Comment on Energy Interoperation Common Transactive Services

[Hammerstrom, Donald J]

Thank you for the opportunity to review a third version of CTS. Please consider my review comments:

 

• Line 92: Formatting error.
• Header 2.2: Inconsistent capitalization
• Line 280: Inconsistent capitalization of “Common Transactive Services”. Why not use “CTS”?
• Lines 396-397: Inconsistent plural. Suggest “… refers to sets … as Facets.”
• General: Term “Facet” is unnecessary jargon, regardless of any precedence. Why not call them “interaction profiles” or something else meaningful?
• Section 2.5: It is highly unusual to include ONLY a figure as an entire section.
• Table 2-3: Why is this a table, when other UML are figures?
• Figure 3-1: The intention of this figure would be clearer if an actual UML tool were used, as for other figures. Figure 3-2 is the proper class diagram. I think you are simply trying to define the three items resource, product, and instrument. No figure is needed. The inclusion of attributes in Figure 3-1 is unnecessary.
• Section 3.1: I found it frustrating as a reader that this section was so verbose. Figure 3-4 includes all the necessary UML. The attributes could be then defined and you’d be done. Incidentally, doesn’t UML specialization imply the inclusion of the parent’s attributes, so repeating such parent attributes in the child is not necessary?
• Table 3-4: To what do the parenthetical numbers refer (e.g., Price (44))?
• Line 552: You’ve defined “Facet” as a cohesive interaction. Shouldn’t a Tender be an element of the Tender Facet, not submitted to the Tender Facet?
• Figure 5-3: As elsewhere, the repetition of inherited attributes is unnecessary. (I think this is a bad practice.)
• Line 647: Missing ending period.
• Header 6.5: Comparison of transactive payloads with what? Tender payloads?
• General: I don’t think you’ve convinced me of the needs for such distinction between the Tender and Transactive payloads. Is there confusion between actual Tender and Transactive facets and the processes needed to conduct transactive-energy (e.g., payloads) and other matching engine processes? Still another connection to on-market and off-market interactions is introduced. Is this an independent dimension, or is it connected to tender versus transactive and tender versus transaction?
• Lines 1003-1007: Yes. Merge quotes and RFQs. I think in this context, the two were originally specified perhaps by a conflation of quotes, requests or quotes, and buy/sell positions. And why are Tenders necessarily different beasts?
• General: Can Subscriptions and Ticker Facets be merged? Is a Ticker a type of Subscription? Is there a distinction between market activity information and market structure information that is clearly mappable to either a Subscription and Ticker Facet? If a Ticker is a type of Subscription, which appears to be the case, then it should be presented under the Subscription heading as such. (As I continued to read, I found what appear to be many specializations of Subscriptions Facet that should perhaps be presented as such.)
• Figure 12-1: TBD.

 

Donald J. Hammerstrom, Ph.D., Senior Research Engineer, Energy and Efficiency

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

902 Battelle Blvd.; P.O. Box 999, MSIN J4-90

Richland, WA 99352

donald.ha...@pnnl.gov

(509)372-4087

 

[Horia Pop]

Hello, 

I am attaching my feedback on Committee Specification Draft 03 of EI CTS v 1.0.

Unfortunately, I did not have the space to complete this review earlier, but if you still find my feedback relevant, feel free to consider it in the formal feedback review sessions.

Horia

--
Horia Pop
Partner & VP of Technology • LATERAL Group
Architect • Resilient Energy
+1 (650) 313 3117
hori...@lateralgroup.com / lateralgroup.com