toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
That sounds good to me!
Yes, I think that you can track these links as well if the number of tags is not too large, but of course this visual representation does not scale well.
It might be good in the beginning to discuss and set our direction.
At some point we will need to switch to something different, e.g. table based, as you suggested.
On Wednesday, we have our next power system data WG meeting. My proposal would be to invite all members to contribute to this mind map…
After a first round of populating the map, we have an initial version of the landscape and can decide the next step.
This map could also help in identifying the columns that we require in the table sheet eventually.
Do you think this is a good way forward?
I think this is interesting and a good way to visualize! My only potential concern is if there are data sources or challenges that are specific to only one or a subset of the metrics, will there be an easy way to track that linkage here?
But maybe for an initial mapping, that is less important.
I think it’s a good idea to do this landscape assessment first.
Shuli and I discussed your proposal today and thought about a tool to make this landscape very visual and engage members in the creation.
Having a picture would also help in explaining what we are doing to potential candidates who are interested in joining this effort.
The miro board here could be one possibility to create the landscape:
What do you think about this way of creating the landscape?
Thank you for looking into that. I'd like to propose and get the group's feedback on doing a landscape assessment as a first step in this process. Specifically, if we could create
e.g. an sheets template for all working groups members to fill out which requests:
Power systems data metrics of interest (e.g. hourly plant level generation and emissions, hourly imports / exports, nodal prices)
Best examples of where that data exists today -> how, in what format (e.g. ENTSOE, EIA)
Challenges with the existing data today (e.g. granularity, frequency, data quality, access, non standard technology nomenclature)
Example of use case (this is a "good to know", but I don't think we should index on any particular use case at this point given the Phase I scope)
We can then analyze and discuss responses, find areas of overlap / common issues and needs in order to help develop a more discrete outline of what this specification will look
like and to ensure alignment on what we are working towards. Let me know what you think, and if others have feedback on this idea as well, please feel free to chime in.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Shuli Goodman <sgoodman@...> wrote:
Great research intelligence!
l. shuli rose goodman phd.
executive director, LF Energy
a Linux Foundation project
I had a look at the API that electricitymap is using to pull real-time ENTSOE data.
The data is structured according to iec62325.351:tc57wg16.
IEC 62325 is based on CIM (IEC 61970) and developed by the same technical committee.
The CIM IEC core model describes everything that you need to run a power flow.
That means that (among many other things) it lets you define nodes and branches of the network as well as their characteristics (e.g. active and reactive power
in/output and line impedance).
It seems to me that bringing these things together might not be that difficult after all 😊