Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Antwort: Re: RE: [BACnetLighting] Re: Meeting in Orlando, Florida

Expand Messages
  • Christoph Zeller
    Hi Steve, the RLH-001.pdf is dated 15 June 2009. This is significantly older than our last meeting. Is it still the valid one? Thanks Christoph Christoph
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 13, 2010
      Hi Steve,
      the RLH-001.pdf is dated 15 June 2009.
      This is significantly older than our last meeting.
      Is it still the valid one?
      Thanks Christoph


      Christoph Zeller
      Abt. NT
      Fr. Sauter AG
      Im Surinam 55, CH-4016 Basel
      Telefon +41 (0)61 695 55 55
      Telefax +41 (0)61 695 56 19
      http://www.sauter-controls.com

      DISCLAIMER:
      This communication, and the information it contains is for the sole use of
      the intended recipient. It is confidential, may be legally privileged and
      protected by law. Unauthorized use, copying or disclosure of any part
      thereof may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error,
      please destroy all copies and kindly notify the sender.

      Before printing out this e-mail or its attachments, please consider
      whether
      it is really necessary to do so.
      Using less paper helps the environment.




      Von:
      Steve Karg <steve@...>
      An:
      BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com
      Datum:
      13.01.2010 16:59
      Betreff:
      Re: RE: [BACnetLighting] Re: Meeting in Orlando, Florida
      Gesendet von:
      BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com




      Hello Christoph and David,

      > I suggest to distribute additional proposals (DALI-Mapping for example)
      to
      > group as well.

      All the proposals we are discussing have been available on the Yahoo
      Groups site since our last meeting in November, 2009. I have also
      sent the proposals, agenda, and meeting minutes to the BACnet FTP site
      maintainer for our Orlando meeting.

      DALI Mapping
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BACnetLighting/files/RLH-001.pdf

      Latest draft version of 2008 Addendum i
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BACnetLighting/files/Add-135-2008i-PPR4-Draft

      7.doc

      See you in Orlando!

      Best Regards,

      Steve
      --
      http://steve.kargs.net/
    • Steve Karg
      Hello Christoph, ... We have not discussed this proposal in a long time, and there have been no revisions posted by Rick or Robert. The RLH-001 posted on
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 13, 2010
        Hello Christoph,

        > the RLH-001.pdf is dated 15 June 2009.
        > This is significantly older than our last meeting.
        > Is it still the valid one?

        We have not discussed this proposal in a long time, and there have
        been no revisions posted by Rick or Robert. The RLH-001 posted on
        Yahoo Groups is the latest file that I have.

        Best Regards,

        Steve
        --
        http://steve.kargs.net/
      • Christoph Zeller
        Dear all, I was rereading the draft 7 for the Addendum i. As follow the concerns I found in the document: - Chapter 12.X.9 paragraph 2 (just under the table
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 14, 2010
          Dear all,
          I was rereading the draft 7 for the Addendum i.
          As follow the concerns I found in the document:

          - Chapter 12.X.9 paragraph 2 (just under the table 12-Y)
          ... or the priority field of the LIghtingCommand if present

          The concept I see is that if this field in the lighting command is
          present its this content to be used, if the field is not present in the
          lighting command then
          the property priority is used. Which one of the two has the priority
          might not be clear enough (although you should be able to correclty guess
          from the context).
          I would suggest add a paragraph generally describing this behaviour and
          not repeating it on all occasions (with slightly different language in the
          next paragraph).
          It should be considered to change the language for all such fields of
          the lighting command.
          One possible solution to make it even more clear is to rename the
          corresponding properties to Default_xxx.

          - Chapter 12.X.15.1 Blink Warning Behaviour
          I guess that the description of auto-reliquish is not behaving as
          expected:
          Example: We have a priority Array with one populated Entry of 100% at
          priority 12. All other entries are NULL.
          Now we are writing 0% to priority 8 which triggers blink warning. Blink
          Warning is inserting 0% to priority 6 for Blink-Time.
          Next 100% is written to priority 6 to restore the previous level for
          Warn-Delay seconds. Then priority 6 should be relinquished.
          Unfortunately with the language written we are relinquishing priority 8
          which results in 100% (Why did we had a Blink-Warning?)
          There might be more ambiguities with auto-relinquish I was not checking
          all occurences so far.

          The critical point with interference with COV-Notifications is still not
          resolved!

          - Chapter 12.X.30/31
          introducing a new concept of automatically readjust min_pres_value and
          max_pres_value if they are commanded to opposite directions.
          In all other objects this is not done and potentially controversal
          during public review (Analog Output Objects are not mentioning it).
          If we introduce it here, we should consider introducing the same
          mechanism to all other opjects as well.

          See you soon in Orlando
          Regards
          Christoph



          Christoph Zeller
          Abt. NT
          Fr. Sauter AG
          Im Surinam 55, CH-4016 Basel
          Telefon +41 (0)61 695 55 55
          Telefax +41 (0)61 695 56 19
          http://www.sauter-controls.com

          DISCLAIMER:
          This communication, and the information it contains is for the sole use of
          the intended recipient. It is confidential, may be legally privileged and
          protected by law. Unauthorized use, copying or disclosure of any part
          thereof may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error,
          please destroy all copies and kindly notify the sender.

          Before printing out this e-mail or its attachments, please consider
          whether
          it is really necessary to do so.
          Using less paper helps the environment.




          Von:
          Steve Karg <steve@...>
          An:
          BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com
          Datum:
          13.01.2010 18:13
          Betreff:
          Re: Re: RE: [BACnetLighting] Re: Meeting in Orlando, Florida
          Gesendet von:
          BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com




          Hello Christoph,

          > the RLH-001.pdf is dated 15 June 2009.
          > This is significantly older than our last meeting.
          > Is it still the valid one?

          We have not discussed this proposal in a long time, and there have
          been no revisions posted by Rick or Robert. The RLH-001 posted on
          Yahoo Groups is the latest file that I have.

          Best Regards,

          Steve
          --
          http://steve.kargs.net/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.