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

["David S. Watson" <DWatson@lbl.gov>]

"... I agreed with a Col. Conant, and some other Gentlemen, that if the British went out by Water, we would shew two Lanthorns in the North Church Steeple; and if by Land, one, as a Signal"  COL. PAUL REVERE circa 1775

The meaning of the signal (and associated action) is pre-arranged by the sending and receiving parties.  In DR, this is typically the utility/ISO (or their agent) and ratepayers.

-Dave Watson
LBNL
 





----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Kohanim <michel@universal-devices.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:47 pm
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - Smart_Simple_Client-Information (Smart-Simple_Clients_20091211.pdf) uploaded
To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org

> Hi Gale,
> 
> Excellent points!
> 
> I should've been more clear in my usage of "message". I was using 
> message as
> a abstract concept which is used to communicate an event, action, 
> or data
> between multiple agents. As such, at a high level, a message could 
> be any of
> the following:
> 1. Request for data
> 2. Directive ( a command to be executed )
> 3. Response for a request and/or directive
> 4. A published Event (something of interest happened and I was 
> notified)
> In all cases, though, not having concrete meanings for the message
> structures would cause interoperability problems.
> 
> And, I would also love to have a peek at that document.
> 
> 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: Horst, Gale [mailto:ghorst@epri.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:56 AM
> 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.  
> Fromthe 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 
> paperreleased 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 
> semanticsare open to interpretation for each client. This gets even 
> morecomplicated 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 
> messageswith 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 
> 
>