[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] EI Schemas from 4/5
I think it comes down to a couple things. The core EventInfo objects, including the ones Bill shared last night, share many chracteristics with EmixBase abd EmixProductDescription. If they are derived from those two, then we may want to allow more kinds of energy. If we want them entirely w/I EI, maybe not. And of course my argument from last month that we want fewer opportunities for mis-coding or nonsense markets may well argue against my position here, if we are really ever going to use only Real Power. tc "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster, and if you stare long into an abyss, the abyss also stares into you." - Fredrich Nietzche
From: Bartell, Bruce [mailto:bbartell@xtensible.net] Looks like a semantics problem to me. It seems to me that deployment could be in units other than MW. I have been assuming that is always Real Energy, but would the deployment also be expressed as Active Power? I am also curious to know if DR Event objectives would also apply to voltage control. From: Toby Considine [mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Toby Considine I just started cleaning up the EI schemas submitted on April 5, in preparation to work on putting together market context. I began by pointing to permanent references: iCalendar the web-located PR02, emix to the PR02 version, not yet on the web, etc. I then started running through the eiEvent objects and found something that I have to un-ravel. We seem to be pre-judging objects in ways that can lead to internally inconsistent outcomes. For example, we have a DeploymentMW type that references real energy, something that has Watts and Scale inside it. We should not be able to specify MW in a scale of K (or T, for that matter). Accordingly, I am going to make a quick run-through and remove that semantic override of the underlying data. In a similar way, many of these have hard coded RealPower (or RealEnergy) types. Do we want to disallow the use of EnergyInterop to dispatch, say Reactive Energy? For this reason, I think I need to back off to more generic energy and power types. If OpenADR wishes to restrict its use to only the Real types, it is of course free to do so. Overall, the event object looks considerably more useful than before, and with a cleaner structure. tc “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]