JP2009087290A - Station service apparatus, and station service system - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To prevent occurrence of a similar failure without correcting a program even when a failure occurs in fare calculation. <P>SOLUTION: A set of a failure occurrence pattern in the case where a failure occurs to specific medium information by trouble of a fare calculation program, and a failure avoidance action for avoiding the failure is previously stored in a storage means as a failure prevention rule. Whether medium information read from a boarding medium coincides with the failure occurrence pattern stored in the storage means is determined, and, when it is determined that the medium information coincides with the failure occurrence pattern, a failure avoidance action designated by the failure prevention rule corresponding to the failure occurrence pattern is executed. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2009,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to station service equipment such as an automatic ticket gate and an automatic checkout machine, and more particularly to a technique for preventing a failure caused by a failure in a fare calculation program.

  Station equipment such as an automatic ticket gate and an automatic checkout machine is equipped with a fare calculation program, and a usage fee is calculated according to this program. For example, when a boarding medium such as a prepaid card or a compound ticket that combines the functions of a commuter pass and a prepaid card is inserted into an automatic ticket gate, the fare is calculated using a fare calculation program, and the calculated fare is calculated as the balance of the boarding medium. I have to withdraw from the collection.

  However, due to program deficiencies, fare calculations may be incorrect, and fares higher than the regular fare may be collected. If such a failure occurs, it will cause unexpected damage to the user, and measures to prevent erroneous receipt of fees due to program defects are required. A well-known countermeasure is a program multiplexing system.

  In order to improve the reliability of the program, the program multiplexing system has two or more independently developed programs that perform the same operation, execute each program on input data, and obtain the execution results. This is a redundant system that verifies the correctness of the execution result of the program by confirming that there is no difference in everything. Station affairs systems that apply program multiplexing to fare calculation are already in operation, and such systems are also disclosed in Patent Documents 1 to 3 listed below.

  In Patent Document 1, it is determined whether or not the medium information read from the boarding medium matches the pattern causing the failure. If they match, the NG process is performed immediately. If the results calculated by the two fare calculation programs are collated (comparing the execution results for each output item) and the results do not match, the system that performs NG processing after registering as a new failure occurrence pattern It is disclosed.

  In Patent Document 2, the fare calculation by the fare calculation program is executed in each of the automatic ticket gate and other station service equipment, and the calculation results are collated. A corresponding system is disclosed. In addition, if it is found that there is a problem with the fare calculation program in the automatic ticket gate, it makes an inquiry to other station service equipment and uses the calculation result in the other station service equipment to perform the checkout process in the automatic ticket gate. A system for performing is disclosed. In addition, if it turns out that an error in the fare calculation occurs under certain conditions in the automatic ticket gates, the settlement process will be performed using the calculation results of other station service equipment only for the conditions by handling the staff. Setting is also disclosed.

  In Patent Document 3, a usage fee is calculated using a plurality of programs, and the respective fees are collated. If the fees do not match, a predetermined process is prohibited, and mismatch data is notified to the host device. A system is disclosed in which a staff member confirms data, creates new program data with a correct fee, transmits new program data to each station service device, and modifies the program.

JP 2006-293677 A JP 2005-135270 A JP 2007-111488 A

  By adopting multiplexing in the fare calculation program, it is possible to detect the occurrence of a failure when there is a difference in the calculation results of each program. However, if the program is a two-duplex system, either program is used. It can only be known that there is a defect, and it cannot automatically determine which is the correct program. Therefore, when a failure occurrence is detected, conventionally, as in Patent Document 1, it is only possible to execute an NG process such as closing a door at the time of detection, and the process cannot be performed based on a correct calculation result. . However, this method has a problem that since the process is uniformly shifted to NG processing when a failure occurs, it is necessary to take care of a clerk each time and the rate at which smooth passage of the user is hindered increases.

  On the other hand, if the method disclosed in Patent Document 2 is used to perform processing using the calculation results of other station service devices, it is not necessary to stop the operation of the automatic ticket gate. The problem of traffic obstruction is eliminated. However, with this method, if there is a problem with the fare calculation program of another station service device, an error in the fare calculation still occurs, and it is not possible to prevent erroneous receipt of the fare. is there.

  Therefore, finally, as in Patent Document 3, it is necessary for the clerk to verify the data related to the occurrence of the failure and to remove the defect in the fare calculation program. However, when a program is corrected for defect removal, an unexpected operation may be caused. In this case, it is extremely difficult to completely grasp in advance the range in which the influence of the correction is spread. For this reason, when a failure occurs in the field, responding urgently with program correction may induce an unexpected secondary failure, which is high risk.

  In view of the circumstances described above, an object of the present invention is to provide a station service device and a station service system that can prevent the occurrence of a similar problem in advance without correcting a program even when a problem occurs in fare calculation. To do.

