OASIS Energy Market Information Exchange (eMIX) TC

It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

There will be (are) JIRA issues submitted in EI that will impact the EMIX schemas. Does a PR for EMIX during that time preclude making any schema changes as requested by EI?   Bruce Bartell Xtensible Solutions Mobile : +1.321.258.6500 bbartell@xtensible.net      www.xtensible.net From: Toby Considine [mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Toby Considine Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:21 PM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emix] Documents and SGIP   It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

Excellent question. Here is my non-normative interpretation of our (EMIX) process.   It is a principle in OASIS that we not change specifications while they are out for PR.  Doing so, in effect, says to the reviewers “we don’t care what you think, we have already moved on.” This tends to limit the participation in reviews. After the first PR,  the review need be no longer than two weeks.   It is best practice, however, to record issues as they come in, rather than waiting until later. Once issues are recorded, we can, of course, discuss them, and propose solutions. This is much cleaner when Jira is set up, and we can formally work the process.   When all the comments are in, and the PR is over, we must of course evaluate all the perspectives and comments, and weigh the competing interests.   For EnergyInterop, especially the non-EMIX participants, this is an opportunity to note concerns and issues. It is of course also an opportunity for wider interests as well.  For the participant in both TCs, it is easy to log those issues directly, and begin working the issues.   In a similar way, I hope that EMIX (and EnergyInterop) folks take the opportunity to comment on issues in WS-Calendar. A delicate dance goes on there, with the specification being simultaneously worked within the IETF and OASIS processes.   If we look back to our current process, in Jira, it fits nicely with this. We have developed our own way of using the workflows.   1)       An Issue is logged. 2)       An issue is opened when someone starts to work it. Proposed resolutions and comments can bounce back and forth. 3)       When a proposal is ready to change the spec, and logged in Jira as  a resolution, we mark it resolved. 4)       If necessary, the TC reviews Resolved issues, and can either approve the resolution (Apply Resolution) or reject the resolution. 5)       The editor actually inserts the “Resolution Applied” issues into the spec, and checks it off the list by closing the Issue.   There is no reason why we can’t have many issues with the resolution stated (3) and ready for step 4, for review and approval, and quick application to the specification and artifacts. The TC would come to any decision-making process with the full scope of comments before it.   This honors transparency, and respects the review, while enabling us to continue working.   There are a number of examples indicated in the current emix Jira, and those examples require prose. I would recommend that each assignee develop it as a document, contribute that documnent, and then propose in Jira that “The issue be reolved by incorporating document at link ----- as Appendix S. This will leave us with all existing issues also ready to close in short order. With any luck, and some diligence, a week after the review we could have the specification ready for another PR.   tc     "If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker Toby Considine TC9, Inc TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com     From: Bartell, Bruce [mailto:bbartell@xtensible.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:46 PM To: Toby.Considine@gmail.com; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   There will be (are) JIRA issues submitted in EI that will impact the EMIX schemas. Does a PR for EMIX during that time preclude making any schema changes as requested by EI?   Bruce Bartell Xtensible Solutions Mobile: +1.321.258.6500 bbartell@xtensible.net      www.xtensible.net From: Toby Considine [mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Toby Considine Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:21 PM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emix] Documents and SGIP   It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

