[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Initial Port of OpenADR to EnergyInterop
Toby, As soon as I get myself out from
under the UCA meetings this week I will review this in more detail, but my
initial scan indicates that is that this is a reasonable first cut. I
noticed that there is a dearth of diagrams. Is there a specific reason
for that? -ed koch From: Considine, Toby
(Campus Services IT) [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] Word document, PDF (for consistent line numbering) with
comments and notes turned on, Open Office file. Have not verified
OpenOffice formatting is entirely consistent. Notes: 1)
Port of what I think is the portion of OpenADR that is
we have agreed is part of the spec. I’m sure there are sins of both
inclusion and exclusion 2)
I have included comments on parts that I think we need
to discuss in the committee for focus and for direction 3)
Large table in section 3 – wasn’t sure
whether to include or exclude. 4)
Technical Artifacts (xsd, wsdl, etc) are coming under
separate cover from David Wilson 5)
There is no coherent description of the pure
priced-based model. Ed Cazalet has described the most coherent vision in the
past. I would welcome a few paragraphs. Ed? 6)
Load Profiles. How much load can I give up, how fast.
What is the model? 7)
Verification. Ugh. Ed K, Mary Anne – any missing parts that we need going
forward? If I were to take another couple weeks, I would further
normalize aganst SOA-RM and remove more definitions Committee Note: For non-normative working drafts, do we want
to create a separate document archive to keep them in, separate from the
consensus drafts and process-significant documents? tc "It is the theory that decides what can be observed." - Albert Einstein
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]