RE: [obix-req] Last use case was truncated

["Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)" <Toby.Considine@fac.unc.edu>]

 I would add an extension.  

The Owner of the Facility is unwilling to enter into this shared
cost-savings contract with the engineer because he feels that it is
unaudtiable and that he will be asked to "share" some wholly imaginary
savings with the engineer.  The Owner needs transparant access to operating
data to be able to independently audit the savings and thereby feel
comfortable with the contract.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Manolescue [mailto:manolescue@pandora.be] 
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 6:21 AM
To: obix-req@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [obix-req] Last use case was truncated 

Here is the last use case which was truncated in the previous e-mail.

.	The local power utility cannot build any more generating
capacity.  To prevent outages, it is motivating companies to restrict
consumption.  An engineering company is interested in a new contract which
gives lower prices if they can guarantee that certain levels of power
consumption will never be exceeded.  However the energy consumption profile
of the site varies considerably; one week welding is crucial, the next
chemical treatment is essential.  The company needs different energy
profiles to shed different non-essential loads at different times and under
different conditions.  By defining different work profiles the facility
manager can ensure power is only cut from non-essential activities whilst
core production can continue.