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: [energyinterop] RE: Section Four proposal

Doug, David and all;


I agree that Dougs description is appropriate. It also fits into the diagram in the EPRI whitepaper that describes the REC/VEN .  It seems that the only difference is that the “Grid” is called a “Party”, the REC (Resource Energy Coordinator) is called an “Aggregator” and the VEN (Virtual End Node) is the “Participant”. 


I think the “Party” designation is desireable as “Party” implies a more flexible definition which is needed.  But as noted in Bills drawings in the OASIS draft, Dougs document, as well as the drawing I attached from the whitepaper, the “Aggregator” is not required to aggregate anything.  It could be a single “VEN/Participant” which may or may not be summing up (aggregating) anything.  So there are concerns with using the term “Aggregator”.  There was a question or comment from someone (I think it may have been David) in the on-line chat during the call today about why we don’t just use the terms REC and VEN.  But we didn’t discuss on the call.  My comment / suggestion is:


 . Use the term “Party” as suggested (e.g. in place of “Grid” in the attached diagram) in Dougs document.

 . Redefine  REC to be Resource Energy Coordinator (“Coordinator” in place of “Controller” which, as someone noted earlier, gives the wrong impression).


With these changes some of the work in the EPRI document may provide value as a contribution / reference to clarify some of this work.  Note that I’m not trying to “sell” my work as there is nothing I could gain from that.  But it offers a further detailed resource reference explaination for the concept that Doug described in this document.  The whitepaper has been noted by other groups in a similar way and this also gives some continuity between groups.





Gale R. Horst

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

From: Holmberg, David [mailto:david.holmberg@nist.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:08 PM
To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [energyinterop] RE: Section Four proposal




I like this. I think it captures the DR service roles well. What other roles do we have? Do we need to talk about ISOs and utilities and CSP? What about for generic transactional energy, or specific transaction types?




From: Walker, Doug [mailto:DWalker@caiso.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:57 PM
To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [energyinterop] Section Four proposal


Here is a quick draft to give some ideas of a rework of section 4.  I tried to make it in line with discussions today regarding ‘Party’.  I did not have the original graphics, so I had to create new ones, but the main point was to put forth the idea that Actor is a role that a particular entity can play.  This will potentially change for each atomic service interaction. 


Also, are we using the NAESB work for context of individual services?  If so, that should be added to the NAESB section (currently placeholder) and we can concentrate on the individual services.


As this is a radical change, I wanted to get it out early to see if this was along the lines of the group’s thoughts.


Thank you,
Douglas Walker

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