Interesting work. Thanks for the opportunity to review. Here are a few things I noticed as I read through the doc.
The definition of “Scale” in Table 3-3 appears to be incorrect. “Scale” is defined there as the “Mantissa that specifies the size of the Resource Unit” and the example given states that “megawatts” has a mantissa of 6. Assuming we are working in base 10, the prefix “mega-“ refers to the 6th power of 10 (10^6), where 6 is the EXPONENT of the number, not the mantissa. In standard scientific notation, “mantissa” refers to the digits without the 10^n part. Therefore, the definition of “scale” should be the EXPONENT of the size prefix (“mega” or 6 in the example), not the mantissa (the fractional part or “precision” of the number).
Nevertheless, the effect of the definition of scale is correct: the example for “Size” (“5 kW”), with the explanation that the “5” is the “size” and “3” is the “scale,” makes sense, since the scale part of this is “kilo-“ (10^3) and thus the exponent (NOT the mantissa) of 5 x 10^3 is “3”. But why is “Size” constrained to be an “integer”? Why not allow a Product to have a fractional Size (for example "0.5 MW") rather than requiring this to be expressed as “500 kW” (or even “500000 W”)?
I’m not sure that I understand the example of “Stream Payload Mantissa” in Table 5-1, but it seems to contain the same confusion between mantissa and exponent.
The definition of ”Quantity Scale” in Table 6-2 definitely confuses mantissa and exponent.
When discussing Conformance (Section 14), line 780 says “Portions of CTS conform to and use updated and simplified versions of the specifications…”. I guess it’s possible for a spec’s conformance rules to allow the CTS spec to both conform to it and to extend it, but it does sound somewhat paradoxical. Besides, the WS-Calendar spec says [lines 1553-1554] that "Specifications that...claim conformance with WS-Calendar SHALL define the business meaning of zero duration Intervals” and I don't find that in the CTS spec.
Some miscellaneous typos:
Line 356: “that to shallow” should probably read “that are too shallow”.
Line 668, “report and power” should probably read “report any power”.
Line 712: “match buy and” should probably read “match buyer and”.
Line 912: “seller increase” should probably read “seller to increase”
Line 914-15: “the sender” should probably read something like “the identities of the sender”.
Line 916: “able detect” should probably read “able to detect”.
Walt
H. Walter Johnson, Ph.D.
Smart Grid & Energy Consulting
mobile: 1.916.802.8370
hwjohnson@ieee.org