So what is the answer to the original question? Would the Public Review period for EMIX impact the timeline for Energy Interop in regards to being able to make the necessary schema changes in EMIX to support EI?   Bruce Bartell Xtensible Solutions Mobile : +1.321.258.6500 bbartell@xtensible.net      www.xtensible.net From: Toby Considine [mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Toby Considine Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:53 PM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   Excellent question. Here is my non-normative interpretation of our (EMIX) process.   It is a principle in OASIS that we not change specifications while they are out for PR.  Doing so, in effect, says to the reviewers “we don’t care what you think, we have already moved on.” This tends to limit the participation in reviews. After the first PR,  the review need be no longer than two weeks.   It is best practice, however, to record issues as they come in, rather than waiting until later. Once issues are recorded, we can, of course, discuss them, and propose solutions. This is much cleaner when Jira is set up, and we can formally work the process.   When all the comments are in, and the PR is over, we must of course evaluate all the perspectives and comments, and weigh the competing interests.   For EnergyInterop, especially the non-EMIX participants, this is an opportunity to note concerns and issues. It is of course also an opportunity for wider interests as well.  For the participant in both TCs, it is easy to log those issues directly, and begin working the issues.   In a similar way, I hope that EMIX (and EnergyInterop) folks take the opportunity to comment on issues in WS-Calendar. A delicate dance goes on there, with the specification being simultaneously worked within the IETF and OASIS processes.   If we look back to our current process, in Jira, it fits nicely with this. We have developed our own way of using the workflows.   1)       An Issue is logged. 2)       An issue is opened when someone starts to work it. Proposed resolutions and comments can bounce back and forth. 3)       When a proposal is ready to change the spec, and logged in Jira as  a resolution, we mark it resolved. 4)       If necessary, the TC reviews Resolved issues, and can either approve the resolution (Apply Resolution) or reject the resolution. 5)       The editor actually inserts the “Resolution Applied” issues into the spec, and checks it off the list by closing the Issue.   There is no reason why we can’t have many issues with the resolution stated (3) and ready for step 4, for review and approval, and quick application to the specification and artifacts. The TC would come to any decision-making process with the full scope of comments before it.   This honors transparency, and respects the review, while enabling us to continue working.   There are a number of examples indicated in the current emix Jira, and those examples require prose. I would recommend that each assignee develop it as a document, contribute that documnent, and then propose in Jira that “The issue be reolved by incorporating document at link ----- as Appendix S. This will leave us with all existing issues also ready to close in short order. With any luck, and some diligence, a week after the review we could have the specification ready for another PR.   tc     "If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker Toby Considine TC9, Inc TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com     From: Bartell, Bruce [mailto:bbartell@xtensible.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:46 PM To: Toby.Considine@gmail.com ; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   There will be (are) JIRA issues submitted in EI that will impact the EMIX schemas. Does a PR for EMIX during that time preclude making any schema changes as requested by EI?   Bruce Bartell Xtensible Solutions Mobile : +1.321.258.6500 bbartell@xtensible.net      www.xtensible.net From: Toby Considine [mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Toby Considine Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:21 PM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emix] Documents and SGIP   It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

I would suggest that the WS-Calendar schemas be marked informative so there's no confusion that EMIX is defining them.  This could be an annotation in the schemas or simply in the namespace document. Not sure how to do with no change but you seem to be contemplating replacing those with the PR02 WS-Calendar schemas. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 12:21 PM, Toby Considine wrote: 005c01cbe976$546a0c80$fd3e2580$@gmail.com type= cite > It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

Concerning recommended changes to emix submitted before the meeting, will these be ignored until after the PR?   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: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:59 AM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emix] Documents and SGIP   I would suggest that the WS-Calendar schemas be marked "informative" so there's no confusion that EMIX is defining them.  This could be an annotation in the schemas or simply in the namespace document. Not sure how to do with "no change" but you seem to be contemplating replacing those with the PR02 WS-Calendar schemas. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 12:21 PM, Toby Considine wrote: It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

It is if course up to the TC to decide what it wants to do, Mr Chair, but if we change anything, we will not start a PR before Tax Day.   From: Ed Cazalet [ed@cazalet.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:11 PM To: 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP Concerning recommended changes to emix submitted before the meeting, will these be ignored until after the PR?   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: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:59 AM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emix] Documents and SGIP   I would suggest that the WS-Calendar schemas be marked "informative" so there's no confusion that EMIX is defining them.  This could be an annotation in the schemas or simply in the namespace document. Not sure how to do with "no change" but you seem to be contemplating replacing those with the PR02 WS-Calendar schemas. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 12:21 PM, Toby Considine wrote: It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow?s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     ?It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it? -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

