Talk:Vix Technology

'Capte Town' vs 'Cape Town'

Resolved

Could somebody fix the obvious spelling error? Cape town is also listed in the 'Other' section. I'm a VIX employee, so I'd rather not change it myself. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  10:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Incidentally, it's quite OK for you to make non-controversial edits such as fixing minor or obvious errors. WP:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits has the details. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I know. But I prefer to stay squeaky clean :)  Stepho  talk  07:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Complexity of the Sydney magnetic-stripe data

Regarding the complexity of the Sydney magnetic-stripe data, and the ease or otherwise of replicating it on a smart card, in particular these edits [1][2][3] [4][5][6] ...

Statements that a particular data format would be easy to replicate are an opinion of the editor, and/or original research, unless they are backed up by a reliable source (that states that it would be easy, not just one that lists the format). In the absence of a reference, such statements do not belong in the article.

Regarding the other unsourced material that I deleted in [7] ...

The statement that "Their claim was difficult to refute because ... format ... of data on the magnetic-stripe ... was proprietary and not in the public domain" is nonsense. If Tcard was required to support the existing magnetic-stripe ticket, ERG would have been given the format, as would the lawyers refuting ERG's claims. The fact that it was proprietary is irrelevant. If the existing cards were not supported then the format was irrelevant - only the business rules (fare complexity) would matter, not the existing implementation. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The statement has been restored again - I still think it ought not be there, but to avoid edit-warring I'll leave it pending other editors' opinions. As I stated previously:

• The fact that mag-stripe format was proprietary and not in the public domain is irrelevant. Just because the "public" and/or a Wikipedia editor didn't have access to the format doesn't mean that the lawyers or anyone else actually involved in the business wouldn't have access to the format and/or be able to evaluate the claim of fare complexity.
• The statement in the Wikipedia article that "adoption of this system also provided an easy calculation of distance based fares" is an opinion, or original research, unless there's a reference to back it up, which currently there is not. The currently cited reference makes no mention of the ease or difficulty of implementing the business rules (calculating the fares) on a contactless card.

I invite Amopt50 to provide reliable sources that directly support the statements that "the claim was difficult to review" and/or "... and easy calculation". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't have a clue, but seeing that said text existed before my first edit, suggest you go and find who actually added it and bark up their tree. Amopt50 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've re-reverted on the basis that it's a statement of opinion expressed in a non-RS source. It may be true, but we can't be including the two cents of every Tom, Dick, and Harry that has something to say on the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC).

In response to edit comments in [8][9]...
Even if we consider http://www.manlymania.net/Ferries.html a reliable source, it does not state anything about the ease or otherwise of implementing the fare rules on a smartcard. Nor does it make any mention of the difficulty of refuting/reviewing ERG's claim, nor does it make any mention of who may or may not have had knowledge of the proprietary format, and thus been in a position (or not) to review or refute ERG's claim of complexity.
Even if http://www.manlymania.net/Ferries.html a reliable source, my bullet points of 12:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC) stand – the fact that the format was proprietary is irrelevant, and claims of ease of implementation are not supported by the reference, and thus OR. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are looking to objectively assess the Tcard matter (which was a very major ERG event as it undid the whole company and one other running ERG contract), we need to note and review that fact that the company made a public claim about Sydney fare complexity as a principal explanation of their contractual failure.

The apparently irrelevent comment about the information not being in the public domain in 2008 or 2012 was to mske the point this claim simply was not assessable until new relevent information was discovered and placed in the public domain. This was revealed in July 2016 as regards the full detail of the Sydney magnetic-stripe ticketing system encoding. Also the issue is not the MST data being used by Tcard (or not), its that this MST data reveals one solution method that would work with the Tcard.

The published MST data on the Manlymania Ferries page reproduces an engineering analysis in sufficient detail for it to be third party verifiable. It is also sufficiently detailed to give confidence of its accuracy - eg the decoding methodology and the station (extensive listing), time and date decode detail. It thus appears a good technical source - if unique. Other than this source and "Trainhack" (Search ruxcon trainhack-final-slides.pdf)(whose specific results were scrambled/falsified before publication by Sydney rail agency request), the only other party who can immediately verify the MST data correctness is Vix themselves, as they provided the bus MST equipment in Sydney (Aug 92 switch-on) using the common Sydney MST format.

Thus it is not simply a matter of thin opinion, the MST data allows an engineering assessment that a methodoly actually existed (station numbering for distance calculation) that provided a real solution to the claimed fare complexity, and in fact this was also known to ERG/Vix during the Tcard contract. So their defence claim of fare complexity looks rather questionable in this new light.

The Tcard legal settlement was mostly won by the NSW State Government. However the merits and detail of the matter never made it to the public domain at that time (Feb 2012). Given the government never properly and publicly refuted the fare complexity claim, and then even changed the magnetic-stripe system to reduce the number of fare bands (complexity), it appears probable even they were not actually privy to such a detailed engineering analysis of the Sydney magnetic-stripe data format.

If this complexity claim had been discounted at that time by available evidence, the next matter that would then have been assessed would be the firm's working capital. This provided a more probable source of failure to complete the Tcard contract and other authorities raised concerns on this issue.

If we are dealing with a firm involved in providing encoded ticketing, discussion of technical data formats is very relevent. The Wiki requirements for verifying scarce data sources that expose matters such as confidential encoding need re-assessment.

Hence I would suggest the post in the Tcard section is appropriate. If the wording can be improved then improve it - deletion hides revlevent information to researchers trying to understand the issues.

If Wiki editorial policy strives to take a middle of the road balance rather than strict accuracy, then it will be seen as a poor information resource. MT124.170.207.218 (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are looking to objectively assess the Tcard matter — We are not looking to assess the matter, because that would be original research and/or synthesis, which is contrary to Wikipedia's core policies.

we need to note and review that fact that the company made a public claim about Sydney fare complexity — We have stated the fact that ERG made that claim (although we still need a reference for that, so you could help here by providing one). We do not need to "review" that claim - that's not the job of an encyclopedia.

... to mske the point this claim simply was not assessable until new relevent information was discovered and placed in the public domain. — The claim would have been assessable by those whose job it was to do so - just because you or the public doesn't have the information does not mean that others do not have it.

this MST data reveals one solution method that would work with the Tcard. — ERG's claim was the complexity of the fare rules (not the complexity of the data format on the mag stripe card). Perhaps you could quote the part of http://www.manlymania.net/Ferries.html that lists those fare rules, ie exactly how a card-reading machine calculates what fare to apply when a card is presented - because that is one of the problems that an implementor of a ticketing system faces. (Be sure to also quote the part that explains how it could securely authenticate, read and write the card within any maximum transaction time included in the contractual requirements.) But you probably can't quote that part of the reference, because the information is not in that reference.

The Wiki requirements for verifying scarce data sources that expose matters such as confidential encoding need re-assessment. — Feel free to propose a change to the policies.... (on the talk pages for those policies).

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)