[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emix] New Power Item Type proposals
|
Re: 1&2. The enumeration list can be restricted
or expanded as needed by EMIX. CIM profiles are used to limit the values in use
of specific messages; extensions can be submitted to the working groups. Re: 3. I don’t agree that they
should be optional. We can tighten our restriction and still be compliant. 4. Hope they are the same; we pulled the
lists from the same UML model. 5. We need to talk about no. 5. Does
across mean when using import or include? We had a similar problem earlier that
resulted from an incorrect namespace prefix. I believe we did get it to work. We should move this discussion to JIRA http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/EMIX-291 Bruce Bartell Xtensible Solutions From: All -- I hope this adds
focus from a different perspective.
--
The associated UML has VA as the initial
value for unit as part of the ApparentPower class. If you are worried about
misuse, I suppose this could be coded as a restriction pattern in the schema,
although I have not seen it handled like that. Bruce Bartell Xtensible Solutions From: Toby
Considine [mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com]
On Behalf Of Toby Considine I have been developing and coding with the proposed
changes to the POWER.XSD and they allow some very strange outcomes. If I follow
the schema, and use no knowledge I have already, Apparent Power can be
expressed in a number of units, including Ohms, Radians, Degrees, Hertz, and
Kilograms/Joule (and many others). This reduces the usability of the schema and
makes many obviously invalid information exchanges (in terms of “you
can’t buy that”) fully valid (in schema validation terms). This
reduces the utility and value of the artifacts produced in inter-domain
exchanges. They also break compatibility between the unification
of measurement types urged by PAP10, in that they establishes special
sub-classes of names of units and for that are used within Power that are used
for no other areas of emix, for example, in quality measures, or in pollution
warrants. By restricting in the schema all measurement types to a defined set
only useful for power, they will require revisions to the standard to extend
the classes to new metrics, say to new pollutant types, or to include carbon
trading. If we reduce the base fungibility of measurements in this way, we
decrease the ability of EMIX-based systems to respond to new market dynamics
and new market regulations without returning to the standards cycle. This sort
of hindrance to adaptability violates a core precept of EMIX which is to enable
more rapid productization of technologies and energy approaches. EMIX as it has grown establishes some core models for
exchanging information about products whose value changes with time of
delivery. Power is but one of these. Certificates / Pollutants / carbon trading
/ et al. are significant others that are closely tied to power markets, and are
likely to be more so in the future. These markets are much more changeable than
the base power exchanges. Power quality metrics vary distinctly between US, European,
and Asian market already. We want to make sure that our approach handles these
different metrics, including ones we do not know, without returning to the
standards process. EMIX already has a clear distinction between the base
schema, and the particular instantiation of its extensions for power. Other
groups are already looking at developing their own extensions for other
energy-related products whose value changes with time. There are discussions
underway about using domain extensions for the distribution of natural gas, low
pressure steam, high pressure steam, chilled water, and other district-based
distributions. When we move to an exceptionality for power, we reduce the power
of the results. None of this is meant in any way to deprecate the importance
of alignment with the IEC TC57 CIM, particularly as the IEC itself continues
its growing alignment with ISO where there subject matters overlap. I mean
instead to that we have not achieved the optimal alignment. Of course, we need
to keep ever mindful that alignment is not the same as unity. tc “The single biggest problem in communication is
the illusion that it has taken place.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC thatgenerates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]