Re: [eman] eman framework issue: Lacking differentiation between devices, components, and interfaces

[Brad Schoening <[e-mail]>]

Juergen,

The framework uses a UML-like model, similar to ASHRAE 201 and IEC 6180.
As we've discussed, we could also produce syntactically corrected UML if
that is the consensues.


On 8/30/13 1:37 PM, "Juergen Quittek" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Dear all, 
>
>Here is another framework issue: Do we report the same Information for
>devices, interfaces, and components?
>
>Our framework draft (draft-ietf-eman-framework-08) uses an
>object-oriented model for describing the Information model for eman. The
>model has classes for devices, components, meters and the classes have
>attributes for carrying information on UUIDs, power values, etc.
>
>My issue with the model is that it uses the same set of attributes for
>all kinds of energy objects (device, component, power interface).
>
>The only exception is a single category/type object that varies among the
>different classes. (Ironically, here I would use the same attribute for
>all classes in oder to use the same mechanism for all energy objects to
>retrieve their type.)
>
>In the requirements document (draft-ietf-eman-requirements-14) there are
>clear differences between the sets of information elements to be reported
>for devices, components, and interfaces. The current model does not
>reflect this.
>
>This is different for the model in draft-nordman-eman-er-framework-01.
>Here the model is fully aligned with the requirements and supports
>different sets of information provided for different kinds of energy
>objects. It uses simple tables to show which information needs to be
>reported for which type of energy object.
>
>I think the differentiation between devices, components, and power
>interfaces as it is made in the requirements draft needs to be reflected
>by the eman framework.
>
>Cheers,
> Juergen
>_______________________________________________
>eman mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman