RE: [energyinterop] Groups - Smart_Simple_Client-Information (Smart-Simple_Clients_20091211.pdf) uploaded

["Horst, Gale" <ghorst@epri.com>]

Michel & Team:

I see a couple things that should make an interesting discussion.  From
the note below it seems there may still be two levels to clarify.  In
reference to the question posed by Michel:  "What messages are we
standardizing?" and the note about subjective messages & interoperation,
are we all yet in agreement on these two separate concepts:

1 - standardized messages
2 - standardized response 

I'm wondering if we are all yet in agreement on these two basics. Are
some of us thinking these are the same thing?

On a possibly related note ... has anyone else reviewed the white paper
released by AHAM on Monday?  I can forward the PDF and some
notes-n-comment if desired.  It relates to how manufactures of devices
are willing to interface with the smart grid.  

Cheers,
Gale


Gale R. Horst

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 
Office: 865-218-8078
ghorst@epri.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Kohanim [mailto:michel@universal-devices.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:16 AM
To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - Smart_Simple_Client-Information
(Smart-Simple_Clients_20091211.pdf) uploaded

Hi Rish, thank you.

I am not sure if I will be able to attend the meeting on the 16th and,
thus, I will have to posit my thoughts here:
1. If one is to use a Bridge Client that bridges between smartness and
dumbness then why does one need simple messages?

2. The premise of simplicity in programming does not take into account
the complexity in INTEGRATION testing interoperation when the semantics
are open to interpretation for each client. This gets even more
complicated if we take into account DER (see #3)


3. I do not see any references to DER (Distributed Energy Resources) in
which case different resources WILL have different interpretations of
the same message. There are two choices here: use well defined messages
with well defined semantics [exclusive] OR have the DRAS/Bridge Client
interpret events for the permutation of each resource, each DR service
provider, and each client

4. I have a hard time tying innovation to interoperability and
standardization. What messages are we standardizing? To me, having
subjective messages is anything but standardization and promotes many
things but interoperation so what is actually being innovated (except
for many bridge clients of different flavors)?

It seems to me that what is being proposed is more of a
Profile/Preference technique to be applied to DR messages (based on
client types) and possibly through a proxy such as Bridge Client.
 
With kind regards,

********************************
Michel Kohanim, C.E.O
Universal Devices, Inc.

(p) 818.631.0333
(f)  818.436.0702
http://www.universal-devices.com
********************************