While I think Ed C has a very good point concerning
the CIM, I agree with David’s point and tend to prefer specifications
that reduce the ability to create illegal instances of data. The fewer
illegal instances of data a consumer has to deal with the simpler and more robust
the whole system will be. It is worth pointing out that a lot of the security
holes in today’s systems were exposed as flaws in a protocol stack’s
ability to handle malformed or illegal data parameters in messages. This type
of vulnerability becomes magnified in lower end systems where engineers are
cutting corners in their resource constrained devices.
-ed koch
From: Ed Cazalet
[mailto:ed@cazalet.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 7:27
AM
To: 'David RR Webber (XML)';
Toby.Considine@gmail.com
Cc: smartgrid-interest@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [smartgrid-interest]
Is there a difference? (Time and Schedule)
In CIM and OpenSG I
believe they use start/end. I think the reason is that even though meter
reads may be scheduled every 15 min or prices published every 5 min,
occasionally the read or the published time does not happen on a regular
duration. While a start/duration would work with a variable duration, I
think we should be consistent with their start/end practice.
From: David RR Webber
(XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 7:20
AM
To: Toby.Considine@gmail.com
Cc: smartgrid-interest@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [smartgrid-interest]
Is there a difference? (Time and Schedule)
The only snag I see
with 2) is this:
and I assume for
Duration is has to be fully qualified - e.g. 01:00:00 and not just 1
p.s. They are using
military time, right?!
--------
Original Message --------
Subject: [smartgrid-interest] Is there a difference? (Time and
Schedule)
From: "Toby Considine"
<Toby.Considine@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, June 10, 2010 10:07 am
To: <smartgrid-interest@lists.oasis-open.org>
I am thinking about
information and conformance in schedules, and I want to ask for a broader
perspective than in the WS-Calendar committee. Note I am *not asking* for contributions to the
committee, I am asking for perspectives on what the standard should support.
Note that there is always a tension between “support everything”
and “interoperation”
The WS-Calendar
current draft is out for public comment. It is in many ways a WS instantiation
of iCalendar and related IETF specifications. At its core is a series of time
slices based upon the well-known vtodo object. Each slice may reference a usage
a price, or any other information artifact. Assume it is a series or energy
prices or a series of DR requests…..
As I meditate on this
object I arrive at the following question:
What’s the
difference in *actions*, and in *performance* between
A) Do X beginning at 2:00 for an hour duration
B) Do X beginning at 2:00 for and ending at 3:00
C) Do X for an hour ending at 3:00
All are possible using
the VTODO data structure.
One (C) is not allowed
if I understand correctly
Within any
interaction, it would be simpler, cleaner to allow only (A) or (B)
Do we need to allow
both?
Does B have a finite
stop and A does not?
Why would we support
both?
“It is difficult
to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding
it” -- Upton Sinclair.
OASIS Technical Advisory Board
TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar
TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop
U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid
Architecture Committee
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: smartgrid-interest-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For
additional commands, e-mail: smartgrid-interest-help@lists.oasis-open.org