Toby,   I still am not clear on why we need to go to PR to have something to discuss/present in Nashville. It seems we have good reasons to wait so that we can get a clean version of EMIX out. Why does going to PR help make a better “package” to present? And why then can’t we get a PR before Apr 15?   Thanks, David     From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:32 PM To: Ed Cazalet; 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   It is if course up to the TC to decide what it wants to do, Mr Chair, but if we change anything, we will not start a PR before Tax Day.   From: Ed Cazalet [ed@cazalet.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:11 PM To: 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP Concerning recommended changes to emix submitted before the meeting, will these be ignored until after the PR?   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: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:59 AM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emix] Documents and SGIP   I would suggest that the WS-Calendar schemas be marked "informative" so there's no confusion that EMIX is defining them.  This could be an annotation in the schemas or simply in the namespace document. Not sure how to do with "no change" but you seem to be contemplating replacing those with the PR02 WS-Calendar schemas. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 12:21 PM, Toby Considine wrote: It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

Toby, Does it need to be a PR document for package at SGIP? Can't we use a WD?  -Rish On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Holmberg, David < david.holmberg@nist.gov > wrote: Toby,   I still am not clear on why we need to go to PR to have something to discuss/present in Nashville. It seems we have good reasons to wait so that we can get a clean version of EMIX out. Why does going to PR help make a better ?package? to present? And why then can?t we get a PR before Apr 15?   Thanks, David     From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [mailto: Toby.Considine@unc.edu ] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:32 PM To: Ed Cazalet; 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   It is if course up to the TC to decide what it wants to do, Mr Chair, but if we change anything, we will not start a PR before Tax Day.   From: Ed Cazalet [ ed@cazalet.com ] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:11 PM To: 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP Concerning recommended changes to emix submitted before the meeting, will these be ignored until after the PR?   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: William Cox [mailto: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com ] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:59 AM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emix] Documents and SGIP   I would suggest that the WS-Calendar schemas be marked "informative" so there's no confusion that EMIX is defining them.  This could be an annotation in the schemas or simply in the namespace document. Not sure how to do with "no change" but you seem to be contemplating replacing those with the PR02 WS-Calendar schemas. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 12:21 PM, Toby Considine wrote: It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow?s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     ?It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it? -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com     -- 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].

The TC can, of course,  vote however it wants. We can do dozens of PRs if we want to. I imagine quorum will be tough next week. Certainly edits will be slow next week, during the SGIP The first meeting is after that is the 8 th .   As it stands now, with turn-over, it is * my * * guess * that PR announcements from OASIS will take more than a week to get out. That puts it on the 15 th or later.   I think participation will be way down if we do that instead of extending the message “Here is the draft we voted out for PR, look at it and comment—the announcement will come out soon”. I think that plays better than “Here is a document that you may ignore because we don’t think it’s worth looking at yet”   Others may read the tea leaves differently.   tc   " It is the theory that decides what can be observed ."   - Albert Einstein Toby Considine Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee Facilities Technology Office University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC    Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu Phone: (919)962-9073 http://www.oasis-open.org blog: www.NewDaedalus.com     From: Holmberg, David [mailto:david.holmberg@nist.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:36 PM To: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT); Ed Cazalet; 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   Toby,   I still am not clear on why we need to go to PR to have something to discuss/present in Nashville. It seems we have good reasons to wait so that we can get a clean version of EMIX out. Why does going to PR help make a better “package” to present? And why then can’t we get a PR before Apr 15?   Thanks, David     From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:32 PM To: Ed Cazalet; 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   It is if course up to the TC to decide what it wants to do, Mr Chair, but if we change anything, we will not start a PR before Tax Day.   From: Ed Cazalet [ed@cazalet.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:11 PM To: 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP Concerning recommended changes to emix submitted before the meeting, will these be ignored until after the PR?   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: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:59 AM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emix] Documents and SGIP   I would suggest that the WS-Calendar schemas be marked "informative" so there's no confusion that EMIX is defining them.  This could be an annotation in the schemas or simply in the namespace document. Not sure how to do with "no change" but you seem to be contemplating replacing those with the PR02 WS-Calendar schemas. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 12:21 PM, Toby Considine wrote: It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

