OASIS Energy Interoperation TC

All -- Here are cleaned up versions of the transactive payloads after several long discussions. This is adjusted from the style I showed October 12 to one where the tops of groups line up, making it easy to see what's not in a pattern. BTW my EAP is based on wd29 schemas. Available (I'll upload it) on request. Issues remaining (see also the attached notes file and the diagrams for details) (1) Naming of parties.  For example, in Request: Tender:    Tenderer, Tenderee Transaction:    Party, CounterParty Quote:    publisher, quoted I've gone to party/CounterParty in Transaction, tendererParty/TendereeParty in Tender, and publisherParty/quotedParty in Quote. Gerry may be right on the interactions - if I receive a Create* I know that I'm the counterparty. If I send a request* I could be either (are the queries symmetric? need for the data queries).  So maybe it's not an issue. (2) If we keep using Tender-specific party names, it should probably be TenderER and TenderEE (to emphasize the differences). That's a global (EiClasses and EiPayloads) change. BTW investorwords.com says that the US term is Bidder.  I don't think that has the same meaning. So I'm happy with tenderer/tenderee but I'm getting happier with party/counterparty. RequestOR is listed with RequestER  in my dictionaries. (3) How to show these figures - the parallel diagrams have proven extremely valuable. Do we want/need a repeat or a subset for the respective sections? (4) Ed Cazalet and I have come to the conclusion that a single emixBase is what's needed in a tender, with 1..* eiTenders.  But Quote and Transaction have 1..* and are not quite aligned. Suggestions welcome on this point. (5) I've added attributes to EiQuoteType, EiTenderType, and EiTransactionType including the ...ID.  Should the transacting parties be added? Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax Attachment: Transactive Payloads Extras 20111012-2234.jpg Description: JPEG image Attachment: Transactive Payloads 20111012-2234.jpg Description: JPEG image {
tf1ansiansicpg1252cocoartf1038cocoasubrtf360 {fonttblf0fswissfcharset0 Helvetica;} {colortbl;
ed255green255lue255;} margl1440margr1440vieww9140viewh15640viewkind0 pard x720 x1440 x2160 x2880 x3600 x4320 x5040 x5760 x6480 x7200 x7920 x8640qlqnaturalpardirnatural f0fs32 cf0 Changes for Payloads (Transactional) 20111012 22:30 See figure TransactivePayloads 20111012-2230 For Spec: A Tender has exactly one emixBase. MUST pass the emixBases by value. ISSUE Calendar container is the message? or something else? Does it matter? SHOULD an EiQuote and EiTransaction have exactly one or 1..*? SHOULD an empty (no emixBase) quote or transaction be allowed? I thihnk not - keep at 1..* for emixBase for both. IDs in the ..Types (except EiEventType EiTransactionType has many TenderIDs but only one transactionID - is this correct? DISCUSSION on grouping. If it's the same kind of emixbase it can be fit into one in a Tender Could have 1..* but conform to 1 in version 1.0? Transaction processing to group independent transactions into a single all-or-none - so don't need AllOrNone flag for EiTender. BUT why is Transaction ok with 1..* TenderIDType and just one TenderID in the EiTransaction class? This is an ERROR ACTION Tender and Transaction should have 1 emixBase in 1.0 - could be 1..* conformed to 1, or just 1. HELP!! TOBY? ED? Look closely at multiplicity in the different payloads, and at the Tender and Transaction Type. Can avoid responses if only one. Quote (I think) needs more than one. requestor and the two party IDs is in Request for auditing'85of course with appropriate security (e.g. Auditor Role). RequestTransacction - transactionID is now 0..* For "Request" there's exactly one "Party" - multiple CounterParties, multiple transaction IDs, and 0..1 market context. The semantics are restriction - if a Transaction ID is included, only that transaction ID is returned. If a CounterParty ID is included only things between the Party and CounterParty are returned. Etc SHOULD TenderType, QuoteType, TransactionType list parties and counterparties? ADD quotedPartyID 0/1 in cancelQuote ADD PublisherPartyID: PartyIDType to the Quote payloads.}

