[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded
|
Hi
Ed, I
would like to agree with you but having been involved in many legacy integration
projects makes me a little wary of leaving constructs/vocabulary/nouns (or however
you refer to them) open for interpretation. You could obviously talk about user
preferences, criteria by which they are constrained, and where they should be
stored/exectuted (DRAS, Portal, EMS, end device, etc.). This said, however –
and in my view – system-to-system messages should not be open to interpretation
especially if they are subjective like Far and Near. With
kind regards, ******************************** Michel Kohanim, C.E.O Universal Devices, Inc. (p) 818.631.0333 (f) 818.436.0702 http://www.universal-devices.com ******************************** From: Edward Koch
[mailto:ed@akuacom.com] David, What you are saying makes perfect sense, although I would
not classify the simple signal representations of OpenADR as DLC. It really is
nothing more than a more simplified representation of the DR information that
is sent in conjunction with (NOT instead of) any other DR related information
such as prices. The discussion started around the state variables in the
OpenADR message and then transformed into whether we should support legacy
systems. It's important that we not conflate those two issues too much
because while the vocabulary used to define the simple state variables in the
OpenADR message is driven by a desire to support legacy systems the requirement
to have an alternative vocabulary whose semantics can be defined by the user
for expressing DR event information is actually a bigger question and is in
fact anything but legacy in its applicability and power. Having the option of
an alternative representation, especially if it can be defined and controlled
by the end user, does not dictate that it be used by the end user. If
they want to buy a new intelligent gateway in which to embed all the
intelligence there then so be it. I think that is a fine way of automating DR,
but it should not be the only one. The key is in having options the end user can
choose from that allow for easier integration and consumption of DR signals in
a fashion that makes the most sense for the end user. The current mechanism in
OpenADR provides great flexibility in distributing intelligence and has proven
its worth in the currently deployed systems. Having alternative
representations of the DR information allows for the end user to decide between
those different representations AND allows for the translation between those
different representations to occur at different points in the architecture.
Could occur in the head end or it could occur in the facility, or there
may not be any translation at all. I can tell you that current OpenADR
implementations take advantage of all three of those scenarios depending upon
the needs of the end user. The alternative is to restrict end user's
options and force them to consume information in a particular way which if the
decision is to explicitly NOT support legacy systems will result in a standard
that requires huge investments in new infrastructure instead of the clean
migration path via the options that OpenADR was designed to provide. -ed koch From: Holmberg, David
[mailto:david.holmberg@nist.gov] OpenADR defines an architecture with a DRAS server in the
cloud. The DRAS server can send rich info to the smart DRAS client, or more
DLC-like info (I may be off base here, please correct) to the simple clients.
The simple client can't think so well, so the server does more thinking and
directing. It seems there is a full spectrum of communications that span the
collaborative pure price approach to the "shut off the water heater"
DLC approach. We are defining the information and messages for energy
interoperation at the facility interface (no?). We have said that we would
include the CA DR program messages that form the meat of OpenADR--that is,
"go to level 2, start time, duration". We are not specifying how to
talk to a specific device to make it act in a certain way, as is the case for
SEP--we are not defining messages for raising the set-point temp, shutting off
the water heater, etc. That is, such commands are DLC, and the EMS handles that
(even if, as in the case of AMI, the EMS is in the utility backend system). So,
EIX (Energy Info eXchange protocol) will not compete with SEP for DLC, although
SEP has price communications. A utility can keep the current “SEP from
the back-end” approach, or stick an ESI on the building that understands
EIX messages and then translates that to SEP commands (assuming that is in use
on the HAN). Does this make sense? Thanks, -----Original Message----- Thanks Toby. I totally agree. With kind regards, ******************************** Michel Kohanim, C.E.O Universal Devices, Inc. (p) 818.631.0333 (f) 818.436.0702 http://www.universal-devices.com ******************************** -----Original Message----- From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT)
[mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:59 AM To: 'energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs
(DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded I think the simple answer is no. Legacy systems work with
legacy communications. Some people will have a temporary business of putting
shims on old systems, whether they worked with OpenADR, or with SEP 1.0, or
even with a 3rd party such as ENERNOC. Our work should be informed by legacy systems, but not
limited or dictated by them... tc "A man should never be ashamed to own that he has
been in the wrong, which is but saying ... that he is wiser today than
yesterday." -- Jonathan Swift Toby Considine Chair, OASIS oBIX TC Facilities Technology Office University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu Phone: (919)962-9073 http://www.oasis-open.org blog: www.NewDaedalus.com -----Original Message----- From: Michel Kohanim [mailto:michel@universal-devices.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:36 PM To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs
(DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded Hi Sila, thanks. That makes perfect sense. The next question is the scope of our efforts: do we
foresee supporting vintage systems? With kind regards, ******************************** Michel Kohanim, C.E.O Universal Devices, Inc. (p) 818.631.0333 (f) 818.436.0702 http://www.universal-devices.com ******************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your
TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]