Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification for draft-parello-eman-definitions-01.txt

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:36:06 +0200

Dear all, John,

I liked what John did with this draft 
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-parello-eman-definitions-02.txt
The introduction is very clear on the process taken.

Can you please review the definitions, improve them if necessary, so 
that we could make progress for the other documents.

Regards, Benoit.
> Hi,
>
> Please find the new version of the definitions draft. Apologies as the title is listed incorrectly.
>
> I updated it based on all your feedback. The general approach was to use definitions from IEEE, IEC and the ISO in that order. Where terms had dual meaning in the standards I included both with comments saying the preferred etc.
>
> Please not if a definition is taken verbatim from a reference any discussion on that wording should be kept to using an alternate definition. Items we define in EMAN are wide open of course but standards based terms should remain as such.
>
> Please do give feedback and feel free to toss over any terms from your drafts that you think need to be included. Happy to add them.
>
> Thanks!
> Jp
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:53 AM
> To: John Parello (jparello)
> Cc: John Parello (jparello)
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-parello-eman-definitions-01.txt
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-parello-eman-definitions-01.txt has been successfully submitted by John Parello and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Filename:	 draft-parello-eman-definitions
> Revision:	 01
> Title:		 Energy Management Framework
> Creation date:	 2011-09-15
> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 14
>
> Abstract:
>          This document contains definitions and terms used in the Energy
>          Management Working Group. Each term contains a definition(s),
>          example, and reference to a normative, informative or well know
>          source. Terms originating in this draft should be either
>          composed of or adapted from other terms in the draft with a
>          source. The defined terms will then be used in other drafts as
>          defined here.
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
> _______________________________________________
> eman mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:24:58 -0700

Hi John,

Thanks for further improving the terminology collection.
Below please find some comments on version -02.

======
     Energy Management 

       Energy Management is a set of functions for measuring, modeling, 
       planning, and optimizing networks to ensure that the network 
       elements and attached devices use energy efficiently and is 
       appropriate for the nature of the application and the cost 
       constraints of the organization.  
I have a two issues with this sentence: 
  1. I disagree with the first line: "Energy management is a set of functions for ...".
       In fact it is more than a set of functions.
  2. I can't parse it. In lines 3-4 there is: "is appropriate for the nature of the application"
      Who or what is appropriate? Energy management? Is energy management always appropriate?

Proposal:

       Energy management refers to the activities, methods, procedures, 
       and tools that pertain to measuring, modeling, planning, controlling, 
       and optimizing the use of energy in networked systems.

The first line and the last three words are adapted from Alex Clemm's definition of network 
management in his book on Network Management Fundamentals (Cisco Press, 2007, 
thank you, Alex).

I thin that there is everything included that we need. considering cost constraints 
the nature of the application is already covered by "optimizing the use of energy in 
managed systems". Objective functions for the optimization may vary, though.

======
======
     Energy Management System (EnMS) 

       1. An Energy Management System is congruent to a Network 
       Management System (NMS) and is a combination of hardware and 
       software used to administer a network with the primarily purpose 
       being Energy Management. 
I would say that energy management is a components or part of a network 
management system system rather than that they are congruent.

Where are measuring, modeling, and planning of networks gone? 
Are they not tasks of an energy management system next to administering a network?

======
======
     Power 

       The time rate at which energy is emitted, transferred, or 
       received; usually expressed in watts (or in joules per second). 
       Reference: [IEEE100] 
Great that we finally arrive at a good definition of power!
        
     Demand  

       The average value of power or a related quantity over a 
       specified interval of time. Note: Demand is expressed in 
       kilowatts, kilovolt-amperes, kilovars, or other suitable units. 
On demand I still have comments:

1. line 1: What would be a "power related quantity"? This seems to be too
    vague for a definition of "demand", because there are so many power-related
    quantities that you do not want to use for demand calculation.
2. I don't think demand is always averaged over a "specified" interval of time.
    You can also work with demand values over unspecified intervals of time.
3. What is the difference between kilovolt-amperes and kilovars?

Proposal:

       A power value averaged over time.

======
======
     Non-Electrical Equipment (Mechanical Equipment) 

        A general term including materials, fittings, devices  
       appliances, fixtures, apparatus, machines, etc., used as a part 
       of, or in connection with, non-electrical power installations.        
     Non-Electrical Energy Object  

        A Non-Electrical Energy Object (NEEO) an Energy Object that is a 
        piece of Non-Electrical Equipment.  
Do we need these two terms? I don't expect any of them to appear in any 
of the documents that we will produce. Proposal: remove both.

======
======
     Electrical Equipment 

       A general term including materials, fittings, devices, 
       appliances, fixtures, apparatus, machines, etc., used as a part 
       of, or in connection with, an electric installation. 
        Reference: [IEEE100]       
      
     Energy Object      

        An Energy Object (EO) is a piece of equipment that is part of or 
        attached to a communications network that is monitored, 
        controlled, or aids in the management of another device for 
        Energy Management. 
         
        Reference: herein 
            
     Electrical Energy Object  

        An Electrical Energy Object (EEO) is an Energy Object that is a 
        piece of Electrical Equipment  
         
        Reference: herein, Electrical Equipment 
I do not see why we need three terms for this concept.
Isn't just "Electrical Equipment" sufficient?

Proposal: 
[remove EO and EEO, just use EE]

     Electrical Equipment 

        A general term including materials, fittings, devices,
        appliances, fixtures, apparatus, machines, etc., used as a part
        of, or in connection with, an electric installation. In general,
        any electrical equipment may be subject to energy management.

======
======
     Energy Monitoring 

       Energy Monitoring is a part of Energy Management that deals with 
       collecting or reading measurements from Energy Objects to aid in 
       Energy Management.   
       NOTE: This could include Energy, Power, Demand, Power Quality, 
       Context and/or Battery information. 
I think monitoring applies to more than "measurements" only.

Proposal:

        Energy monitoring is a part of energy management that deals with
        retrieving energy-related information from electrical equipment. 

======
======
     Energy Control 

       Energy Control is a part of Energy Management that deals with 
       modifying or setting the state of Energy Objects.  

Proposal:

        Energy control is a part of energy management that deals with
        controlling electrical equipment. 
======
======
     Energy Management Domain 

        An Energy Management Domain is a name or name space that 
        logically groups Energy Objects into a zone of Energy 
        Management
A domain may have a name but it is not a name.
What is a "zone of energy management"? Is this defined anywhere?

Proposal:

        An energy management domain is a group of electrical equipment.
 
======

Thanks,

    Juergen

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:42:13 +0200

Dear all,

Please participate to this discussion so that we can close on the 
terminology.
This is indeed required to progress the other drafts.

Juergen, thanks for proposing some new text.

Regards, Benoit.
> Proposal:  [remove EO and EEO, just use EE]
>      Electrical Equipment          A general term including materials, 
> fittings, devices,         appliances, fixtures, apparatus, machines, 
> etc., used as a part         of, or in connection with, an electric 
> installation. In general,         any electrical equipment may be 
> subject to energy management.
> ======
> ======
>       Energy Monitoring
>

---

From: "John Parello (jparello)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:47:27 -0700

HI Jeurgen,

Thanks for the detailed review!

I've made changes and will repost according to my replies below.  Points
were well taken, thank you. 

See below.

Jp

From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:25 AM
To: John Parello (jparello)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification for
draft-parello-eman-definitions-01.txt

Hi John,

[jp] Added second definition as you suggested with your informative
reference as [NMF]

======

     Energy Management 

  1. I disagree with the first line: "Energy management is a set of
functions for ...".

[jp] True but I'm following the reference so I'm not inclined to modify
that further. Added additional as below

  2. I can't parse it. In lines 3-4 there is: "is appropriate for the
nature of the application"

      Who or what is appropriate? Energy management? Is energy
management always appropriate?

[p] "is" refers back the subject Energy Management. Again from the
source. Your second definition clarifies the term.

Proposal:

       and tools that pertain to measuring, modeling, planning,
controlling, 

The first line and the last three words are adapted from Alex Clemm's
definition of network 

management in his book on Network Management Fundamentals (Cisco Press,
2007, 

thank you, Alex).

[jp] Ack included all above as a (2) definition with your source. It is
the only non standards body source but I think it clarifies the term by
having both. 

I thin that there is everything included that we need. considering cost
constraints 

the nature of the application is already covered by "optimizing the use
of energy in 

managed systems". Objective functions for the optimization may vary,
though.

======

======

[jp] Ok but then we'd have to clarify if it's a required part etc. I
removed the congruent to NMS so it reads " An Energy Management System
is a combination of hardware..." Simpler I think and gets to your point.

Are they not tasks of an energy management system next to administering
a network?

[jp] ack in your second def. 

======

======

     Power 

     Demand  

1. line 1: What would be a "power related quantity"? This seems to be
too

    vague for a definition of "demand", because there are so many
power-related

2. I don't think demand is always averaged over a "specified" interval
of time.

    You can also work with demand values over unspecified intervals of
time.

Proposal:

[jp] What's your reference for the former. I don't  propose that this
body a define term such as power, energy etc (see the intro section) So
I can include it if you give me a reference. As stated the preferred
source is IEEE1000 and demand is verbatim from that source so while your
comments on the latter are well taken I'm inclined to defer to quote
verbatim. I'll add as a second definition if you give me an equivalent
source.  A HEREIN source for a term such as this would not be
appropriate for this body to define.