Seems to me we are stuck in a bad place. We can also release an EMIX spec for PR that references the wrong WS-Cal schemas and has known bugs and is thus something they should ignore because we don’t think it’s worth looking at yet.   From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:02 PM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   The TC can, of course,  vote however it wants. We can do dozens of PRs if we want to. I imagine quorum will be tough next week. Certainly edits will be slow next week, during the SGIP The first meeting is after that is the 8 th .   As it stands now, with turn-over, it is * my * * guess * that PR announcements from OASIS will take more than a week to get out. That puts it on the 15 th or later.   I think participation will be way down if we do that instead of extending the message “Here is the draft we voted out for PR, look at it and comment—the announcement will come out soon”. I think that plays better than “Here is a document that you may ignore because we don’t think it’s worth looking at yet”   Others may read the tea leaves differently.   tc   " It is the theory that decides what can be observed ."   - Albert Einstein Toby Considine Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee Facilities Technology Office University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC    Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu Phone: (919)962-9073 http://www.oasis-open.org blog: www.NewDaedalus.com     From: Holmberg, David [mailto:david.holmberg@nist.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:36 PM To: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT); Ed Cazalet; 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   Toby,   I still am not clear on why we need to go to PR to have something to discuss/present in Nashville. It seems we have good reasons to wait so that we can get a clean version of EMIX out. Why does going to PR help make a better “package” to present? And why then can’t we get a PR before Apr 15?   Thanks, David     From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:32 PM To: Ed Cazalet; 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   It is if course up to the TC to decide what it wants to do, Mr Chair, but if we change anything, we will not start a PR before Tax Day.   From: Ed Cazalet [ed@cazalet.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:11 PM To: 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP Concerning recommended changes to emix submitted before the meeting, will these be ignored until after the PR?   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: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:59 AM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emix] Documents and SGIP   I would suggest that the WS-Calendar schemas be marked "informative" so there's no confusion that EMIX is defining them.  This could be an annotation in the schemas or simply in the namespace document. Not sure how to do with "no change" but you seem to be contemplating replacing those with the PR02 WS-Calendar schemas. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 12:21 PM, Toby Considine wrote: It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

