RE: [energyinterop] [TypeDisc] EventState

From
Michel Kohanim <>
Date
2010-02-04T04:53:17+00:00
ID
02ab01caa555$efcfd9e0$cf6f8da0$@com
Thread
RE: [energyinterop] [TypeDisc] EventState
Title: [TypeDisc] EventState

HI David,

 

My only comment is basically naming convention:
eventInfoInstance, I believe, should not be in the schema. Usually, an instance
is an instantiation of an object and thus this naming conventions (just like
certificates) causes a little confusion for OO geeks (like me).

 

With kind regards,

 

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

Michel
Kohanim, C.E.O

Universal
Devices, Inc.

 

(p)
818.631.0333

(f) 
818.436.0702

http://www.universal-devices.com

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

 

From: Wilson, David C
(St. Paul) [mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:54 PM

To: 

Subject: [energyinterop] [TypeDisc] EventState

 

I think the
EventState type provides a good example of the flexibility/complexity challenge
that I would like to highlight.  As you’ll notice from either the XSD or
PNG attached, the lowest level of the SmartClientDREventData provides a list of
decimal values & time offset pairs.  The type of theses values is
designated in the string value eventInfoName.

eventInfoName
Documentation

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

This is the
name for the Event Info Type that was given by the Utility when the DR program
was first established.  It is analogous to a variable name. By having a
name it allows multiple instances of the same type (i.e. PRICE_ABSOLUTE) to be
sent in the Event Instance.

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

For example:

EventInfoValue:

        Value: 3.50

        timeOffset: 900

Compare this
approach with a more strongly/structured typed approach:

EventInfoValue:

        Price: 3.50

       
        Currency: USD

        SecondsOffset: 900

        LoadTarget: 250

As a
potential consumer of this information, I want the types of the values to be
defined inside the interface (at least to the level of Price, Load,
Consumption, Reduction vs Absolute) while the business rules can be a priori
defined in the program/contract.

Was the
common program in OpenADR definition the only factor contributing to the
weaker/flatter type approach? What other factors drove this design?

Do you agree
or disagree with the general trend to add more meaning to the elements for the
EnergyInterop specification?

Regards,

Dave

 

<<EventInfo.xsd>>
<<EventState.png>> 

David
Wilson

Enterprise
Solutions Portfolio Manager

Trane
Commercial Systems

Ingersoll
Rand

Office:
+1.651.407.4168

Mobile:
+1.612.741.2759

Email:


www.trane.com

 

The information contained in this message is privileged and
intended only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative
of the intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message
or the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message
and attachment..