`open systems': no one can agree...

[ip at mill.me.toronto.edu]

In article <192 at ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM> hl.rogers at ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers) writes:
>In article <11671 at mimsy.UUCP> chris at mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>>I get the feeling that every single person who has posted an opinion
>>about OSF has a different definition of an `open system'.  So:  Just
>>what *is* an `open system'?  What makes a system `open'?
>>
>
>Wow!  A chance to define *open*!  Let's start with my American Heritage
>Dictionary of the English Language:
>
> ....... <stuff deleted>
>
>Using the American Heritage definition and my interpretation,
>there is *no* movement to provide an open system.
>
>Sigh.....I guess I was just being a romantic today.

Here's some ideas of what an "open system" is from the book "Building An
Open System" by Slonim, et al.

	"In the context of computer systems, open systems are those
	 characterized by flows of data across boundaries between autonomous
	 systems."

	"Therefore, in this context (ISO/OSI), 'open system' will refer to a
	 computer organized and operated in such a way that it can be easily
	 connected to other independently organized and operated systems
	 through telecommunication links in order to exchange data on an
	 as-needed basis."

"What makes a system 'open'?" Technologically, it involves a lot of issues
that the discussion will be very long (and I'm not well qualified), so I'll
skip it here.  But in general, it involves communications, operating
systems, databases, languages, etc.

bevis
-- 
Bevis Ip	University of Toronto, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
UUCP :  {allegra,decwrl,decvax,ihnp4!utcsri  pyramid,uunet!utai}!me!ip
ARPA :  ip%me.toronto.edu at csnet-relay.arpa
CSNet:  ip at me.toronto.edu		BitNet:  ip at me.UTORONTO