IMPROVEMENTS IN OR RELATING TO COMPUTER CONTROL SYSTEMS

Abstract: The states of resources in a computer-controlled system are logically related by arranging the resources in a hierarchical structure, each resource storing within itself the identities of those resources with which it interacts. Each resource is limited to a state not higher than that of those above it in the hierarchy and similarly limits the states of those below it.

Description: This invention relates to computer-controlled equipment, and in particular to computer-controlled telephone exchanges. In computer-controlled exchanges, as opposed to conventional exchanges of the Strowger type, control is exercised by a central unit, and interactions between separate pieces of equipment are by way of the central unit. CIJhereas a piece of Strowger equipment would interact directly with another piece to determine, if for example, it were engaged, in a computer-con,.rolled exchange the interaction would in many cases be on the basis of the states of the equipment stored in the central unit. When in a conventional exchange equipment is installed it has to be connected physically to other equipment which is modified to be able to work with the new equipment. In some cases, however, in a computercontrolled exchange the existence or not of some equipment is only determinable through the central unit. Further, some hardware functions in conventional exchanges become software functions in computercontrolled ones. It is an object of the present invention to provide improved means of interaction between resources of a computer-controlled telephone exchange. According to the invention there is provided a computer-controlled system including a plurality of interactive resources each of which may take one of a plurality of states wherein the identities of resources interacting with a given resource are stored within said given resource and in which a change of state of said given resource is only permitted when the states of the resources whose identities are stored within said given resource are compatible with said change. It is preferred that in the system a change of state in said given resource enables and initiates a change in state in a resource whose identity is stored in said given resource and which, but for the constraint of the previous state of said given resource, could legitimately have made that change of state. It is further preferred that the state of a said given resource is limited by a hypothetical resource comprising a logic element operating on the states of one or more resources whose identities are stored in said given resource. In the system there may be wherein there are five states. It is preferred that each state is of one of a plurality of ranked categories and each given resource is constrained to a state having a category not higher than a logical combination of the categories of the states of the resources whose identities are stored within said resource. It is further preferred that the resources of the system are arranged in a hierarchy, so that a given resource has stored within it the identity of resources above it in the hierarchy which limit its state and also has stored within it the identity of resources below it in the hierarchy whose states it limits. It is also preferred that one or more given resources may be interrogated to determine the states of any or all of the resources whose identities are stored in said given resource. In this specification the term resource will be used to indicate any party of any exchange, hardware or software, that can be made use of (or could be made use of) to provide exchange facilities. It should also be noted that storage of a resource identity may be both explicit and implicit, and in particular that it may be deduced via an algorithm or otherwise. Most resources in a modern telephone exchange are in fact a combination of hard and software. The invention will now be described by way of example only and with reference to the figures which show:- Fig 1, 3, 5 and 7 are arrangements of resources showing the interacting dependencies, Figs 2, 4, 6 and 8 are truth tables for particular resource dependencies. Every resource can take several states: Not equipped (NE) .......................... (a) Out of service (OOS) ....................... (b) Equipped (E) ) Test traffic allowed (TTA) ) ............... (c) In service (IS) ) (a), (b) and (c) are called categories. We define (a) to be less than (b) to be less than (c), and should note that every resource may not necessarily take every state. Each resource forms part of a hierarchy of resources: for example, before a 32-channel pcm system can be provided or used there must be a route for it to be provided on, and then only when the pcm system has been provided can each individual circuit be utilised. Further, each resource may depend on more than one other resource. For example only when there is a digital line termination to interface the circuits with the switchblock can there be a circuit provided so that a circuit depends on the digital line termination and the pcm system. In the resource hierarchy those resources immediately above are called parents, and those immediately below are called dependants. In general, the resource is not allowed to have a higher category than any parent. This is achieved by including in each resource a list of dependants and parents, and as has been said previously the identities of the parents and dependants may be stored implicitly or explicitly. In particular the implicit storage may include the use of an algorithm to determine the actual identity of the resource. On a command to change the state of a resource three things may happen: (a) a check on parents to see that the change is valid (b) a check on dependants to determine if as a result of the change by the resource the dependant may be required to change (c) a check on dependants to determine if, as a result of the change by the resource the dependant may now change to a higher state, and to initiate the change to that higher state. The need for step ;c) is to ensure that, if the resource that is to change state had been the only holding factor restraining a resource lower in the hierarchy to a lesser state, on the removal of this restraint not only is the dependant resource allowed to increase its state, but that this change is actually initiated. According as the system is arranged, the dependants may need to recheck that its change of state is permitted,, if an up-todate record is not maintained by the system. In a typical telephone exchange there could be for example 14 layers in the hierarchy. It is therefore necessary to consider what happens when a change to the state of a resource in the middle of the hierarchy is made. When a change to a lesser state is requested it is a reasonable assumption that no parent will restrict that change, and in fact in some systems it may be arranged that no check on parents is made when a change to a lower status is made. However the change is of great importance as far as the resources below the resource which is to be changed in the hierarchy are concerned. It may be necessary to propogate a change of resources through the hierarchy below that resource which is to be changed, down to the lowest level. This is achIeved by searching down through the hierarchy, first looking at the dependants of the resource to be changed, and identifying those that need to be changed to a lesser state to enable change of the original resource to its lesser state to be allowed. These dependants are then checked, as new resources wanting to change, for their dependants allowing them to change, and so on down through the hierarchy. When it has been ascertained that all the changes consequent upon the original demand can be made then the changes are initiated from the bottom up so that the lowest levels are changed first and then gradually up through the hierarchy until the original resource whose change of state was requested is changed. The precise manner of the searches through the hierarchy to order the changes could be arranged in one of several ways. For a change to a greater state of a resource the problem is much simpler since it can be presumed that only resources above it in the hierarchy will influence it. In this case the matter is quite simple in that a search has only to be made of the parents, for it is presumed that each resource is at the highest state which it is permitted to have, as a consequence of the automatic check outlined in (c) above. It is found to be advantageous to introduce the concept of a "hypothetical parent". Whereas in many cases the actual state of a parent limits the state of the resource in the straight forward way, in others it can only be allowed to limit it subject to certain other constraints. These may, for example be: (a) two or more parents (b) manual intervention (c) special circumstances Examples of these will now be given. The truth tables show the value of z, which controls 'the resource. Here thefact that all-states have been shown in the tables referred to specific resources does not mean that each resource shown takes all those states. In particular for some resources the only two states will be 'not equipped' and 'equipped' and 'equipped' is not usually a possible state for a resource which may have the state 'out of service'. Referring to rigs 1 and 2, in Fig I there is shown a circuit (CCT) which is a dependant of both a band (B) Cwhich could be pcm system) and a-digital line termination (DLT). Fig 1 summarises the dependance of CCT on DLT and B, and shows the AND function as the hypothetical parent. The truth table shown in Fig 2 is the truth table for the arrangement of Fig 1 and it will be seen that the output controlling CCT is the lowest of either of the inputs from DLT and B. This is the normal situation. However an alternative two parents situation might exist, as shown in Fig 3. Here, a DLT requires one of two time switches (TS1 and TS2) to work, but both TSs must be provided initially because one is a standby for another. An OR hypothetical parent is used, and the truth table is shown in Fig 4. In this case it will be seen that whereas both TSs must be provided for the DLT to be provided only one of them need be in the highest state for the DLT to be in the highest state. The term 'provided' means, of course, any state that but 'not equipped'. A further case is manual intervention shown in Fig 5. Here a resource P depends on Q. If Q is NE or OOS, P must be NE or OOS respectively. However, if Q is IS, TTA or E, then P may only be so if a manual override is set. Fig 6 shows the truth table for the situation. One example of a special circumstance is illustrated in Figs 7 and 8, Fig 7 being the hierarchy and Fig 8 being the truth table. It is to cover the case where a resource must be equipped before its parent, although it must not be put into service until its parent is in service. Here a logical function S1 modifies the state of the parent 0 to produce the appropriate control on the resource N. Obviously many more examples of logical functions to provide for other special or more common circumstances can be given, but they follow the general principle outlined in the description. Thus in the hierarchy of resources in the telephone exchange under consideration, each resource is contrained to a state less than or equal to that of a real or hypothetical parent and at the same time acts as a real parent or an input to a logic function to produce a hypothetical parent for resources below it in the hierarchy. In this way it can be easily assured that the reactions between the resources in the computer-controlled exchange are under control, and logically conflicting situations can not occur. A further advantage of the arrangement as described is that it becomes possible to monitor the state of resources in the hierarchy very'simply. A particular resource in the hierarchy may be additionally given a monitor function and, by .utilising the lists of dependants which it already has and utilising the programmes already--provided for interrogating them and determining their states, and output can be provided which shows the states of the dependants with relatively little extra programming and work.

