OASIS Energy Interoperation TC

 View Only
  • 1.  Re: [energyinterop] XSD Files for Committee Draft 01

    Posted 08-05-2009 11:52
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    To Michel's point, I think there is interest in changing the schema in a few ways. Bill advocates making those changes "in public" by revising after the first committee draft is published. (If I understood him correctly.)

    That is really question number one: does this first draft include any significant changes to OpenADR?

    On the enumerations, I advocate an interger state value that is defined in the specification. This is simpler for an embedded controller to handle. We should also consider backward compatibility.

    Regards,
    Dave

    Dave
    Sent from my mobile device




  • 2.  RE: [energyinterop] XSD Files for Committee Draft 01

    Posted 08-05-2009 14:43
    
    
    
    
    
    
    


  • 3.  Re: [energyinterop] XSD Files for Committee Draft 01

    Posted 08-05-2009 14:49
    
    
      
    
    
    Ed and Davide and Michel --

    The purpose is indeed to make changes in public, starting from the extracted (and reformatted) portions of the OpenADR spec.

    So I think that any changes to schemas and so forth are not appropriate for this "Committee Draft 1" -- it's the start point for the significant work we need to do, of which modifying the schemas is one part.

    In summary, we should vote this as a Committee Draft to show our starting point as a Technical Committee.

    Thanks!

    bill
    --
    William Cox
    Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
    Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
    +1 862 485 3696 mobile
    +1 908 277 3460 fax


    Edward Koch wrote:
    1E919CE9B7A53E49A6BE1B64A5FDBF4E6D630F887F@MAIL113.mail.lan" type="cite">

    Michel,

    I’ll leave it to Bill to properly characterize what we are voting on, but we are not yet voting on approving any schemas.  It is far too premature for that.  Until we get input from UCA and the pricing/scheduling task force we don’t even yet know what information needs to be added to the current specification much less design and approve schemas for it.

    We can and should discuss the issues you raise if for no other reason that to better understand the current OpenADR specification, but I don’t think our first vote should be contingent on those discussions.

    -ed koch


    From: Wilson, David C () [mailto:DavidCWilson@trane.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:52 AM
    To: ;
    Subject: Re: [energyinterop] XSD Files for Committee Draft 01

    To Michel's point, I think there is interest in changing the schema in a few ways. Bill advocates making those changes "in public" by revising after the first committee draft is published. (If I understood him correctly.)

    That is really question number one: does this first draft include any significant changes to OpenADR?

    On the enumerations, I advocate an interger state value that is defined in the specification. This is simpler for an embedded controller to handle. We should also consider backward compatibility.

    Regards,
    Dave

    Dave
    Sent from my mobile device


     

    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 attachments.