OASIS Energy Interoperation TC

  • 1.  DCW's comments on energyinterop-wd

    Posted 07-21-2009 14:11
      |   view attached

    Attachment(s)



  • 2.  RE: [energyinterop] DCW's comments on energyinterop-wd

    Posted 07-21-2009 17:00
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Hi David,

    Although I do lean towards REST as well, but – unlike SOAP and WSDL – there are no proven methods of describing and enumerating REST endpoints and parameters. i.e. with REST, one has to have a document to code to; with SOAP, one needs a WSDL and the code is automatically generated.

    I do not think we should put SOAP aside. I think it should be supported as much as REST is supported.

    With kind regards,

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

    Michel Kohanim, C.E.O

    Universal Devices, Inc.

    (p) 818.631.0333

    (f) 818.708.0755

    http://www.universal-devices.com

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

    From: Wilson, David C (St. Paul) [mailto:DavidCWilson@trane.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:10 AM
    To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: [energyinterop] DCW's comments on energyinterop-wd

    Hi All,

    I added some comments to the document.

    With respect to the REST, SOAP, etc question raised by Ed… I lean a little toward REST as a starting point.  It seems this information is very “noun” centric.  The participants want to publish information (about a DR event, etc).  The participants (in various markets) should not expect to command another participant [i.e. function setYourThermostat() ].  For backward compatibility with CA OpenADR, we can use a separate specification to require any particular SOAP or role-based interaction (my comments in the document speak to this).

    Have a great day,

    Dave

    <<energyinterop-wd-00_1_dcw.doc>>

     

    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.



  • 3.  RE: [energyinterop] DCW's comments on energyinterop-wd

    Posted 07-21-2009 21:10
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    It is my experience that control programmers always prefer REST, because it looks more like an exposed bare API. I would posit that exposed bare APIs are not necessarily what we want on the web…


    "A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying ... that he is wiser today than yesterday." -- Jonathan Swift


    Toby Considine

    Chair, OASIS oBIX TC
    Facilities Technology Office
    University of North Carolina
    Chapel Hill, NC

      

    Email: Toby.Considine@fac.unc.edu" title="mailto:Toby.Considine@fac.unc.edu">Toby.Considine@ unc.edu
    Phone: (919)962-9073

    http://www.oasis-open.org

    blog: www.NewDaedalus.com

    From: Michel Kohanim [mailto:michel@universal-devices.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:00 PM
    To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [energyinterop] DCW's comments on energyinterop-wd

    Hi David,

    Although I do lean towards REST as well, but – unlike SOAP and WSDL – there are no proven methods of describing and enumerating REST endpoints and parameters. i.e. with REST, one has to have a document to code to; with SOAP, one needs a WSDL and the code is automatically generated.

    I do not think we should put SOAP aside. I think it should be supported as much as REST is supported.

    With kind regards,

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

    Michel Kohanim, C.E.O

    Universal Devices, Inc.

    (p) 818.631.0333

    (f) 818.708.0755

    http://www.universal-devices.com

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

    From: Wilson, David C (St. Paul) [mailto:DavidCWilson@trane.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:10 AM
    To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: [energyinterop] DCW's comments on energyinterop-wd

    Hi All,

    I added some comments to the document.

    With respect to the REST, SOAP, etc question raised by Ed… I lean a little toward REST as a starting point.  It seems this information is very “noun” centric.  The participants want to publish information (about a DR event, etc).  The participants (in various markets) should not expect to command another participant [i.e. function setYourThermostat() ].  For backward compatibility with CA OpenADR, we can use a separate specification to require any particular SOAP or role-based interaction (my comments in the document speak to this).

    Have a great day,

    Dave

    <<energyinterop-wd-00_1_dcw.doc>>

     

    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.



  • 4.  Re: [energyinterop] DCW's comments on energyinterop-wd

    Posted 07-22-2009 02:39
    I think we should also consider the extent of implementations on the 
    field and what purposes we're eventually using it for. REST is the new 
    implementation and has constraints, albeit easy to do. It's not useful 
    for heavy duty interactions. There may be areas where SOAP makes sense 
    (e.g., security and reliability).
    
    The key rationale for Simple SOAP to be made as "required" 
    implementation within OpenADR V1.0 was:
    
    1. Majority of current Web service implementations are with SOAP interface.
    2. SOAP can offer any heavy duty interactions that can off better data 
    security.
    
    I think, in general both SOAP and REST interfaces could be considered 
    based on specific implementation and individual choice.
    
    Thanks,
    -Rish
    
    Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) wrote:
    >
    > It is my experience that control programmers always prefer REST, 
    > because it looks more like an exposed bare API. I would posit that 
    > exposed bare APIs are not necessarily what we want on the web…
    >
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > "A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, 
    > which is but saying ... that he is wiser today than yesterday." -- 
    > Jonathan Swift
    >
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Toby Considine
    >
    > Chair, OASIS oBIX TC
    > Facilities Technology Office
    > University of North Carolina
    > Chapel Hill, NC
    >
    > 	
    >
    > 	
    >
    > Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu