Major There are 30 specific recommendations in the "Specific Recommendations" section of the submitted Hammerstrom paper. I have numbered them all for traceability as I recombine them into specific issues. The original white paper/submission can be read in the URI under "environment"
6. Section 1.6: I’m awaiting the novel value of this “minimal transactive profile.” If valuable, why are the referenced standards not being extended instead of creating a separate CTS standard?
7. Section 2.1.1: This claim of hierarchical or “fractal” application of CTS is questionable. It seems that CTS provides means of procuring needed and selling surplus energies in time, but it does not aggregate the opportunities that could be embedded in an aggregate supply or demand curve. It is unlikely that dissimilar aggregated devices or prioritizable actor preferences can be combined at the same identical strike price.
10. Section 2.2.1: This treatment of “facets” seems to be a step backward and is not architecturally sound. The “facets” are first introduced as properties of interactions and later as Actor roles. These are certainly not actor roles and do not inherently even belong to Actors. What an odd mix! (Maybe these are “interaction profiles”?)
Item 10, in WD15 (2.2.2), facets are “coherent se[ts] of interactions, that is, closely related requests, responses”. In the next sentence we have “A Facet sends…”, but does it make sense that a set of interactions sends something? A Party exposes a Facet. A Party interacts, makes a request, cancels, sends info. Maybe a facet is an “interface that supports a coherent set of closely-related interactions.” So we can talk about facet interactions.
Facets: Market (or Market Information), Registration, Quote, Tender, Transaction, Position, Ticker, Measurement (better name than Delivery I think). I think marketplace is part of market_information, not separate.
A facet should be an independent set of interactions that is not always included with anything else. So, you might request market info, but never participate. You might issue a tender, but never a transaction or request position or ticker, etc. Independent sets of related interactions. Not just related, but all tied to the same interaction, e.g., the tendering interaction, tender-related, actions tied to tendering.
7. Section 2.1.1: This claim of hierarchical or “fractal” application of CTS is questionable. It seems that CTS provides means of procuring needed and selling surplus energies in time, but it does not aggregate the opportunities that could be embedded in an aggregate supply or demand curve. It is unlikely that dissimilar aggregated devices or prioritizable actor preferences can be combined at the same identical strike price.
I've added to Section 2.1.1 (ctsWD16) further discussion and references circa 2015. A web search supplies more uses for the common term "fractal microgrid.".
"[Fractal Microgrids] is an early reference that describes hierarchies of microgrids. [Transactive Microgrids] describes transactive energy in microgrids."
"6. Section 1.6: I’m awaiting the novel value of this “minimal transactive profile.” If valuable, why are the referenced standards not being extended instead of creating a separate CTS standard? "
Not certain this claim is in the revised text as of WD16. CTS profiles Energy Interoperation, uses terms consistent with financial markets for extended use, and includes extensions for Position and Marketplace as well as clarifying and extending Market Characteristics.
A goal is firmware TE participants that can interoperate with any market.
Text has been updated to address these comments. See attached notes.
Transition all RESOLVED to APPLIED excepting ENERGYINTEROP-706 per Energy Interoperation TC Motion April 28, 2022.
Transition all APPLIED to CLOSED per Energy Interoperation TC Motion April 28, 2022.
Item 10: The treatment and discussion of facets has evolved in the current work of the TC. A new introductory section "Use of Terms Actors and Facets in this Specification" addresses a number of issues raised here. Facets describe a capability for interaction which an Actor may support. I agree these are not "actor roles" but the capabilities describes how an Actor uses a particular capability (e.g. Position).
Facets are also used in conformance statements to describe capabilities for an Actor.