energyinterop — archive

[Girish Ghatikar]

Michel, I appreciate your comments and we will discuss them with the TC during tomorrow's meeting. Toby was planning to submit formal comments to the TC and if he can please capture your thoughts in that document, it would be helpful to guide the conversation. Thank you, -Rish Michel Kohanim wrote: > 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 > ******************************** > > >