Hi Bill, Looks like a good progress. For quote, I recommend publisher and subscriber (publisherParty and subscriberParty) -- this is a common paradigm for publish/subscribe architecture and must be followed if the term  publisher is used. This paradigm also applies to the DR events. Thanks, -Rish On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:26 PM, William Cox < wtcox@coxsoftwarearchitects.com > wrote: All -- Here are cleaned up versions of the transactive payloads after several long discussions. This is adjusted from the style I showed October 12 to one where the tops of groups line up, making it easy to see what's not in a pattern. BTW my EAP is based on wd29 schemas. Available (I'll upload it) on request. Issues remaining (see also the attached notes file and the diagrams for details) (1) Naming of parties.  For example, in Request: Tender:    Tenderer, Tenderee Transaction:    Party, CounterParty Quote:    publisher, quoted I've gone to party/CounterParty in Transaction, tendererParty/TendereeParty in Tender, and publisherParty/quotedParty in Quote. Gerry may be right on the interactions - if I receive a Create* I know that I'm the counterparty. If I send a request* I could be either (are the queries symmetric? need for the data queries).  So maybe it's not an issue. (2) If we keep using Tender-specific party names, it should probably be "TenderER" and "TenderEE" (to emphasize the differences). That's a global (EiClasses and EiPayloads) change. BTW investorwords.com says that the US term is Bidder.  I don't think that has the same meaning. So I'm happy with "tenderer/tenderee" but I'm getting happier with party/counterparty. RequestOR is listed with RequestER  in my dictionaries. (3) How to show these figures - the parallel diagrams have proven extremely valuable. Do we want/need a repeat or a subset for the respective sections? (4) Ed Cazalet and I have come to the conclusion that a single emixBase is what's needed in a tender, with 1..* eiTenders.  But Quote and Transaction have 1..* and are not quite aligned. Suggestions welcome on this point. (5) I've added attributes to EiQuoteType, EiTenderType, and EiTransactionType including the ...ID.  Should the transacting parties be added? Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: energyinterop-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: energyinterop-help@lists.oasis-open.org -- Rish Ghatikar Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Road, MS: 90-3111, Berkeley, CA 94720 GGhatikar@lbl.gov +1 510.486.6768 +1 510.486.4089 [fax] This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain confidential information and should not be copied without permission. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete the email from computer[s].

Looks good, suggest following changes: 1. For EiCreateTransaction the Transaction ID should be deleted. Assume the transactionId when the EICreatedTransaction payload is returned. Follows EiCreateTender and EiCreateQuote. 2. EiCreateTransaction needs EiTransaction: EITransactionType[1..*]. Follows Tender and Quote 3. I believe Create Tender, Transaction and Quote payloads need TendereePartyID, CounterPartyID and QuotedPartyID all [1..*], respectively. 4. Likewise I believe Created Tender, Transaction and Quote payloads need TendererPartyID, PartyID and PublisherPartyID , respectively. 5. For EiCancelQuote quotedrPartyID should be quoterPartyID ; there are a few other similar typos in EiRequestTender and EiCanceledQuote. 6. EiRequestTender needs MarketContext[1..*] Terms like Bid, Offer, Order, Bidder, Offerer were rejected early in favor of Tender, Party and CounterParty with Side = Buyer or Seller for the Party. There is are lots of confusing conventions in the various market, but we have a system and should stick with it. Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 101 First Street, Suite 552 Los Altos, CA 94022 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 ed@cazalet.com www.cazalet.com From: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of William Cox Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:27 PM To: EITC Cc: Ed Cazalet; Toby Considine Subject: [energyinterop] Updated transactive payloads All -- Here are cleaned up versions of the transactive payloads after several long discussions. This is adjusted from the style I showed October 12 to one where the tops of groups line up, making it easy to see what's not in a pattern. BTW my EAP is based on wd29 schemas. Available (I'll upload it) on request. Issues remaining (see also the attached notes file and the diagrams for details) (1) Naming of parties. For example, in Request: Tender: Tenderer, Tenderee Transaction: Party, CounterParty Quote: publisher, quoted I've gone to party/CounterParty in Transaction, tendererParty/TendereeParty in Tender, and publisherParty/quotedParty in Quote. Gerry may be right on the interactions - if I receive a Create* I know that I'm the counterparty. If I send a request* I could be either (are the queries symmetric? need for the data queries). So maybe it's not an issue. (2) If we keep using Tender-specific party names, it should probably be "TenderER" and "TenderEE" (to emphasize the differences). That's a global (EiClasses and EiPayloads) change. BTW investorwords.com says that the US term is Bidder. I don't think that has the same meaning. So I'm happy with "tenderer/tenderee" but I'm getting happier with party/counterparty. RequestOR is listed with RequestER in my dictionaries. (3) How to show these figures - the parallel diagrams have proven extremely valuable. Do we want/need a repeat or a subset for the respective sections? (4) Ed Cazalet and I have come to the conclusion that a single emixBase is what's needed in a tender, with 1..* eiTenders. But Quote and Transaction have 1..* and are not quite aligned. Suggestions welcome on this point. (5) I've added attributes to EiQuoteType, EiTenderType, and EiTransactionType including the ...ID. Should the transacting parties be added? Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax Attachment: Transactive Payloads.jpg Description: JPEG image Attachment: Transactive Payloads.jpg Description: JPEG image Attachment: Transactive Payloads.jpg Description: JPEG image