[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Notification vs. Request vs. Order
Team: Those are interesting comments. I don’t
recall if we have discussed this before. But it begs questions about
whether there are smart grid messages in this space that are tied to
contractual obligations as described by the “Orders” classification
Dave mentions. My first impulse is that regulatory and
contractual obligations should not be tied to the messages but should be enabled
and supportable by the messages. I think this discussion may fall under
the header of project scope. Although I see the difference, I have a
difficulty separating a notification from a request. If you don’t
intend to motivate a response, why would you send a notice? If the message
is an “Order”, the real difference is that you are not only wanting
a grid-impacting change, you are counting on it. But it would seem that OpenADR
DRAS should be able to accommodate this difference in a way that enables
a clean one-to-many message rather than peer-to-peer. If peer-to-peer is
desired, then the DRAS would represent the end use node and be considered the “peer”
that responds to the “order”. My 2-cents, Gale Gale R. Horst Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) From: Wilson, David C
( Hi
EI folks, In
reflecting on Ed Koch’s presentation last week, I start to think about
the semantics of “Notifications”, “Requests”,
and “Orders”. Especially in the context of
normal business transactions (Purchase Orders, Requests for Quotes, Price
Notifications. I
think part of what Ed was saying (and Ed I’d like to hear your thoughts)
is that the presence of price information in the ESI messages
don’t identify the nature (i.e. sender’s intent) of the
message. I think it would be good if the ESI message/information
is clearly identified as “Notifications”,
“Requests”,
or
“Orders”.
Here is how I think of them: From
the sender’s perspective: Notifications:
Here
is some information. I want to be sure you received it because
that is my responsibility. I don’t care what you do with it (I
might care what the majority of recipients do). Requests:
I’d
like you to do XYZ. Please let me know if you will do it or that you did
it and maybe what the results are. Orders:
We agreed that I could tell you to do XYZ. I may want
you to confirm that you will and/or have. I might only care
to learn after the fact that you did not do XYZ because
I need
to punish you. I may or may not be able to do anything with the knowledge
that you plan to defy our agreement. Part
of the difficulty I have in reconciling the CA OpenADR and the concept
of the ESI is that the paradigm in my head for the DRAS is
one system (Server, Client). I imagine the ESI
“interface”
to be between two systems (“Peer to Peer”). Not sure if that
makes much of a difference at the Type level. I
am advocating that the ESI we define have clear options for distinguishing
between “Notifications”, “Requests”,
and “Orders”. Thoughts? Dave Trane Commercial Systems Ingersoll Rand Office: +1.651.407.4168 Email: davidcwilson@trane.com The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only
for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the intended
recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or the
information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message
and attachments. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]