  A station service device according to the present invention is a station service device that reads medium information recorded on a boarding medium and calculates a usage fee by a fare calculation program based on the medium information. A storage unit is provided in which a combination of a failure occurrence pattern when a failure occurs in the medium information and a failure avoidance action for avoiding the failure is stored as a failure prevention rule. In addition, when the determination unit determines whether the read medium information matches the failure occurrence pattern stored in the storage unit, and the determination unit determines the match between the medium information and the failure occurrence pattern, Processing means for executing a failure avoidance action specified by a failure prevention rule corresponding to the failure occurrence pattern.

  According to the present invention as described above, when a failure based on the failure of the fare calculation program occurs, the failure avoidance action corresponding to the failure occurrence pattern is extracted and the action is executed. For this reason, even if you do not modify the program as a response to the occurrence of a failure, the failure avoidance action prepared in advance can be executed to prevent the occurrence of a similar failure before processing is performed properly. Can do.

  In the present invention, when the fare calculation program is composed of a plurality of programs, the program name of one of the fare calculation programs selected from the plurality of programs is described in the obstacle avoidance action, and the processing means is selected. Embodiments that execute a fare calculation program may be employed. According to this, by specifying a fare calculation program that operates correctly in the failure avoidance action, it is possible to perform processing using a correct fare calculation result without modifying the fare calculation program.

  In the present invention, an embodiment is adopted in which the program name of a fare calculation program designated as a resource on the network is described in the obstacle avoidance action, and the processing means executes the designated fare calculation program. May be. According to this, by specifying and executing a fare calculation program possessed by another apparatus, there is no need to multiplex the program in the same terminal, and there is an advantage that the multiplexing system can be designed flexibly.

  In the present invention, the correct fare calculation result calculated in advance is described in the obstacle avoidance action, and the processing means performs processing using the usage fee based on the fare calculation result without executing the fare calculation program. Such an embodiment may be adopted. According to this, by obtaining a correct calculation result in advance and including it in the action, it is possible to perform processing using the correct fare calculation result without modifying the fare calculation program.

  Next, a station service system according to the present invention is a station service system including the station service device described above and a management device connected to the station service device, and a failure occurrence pattern for medium information in which a failure has occurred. Is generated and transmitted to the management device. The management apparatus has a failure avoidance action editing means for creating a failure avoidance action for the failure occurrence pattern sent from the failure occurrence pattern generation means. In addition, the management device includes a failure prevention rule management unit that registers and manages a set of a failure occurrence pattern and a failure avoidance action correspondingly created by the failure avoidance action editing unit as a failure prevention rule.

  According to the present invention as described above, when a failure based on a failure of the fare calculation program occurs in the station service device, the failure occurrence pattern is transmitted to the management device. Therefore, based on the verification of the pattern, the failure avoidance action editing A failure avoidance action can be created by means. Then, every time a failure occurs, a failure prevention rule consisting of a combination of a failure occurrence pattern and a failure avoidance action can be registered. For this reason, even if you do not modify the program as a response when a failure occurs, executing the failure avoidance action corresponding to the failure occurrence pattern prevents the occurrence of a similar failure before the process is performed properly. can do.

  In the present invention, when the station service device is composed of a plurality of station service devices, an embodiment in which the failure prevention rule management means distributes the registered failure prevention rules to each station service device may be adopted. According to this, it is possible to prevent a fare calculation failure from occurring in any station service device by simultaneously distributing the failure prevention rules from the management device to each station service device.

  In the present invention, an embodiment may further be adopted that further includes failure occurrence pattern editing means for describing and creating a failure occurrence pattern by a logical expression. According to this, the failure occurrence pattern can be generalized (generalized) and described by a logical expression, so it is not necessary to generate all the media information that causes the failure as a failure occurrence pattern, and the failure prevention rules can be managed. It becomes easy and the speed of pattern matching can be increased.

  According to the present invention, even when a failure occurs in the fare calculation, there is an effect that it is possible to prevent the occurrence of a similar failure in advance without correcting the program.

  First, a brief description will be given of a program multiplexing system that is a premise of an embodiment described later. Program multiplexing systems are classified into two types, “synchronized matching type” and “delayed matching type”, depending on the timing of matching. In the following, to simplify the explanation, a redundant redundant system having two programs is taken as an example.

  FIG. 15 shows a synchronous multiplex type program multiplexing system. In the case of the synchronous matching type, the target system (for example, an automatic ticket gate) has two programs A and B, processes the respective programs simultaneously on the input information, and matches the execution results. In other words, the timing of the match is when the programs A and B are executed. If there is a difference between the two execution results in the match result, it is considered that either of the two programs A and B has a defect that causes a failure.

  FIG. 16 shows a delay match type program multiplexing system. In the case of the delay matching type, the target system (for example, an automatic ticket gate device) has one program A, and the higher-level device (for example, PC) has another program B (control program). Then, with respect to all input information within a certain period in which the target system has executed processing by program A, the host device executes processing by program B for the same input information after the lapse of a certain period, We will meet after the fact. That is, the timing of the match is after a certain period has elapsed since the execution of the program A. Also in this case, if there is a difference between both execution results in the match result, it is considered that either of the two programs A and B has a defect that causes a failure.

  Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

  FIG. 1 is a system configuration diagram of a first embodiment of the present invention. Here, only the components related to the present invention are represented as functional blocks. In this embodiment, the above-described synchronous collision type program multiplexing system is employed.

  Reference numeral 1 denotes an automatic ticket gate device as station service equipment installed at a station, and 2 denotes a management device connected to the automatic ticket gate device 1 by a line. Although a plurality of automatic ticket gates 1 are actually installed, only one is shown in FIG. The management device 2 includes a server installed in a staff room or a management center of a station, for example. The automatic ticket gate 1 and the management device 2 constitute a station service system.

  The automatic ticket gate apparatus 1 includes a fare calculation processing unit 10. In the fare calculation processing unit 10, 11 is a failure prevention processing unit that performs processing for preventing occurrence of a fare calculation failure based on the medium information a read from the ticket and a failure prevention rule f described later. . 12 is a fare calculation unit that performs fare calculation by the fare calculation program A, 13 is a fare calculation unit that performs fare calculation by the fare calculation program B, and 14 is a result of matching the calculation results b and c in the fare calculation units 12 and 13 It is a calculation result matching part that outputs d. Reference numeral 15 denotes a failure occurrence pattern generation unit that generates a failure occurrence pattern e, which will be described later, and transmits it to the management apparatus 2 when the calculation results b and c do not match in the match at the calculation result matching unit 14. Reference numeral 16 denotes a local failure prevention rule management unit that manages the failure prevention rule f distributed from the management device 2, and 17 denotes a local failure prevention rule DB (DB is a database; the same applies hereinafter) that stores the failure prevention rule f.

  The management apparatus 2 includes a master failure prevention rule management unit 21, a master failure prevention rule DB 22, a failure avoidance action editing unit 23, and a failure occurrence pattern editing unit 24. The master failure prevention rule management unit 21 receives and collects failure occurrence patterns e sent from the automatic ticket gate apparatus 1 and stores them in the master failure prevention rule DB 22 for management. Further, a set of the failure occurrence pattern created by the failure occurrence pattern editing unit 24 and the failure avoidance action created by the failure avoidance action editing unit 23 is stored in the master failure prevention rule DB 22 as a failure prevention rule. Further, the failure prevention rule stored in the master failure prevention rule DB 22 is transmitted to the automatic ticket gate device 1 at regular intervals, and the failure prevention rule in the automatic ticket gate device 1 is updated.

  The failure avoidance action editing unit 23 includes a UIF (user interface). Here, a failure avoidance action for avoiding a failure is created by operating the UIF for the failure occurrence pattern e sent from the automatic ticket gate 1.

  The failure occurrence pattern editing unit 24 is also composed of a UIF. Here, based on the results of scrutiny of the failure cause pattern e sent from the automatic ticket gate 1 such as the cause of failure and the scope of influence, the UIF operation deletes attributes that are not related to the failure occurrence or triggers the failure occurrence. A new failure occurrence pattern is described by a logical expression by setting the range of the attribute to be generated.

  FIG. 2 is a diagram showing the configuration of the automatic ticket gate 1 in hardware blocks. Reference numeral 30 denotes a communication control device for communicating with the management device 2 via a communication line 100 such as a LAN (Local Area Network). Reference numeral 31 denotes a CPU that controls the operation of the automatic ticket gate apparatus 1 while performing processing such as calculation of a fare, determination of the occurrence of a failure, and determination of whether or not traffic is allowed. Reference numeral 32 denotes a memory for temporarily storing data. A medium reading unit 33 reads medium information recorded on a boarding medium such as a ticket, commuter pass, and prepaid card. The medium reading unit 33 includes a magnetic head that reads information on a magnetic ticket and an antenna that reads information on a non-contact card. Reference numeral 34 denotes a door opening / closing control unit that controls the opening / closing of a gate door (not shown) provided in the automatic ticket gate 1 based on the determination result of whether or not the CPU 31 can pass. Reference numeral 35 denotes a display unit that displays guidance for the customer.

  Reference numeral 36 denotes a storage device such as a hard disk which stores a fare calculation program (A) 41, a fare calculation program (B) 42, and a calculation result matching program 43. Reference numeral 37 denotes a storage device such as a hard disk, which stores a failure prevention processing program 44, a failure occurrence pattern generation program 45, a local failure prevention rule management program 46, and the local failure prevention rule DB 17 shown in FIG. In this example, two storage devices 36 and 37 are provided, but all the programs 41 to 46 and the database 17 may be stored in one storage device.

  The fare calculation programs 41 and 42 use the medium information recorded on the boarding medium such as an IC card or a magnetic ticket as input, perform the fare calculation and the remaining amount calculation based on the fare data, and whether or not there is an unauthorized use or within the valid period This is a program that determines whether or not to use and outputs the results.

