Talk:Operations support system

Operations or Operational?

The assertion by Telecom Eng that Operations is correct and Operational is not is not true. I've worked in the field for over 15 years and have always heard it referred to as Operational. However, it's clear that there's actually no right or wrong answer - both are used, probably almost equally. So deleting the original named page and changing it without discussion seems wrong to me. I'd be interested in others' thoughts on the correct way to resolve the issue. --Phil Holmes 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My assertion is that Operations is correct based on over 35 years of experience in the telecommunications industry. From 1968 to 1979, I worked in Telco Operations on #5 Crossbar, #1 ESS, #4A-ETS/PBC, and TSPS network systems for the Bell System and have personally used many of these OSS systems. From 1979 to 1996, I worked on development of network systems for US Inter-Exchange Carriers. From 1996 to 2002, I worked on development of a UMTS wireless network for Korea. Written records of the era include the Bell System Technical Journal, Bell Labs Record, internal AT&T documents such as General Letters (GL's), Engineering Letters (EL's), Bell System Practices, and documents used in Federal Court in the early 1980's during anti-trust proceedings. My current employment deals with next-generation IP-Based network management operations systems. Current US standards including ANSI T1.210-2004 [[1]] use the term "operations". See the ATIS glossary at [[2]] for confirmation of proper use of the term "operations". See US Federal Law [47CFR36] [[3]] for definition of "operations" as "The term denoting the general classifications of services rendered to the public for which separate tariffs are filed, namely exchange, state toll, and interstate toll." Please excuse my procedural oversight in not discussing this item prior to making changes. Perhaps the word "operational" is the British use of the term? --Telecom_eng B.Sc., M.Sc. 18:00, 01 March 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly the term used in the UK, and it's my experience that it's used more globally. All presentations and discussions I've ever had in the context of the TeleManagement Forum have refered to "operational". I don't dispute that some locations, businesses and people refer to OSS as "operations". I do strongly dispute that one is right and the other wrong, and your changing the definition unilaterally was not helpful. I think the best solution might be to rename this definition as "Operational/Operations Support Systems" and point _both_ the other pages to this one. --Phil Holmes 12:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any industry standards, legal references, or other formally published industry documents that use the term "operational support systems"? Additional industry standards that utilize the "operations" term for network element management and systems management include ITU-T E-series standards [4] and M-series standards [5] , IEEE standards [6], ISO standards such as 13712-1995 [7], and Telcordia [8] documents. In the absence of other formal documentation for "operational", it seems that "operations" is the most technically correct and predominant usage. My understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines are to attribute encyclopedic content only to reliable sources. --Telecom_eng 13:00, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

Plural or capital?

To resume nitpicking on the article title, it is my understanding of Wiki style that nearly all titles are to be singular and uncapitalized, which would suggest a title of "Operations support system" even though the text would mostly use the plural form. After all, there is such a thing as using one operations support system at a time, such as COSMOS or SCCS; they don't operate only in conjunction as shoes do. Jim.henderson 16:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

SNMP/CMIP wars!

This:

A big issue of network and service management is the ability to manage and control the network elements of the access and core networks. Historically many efforts have been spent in standardization fora (ITU-T, 3GPP) in order to define standard protocol for network management, but with no successfully and practical results. On the other IETF SNMP protocol (Simple Network Management Protocol) has become the de-facto standard for internet and telco management, at the EML-NML communication level.

ignores CMIP, an important and very powerful network management facility used effectively in the OSS. CMIP was also a very important pioneer in object orientation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.7.128.220 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Famous OSS software

I've deleted a section starting to list OSS vendors. Think that could get out of control as an advertising activity. If it is wanted, I suggest a separate page would be more appropriate.--Phil Holmes 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil, over the years, many OSS vendors have come and gone. So, I think your edit was a good one. I also love the idea of a second page that might have at least two different lists; one for OSS vendors (all inclusive, past and present) and one for OSS applications themselves. TIRKS and a few other originals are listed on this page, rightfully because they were among the first. But there is a list of current OSS applications with the possibility of each having its own article (similar to the TIRKS article). Thoughts? TadgStirkland401 (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it could be interesting to get a list of OSS application vendors and their applications, but I think it would be really hard. It would also not cover all the application n use or that were used, since many of these were written by the telcos themsleves (I speak from hard-won experience in this!).--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Getting a list of what I call homegrown systems would be incredibly difficult. Maybe the list should only include OSS systems that were sold on the open market as opposed to those kept as internal systems. Something like Martens which was originally debeloped by a Canadian telco as a homegrown system, but now is used by a few companies. MetaSolv was originally created internally for an American telco as ASAP. Then, the developers made a deal which allowed them to create MetaSolv Software Inc, and they rebranded the software as TBS, today known as MetaSolv Solution and provided by Oracle. Granite likewise was built internally then eventually sold to others. So maybe we could limit the list to only systems that were sold to others. TadgStirkland401 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Phil Holmes: - I've done some more thinking on this. After looking around Wikipedia a bit more, I'm thinking for the time being, a list of OSS vendors and a list of OSS applications would be too short to warrant their own articles. I'm currently working on an article that will try to describe MetaSolv. It's the system I am most personally familiar with, but I need to find more sources to cite before it will be ready to publish. You can take a look here if you want to comment on it. Meanwhile, one of us could start a "list" in our Sandbox and see if we can grow it a bit, then decide where best to place it. I'm willing to keep it on my sandbox, if you want. What do you think? 15:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OSS and BSS

There was a section both the OSS and BSS pages referring to the TMF introducing "a communications domain model that provides the basis for clarifying the distinction between OSS and BSS systems". I can't find that work. The TMF's Telecom Application Map says "The term OSS is used to cover all the systems that are used by a telecom operator, sometimes referred to as OSS and BSS". I've therefore deleted the bit about the communications domain. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)