Toby,
As soon as I get myself out from
under the UCA meetings this week I will review this in more detail, but my
initial scan indicates that is that this is a reasonable first cut. I
noticed that there is a dearth of diagrams. Is there a specific reason
for that?
-ed koch
From: Considine, Toby
(Campus Services IT) [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 4:56 AM
To: ''
Subject: [energyinterop] Initial Port of OpenADR to EnergyInterop
Word document, PDF (for consistent line numbering) with
comments and notes turned on, Open Office file. Have not verified
OpenOffice formatting is entirely consistent.
Notes:
1)
Port of what I think is the portion of OpenADR that is
we have agreed is part of the spec. I’m sure there are sins of both
inclusion and exclusion
2)
I have included comments on parts that I think we need
to discuss in the committee for focus and for direction
3)
Large table in section 3 – wasn’t sure
whether to include or exclude.
4)
Technical Artifacts (xsd, wsdl, etc) are coming under
separate cover from David Wilson
5)
There is no coherent description of the pure
priced-based model. Ed Cazalet has described the most coherent vision in the
past. I would welcome a few paragraphs. Ed?
6)
Load Profiles. How much load can I give up, how fast.
What is the model?
7)
Verification. Ugh.
Ed K, Mary Anne – any missing parts that we need going
forward?
If I were to take another couple weeks, I would further
normalize aganst SOA-RM and remove more definitions
Committee Note: For non-normative working drafts, do we want
to create a separate document archive to keep them in, separate from the
consensus drafts and process-significant documents?
tc
"It is the theory that decides what can be observed." - Albert Einstein
Toby Considine
Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee
Co-Chair, OASIS Technical Advisory Board
Facilities Technology Office
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Email: Toby.Considine@
unc.edu
Phone: (919)962-9073
http://www.oasis-open.org
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com
