analogy or from not addressed conflicts?
I can use the airline analogy to illustrate what is missing in your
definitions, though it may not be a perfect example:
Usually a good one. Let take it as long as it does not fail us.
Lack of responsibility:
here you confuse system and domain operator.
1. as a user you go and see the system. Since you chose the image of a tour
operator, the ystem for the user is the group operator. Period.
2. as a tour operator. i.e. a system. Your problem is to find back the
luggage. And believe me, from experience as an operator _every relevant
infromation_ to do that is necessary.
Your tour group arrives at the destination
with their bags lost. They call you (the
"system" contact point) to complain. You tell
them that the bags are not your responsibility
and they should check with the last jet airline.
Then they sue you and win.
They go to the last airline, Northwest Airlines.
Nroth West will not speak to them. They do not even know them as
passengers. They only know you as a tour, etc....
Northwest tells them that the last leg on their
itinerary was operated by KLM and they have to
complain to KLM. KLM says that based on their
agreement with Northwest, Northwest is responsible
for the lost baggage.
Thus, your group has contacted three suspects and all refused
to take responsibility. Since your definitions rely
on somebody to accept/define responsibility, it is not clear
who is at fault here.
I nover said that. I said that it is to people to accept to be a domain
operator for a CPU/jet.
That is to have the responibility of a domain. I selfom saw a jet takingof
without pilot.
Double responsibility:
Upon arrival, your tour group discovers that they
were awarded twice the miles they should have been
because both KLM and Northwest airlines took the
responsibility to award miles for the trip.
Who will complain :-)
Each
individual airline claims it had the right to do
that since they can define the area of responsibility any way
they want.
You probably missed one point again in confusing reponsibility and domain
of responsibility (strange that such an obvious notion to any operational
person can be a problem to you.). No CPU - jet - can have two owners or no
owner. Fact of the life. You may tell your neighbor that his wife is yours,
but usually law prevents this not to be a bug.
jfc