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: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (ENERGYINTEROP-710) Minimal and Fractal

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/ENERGYINTEROP-710?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=81023#comment-81023 ] 

David Holmberg commented on ENERGYINTEROP-710:

Item 10, in WD15 (2.2.2), facets are âcoherent se[ts] of interactions, that is, closely related requests, responsesâ. In the next sentence we have âA Facet sendsââ, but does it make sense that a set of interactions sends something? A Party exposes a Facet. A Party interacts, makes a request, cancels, sends info. Maybe a facet is an âinterface that supports a coherent set of closely-related interactions.â So we can talk about facet interactions.

Facets: Market (or Market Information), Registration, Quote, Tender, Transaction, Position, Ticker, Measurement (better name than Delivery I think). I think marketplace is part of market_information, not separate.

A facet should be an independent set of interactions that is not always included with anything else. So, you might request market info, but never participate. You might issue a tender, but never a transaction or request position or ticker, etc. Independent sets of related interactions. Not just related, but all tied to the same interaction, e.g., the tendering interaction, tender-related, actions tied to tendering.

> Minimal and Fractal
> -------------------
>                 Key: ENERGYINTEROP-710
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/ENERGYINTEROP-710
>             Project: OASIS Energy Interoperation TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: cts
>    Affects Versions: CTSPR01
>         Environment: Donald Hammerstrom https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/energyinterop-comment/202111/msg00008/2111DJH_CTS_Review.pdf
>            Reporter: Toby Considine
>            Assignee: William Cox
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: ARCH-CONF
> There are 30 specific recommendations in the "Specific Recommendations" section of the submitted Hammerstrom paper. I have numbered them all for traceability as I recombine them into specific issues. The original white paper/submission can be read in the URI under "environment"
> 6. Section 1.6: Iâm awaiting the novel value of this âminimal transactive profile.â If valuable, why are the referenced standards not being extended instead of creating a separate CTS standard?Â
> 7. Section 2.1.1: This claim of hierarchical or âfractalâ application of CTS is questionable. It seems that CTS provides means of procuring needed and selling surplus energies in time, but it does not aggregate the opportunities that could be embedded in an aggregate supply or demand curve. It is unlikely that dissimilar aggregated devices or prioritizable actor preferences can be combined at the same identical strike price.Â
> 10. Section 2.2.1: This treatment of âfacetsâ seems to be a step backward and is not architecturally sound. The âfacetsâ are first introduced as properties of interactions and later as Actor roles. These are certainly not actor roles and do not inherently even belong to Actors. What an odd mix! (Maybe these are âinteraction profilesâ?)Â
> Â

This message was sent by Atlassian Jira

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