[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: AHAM doc, was [energyinterop] Groups - Smart_Simple_Client-Information (Smart-Simple_Clients_20091211.pdf) uploaded
|
Thanks,
Gale. I would love to see it, or a citation. Best, B.O. December 15, 2009 Robert Old Siemens Industry, Inc. Building Technologies 1000 Deerfield Pkwy. Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513 Tel.: +1 (847) 941-5623 Skype: bobold2 bob.old@siemens.com www.siemens.com -----Original Message----- 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 ******************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]