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

Meeting in Las Vegas

Expand Messages
  • Steve Karg
    Hello BACnet Lighting Working Group! We are scheduled to meet on Thursday January 27, 2011, from 8am to 5pm, at the ASHRAE Winter Conference in Las Vegas,
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello BACnet Lighting Working Group!

      We are scheduled to meet on Thursday January 27, 2011, from 8am to
      5pm, at the ASHRAE Winter Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. We will
      meeting in the Las Vegas Convention Center in Room N212.

      LAS VEGAS CONVENTION CENTER
      3150 Paradise Rd
      Las Vegas, NV 89109

      The plenary meetings for SSPC-135 BACnet will be on Saturday, January
      29, 2011 and Monday, January 31, 2011. Other BACnet working group
      meetings will be held on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday
      (January 27, 28, 29, 30). Details of the meeting location and
      accommodation information can be found at ASHRAE's web site,
      ashrae.org. Information about the working groups can be found at
      BACnet's website at www.bacnet.org.

      LA-WG agenda items:

      1. SSPC-135-2008 Addendum i PPR5 revision
      - Develop the revised text for SSPC-135-2008 Addendum i for the fifth
      public review for the Lighting Output object and its friends.
      - Complete the comment responses from PPR4.

      Please post any additional Lighting Application working group agenda
      items to this mailing list.

      Best Regards,

      Steve Karg
      The WattStopper
      --
      http://steve.kargs.net/
    • SKarg
      Hello BACnet Lighting Working Group! We met on Thursday January 27, 2011, from 8am to 5pm, at the ASHRAE Winter Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. Here are the
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 28, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello BACnet Lighting Working Group!

        We met on Thursday January 27, 2011, from 8am to 5pm, at the ASHRAE Winter Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. Here are the minutes from the meeting, which will be available as LA-034-1 in the official BACnet records. Thank you, Chariti Young, for taking our minutes!

        Best Regards,

        Steve Karg
        WattStopper
        -----------
        Minutes
        BACnet Lighting Applications Working Group
        ASHRAE Winter Meeting
        Room N212
        Las Vegas Convention Center, North Hall
        Las Vegas, Nevada

        8:00AM â€" 5:00 PM on Thursday, January 27, 2011.
        --------------------------------
        1.Opening remarks - working group (8:20AM - 5 minutes)
        2.Circulation of attendance sheet, and introduction of those present (8:25 - 5 minutes)
        Steve Karg, WattStopper
        Rick Leinen, Leviton
        Barry Bridges, Sebesta Blomberg
        René Kälin, Siemens
        Bernhard Isler, Siemens
        Klaus Wachter, Siemens
        Scott Ziegenfus, Lutron Electronics
        Dana Petersen, Johnson Controls
        Chariti Young, Automated Logic
        Sharon Dinges, Trane-Ingersoll Rand
        Christoph Zeller, Sauter
        Grant Wichenko, Appin
        Dave Ritter, Delta Controls
        Glenn Nichols, Delta
        David Fisher, Polarsoft
        Dave Robin, Automated Logic

        3.Meeting role assignments (8:30 - 5 minutes)
        time keeper: (breaks: 10AM, 2PM, 3PM, 4PM) â€" Dave Ritter
        scribe â€" Chariti Young
        non-agenda item attendant â€" Scott Ziegenfus

        4.Approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. (8:35 - 5 minutes)
        Minutes do not reflect the decision to have an updated version of the addendum before this meeting to address comments and to discuss that revision at teleconference(s) between the October and January meetings, and those meetings did not happen and the revised addendum was not circulated. Would like to discuss plan to get revision to public review as part of today’s agenda.
        Dave Ritter moved that the committee accept the minutes as revised. Scott Ziegenfus seconded. Committee approved.

        5.Discussion and approval of the agenda for this meeting. (8:45 - 5 minutes)
        Dave Ritter moved that the committee accept the agenda as revised. Scott Ziegenfus seconded. Committee approved.

        6.Liason updates (NEMA, IESNA, DALI) (8:55 - 5 minutes)
        No updates at this time. Rick Leinan to request updates from Robert Hick and provide update to committee via email by 2/28.

        7.Brief re-articulation of issues we would like to resolve in next addendum for public review â€" LA Open issues 20101026-4.docx
        Remaining issues to resolve:
        Blink warning trigger
        Automatic relinquish
        Lighting command with multiple priorities

        8.Proposal Discussion (9:00 â€" 6.5 hours)

        Blink warning trigger
        Remove “present value (0) = blink.” Replace with 2 lighting commands WARN_AND_OFF and WARN_AND_RELINQUISH. Blink occurs via the lighting command only. We have a partial draft from Dave Fisher for discussion purposes.

        Committee discussed whether the blink_warn_delay (time from notification to user until darkness) should be included as parameter of the command, a property of the object, or configured as part of the local device, or more than one of the above. The lighting output object should have a required blink_warn_delay property (10-0-1). What happens during the blink_warn_delay is a local matter. Should be able to set blink_warn_delay using a standard network visible method. (straw poll showed unanimous approval by committee). Does a client need the ability through BACnet to override the property that’s resident in the object without changing that property (7-1-1). Then the lighting command should have a blink_warn_delay parameter, and the parameter can optionally be included in the command. The object property can be, but is not required to be writeable. (9-2-0)

        Based on the discussion we had around this issue as relates to the writeability of configuration properties, in the new addendum our other O1 properties should be R in the table (we have consensus)

        Discussion over whether we could use parameters in a command to eliminate the relinquish commands. (Goto plus null = relinquish) .Wanted to be consistent with the DALI concepts and constructs. But as long as we’re providing the same functionality, the translation will happen regardless and doesn’t necessarily need to match their “commands.” If we provide parameters rather than explicit commands, it puts more onus on the programmer to understand how the parameters affect the commands. If efficiency in transfer of and understandability of messages is important, then different messages (as currently written) are the better way to go. Decided to table this discussion in favor of the two remaining open issues.

