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

From: "John Parello (jparello)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:07:05 -0800

<snip>

>What, if an EO from one energy management domain reports on an energy 
>object from another energy management domain?
>Is this impossible by definition?
>     
>[jp] Right now yes. I see no reason to make that impossible by 
>definition though. We'd have to make sure that the IDs as defined would

>be universal. So as defined yes but I have no problem changing that as 
>that's a design issue.

I agree on the IDs.
Is the "may" in your definition a "MAY"?

[jp] Yes changed to MAY

---

From: "John Parello (jparello)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:32:56 -0800

HI JQ,

In order to address your feedback I added new parent/child definitions.
Will followup in separate thread.

Jp

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
John Parello (jparello)
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Juergen Quittek; Benoit Claise (bclaise)
Cc: eman mailing list
Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification
fordraft-parello-eman-definitions-01.txt

Hi JQ,

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:49 PM
To: Benoit Claise (bclaise)
Cc: John Parello (jparello); eman mailing list; Juergen Quittek
Subject: Re: [eman] New Version Notification for
draft-parello-eman-definitions-01.txt

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.

>        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"?

[jp] Any paring would be ok. (parent,child)  (producer,consumer) or
(source,destination)

Jp

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman