Re: [energyinterop] Re: Notes on semantics and models

[Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>]

Bill Cox including the following in some notes from last week's telecon:

> 
>>
>> (e) CEC version disclaims any "semantics" (PDF page 22) but describes "programs" that have specific meaning. 
>> We need to resolve that issue. IMO, the meaning and expected response to the messages is the "semantics" -- and 
>> we need a discussion on this soon. (CD01 on lines 795 et seq discusses "Energy Interoperability Semantics").
> B: Semantics of the word "semantics" --

The text in the CEC document reads:

  The authors refer to OpenADR as a “communications data model” to facilitate
  information exchange between two end-points, the utility or ISO and the facility. It is not
  a protocol that specifies “bit-structures” or “semantics” as some communications
  protocols do. In some references the term “system,” “technology,” or “service” is used to
  refer to the features of OpenADR.

It's not at all clear from this what the authors meant by "semantics".  I suggest that we ignore the
text, and as Bill has suggested, define what *we* mean by semantics and use it that way.  I vote for semantics
being merely the meaning of the messages and any of their parts. This would not include an expected response unless 
that response would consistently characterize the message or element across its many uses.  Some things will simply
have weak semantics if their interpretation varies widely (say by programs and by participant and by situtation/time-
of-occurrence).  

-Evan

Evan K. Wallace
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
NIST