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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emix message

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


Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (EMIX-476) wd32: misc editorial(primarily section 1)



    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/EMIX-476?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=26067#action_26067 ] 

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

>> Line 152 Content of section 1.5 'Namespace' is repetitive and confused/confusing. Also typos. 

Would welcome suggestions

> 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
>             Fix For: wd33
>
>
> 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.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        


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