  The calculation result matching program 43 is a program for comparing the calculation results output from each of the fare calculation programs 41 and 42 and checking whether there is a difference. If there is no difference in the calculation results, it is determined that both programs are operating correctly, and the calculation results are output. If there is a difference in the calculation results, it is determined that one of the programs is defective, and an NG determination (False value) is output.

  Each time the media information is read, the failure prevention processing program 44 retrieves the failure prevention rules one by one from the local failure prevention rule DB 17 and collates the input medium information with the failure occurrence pattern. This program executes the failure avoidance action specified in.

  The failure occurrence pattern generation program 45 is a program that generates a failure occurrence pattern based on the input medium information and transmits this to the master failure prevention rule management unit 21 when there is a difference in the match result by the calculation result match program 43. is there.

  The local failure prevention rule management program 46 receives the failure prevention rule transmitted from the master failure prevention rule management unit 21 and stores it in the local failure prevention rule DB 17 or extracts the failure prevention rule from the local failure prevention rule DB 17. It is a program to do.

  1 is configured by the CPU 31 and the fare calculation program (A) 41, the fare calculation unit 13 is configured by the CPU 31 and the fare calculation program (B) 42, and the calculation result matching is performed by the CPU 31 and the calculation result matching program 43. Part 14 is configured. The CPU 31 and the failure prevention processing program 44 constitute the failure prevention processing unit 11, the CPU 31 and the failure occurrence pattern generation program 45 constitute the failure occurrence pattern generation unit 15, and the CPU 31 and the local failure prevention rule management program 46 constitute a local failure The prevention rule management unit 16 is configured.

  FIG. 3 is a diagram showing the configuration of the management apparatus 2 in hardware blocks. Reference numeral 50 denotes a communication control device for communicating with the automatic ticket gate 1 via a communication line 100 such as a LAN. A CPU 51 controls the operation of the management apparatus 2. Reference numeral 52 denotes a memory for temporarily storing data. 53 is a UIF (user interface) for creating a failure occurrence pattern and a failure avoidance action, and includes an operation unit 54 including a keyboard and a display unit 55 including a liquid crystal display. . Reference numeral 56 denotes a storage device such as a hard disk, which stores a master failure prevention rule management program 61, a failure avoidance action editing program 62, a failure occurrence pattern editing program 63, and the master failure prevention rule DB 22 shown in FIG. .

  The master failure prevention rule management program 61 stores a failure occurrence pattern sent from each automatic ticket checker 1 in the master failure prevention rule DB 22, or a failure avoidance action created by the failure avoidance action editing unit 23, or a failure occurrence. The failure occurrence pattern created by the pattern editing unit 24 is stored in the master failure prevention rule DB 22, or the failure prevention rule stored in the master failure prevention rule DB 22 is transmitted to each automatic ticket checker 1 at regular intervals. It is a program.

  The failure avoidance action editing program 62 is a program for creating a failure avoidance action that is processing for avoiding a failure for a certain failure occurrence pattern.

  The failure pattern editing program 63 generates a new failure occurrence pattern that is generalized by, for example, expressing failure occurrence conditions as a set based on the analysis result of each failure occurrence pattern transmitted from the automatic ticket gate 1. It is a program for creating.

  The master failure prevention rule management unit 21 of FIG. 1 is configured by the CPU 51 and the master failure prevention rule management program 61, and the failure avoidance action editing unit 23 is configured by the CPU 51, the UIF 53, and the failure avoidance action editing program 62, and the CPU 51, UIF 53, and failure The occurrence pattern editing program 63 constitutes the failure occurrence pattern editing unit 24.

  In the above configuration, the storage device 37 constitutes an embodiment of the storage means in the present invention. The failure prevention processing unit 11 constitutes an embodiment of the determination unit and the processing unit in the present invention. The failure occurrence pattern generation unit 15 constitutes an embodiment of failure occurrence pattern generation means in the present invention. The master failure prevention rule management unit 21 constitutes an embodiment of the failure prevention rule management means in the present invention. The failure avoidance action editing unit 23 constitutes an embodiment of the failure avoidance action editing means in the present invention. The failure occurrence pattern editing unit 24 constitutes an embodiment of failure occurrence pattern editing means in the present invention.

  Next, a failure occurrence pattern will be described. The failure occurrence pattern is expressed as a set of attributes (items) of medium information and input values (data read from the boarding medium) for each attribute when a failure occurs due to a program defect.

FIG. 4 is an example of one failure occurrence pattern. Here, the following items are listed as attributes: ticket type, usage type, boarding station, latest boarding / exiting station, regular section departure station, regular section arrival station, and remaining amount. In this example, as the input value, the ticket type is IC compound ticket, the usage type is adult, the boarding station is Y Electric Railway C Station, the latest boarding station is Y Electric Railway U Station, and the regular departure station is X Electric Railway A Station In the example where a failure occurs when the regular section arrival station is X Electric Railway B Station and the remaining amount is 2000 yen (that is, the calculation results b and c in the fare calculation units 12 and 13 do not match). is there. This failure occurrence pattern is described as a conditional expression based on a logical expression as follows.
Failure pattern:
([Ticket type] = IC compound ticket) and ([use type] = adult) and ([boarding station] = Y electric railway C station) and ([latest boarding station] = Y electric railway U station) and ([departure from a regular section) Station] = X Electric Railway A Station) and ([Terminal Station Arrival Station] = X Electric Railway B Station) and ([Balance] = 2000 yen) (1)

  By the way, the failure in the fare calculation does not always occur with respect to only one medium information, and the same failure may occur with other medium information. For example, in the example of FIG. 4, not only the case where the boarding station is Y Electric Railway C Station, but also the case where the same failure occurs for all Y Electric Railway stations, and the case where the regular section departure station is X Electric Railway A Station In this case, the same failure occurs when the vehicle is in the section from A station to G station. In such a case, if all media information that causes a failure is individually generated as a failure occurrence pattern, the amount of data becomes enormous. However, a logical expression that conditions the input values for a given attribute based on a magnitude relationship or a collective inclusion relationship The failure occurrence pattern is generalized and can be reduced in data amount.

FIG. 5 is an example of such a generalized failure occurrence pattern. In this example, the failure occurs when the ticket type is an IC compound ticket, the usage type is either adult or child, the boarding station is all Y Electric Railway stations, and the remaining amount is a non-zero ticket. is there. This failure occurrence pattern is described as a conditional expression based on a logical expression as follows.
Failure pattern:
([Ticket type] = IC compound ticket) and ([use type] = adult or [use type] = child) and ([boarding station] ⊂Y Electric Railway all stations) and ([remaining amount]> 0 yen) (2)

  Next, the failure avoidance action will be described. The failure avoidance action is instruction information that describes the processing contents to be executed in order to avoid the occurrence of a failure, and one failure avoidance action is created for one failure occurrence pattern. This creation is performed by a business operator or system developer who can judge the fare calculation specifications.

  FIG. 6 shows an example of the failure avoidance action. In this example, the program name of one of the fare calculation programs selected from a plurality of fare calculation programs (a program that has been verified to work correctly) is described, and the “Select execution action” that executes this program is there. In FIG. 6A, the fare calculation program A is designated among the fare calculation programs A and B installed in the automatic ticket gate apparatus 1, and the occurrence of a failure is avoided by executing this program. In FIG. 6B, a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of a fare calculation program arranged as a resource on the network is specified outside the automatic ticket gate apparatus 1, and the occurrence of a failure is avoided by executing this program. .

  FIG. 7 shows another example of the failure avoidance action. This example is a “valid result application action” in which a correct fare calculation result calculated in advance is described and this result is applied as it is. In this action, the fare calculation program is not executed. In this action, since the input value must be uniquely determined for the result, all the conditional expressions of the corresponding failure occurrence pattern are described with equal signs as in the above-described equation (1) in FIG. Therefore, a description including a set or an inequality sign such as the expression (2) in the case of FIG. 5 is not allowed.

  FIG. 8 shows “matching action” when the medium information does not correspond to the failure occurrence pattern. This is not a failure avoidance action, but is set as a default action executed in the case of normal operation. In this case, the fare calculation by the two fare calculation programs A and B is executed as usual, and the calculation results are collated.

  The actions in FIGS. 6 to 8 described above are actions that are employed in the synchronous match type program multiplexing system. In the delayed match type program multiplexing system, the actions shown in FIGS. 9 and 10 are employed, which will be described later.

  Next, the failure prevention rule will be described. The failure prevention rule is composed of a combination of a failure occurrence pattern and a failure avoidance action, and one failure prevention rule is composed of one failure occurrence pattern and one failure avoidance action corresponding thereto.

  FIG. 11 shows an example of the failure prevention rule. In this example, when media information that matches the failure occurrence pattern of FIG. 4 is input, a calculation error occurs when the calculation is performed by the fare calculation program B, and a correct calculation result is obtained when the calculation is performed by the fare calculation program A. In this example, the fare calculation program A is designated as the program name of the obstacle avoidance action. That is, the rule that “the fare calculation program A is executed for the failure occurrence pattern as shown in FIG. 4” is defined. By executing the fare calculation program A, a correct calculation result can be obtained and no failure occurs.

  FIG. 12 shows another example of the failure prevention rule. In this example, when media information matching the failure occurrence pattern of FIG. 5 is input, a calculation error occurs when the calculation is performed by the fare calculation program A, and a correct calculation result is obtained when the calculation is performed by the fare calculation program B. Since it is obtained, it is an example in which the fare calculation program B is specified as the program name of the obstacle avoidance action. That is, the rule that “the fare calculation program B is executed for the failure occurrence pattern as shown in FIG. 5” is defined. By executing the fare calculation program B, a correct calculation result is obtained and no failure occurs.

  Next, the operation of the system of FIG. 1 will be described based on a specific example.