======

 

[jp] The glossary is for terms not implementations of a specification.
It seems appropriate in the lexicon to contrast to electrical objects.
(ASIDE: There are devices that are managed for energy that are
non-electrical such as air compressor in factory floors. These are
examples of non-electrical equipment and can very well be attached to
communications networks. )  The fact that you are not using the term in
a specification is a writing choice. Ex: IF you are specifying a reptile
management system it is still appropriate to define reptile, non-reptile
and mammal. The glossary should not dictate implementation just defined
what exists.
 
======
======
     Electrical Equipment 

     Energy Object      

         
        Reference: herein 
            
     Electrical Energy Object  

        Reference: herein, Electrical Equipment 
I do not see why we need three terms for this concept.
Isn't just "Electrical Equipment" sufficient?
[jp] The terms are needed to root the definitions and expand. So
electrical equipment are as defined (i.e. a sub type  of vernacular
equipment). So I'm building the terms off a root as defined in IEEE1000,
then two sub classes if you will non-electrical and electrical. Once if
you attach equipment to a communication networks (this problem domain)
they are Energy Object, Non-Electrical Energy Object and Electrical
Object respectively.  The terms for EEO were agreed upon in Quebec so I
rooted the terms as the in IEEE1000 . You now have the terms defined to
make your point or describe in a specification if needed. You can use or
not use the terms you need.
Proposal: 
[remove EO and EEO, just use EE]
 
[jp] see above
 
     Electrical Equipment 

 
Proposal:

[jp] I agree with your point that it applies to more than measurement.
Your proposal is limiting IMO by narrowing the information to only
energy related. That can be construed as only energy characteristics.
For example is the name energy related? Let's avoid it to your point and
so  I put "collecting or reading information from" since there's no need
to qualify the information as strictly energy related. I think that is
the spirit of what you suggested.  
 
======
======
     Energy Control 

Proposal:

[jp] AT first glance I loved your proposal but after reading it a few
times it just says control is control.   That was why I put in modifying
or setting state.   I see that "modifying or setting state" could be
leading into a specific implementation which I'm inferring is your
point.  To be specific "control" is defined as "directing influence
over" so I substituted in "directing influence over"  in your proposal
so that it is less tautological. 
 
[jp]  "Energy Control is a part of Energy Management that deals with
directing influence over Energy Objects. 
          NOTE: Typically in order to optimize or ensure its
efficiency."
 
======
======

     Energy Management Domain 

Proposal:

[jp] Ack changed:  An Energy Management Domain is a set of Energy
Objects.

Thanks again!
Jp

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:16:18 +0000

Hi John,

Please find a few more comments inline. Beyond those I have a general comment:
How will we deal with terms for which we have more than one definition?
  - Do we leave them ambiguos?
  - Do we choose one of the defintitions?

On 26.10.11 05:47, "John Parello (jparello)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

HI Jeurgen,

I’ve made changes and will repost according to my replies below.  Points were well taken, thank you.

See below.
Jp

From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:25 AM
To: John Parello (jparello)
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification for draft-parello-eman-definitions-01.txt

Hi John,

[jp] Added second definition as you suggested with your informative reference as [NMF]
======

     Power

       Reference: [IEEE100]

     Demand

Proposal:

[jp] What’s your reference for the former. I don’t  propose that this body a define term such as power, energy etc (see the intro section) So I can include it if you give me a reference. As stated the preferred source is IEEE1000 and demand is verbatim from that source so while your comments on the latter are well taken I’m inclined to defer to quote verbatim. I’ll add as a second definition if you give me an equivalent source.  A HEREIN source for a term such as this would not be appropriate for this body to define.

JQ> OK.
======

[jp] The glossary is for terms not implementations of a specification. It seems appropriate in the lexicon to contrast to electrical objects. (ASIDE: There are devices that are managed for energy that are non-electrical such as air compressor in factory floors. These are examples of non-electrical equipment and can very well be attached to communications networks. )  The fact that you are not using the term in a specification is a writing choice. Ex: IF you are specifying a reptile management system it is still appropriate to define reptile, non-reptile and mammal. The glossary should not dictate implementation just defined what exists.

======

======

     Electrical Equipment

        Reference: [IEEE100]

     Energy Object

        Energy Management.

        Reference: herein

     Electrical Energy Object

[jp] The terms are needed to root the definitions and expand. So electrical equipment are as defined (i.e. a sub type  of vernacular equipment). So I’m building the terms off a root as defined in IEEE1000, then two sub classes if you will non-electrical and electrical. Once if you attach equipment to a communication networks (this problem domain) they are Energy Object, Non-Electrical Energy Object and Electrical Object respectively.  The terms for EEO were agreed upon in Quebec so I rooted the terms as the in IEEE1000 . You now have the terms defined to make your point or describe in a specification if needed. You can use or not use the terms you need.

