RE: AHAM doc, was [energyinterop] Groups - Smart_Simple_Client-Information (Smart-Simple_Clients_20091211.pdf) uploaded

Thanks,
Gale.

 

I would love to see it, or a citation.

 

Best,

B.O.  December 15, 2009

 

Robert Old

Siemens Industry, Inc.

Building Technologies

1000 Deerfield Pkwy.

Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513

Tel.: +1 (847) 941-5623

Skype: bobold2



www.siemens.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Horst, Gale [mailto:] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:56 PM

To: ; 

Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - Smart_Simple_Client-Information
(Smart-Simple_Clients_20091211.pdf) uploaded

 

Michel & Team:

 

I see a couple things that should make an interesting
discussion.  From

the note below it seems there may still be two levels to
clarify.  In

reference to the question posed by Michel:  "What
messages are we

standardizing?" and the note about subjective
messages & interoperation,

are we all yet in agreement on these two separate
concepts:

 

1 - standardized messages

2 - standardized response 

 

I'm wondering if we are all yet in agreement on these two
basics. Are

some of us thinking these are the same thing?

 

On a possibly related note ... has anyone else reviewed
the white paper

released by AHAM on Monday?  I can forward the PDF and
some

notes-n-comment if desired.  It relates to how
manufactures of devices

are willing to interface with the smart grid.  

 

Cheers,

Gale

 

 

Gale R. Horst

 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

Office: 865-218-8078

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Michel Kohanim
[mailto:] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:16 AM

To: 

Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups -
Smart_Simple_Client-Information

(Smart-Simple_Clients_20091211.pdf) uploaded

 

Hi Rish, thank you.

 

I am not sure if I will be able to attend the meeting on
the 16th and,

thus, I will have to posit my thoughts here:

1. If one is to use a Bridge Client that bridges between
smartness and

dumbness then why does one need simple messages?

 

2. The premise of simplicity in programming does not take
into account

the complexity in INTEGRATION testing interoperation when
the semantics

are open to interpretation for each client. This gets
even more

complicated if we take into account DER (see #3)

 

 

3. I do not see any references to DER (Distributed Energy
Resources) in

which case different resources WILL have different
interpretations of

the same message. There are two choices here: use well
defined messages

with well defined semantics [exclusive] OR have the
DRAS/Bridge Client

interpret events for the permutation of each resource,
each DR service

provider, and each client

 

4. I have a hard time tying innovation to
interoperability and

standardization. What messages are we standardizing? To
me, having

subjective messages is anything but standardization and
promotes many

things but interoperation so what is actually being
innovated (except

for many bridge clients of different flavors)?

 

It seems to me that what is being proposed is more of a

Profile/Preference technique to be applied to DR messages
(based on

client types) and possibly through a proxy such as Bridge
Client.

 

With kind regards,

 

********************************

Michel Kohanim, C.E.O

Universal Devices, Inc.

 

(p) 818.631.0333

(f)  818.436.0702

http://www.universal-devices.com

********************************

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in
OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php