Claims: CLAIMS 1 A computer-controlled system including a plurality of interactive resources each of which may take one of a plurality of states wherein the identities of resources interacting with a given resource are stored within said given-resource and in which a change of state of said given resource is only permitted when the states of the resources whose identities are stored within said given resource are compatible with said change. 2 A system as claimed in claim 1 wherein a change 6f state in said given resource enables and initiates a change in state in a resource whose identity is stored in said given resource and which, but for the constraint of the previous state of said given resource, could legitimately have made that change of state. 3 A system as claimed in claims 1 and 2 wherein the state of said given resource is limited by a hypothetical resource comprising a logic element operating on the states of one or more resources whose identities are stored in said given resource. 4 A system as claimed in claims 1 to 3, wherein there are five states. 5 A system as claimed in claims 1 to 4 wherein each state is of one of a plurality of ranked categories and each given resource is constrained to a state having a category not higher than a logical combination of the categories of the states of the resources whose identities are stored within said resource. 6 A system as claimed in claims 1 to 5 wherein the resources of the system are arranged in a hierarchy, so th v a given resource has stored within it the identity of resources above it in the hierarchy which limit its state and also has stored within it the identity of resources below it in the hierarchy whose states it limits. 7 A system, as claimed in any preceding claim, in which one or more given resources may be interrogated to determine the states of any or all of the resources whose identities are stored in said given resource. 8 A system outstantially as hereinbefore described and with reference to Figures 1 - 8.

Inventors: WILLIAMS, ANTHONY
Applicants: THE POST OFFICE
Application year: 1981
Main classification: H04Q3
IPC codes: H04M3, H04Q3, H04Q11, G06F9