Subject: Re: [eman] Terminology: power state

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:39:30 +0100

Dear all,

I've been following this email thread with interest. Now, let me try to 
refocus the discussion.
As Juergen said, the "power indicator coding" doesn't apply to us.
Even if I understand the value of re-using an exisiting defintion, we 
can't really copy IEEE 1621 verbatim...

This leaves two options:
Option 1: Our own EMAN definition:

     A Power State is defined as a power setting of an Energy Object
     that influences the power consumption, the available functionality, and the
     responsiveness of the Energy Object.  Examples of Power States
     include: on, off, sleep, and hibernate.

Option 2: adapted from IEEE1621 (Just remove "power indicator coding" 
from the definition)

    power state: A condition or mode of a device that broadly
    characterizes its capabilities, power consumption, and
    responsiveness to input.

Regards, Benoit.

> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:15:52AM -0800, John Parello (jparello) wrote:
>
>> My preference in writing the definition is to go with verbatim or quoted
>> definitions from a source. So I prefer the IEEE 1621 definition.
> I do not see how "power indicator coding" applies to us (and this is
> part of the verbatim IEEE 1621 definition as far as I have been told).
>
> To me, it seems the definition emerging out of this (lengthy)
> discussion is slowly but surely getting better than what IEEE 1621
> offers (and mind you that IEEE 1621 is a standard for "User Interface
> Elements in Power Control" and as such it is OK that it talks about
> "power indicator coding" - but that just means it is not necessarily
> the authoritative source for a generic power state definition).
>
> /js (my last words on this thread)
>

---

From: Bruce Nordman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:18:31 -0800

I do hope that we wrap up this discussion soon, as I think it is clear that
no implementation
or use of EMAN will be changed by the choice of words for this definition.
We do have a lot of substantive issues to resolve.

The Definitions draft - draft-parello-eman-definitions-03 - already
contains the concept
of "adapting" definitions, and a number of the ones listed already do this,
including
the very first one.  So, this does not seem to be a problem.

IEEE 1621 is appropriate in several regards - it applies to a broad set of
devices -- ANY
electronic device that people may interact with, which covers nearly all
electricity use,
and well matches the target devices for EMAN.  Also, it is about exposing
the internal
power state to an external entity via a standard interface, which is
exactly what EMAN
is about.  The very name of the standard specifies that "Power Control" is
its focus.
Also, people are often the ultimate recipients of the power state
information.
The coding phrase we should drop is about how to map internal states to a
standard
schema, which is exactly what our power state sets do.

What I still do not understand is what is the significant difference in
intended meaning
between the definition crafted over the last few weeks and the IEEE one?
If there is
one or more significant differences, these should be clarified.  If not,
then what are we
trying to accomplish?

If someone can suggest a different existing standard definition that is as
least as
applicable and works better, that could be fine.

Thanks much and have a great weekend,

--Bruce

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Option 2: adapted from IEEE1621 (Just remove "power indicator coding" from
> the definition)
>
> power state: A condition or mode of a device that broadly characterizes
> its capabilities, power consumption, and responsiveness to input.
>
> Regards, Benoit.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eman mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>
>

-- 
*Bruce Nordman*
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
eetd.lbl.gov/ea/nordman
[email-masked]
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943

---

From: "John Parello (jparello)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:11:36 -0800

I put in Option 2 as the definition. The Option 1 is listed in the Notes
for that definition.

In general next draft will contain a single definition(as per consensus
from IETF 82) and any alternatives I had in the draft I moved to a
listing of NOTES or deleted.

New draft (4) will be published shortly.

Jp

From: Benoit Claise (bclaise) 
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:40 AM
To: John Parello (jparello); Ira McDonald; Mielke, William F (Bill);
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [eman] Terminology: power state

Dear all,

This leaves two options:

    A Power State is defined as a power setting of an Energy Object
    that influences the power consumption, the available functionality,
and the
    responsiveness of the Energy Object.  Examples of Power States
    include: on, off, sleep, and hibernate.

Regards, Benoit.

	My preference in writing the definition is to go with verbatim
or quoted
	definitions from a source. So I prefer the IEEE 1621 definition.