I agree with Toby - WS-Calendar is meeting again to vote out the specific URI Working Draft, and the package *as submitted* will be available within hours. The actual Public Review announcement will certainly not be immediate, and is unlikely to be in time for the PAP03-04 meeting next week. We need to consider whether a public review is beneficial and sufficiently ripe at this time. Please read the draft - *credible major issues* that would prevent a useful public review should be ready and put into Jira. Yes, comments should go to the PR version if this is voted out. So we *will have* the actual public review package that can be referenced and will be on the site. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 3:31 PM, Holmberg, David wrote: ECA909905BF0314CB16441980AFC5CE609233AFC8F@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov type= cite > Seems to me we are stuck in a bad place. We can also release an EMIX spec for PR that references the wrong WS-Cal schemas and has known bugs and is thus something they should ignore because we don’t think it’s worth looking at yet.   From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [ mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu ] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:02 PM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   The TC can, of course,  vote however it wants. We can do dozens of PRs if we want to. I imagine quorum will be tough next week. Certainly edits will be slow next week, during the SGIP The first meeting is after that is the 8 th .   As it stands now, with turn-over, it is * my * * guess * that PR announcements from OASIS will take more than a week to get out. That puts it on the 15 th or later.   I think participation will be way down if we do that instead of extending the message “Here is the draft we voted out for PR, look at it and comment—the announcement will come out soon”. I think that plays better than “Here is a document that you may ignore because we don’t think it’s worth looking at yet”   Others may read the tea leaves differently.   tc   It is the theory that decides what can be observed .    - Albert Einstein Toby Considine Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee Facilities Technology Office University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC    Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu Phone: (919)962-9073 http://www.oasis-open.org blog: www.NewDaedalus.com     From: Holmberg, David [ mailto:david.holmberg@nist.gov ] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:36 PM To: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT); Ed Cazalet; 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   Toby,   I still am not clear on why we need to go to PR to have something to discuss/present in Nashville. It seems we have good reasons to wait so that we can get a clean version of EMIX out. Why does going to PR help make a better “package” to present? And why then can’t we get a PR before Apr 15?   Thanks, David     From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [ mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu ] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:32 PM To: Ed Cazalet; 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP   It is if course up to the TC to decide what it wants to do, Mr Chair, but if we change anything, we will not start a PR before Tax Day.   From: Ed Cazalet [ ed@cazalet.com ] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:11 PM To: 'William Cox'; emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emix] Documents and SGIP Concerning recommended changes to emix submitted before the meeting, will these be ignored until after the PR?   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: William Cox [ mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com ] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:59 AM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emix] Documents and SGIP   I would suggest that the WS-Calendar schemas be marked informative so there's no confusion that EMIX is defining them.  This could be an annotation in the schemas or simply in the namespace document. Not sure how to do with no change but you seem to be contemplating replacing those with the PR02 WS-Calendar schemas. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 12:21 PM, Toby Considine wrote: It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow’s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    

1) I cannot change the existing document per the [new] process. 2) I cannot in good conscience chnage a document comming up for a vote in less than 24 hours 3) The existing package of schemas and examples included the WS-Calendar WD19 (which now should be Pr02 - grrr - that's why *that* vote happened last week] 4) We cannot help what people may or may not imagine 5) I cannot guarantee that OASIS will publish linkable references to the hope-to-be-voted-for-PR in any time frame relevant to this conversation.   I respectfully suggest we decline your suggestion. I propose changing nothing-unless the TC directs me otherwise. Doing so, of course, prevents voting any sort of public documents before SGIP.   tc   From: William Cox [wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:58 PM To: emix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emix] Documents and SGIP I would suggest that the WS-Calendar schemas be marked "informative" so there's no confusion that EMIX is defining them.  This could be an annotation in the schemas or simply in the namespace document. Not sure how to do with "no change" but you seem to be contemplating replacing those with the PR02 WS-Calendar schemas. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 3/23/11 12:21 PM, Toby Considine wrote: It has been suggested that we put together a package of EMIX work to share with the Nashville SGIP meeting. If you read the recent interpretation of the rules (Monday night) then you know that it cannot include any changes or directions received in tomorrow?s meeting.   You have all seen that EMIX (spec, schemas, and examples) was updated on Tuesday afternoon. If we want to share that work with the SGIP, then we should request a 2 week PR at the meeting.   Please be on the meeting (we need an absolute majority to vote a PR), and familiar with the latest documents and artifacts. In particular, I propose that a Public Review be based on   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41575/emix-1-0-spec-wd20.pdf and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41576/emix-1-0-schemas-wd20.zip   The note the other night stated that we must vote these documents, precisely, with no changes allowed of any kind.   We must, unfortunately, continue to carry the WS-Calendar schemas forward in this package as it is unclear if that TC will be able to pull off a second PR vote as they are not scheduled to meet this week.   If we are able to vote itout for PR, I will then propose that we distribute links and information to all PAP04, PAP04, and PAP09 (and the relevant DEWGS) before the weekend before the SGIP meeting.   Thanks   tc     ?It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it? -- Upton Sinclair. Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com