[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [energyinterop] Re: Notes on semantics and models
Bill Cox including the following in some notes from last week's telecon: > >> >> (e) CEC version disclaims any "semantics" (PDF page 22) but describes "programs" that have specific meaning. >> We need to resolve that issue. IMO, the meaning and expected response to the messages is the "semantics" -- and >> we need a discussion on this soon. (CD01 on lines 795 et seq discusses "Energy Interoperability Semantics"). > B: Semantics of the word "semantics" -- The text in the CEC document reads: The authors refer to OpenADR as a “communications data model” to facilitate information exchange between two end-points, the utility or ISO and the facility. It is not a protocol that specifies “bit-structures” or “semantics” as some communications protocols do. In some references the term “system,” “technology,” or “service” is used to refer to the features of OpenADR. It's not at all clear from this what the authors meant by "semantics". I suggest that we ignore the text, and as Bill has suggested, define what *we* mean by semantics and use it that way. I vote for semantics being merely the meaning of the messages and any of their parts. This would not include an expected response unless that response would consistently characterize the message or element across its many uses. Some things will simply have weak semantics if their interpretation varies widely (say by programs and by participant and by situtation/time- of-occurrence). -Evan Evan K. Wallace Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]