OpenSG Vancouver Meeting

SG Conformity Meeting

July 19, 2011 10:00amPST

Chair: Bruce Muschlitz

Co-Chair: Zahra (via Webex)

Attendees: Zahra Makoui, Charlie Smith, John Simmins, Brent Cain, Kostas Tolios, Bruce Muschlitz

Minutes by : Brent Cain

Agenda –

  1. Conformity business
  2. 5 minutes – Introduction to Conformity WG – where does it fit within OSG
  3. 5 minutes – structure of Conformity WG (3 task forces, name them and 1 phrase description of each)
  4. 20 minutes – presentation John Simmins -summary of EPRI project goal/present status/next steps/questions
  5. 15 minutes – CPRM status
  6. 10 minutes – update from Paris CIM IOP (Margaret)
  7. 10 minutes – End-to-End testing status report – Mark Ortiz
  8. 45 minutes - New business

a. Edge and Enterprise : is it time to split these groups now that the CPRM is complete?

b. Edge new business – is there any report from Phil?

c. Enterprise new business (Mark Ortiz)

d. Security new business: Bobby Brown

e. Collaboration with SGTCC in order not to duplicate effort

f. ITCA creation for standards implementing OpenSG requirements?

g. OpenADE ITCA – Zahra

h. CIM ITCA - Zahra

Conformity WG Introduction:

Review of UCAIug Org Chart (Simplified) and how Conformity fits. Conformity includes Edge, Enterprise, & Security.

Is Edge and Enterprise Merged? No.

Mark Ortiz- Look at best approach on testing application interfaces whether it’s over CIM based, OpenADR & ADE. There’s some redundancy. Not enough resources between Edge and Enterprise to make progress. Think goal for Conformity should be application services framework and doesn’t matter if it’s in Edge or Enterprise. Some working in Enterprise and some working in Edge but not enough resources to make a lot of progress.

Mark and Zahra - Focus on OpenADE, should be generic enough to handle CIM requirements. Look at best testing conformity for OpenADE and focus on that. Think of ADE as a Use Case and should be applicable elsewhere.

Bruce – Edge group deals with all 7 layers, and Enterprise deals with the protocol/user layer. Would be simpler to start with a single layer of Conformity and work down. See if Phil wants to lead a group to do this.

Mark – Can use a lot of the artifacts that exist to help put together something. The CPRM.

Mark – Motion to focus on ADE requirements to produce the conformity for an ITCA within the UCAiug.

Unanimous.

John Simmons (EPRI)Presentation on OpenSG Enterprise Conformity:

EPRI approached b y 2 major utilities to develop std testing procedures for interoperability conformity so there would be more confidence in testing. Developed test methodology to be used for IEC 61968 but can be applied to other areas as well. Also developed a test harness for conformity interoperability and unit testing and development.

3 Project strategy for CIM; Testing, Development, and Implementation. Testing methodology is needed first. First project was CIM testing and 75% complete. Need Interoperability testing to complete it.

2nd part is CIM development. Fund dedicated CIM developers to harmonize with some other stds. Will work with WG14.

Mark – Isn’t this part of OpenSG process?

John – Yes, but this it to accelerate the process.

3rd part is DMS and Smart Dist Enterprise demonstration project – share implementations with utilities.

Bruce – Would be good to develop high level test cases to present to WG14 to explain the stds better.

Take Aways –

Brent – Does this only cover CIM based Standards and not ANSI, like C12.19?

John - This is based on CIM/ UML based standards that use XML as the transport payload.

Kostas – Do not see ANSI stds, C12.19 and C12.22. Also worked on PAP06 that provides UML metamodel of C12.19 to prpoduce XML.

John – Designed with 61968 in mind. This does not cover the meters but from the headend to the enterprise CIS.

Mark – 61968 it is inter application within the Enterprise so it doesn’t cover physical to the meter. ANSI C12.19 is similar to 61850. This is more focused to system to system.

Bruce – C12.19 is extremely difficult to test based on how vendors have implemented it. There are standards ways, but some vendors use manufacturers tables. To test it for interoperable is one level.

Mark – I get question as to where does C12.19/22 fit. ??

Kostas – Should use some block diagrams to bring in some clarity on what is going to be tested.

Bruce – Maybe all we need is a black box approach to make sure information gets from headend and meter and not concentrate on the proprietary means at this level.

Brent – Understood, but eventually the ANSI stds testing will have to be addressed by this group.

Bruce – Agreed.

Demo Plan:

Units under test - using X.291 diagrams. Shows highlight between the MDM and CS-CSRV. This is the concentration for now. Verify messages between the two and make sure they are understood properly.

Mark - Expect ANSI C12 to work but want to make sure the various meter readings are supported between the MDM and above. Not testing the AMI network but the Enterprise network.

Kostas – What is the Meter Simulator?

Mark – Could be a physical meter at the FW level.

Kostas – This has already been done and wanting to see how we can contribute to it.

Mark – This diagram allows one to zero in on what is specifically being tested from a stds perspective. X.291 allows us to automate and identify what is being tested. Will also layout how End-to-End testing is done under SGTCC. See latest CPRM.

Bruce – Won’t find an exact description of X.291, but we have adapted methods from it.

Interface, Test, and Detailed test steps covered.

Test Harness details reviewed.

EPRI planning a webcast this Friday for demonstration. Offered to schedule anyone that is interested.

Not able to cover full agenda. We take up later.