JQ> Understood. In specific drafts we should only copy-in the terms we really use.

Proposal:

[jp] see above

     Electrical Equipment

======

======

     Energy Monitoring

       Energy Management.

Proposal:

[jp] I agree with your point that it applies to more than measurement. Your proposal is limiting IMO by narrowing the information to only energy related. That can be construed as only energy characteristics. For example is the name energy related? Let’s avoid it to your point and so  I put “collecting or reading information from” since there’s no need to qualify the information as strictly energy related. I think that is the spirit of what you suggested.

JQ> Agreed. The attribute "energy-related" would have narrowed it too much.

======

======

     Energy Control

Proposal:

[jp] AT first glance I loved your proposal but after reading it a few times it just says control is control.   That was why I put in modifying or setting state.   I see that “modifying or setting state” could be leading into a specific implementation which I’m inferring is your point.  To be specific “control” is defined as “directing influence over” so I substituted in “directing influence over”  in your proposal so that it is less tautological.

[jp]  “Energy Control is a part of Energy Management that deals with directing influence over Energy Objects.

          NOTE: Typically in order to optimize or ensure its efficiency.”

Yes. This looks good.

Thanks,

    Juergen

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:03:11 +0200

John, Juergen,
>   - Do we choose one of the defintitions?
Ideally yes.
It doesn't do any good if we keep two definitions.

Regards, Benoit.

>     I've made changes and will repost according to my replies below.
>      Points were well taken, thank you.
>
>     See below.
>
>     Jp
>
>     *From:*Juergen Quittek [mailto:[email-masked]]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:25 AM
>     *To:* John Parello (jparello)
>     *Cc:* [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [eman] New Version Notification for
>     [jp] What's your reference for the former. I don't  propose that
>     this body a define term such as power, energy etc (see the intro
>     section) So I can include it if you give me a reference. As stated
>     the preferred source is IEEE1000 and demand is verbatim from that
>     source so while your comments on the latter are well taken I'm
>     inclined to defer to quote verbatim. I'll add as a second
>     definition if you give me an equivalent source.  A HEREIN source
>     for a term such as this would not be appropriate for this body to
>     define.
>
> JQ> OK.
>
>     ======
>
>     [jp] The terms are needed to root the definitions and expand. So electrical equipment are as defined (i.e. a sub type  of vernacular equipment). So I'm building the terms off a root as defined in IEEE1000, then two sub classes if you will non-electrical and electrical. Once if you attach equipment to a communication networks (this problem domain) they are Energy Object, Non-Electrical Energy Object and Electrical Object respectively.  The terms for EEO were agreed upon in Quebec so I rooted the terms as the in IEEE1000 . You now have the terms defined to make your point or describe in a specification if needed. You can use or not use the terms you need.
>
>     [jp] I agree with your point that it applies to more than measurement. Your proposal is limiting IMO by narrowing the information to only energy related. That can be construed as only energy characteristics. For example is the name energy related? Let's avoid it to your point and so  I put "collecting or reading information from" since there's no need to qualify the information as strictly energy related. I think that is the spirit of what you suggested.
>
>
>     [jp] AT first glance I loved your proposal but after reading it a few times it just says control is control.   That was why I put in modifying or setting state.   I see that "modifying or setting state" could be leading into a specific implementation which I'm inferring is your point.  To be specific "control" is defined as "directing influence over" so I substituted in "directing influence over"  in your proposal so that it is less tautological.
>
>       
>
>     [jp]  "Energy Control is a part of Energy Management that deals with directing influence over Energy Objects.
>
>                NOTE: Typically in order to optimize or ensure its efficiency."
>
>       
>
> Yes. This looks good.
>
> Thanks,
>
>     Juergen
>
>
>
>

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:49:07 +0000

Hi John,

Here is a comment on another Term: Energy Object Relationship

>     "Energy Object Relationships
>     
>        Energy Objects may have functional relationships to each other
>        within an Energy Management Domain.

What, if an EO from one energy management domain reports
on an energy object from another energy management domain?
Is this impossible by definition?
     
>        NOTE 1: One Energy Object will provide a capability or
>        functional value in the relationship and another will be the
>        receiver of the capability.

Why "receiver"?  

The "receiver of the capability" is the energy management system
for which the providing energy objects makes the job and to
which it provides its capabilities.

The other energy object may not at all be aware that a meter spying
at its power supply line reports its power values to a management
system.  In such a case it definitely does not receive anything.

Instead of "receiver", "object" would be a good term if we weren't
using it already as part of object-oriented design terminology.
What about using 
   "concerned energy object"
instead of 
   "receiver of the capability"?

Thanks,

    Juergen