[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-calendar] About Resources in the definitions of Terms
|
Ed and all, A few thoughts on this topic. I have had
limited time to remain as involved in this as I would have liked. But I have
some concerns about potentially diluting what started out as a clean architecture.
A discussion such as this could indicate that we may possibly have drifted from
some of the original concepts. I would argue that a Resource is now virtual in the new grid world
we are creating. If we must think of a resource as always being a physical
device, then we would have to make it clear that a Resource is controlled by a
VEN. The physical resource would then be abstracted at a level below the VEN
and should not be visible nor specifically addressable above the VEN. We difinitely need to come to grips with
terms and definitions and these terms must also match up with the rest of the
framework architecture. It would seem that an argument could also be made that
what some want to call a Party could in fact be a VTN. If so, call it a VTN. If
we need a definition of “Party” it would seem that a party would
(could/should) be described in terms of being a VTN or a VEN. My 2-cents again, Gale Gale R.
Horst Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) From: Ed Cazalet
[mailto:ed@cazalet.com] A Party is an entity receiving services
and making decision. A Node is a grid location, except where
we use the term VTN or VEN as virtual nodes. A Resource is a device, a set of devices
or a curtailment acting as a virtual resource. VENs may be viewed as Resources but the
general concept of a Node is not a Resource. Resources may be located at a
Node. I think It would be huge error to
confuse a Resource as a Party or Node. Resources should stay as Resources. Table 5-1 is fine for Resources. Just
leave it that way. It is a reasonable way to characterize resources in
additions to the resource offer and resource requirements . Note that Table 5.3 ,Market
Requirements, in my view is mislabeled. It should be Resource Requirements.
These requirements are characteristics of a Resource that Parties may which to
consider in VEN/VTN interactions to offer and dispatch resources. For interactions where the commodity is
identified but not the resources, we can use concepts of availability and
notification of Parties, but these should not be conflated with the limits on
Resources. Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 From: Toby Considine
[mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Toby Considine What
if all occurrences of Resource in the terms were replaced by
“Party” or “Node” 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]