OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emix-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: EMIX comments

Title: EMIX comments

Dear OASIS EMIX committee.

I have the following comments for your consideration:

Line    Type            Comment

74      Technical       You have the wrong name for IEC TC57. The correct name, per the IEC at http://www.iec.ch is “Power Systems Management and Associated Information Exchange.”

390     Question        When you say that CEFACT defines the currency code, are you expecting the three character alpha code to be used or the numeric code to be used?

453     editorial       There is a typo. “therefore

489     editorial       There is a typo. Should the word “price” be used instead of “precise”?

496     Technical       The term “gluon” is never defined. You should use industry standard terminology wherever possible in order to maximize understandability. If this is not possible for some reason, and a new term needs to be defined, then it must be defined in the documents where it is used, in an introductory section. If the definition is so large that it requires a document unto itself to define it, then it would be permissible to refer the reader to this document to obtain the definition. None of these steps were taken. The document assumes that the reader knows what a gluon is as used in its unique way. As it stands now, it is simply incomprehensible.

531     editorial       There is a typo or missing word among the first four words of the sentence.

545     technical       I don’t think this statement is true. I don’t see any CIM classes in the EMIX model.

545     editorial       You have the wrong name for IEC TC57. (See comment for line 74).

546     editorial       Where exactly are the canonical definitions? I am a member of the IEC TC57 WG’s 14 and 15. TC57 contains ten working groups. Each working group generates tens of documents. Which document(s) contain the definitions you refer to. You haven’t told the reader where to get the information they need to know what you are saying.

575     technical       The name “power units” has a mistake in its definition. “VA” is defined to be “apparent power” not “total power”. “Total” is a flow direction not an energy type. (Refer to IEC 61968-9 Annex C or IEC 61968-2:2011 for an explanation of these concepts.)

575     technical       Is a definition of “voltage units” really needed? Isn’t voltage always measured in volts? Doesn’t the unit of measure description support an SiPrefix which can indicate “k” or “M”? Isn’t the unit of measure always provided with the data?

575     technical       The row called “VAR units” is clearly a duplication of the information contained in the row “power units”. A specification should only define something once.

575     technical       I don’t think the “price,” “price multiplier,” and “price relative” fields seem to belong here. They are not power components with some enduring quality, they are instead price data with a temporal quality which must be related to some fixed point in time and/or previously published price which is identified by a unique identifier. There is no way to relate the data in this class with the moment in time or publication that the data is related to. This seems to be broken.

681     technical       “ramp rate curve”? Where exactly is this defined? What is the name of the document? What is the name of the CIM class it inherits from?

703     technical       “mrid”? I believe IEC TC57 WG13 has developed a document to define the mrid. You must either define what you mean by “mrid” and the rules associated with the use of it, or cite someone else’s document that does this for you. There are very specific rules for its construction and use that need to be followed.

739     technical       “qmax” contains a reference to an inverter. Must the power come from an inverter? Why is this word in the definition?

739     technical       Is “qmax” a reference to Q power? I suspect it is not. You should either define why you are using the letter Q or use a different letter. I suspect what is going on here is that you are assuming the reader is familiar with a power equation (such as S=P+jQ) that you have in mind, and you assume that all authors of all books on power engineering have used the same nomenclature. You should instead provide the formula you want the reader to know about.

739     technical       What is “voltVar” referring to? This is NOT a legitimate unit of measure. If this is a multipurpose field that you have defined, I would say that having dual use of a given field is a poor modeling practice. If it is always reactive power, then why call it “voltVar”? Is this a realtime snapshot of the current VAr output? The field is ill-defined.

820     editorial       The “power frequency” row has a typo. The third word from the end: “Power”.

820     technical       “Flicker” is not defined. By what standard is flicker to be quantified? Westinghouse? IEEE? What about the severity of the flicker? Not all flicker events are the same yet you treat them as if they were. I suggest you look at the IEEE 519 std. What you have modeled here isn’t useful.

820     technical       “Voltage dips” are not defined. What constitutes a voltage dip? What is the threshold and duration? Suggest you look at IEEE std. 1564.

820     technical       “short interruptions” and “long interruptions” are not defined. These are non-standard terms. You must either define what you mean or cite another document that will do that for you. I suggest you refer to IEEE 1366 and use the standard terminology, metrics, and definitions. (i.e. “momentary interruption,” “momentary interruption event,” “sustained interruption,” etc.) What you have here is completely unusable in the industry. We all subscribe to and use the IEEE 1366 indices.

820     technical       “temp overvoltage” is not defined. This is a non-standard term. Suggest you use the term “voltage surge”. You should look at IEEE stds. 1564 or 1159 or IEC 61000-X.

820     technical       “supply voltage imbalance” is not defined. What constitutes an imbalance? This is usually defined by a percentage (or PU) level. Where do you define the severity and duration of an imbalance event? These have to be defined before they are counted!

820     technical       “harmonic voltage” there are an unlimited number of harmonics possible. Which one(s) are you measuring here? Suggest you look at IEC 61968-9 Ed. 2. Annex C and IEEE 519.

820     technical       Why is the word “signaling” in the definition for mains voltage? Our company makes a product that communicates on the powerline. Few others do. I propose that you change this to describe the secondary voltage delivered to the service point (if that is what you are trying to define here.)

1102    editorial       In the definition of “gluon”, the first 6 words of the sentence don’t work together. There is something wrong with the sentence. Also, the twelfth word of the sentence is wrong, perhaps the word “through” was intended. You haven’t defined what a gluon is.

1137    editorial       see comments for 1140.

1138    technical       Is this a reference to “Q” power? The use of the letter q needs to be defended. See comments for line 739.

1140    editorial       There is only one correct spelling for the abbreviation “VAr”. You offer three and all of them are wrong. Here is the policy: The names of people are capitalized. The names of inanimate objects are not. Mr. Volta and Mr. Ampere are recognized for their contributions to science, so “V” and “A” are capitalized. “r” must be lower case.  No dash. Your consistent use of a lower case “h” for energy (in row 1137) is correct.

I hope you find my comments useful. I don’t intend to sound harsh. There are simply some mistakes in the document, and in some cases some serious technical issues that require a much deeper dive into the relevant standards to provide results that are useful to the industry.

David Haynes 
Staff Systems Scientist


DCSI is now Aclara Power-Line Systems Inc. To ensure that you receive future communications, please add my e-mail, in the signature block below, to your address book.

Aclara Power-Line Systems Inc.
945 Hornet Dr.

Hazelwood, MO 63042 USA


314.895.6452 - Direct
314.249.4196 - Cell

This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. Should you have received it in error, please delete this message and contact the sender. This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the addressee or authorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]