[Case 1]
In the automatic ticket gate 1, it is assumed that a boarding ticket on which medium information a is recorded is inserted. If the medium information a does not match the failure occurrence pattern f of the failure prevention rule stored in the local failure prevention rule DB 17, the failure prevention processing unit 11 executes the collision execution action shown in FIG. Thereby, the fare calculation units 12 and 13 perform the fare calculation according to the fare calculation programs A and B, respectively. Then, as a result of matching the respective calculation results b and c in the calculation result matching unit 14, they do not match. For example, the withdrawal amount calculated by the fare calculation unit 12 is calculated by the fare calculation unit 13. Suppose that there is a difference of 100 yen more than the withdrawal amount.

  In this case, the failure pattern generation unit 15 transmits to the management device 2 the failure pattern e of the medium information a for which the result of the match at the calculation result matching unit 14 does not match. This transmission is performed via the communication line 100 by the communication control device 30 (FIG. 2). In the management device 2, the master failure prevention rule management unit 21 receives the failure occurrence pattern e sent from the automatic ticket gate device 1. In this example, it is assumed that the failure occurrence pattern e is the pattern shown in FIG. For this failure occurrence pattern, for example, a failure avoidance action as shown in FIG. 6A is manually created in the failure avoidance action editing unit 23, and a pair of the created failure avoidance action and failure occurrence pattern is illustrated in FIG. The failure prevention rule such as 11 is registered in the master failure prevention rule DB 22.

  Thereafter, the master failure prevention rule management unit 21 reads out the newly registered failure prevention rule f from the master failure prevention rule DB 22 and distributes it to all automatic ticket gates 1 connected to the management device 2. This distribution is performed via the communication line 100 by the communication control device 50 (FIG. 3). In the automatic ticket gate 1, the failure prevention rule f distributed from the management device 2 is received by the local failure prevention rule management unit 16 and stored in the local failure prevention rule DB 17.

  In the automatic ticket gate 1, the failure prevention processing program 44 (FIG. 2) of the failure prevention processing unit 11 is activated each time the medium information of the ticket is read and input by the medium reading unit 33. When this program is started, the local failure prevention rule management unit 16 takes out the failure prevention rules f one by one from the local failure prevention rule DB 17 and collates the retrieved failure prevention rules f with the input medium information a. Is performed in the failure prevention processing unit 11.

  If the medium information a and the failure occurrence pattern of the failure prevention rule f do not match as a result of this collation, the next failure prevention rule f is extracted and collated with the medium information a, and collation with all failure prevention rules is performed. Repeat until is complete. On the other hand, when a boarding medium in which the medium information corresponding to the pattern of FIG. 4 is recorded is entered, the failure occurrence pattern of the medium information a and the failure prevention rule f matches, and therefore specified by the failure prevention rule f. The specified failure avoidance action. That is, according to the rules of FIG. 11, the selection execution action is executed, and the fare calculation by the fare calculation program A is performed. Since the fare calculation is correctly performed by executing this failure avoidance action, it is possible to apply a failure to a ticket in which medium information having the same pattern as the failure occurrence pattern of the failure prevention rule f registered once (pattern in FIG. 4) is recorded. Can be prevented from occurring.

[Case 2]
As a result of analyzing the failure occurrence pattern sent from the automatic ticket gate 1 to the management device 2 at each station, the ticket type is an IC compound ticket, the usage type is either adult or child, and the boarding station is all Y Electric Railway stations Then, it is assumed that the same failure occurs in the case of a ticket where the remaining amount is not 0.

  In this case, the failure occurrence pattern editing unit 24 manually creates a general failure occurrence pattern as shown in FIG. As a result of verifying the program, for example, if it is determined that the fare calculation program A is defective and the fare calculation program B operates correctly, the obstacle avoidance action editing unit 23 selects and executes the fare calculation program B. A failure avoidance action is created. Then, a set of the failure occurrence pattern and the failure avoidance action is registered in the master failure prevention rule DB 22 as a failure prevention rule as shown in FIG.

  Thereafter, the master failure prevention rule management unit 21 reads out the newly registered failure prevention rule f from the master failure prevention rule DB 22 and distributes it to all automatic ticket gates 1 connected to the management device 2. In the automatic ticket gate 1, the failure prevention rule f distributed from the management device 2 is received by the local failure prevention rule management unit 16 and stored in the local failure prevention rule DB 17.

  In the automatic ticket gate 1, the failure prevention processing program 44 (FIG. 2) of the failure prevention processing unit 11 is activated each time the medium information of the ticket is read and input by the medium reading unit 33. When this program is started, the local failure prevention rule management unit 16 takes out the failure prevention rules f one by one from the local failure prevention rule DB 17 and collates the retrieved failure prevention rules f with the input medium information a. Is performed in the failure prevention processing unit 11.

  In this verification, even when medium information different from the medium information at the time of the previous failure detection is input, the failure occurrence pattern is generalized, and therefore the conditional expression (the above equation (2)) of the pattern is satisfied. If it is medium information, the collation result is determined to be coincident, and the failure avoidance action specified by the failure prevention rule of FIG. 12, that is, the selection execution action of the fare calculation program B is executed. As a result, the fare calculation is correctly performed, and it is possible to prevent a failure from occurring on a ticket on which the medium information included in the failure occurrence pattern (pattern in FIG. 5) of the failure prevention rule f once registered is recorded. Can be prevented.

