Re: [emix] [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (EMIX-476) wd32: misceditorial (primarily section 1)

[Anne Hendry <ahendry@pacbell.net>]

You are correct except for capitalization in the spec [line 27 ("... (TC) 57 Power systems management and associated information) exchange..." ) and line 80 it is all in caps ("Power Systems Management and Associated Information Exchange)].  This is a small thing, but on their web site only the words "Power Systems" are capitalized, and sometimes organizations like that have a specific view on why the did or did not use the spelling/punctuation they used.  Jerry gave some guidance on this before, but just having both of our references use the same capitalization would be a good idea to start.

Right now neither or our two differing spec references match the TC 57 web url you noted.

I'd leave this up to Jerry or others n the TC to weigh in on, though.  I just know it's been a cause of comment in the past.

-A

OASIS Issues Tracker wrote, On 6/21/2011 9:14 AM:

1650056453.7041308672878348.JavaMail.tomcat55@mw00" type="cite">

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/EMIX-476?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=26053#action_26053 ] 

Toby Considine commented on EMIX-476:
-------------------------------------

Line 27 IEC TC57 name (Power systems management ...) Doesn't seem like the correct/full name. 

It is
http://tc57.iec.ch/index-tc57.html

Line 28 Business and market information was borrowed from the financial instruments 
        Common Information Models as described in International Standards Organization 
        (ISO) [ISO20022] 
        What exactly are we 'borrowing' from iso 20022? 
        I don't see anything that appears to be from that model and 
        it seems a bit strange to be using two separate 'common information models' 

No Action.

Line 36 An overview of [WS-Calendar] semantics is provided in Appendix E. 
        Now Appendix C 

Yes,. If only the OASIS Template used headers for appendices that cross-referenced.....thanks

Line 42 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems 
        Should this instead be in non-normative references? 'Normative' indicates it 
        has been included in its entirety into this spec but this was not here until 
        recently. Where does EMIX incorporate IEEE 1547? 

Source of defitnions that were disputed by commenters in previous PR - and no need to incorporate in its entirety...

Lines 101 - 125 All these NAESB links take you to a login page, which won't do anyone 
                any good. Might as well not have the hot links. 

True, but we agreed to place them there at TC formation. Again.

Line 127 NIEM in non-normative references. Thought we had agreed to remove mention of NIEM. 

No, merely a normative requirement

Line 130 Add hot link to OpenADR spec 
         http://openadr.lbl.gov/pdf/cec-500-2009-063.pdf 

Thanks for the link



  

wd32: misc editorial (primarily section 1)
------------------------------------------

                Key: EMIX-476
                URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/EMIX-476
            Project: OASIS Energy Market Information Exchange (eMIX) TC
         Issue Type: Bug
        Environment: Anne Hendry
           Reporter: Anne Hendry 
           Assignee: William Cox
           Priority: Minor

General:
Love the compacting of duplicate information!
Love the diagram in section 6-4 (Figure 6-1)!
Is there a way to stop tables from breaking across page boundaries?
         This makes it very hard to read and looks unfinished.
Specific:
Line 27 IEC TC57 name (Power systems management ...)  Doesn't seem like the correct/full name.
Line 28 Business and market information was borrowed from the financial instruments
        Common Information Models as described in International Standards Organization
        (ISO) [ISO20022]
        What exactly are we 'borrowing' from iso 20022?
        I don't see anything that appears to be from that model and
        it seems a bit strange to be using two separate 'common information models'
Line 36 An overview of [WS-Calendar] semantics is provided in Appendix E.
        Now Appendix C
Line 42 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems
        Should this instead be in non-normative references?  'Normative' indicates it
        has been included in its entirety into this spec but this was not here until
        recently.  Where does EMIX incorporate IEEE 1547?
Lines 101 - 125 All these NAESB links take you to a login page, which won't do anyone
                any good.  Might as well not have the hot links.
Line 127 NIEM in non-normative references.  Thought we had agreed to remove mention of NIEM.
Line 130 Add hot link to OpenADR spec
         http://openadr.lbl.gov/pdf/cec-500-2009-063.pdf
Line 137 Should this be NAESB PAP03, and how does it relate to line 101?
Lines 145-146 Change 'PAP 03' to 'NIST PAP03'.  Replace 'Details can be found at' with
              "NIST Priority Action Plan 03, Common Price Communication Model"
              http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP03PriceProduct
              or http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/priority-actions.cfm
              Remove 'link retrieved 6/23/2010'.
General Non-normative reference comment: There is NAESB PAP03, NAESB 03, and PAP03 referenced.
                                         Seems somewhat redundant.  Can these be merged somehow?
Line 152 Content of section 1.5 'Namespace' is repetitive and confused/confusing.  Also typos.
Line 453 Table 3-4 (WS-Calendar defined terms)
         duplicates many of the same elements (but with different definitions) as in
         Appendix C Table C-1 (WS-Calendar Foundational Semantics)
         
         One or the other should be removed (or at least duplicate entries removed).
Line 178 (Editorial Conventions)
         Strike first sentence.
         It raises more questions than answers and not the right place to raise schema rules.
Line 184 Strike sentence
         "Each business process will have its own security needs,
          including different consequences for failure of security."
         It just clutters up the concept which is better communicated with sentences before and after.
Figure 2-1.  Concept is not getting across.  What does the line represent?
             Could it be horizontal?  Doesn't seem to necessarily represent the information in
             the text above. Would suggest removing for now because, while it is a wonderfully
             clean and clear diagram it takes up a lot of room and doesn't yet add to the
             understanding of the concepts presented.