[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Notification vs. Request vs. Order
|
David, I think your comments are consistent with
my email. The way we are dealing with this in the current specification
is that the program itself has certain implied contractual obligations and
semantics that are associated with the information that is being sent as part
of the signal and thus may not be explicitly represented in the signal. We
may want to add additional information to the signal, but only if we think that
it will in some way affect the response of whatever entity is consuming the
signal. I think that some of this may be flushed out as part of the price
definition work that is going on. It is also important to note in the
current specification that there are many constraints and parameters associated
with programs that can be configured and queried, but are not explicitly sent
as part of the DR signal every time it is sent. Take a look at the “ProgramConstraint”
entities for examples of what I am talking about. -ed koch From: Hi
EI folks, In
reflecting on Ed Koch’s presentation last week, I start to think about
the semantics of “Notifications”, “Requests”,
and “Orders”. Especially in the context of
normal business transactions (Purchase Orders, Requests for Quotes, Price
Notifications. I
think part of what Ed was saying (and Ed I’d like to hear your thoughts)
is that the presence of price information in the ESI messages
don’t identify the nature (i.e. sender’s intent) of the
message. I think it would be good if the ESI message/information
is clearly identified as “Notifications”,
“Requests”,
or
“Orders”.
Here is how I think of them: From
the sender’s perspective: Notifications:
Here
is some information. I want to be sure you received it because
that is my responsibility. I don’t care what you do with it (I
might care what the majority of recipients do). Requests:
I’d
like you to do XYZ. Please let me know if you will do it or that you did
it and maybe what the results are. Orders:
We agreed that I could tell you to do XYZ. I may want
you to confirm that you will and/or have. I might only care
to learn after the fact that you did not do XYZ because
I need
to punish you. I may or may not be able to do anything with the knowledge
that you plan to defy our agreement. Part
of the difficulty I have in reconciling the CA OpenADR and the concept
of the ESI is that the paradigm in my head for the DRAS is
one system (Server, Client). I imagine the ESI
“interface”
to be between two systems (“Peer to Peer”). Not sure if that
makes much of a difference at the Type level. I
am advocating that the ESI we define have clear options for distinguishing
between “Notifications”, “Requests”,
and “Orders”. Thoughts? Dave Trane Commercial Systems Ingersoll Rand Office: +1.651.407.4168 Email: davidcwilson@trane.com The information contained in this message is privileged and intended
only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the
intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or the
information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message
and attachments. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]