  FIG. 13 is a system configuration diagram of the second embodiment of the present invention. Here, only the components related to the present invention are represented as functional blocks. In this embodiment, a delay match type program multiplexing system is employed.

  In FIG. 13, the same or corresponding parts as in FIG. 1 is an automatic ticket gate device installed at a station as station service equipment, 3 is a host device connected to the automatic ticket gate device 1 via a line, and 2 is a management device connected to the automatic ticket gate device 1 and the host device 3 via a line. is there. Although a plurality of automatic ticket gates 1 are actually installed, only one is shown in FIG. The management device 2 includes a server installed in a staff room or a management center of a station, for example. The host device 3 is composed of, for example, a PC (Personal Computer), and is installed in a staff room or a management center. The automatic ticket gate device 1, the management device 2, and the host device 3 constitute a station service system.

  Each block of the fare calculation processing unit 10 of the automatic ticket gate device 1 and each block of the host device 3 have the same function as each block included in the fare calculation processing unit 10 of FIG. The detailed description about is omitted. Also, each block of the management device 2 has the same function as each block of the management device 2 in FIG. 1, so detailed description of each block will be omitted.

  In the system of FIG. 13, the fare calculation unit 13 of the higher-level device 3 performs the processing for the fare calculation unit 12 of the automatic ticket gate device 1 for all the medium information within a fixed period for which processing by the fare calculation program A is executed. The processing by the fare calculation program B is executed, and the calculation results b and c are collated afterwards in the abutting section 14. The subsequent processing is the same as in the case of FIG.

  However, when the delayed match type program multiplexing system as shown in FIG. 13 is adopted, the fare calculation in the automatic ticket gate 1 is performed only by the fare calculation program A. “Selection execution action” cannot be used. Therefore, as an alternative, the “fare calculation avoidance action” shown in FIG. 9 is used. This action outputs an NG determination without executing the fare calculation and responds to the clerk in order to avoid the occurrence of trouble due to the fare calculation. In addition to such a fare calculation avoidance action, the “valid result application action” shown in FIG. 7 may be used.

  FIG. 10 shows the “fare calculation execution action” when the medium information does not correspond to the failure occurrence pattern. This is not a failure avoidance action, but is set as a default action executed in the case of normal operation. In this case, the fare calculation by the fare calculation program A is executed as usual.

  FIG. 14 is a flowchart showing the processing contents of the failure prevention processing unit 11 in the first and second embodiments described above. As described above, every time the medium information is read, the failure prevention processing program 44 is activated and the procedure of FIG. 14 is executed.

  When the medium information is read, in step S1, the local failure prevention rule management unit 16 takes out one failure prevention rule from the local failure prevention rule DB 17. If a failure prevention rule exists (step S2: YES), the process proceeds to step S3. In step S3, the read medium information is compared with the failure occurrence pattern of the extracted failure prevention rule, and in step S4, it is determined whether or not the patterns match. If the patterns do not match (step S4: NO), the process returns to step S1, retrieves the next failure prevention rule from the local failure prevention rule DB 17, and executes steps S2 to S4.

  If the patterns match (step S4: YES), the process proceeds to step S5, and the failure avoidance action specified in the failure prevention rule is executed. That is, in the case of the first embodiment (FIG. 1), the above-mentioned “selection execution action” and “legitimate result application action” are executed, and in the case of the second embodiment (FIG. 13), the above-mentioned “fare calculation avoidance” is performed. "Action" and "Validity result application action" are executed.

  If no rule is present in step S2 (step S2: NO), the process proceeds to step S6 to execute a default action. That is, in the case of the first embodiment, the aforementioned “match execution action” is executed, and in the case of the second embodiment, the aforementioned “fare calculation execution action” is executed.

  According to each embodiment described above, when a failure based on a failure in the fare calculation program occurs, a failure avoidance action corresponding to the failure occurrence pattern is extracted and the action is executed. For this reason, even if you do not modify the program as a response to the occurrence of a failure, the failure avoidance action prepared in advance can be executed to prevent the occurrence of a similar failure before processing is performed properly. Can do.

  Further, when the “selection execution action” as shown in FIG. 6 is adopted as the obstacle avoidance action, by specifying a fare calculation program that operates correctly in the failure prevention rules, the fare calculation program is not corrected. It is possible to perform processing using the correct fare calculation result.

  In addition, if a fare calculation program specified as a resource on the network is described as a program name in the selection execution action, a fare calculation program held by a device other than the automatic ticket gate is specified. Therefore, there is no need to multiplex the program in the automatic ticket checker, and there is an advantage that the multiplexing system can be designed flexibly.

