OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

energyinterop message

[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.



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





-----Original Message-----
From: Horst, Gale [mailto:ghorst@epri.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:56 PM
To: michel@universal-devices.com; energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - Smart_Simple_Client-Information (Smart-Simple_Clients_20091211.pdf) uploaded


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. 






Gale R. Horst


Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Office: 865-218-8078




-----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








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:



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]