[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] EI Schemas from 4/5
|
Looks like a semantics problem to me. It seems
to me that deployment could be in units other than MW. I have been assuming
that is always Real Energy, but would the deployment also be expressed as
Active Power? I am also curious to know if DR Event objectives would also apply
to voltage control. Bruce
Bartell Xtensible Solutions From: Toby Considine
[mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Toby Considine I
just started cleaning up the EI schemas submitted on April 5, in preparation to
work on putting together market context. I began by pointing to permanent
references: iCalendar the web-located PR02, emix to the PR02 version, not
yet on the web, etc. I
then started running through the eiEvent objects and found something that I
have to un-ravel. We seem to be pre-judging objects in ways that can lead to
internally inconsistent outcomes. For
example, we have a DeploymentMW type that references real energy, something
that has In
a similar way, many of these have hard coded RealPower (or RealEnergy) types.
Do we want to disallow the use of EnergyInterop to dispatch, say Reactive
Energy? For this reason, I think I need to back off to more generic energy and
power types. If OpenADR wishes to restrict its use to only the Real
types, it is of course free to do so. Overall,
the event object looks considerably more useful than before, and with a cleaner
structure. tc “The
single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken
place.”
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]