  In addition, when adopting the “valid result application action” as shown in FIG. 7 as the obstacle avoidance action, the fare calculation program is corrected by obtaining the correct calculation result in advance and including it in the action. Even without this, processing using the correct fare calculation result can be performed.

  Moreover, in the station service system mentioned above, when the failure based on the trouble of the fare calculation program occurs in the automatic ticket gate device 1, the failure occurrence pattern is transmitted to the management device 2. The avoidance action editing unit 23 can create a failure avoidance action. Then, every time a failure occurs, a failure prevention rule consisting of a combination of a failure occurrence pattern and a failure avoidance action can be registered in the master failure prevention rule DB 22. For this reason, even if you do not modify the program as a response when a failure occurs, executing the failure avoidance action corresponding to the failure occurrence pattern prevents the occurrence of a similar failure before the process is performed properly. can do.

  In addition, the master failure prevention rule management unit 21 distributes the failure prevention rules registered in the master failure prevention rule DB 22 to a plurality of automatic ticket gates 1 at the same time, so that a trouble in fare calculation occurs in any automatic ticket gate device. This can be prevented in advance.

  Furthermore, when creating a new failure occurrence pattern in the failure occurrence pattern editing unit 24, it is not necessary to generate all the medium information causing the failure as a failure occurrence pattern by generalizing and describing the pattern with a logical expression. The management of the failure prevention rules becomes easy and the pattern matching can be performed at high speed.

  In the embodiment described above, the automatic ticket gate device is taken as an example of the station service device. However, the present invention can also be applied to station service devices such as an automatic checkout machine and a counter processor.

It is a system configuration figure of a 1st embodiment of the present invention. It is the figure which showed the structure of the automatic ticket gate apparatus with the block of hardware. It is the figure which showed the structure of the management apparatus with the block of hardware. It is an example of a failure occurrence pattern. It is an example of a generalized failure occurrence pattern. It is an example of a failure avoidance action. It is another example of a failure avoidance action. It is an example of a default action. It is an example of a failure avoidance action. It is an example of a default action. It is an example of a failure prevention rule. It is another example of a failure prevention rule. It is a system configuration figure of a 2nd embodiment of the present invention. It is a flowchart showing the processing content of the failure prevention processing unit. It is a figure which shows a synchronous matching type program multiplexing system. 1 is a diagram showing a delay matching type program multiplexing system. FIG.

Explanation of symbols

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 Automatic ticket gate apparatus 2 Management apparatus 3 Host apparatus 10 Fare calculation process part 11 Failure prevention process part 12 Fare calculation part 13 Fare calculation part 14 Calculation result matching part 15 Failure occurrence pattern generation part 16 Local failure prevention rule management part 17 Local failure prevention Rule database 21 Master failure prevention rule management unit 22 Master failure prevention rule database 23 Failure avoidance action editing unit 24 Failure occurrence pattern editing unit 31 CPU
33 Media Reading Unit 37 Storage Device a Media Information f Fault Prevention Rule

Claims (7)

In station equipment that reads the medium information recorded on the boarding medium and calculates the usage fee by the fare calculation program based on the medium information,
A storage means in which a combination of a failure occurrence pattern when a failure occurs with respect to specific medium information due to a failure of the fare calculation program and a failure avoidance action for avoiding the failure is stored as a failure prevention rule When,
Determining means for determining whether the read medium information matches a failure occurrence pattern stored in the storage means;
A processing unit that executes a failure avoidance action specified by a failure prevention rule corresponding to the failure occurrence pattern when the determination unit determines that the medium information matches the failure occurrence pattern;
Station service equipment characterized by comprising. In the station service equipment according to claim 1,
The fare calculation program comprises a plurality of programs,
In the obstacle avoidance action, the program name of one of the fare calculation programs selected from the plurality of programs is described.
The station service device executes the selected fare calculation program. In the station service equipment according to claim 1,
In the obstacle avoidance action, the program name of the fare calculation program designated as a resource on the network is described,
The station service device executes the designated fare calculation program. In the station service equipment according to claim 1,
In the obstacle avoidance action, the correct fare calculation result calculated in advance is described,
The station device performs processing using a usage fee based on the fare calculation result without executing the fare calculation program. A station service system comprising the station service device according to any one of claims 1 to 4 and a management device connected to the station service device,
A failure occurrence pattern generation means for generating a failure occurrence pattern for the medium information where the failure has occurred and transmitting the failure occurrence pattern to the management device;
The management device
Fault avoidance action editing means for creating a fault avoidance action for the fault occurrence pattern sent from the fault occurrence pattern generation means;
A failure prevention rule management means for registering and managing a set of a failure occurrence pattern and a failure avoidance action correspondingly created by the failure avoidance action editing means as a failure prevention rule;
A station service system characterized by comprising: In the station service system according to claim 5,
The station equipment comprises a plurality of station equipment,
The failure prevention rule management means distributes the registered failure prevention rules to each station service device. In the station service system according to claim 5,
The station service system further comprising a failure occurrence pattern editing means for describing and creating the failure occurrence pattern by a logical expression.

Images