1. Cdsc-Power-System-Data-Wg
  2. Topics

Clarifying the output of the CDSC power system data working group

guillaume.picard@...
 

Hi everyone,

Apologies for missing the meeting on Wednesday, I had a family emergency I had to take care of.
I have seen some discussions floating around this, but I wanted to get your view on what the output of this working group will be and what the specification would include.

To be more specific, what does the specification mean? And what would be the scope?

For example:
  • Are we specifying exactly what data fields should be included?
  • Are we specifying how these data should be measured or computed?
  • Are we specifying how the data should be collected?
  • Are we specifying the units e.g. MW and the format eg DD-MM-YYYY XX:XX:XX+XX:XX of data columns?
  • Are we specifying all aspects of what the model entails e.g. metadata, data model using UML...?
  • Are we specifying how the data should be ingested and used?
  • ... etc.
Of course, I am not looking for an exact definition of the scope as this is the work we will be doing. I am curious to know your thoughts on the extent of this specification.

Guillaume
McGee Young
 

Hi Guillaume,
I'll let others chime in here too, but my understanding is that we are focusing at a little bit of a higher level to start with (the semantic ontology), then trying to drill down to a taxonomy of data models (I.e., the ways in which different organizations organize and report their data), and then follow on with an effort to create standardization along the lines that you describe. My sense is that the group wants to find consensus rather than advocating for a particular approach. The exercise could probably be characterized as an effort to find common ground and to develop standards where there is consensus on best practices, but it's not totally clear yet where those opportunities for consensus will lie.

McGee

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:41 AM <guillaume.picard@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,

Apologies for missing the meeting on Wednesday, I had a family emergency I had to take care of.
I have seen some discussions floating around this, but I wanted to get your view on what the output of this working group will be and what the specification would include.

To be more specific, what does the specification mean? And what would be the scope?

For example:
  • Are we specifying exactly what data fields should be included?
  • Are we specifying how these data should be measured or computed?
  • Are we specifying how the data should be collected?
  • Are we specifying the units e.g. MW and the format eg DD-MM-YYYY XX:XX:XX+XX:XX of data columns?
  • Are we specifying all aspects of what the model entails e.g. metadata, data model using UML...?
  • Are we specifying how the data should be ingested and used?
  • ... etc.
Of course, I am not looking for an exact definition of the scope as this is the work we will be doing. I am curious to know your thoughts on the extent of this specification.

Guillaume

Markus Mirz
 

Hi Guillaume,

please have a look at my reply to Molly's mail.
I think that we are still in the landscaping phase but I can try to answer your questions.
Please be aware that these are my current thoughts and not necessarily the conclusions of the WG... we are still in an early phase...

  • Are we specifying exactly what data fields should be included? yes
  • Are we specifying how these data should be measured or computed? It should be defined what each field means but we have not specified how detailed this definition will be.
  • Are we specifying how the data should be collected? no
  • Are we specifying the units e.g. MW and the format eg DD-MM-YYYY XX:XX:XX+XX:XX of data columns? I would say yes but instead of columns talk about attributes / fields
  • Are we specifying all aspects of what the model entails e.g. metadata, data model using UML...? We have not defined the format yet. UML could be a solution. It is used by IEC CIM.
  • Are we specifying how the data should be ingested and used? no
I am happy to get feedback on this.

Cheers
Markus
Markus Mirz
 

McGee was faster :-)
I want to support McGees comment on finding common ground.
The data specification might be used for multiple purposes. So, there is room for including attributes that are used by only one of a longer list of methodologies.

Cheers
Markus

1 - 4 of 4