        Automatic relinquish
        Do we want/need duration? If so, one duration timer is probably not enough. Rick will propose a solution with field use cases to support the solution and email to the committee by February 8.

        Lighting command at multiple priorities vs. command at a single priority
        If we remove the ability to specify a priority for a command, much of the complexity of arbitration and the confusion over execution of multiple simultaneous commands and durations goes away. However, we also push the burden of remembering “where I was” to the commanding entity, rather than the commanded one. And we lose the flexibility of commands at multiple priorities. Is the need for more flexibility and arbitration of multiple clients worth the complexity of the ability to handle all of the relinquish and duration issues that come with commanding at multiple priorities? (Yes â€" 8, No â€" 2, abstain â€" 2) Enough to move forward with multiple priorities

        9.Plan to get addendum to public review. (4:00)
        Every other week conference calls between now and Spring meeting beginning Tuesday Feb 15 at 8am-10am PST. Scott will set up and email information to committee.

        The committee needs two days at spring meeting. Steve Karg to request when Dave Robin makes call for time at that meeting.

        Goal to have PPR-5 and PPR-4 review comment responses ready for BACnet plenary at spring meeting.

        Reviewers to evaluate their own comments of PPR-4 against PPR-5 by Feb 8 so we can make our action plan.
        2 and 3 â€" Christoph
        4 â€" Sharon
        5 â€" Rene
        6 â€" Dave Ritter
        1 â€" Steve Karg

        10.Discussion of Non-Agenda Items (4:45PM - 10 minutes)

        11. Schedule for future meetings.(4:55PM - 5 minutes)
        Every other week conference calls between now and Spring meeting beginning Tuesday Feb 15 at 8am-10am PST
        The next meeting will be in conjunction with the BACnet Interim Meeting.
      • Christoph Zeller
        Good morning LA-WG fellows I was assigned the homework to propose answers to the public review comments The comments are uploaded to the meeting updates folder
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 28, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Good morning LA-WG fellows
          I was assigned the homework to propose answers to the public review comments
          The comments are uploaded to the meeting updates folder LA-WG
          File: LAWG-135-2008i-PPR4-Comment-Detail-2_CZ.doc

          Please note:
          non supportive comments that are critical:
          comment 0003-004 has not been incorporated
          comment 0003-005 we seem to have changed our mind
          comment 0003-011 this comment was previously accepted in principle, but now we made
          all lighting commands commands required
          (commenter makes a point that there might be physical restricitions on the output, but we never addressed this topic)
          (worse, we now make the enumeration extendable, but his proposal to add an additional property to tell
          which commands are actually supported has not been included, but for commands added later is not covered)
          supportive comments we changed:
          comment 0003-001 to 0003-003 they are now rejected (not accepted in priciple as before) because we are making them all required
          comment 0003-007 we accepted it in previous discussion but change is not incorporated

          Additional comment to the current draft:
          - Table 13-1
          The lighting-output should no longer be an extra row, the lighting-output should instead be added to row describing analog-input, analog-output and analog-value objects


          Best regards
          Christoph



          -----BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com schrieb: -----

          An: BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com
          Von: "SKarg" <steve@...>
          Gesendet von: BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com
          Datum: 28.01.2011 17:48
          Betreff: [BACnetLighting] Re: Meeting in Las Vegas























          Hello BACnet Lighting Working Group!





          We met on Thursday January 27, 2011, from 8am to 5pm, at the ASHRAE Winter Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. Here are the minutes from the meeting, which will be available as LA-034-1 in the official BACnet records. Thank you, Chariti Young, for taking our minutes!





          Best Regards,





          Steve Karg



          WattStopper



          -----------



          Minutes



          BACnet Lighting Applications Working Group



          ASHRAE Winter Meeting



          Room N212



          Las Vegas Convention Center, North Hall



          Las Vegas, Nevada





          8:00AM â€" 5:00 PM on Thursday, January 27, 2011.



          --------------------------------



          1.Opening remarks - working group (8:20AM - 5 minutes)



          2.Circulation of attendance sheet, and introduction of those present (8:25 - 5 minutes)



          Steve Karg, WattStopper



          Rick Leinen, Leviton



          Barry Bridges, Sebesta Blomberg



          René Kälin, Siemens



          Bernhard Isler, Siemens



          Klaus Wachter, Siemens



          Scott Ziegenfus, Lutron Electronics



          Dana Petersen, Johnson Controls



          Chariti Young, Automated Logic



          Sharon Dinges, Trane-Ingersoll Rand



          Christoph Zeller, Sauter



          Grant Wichenko, Appin



          Dave Ritter, Delta Controls



          Glenn Nichols, Delta



          David Fisher, Polarsoft



          Dave Robin, Automated Logic





          3.Meeting role assignments (8:30 - 5 minutes)



          time keeper: (breaks: 10AM, 2PM, 3PM, 4PM) â€" Dave Ritter



          scribe â€" Chariti Young



          non-agenda item attendant â€" Scott Ziegenfus





          4.Approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. (8:35 - 5 minutes)



          Minutes do not reflect the decision to have an updated version of the addendum before this meeting to address comments and to discuss that revision at teleconference(s) between the October and January meetings, and those meetings did not happen and the revised addendum was not circulated. Would like to discuss plan to get revision to public review as part of today’s agenda.



          Dave Ritter moved that the committee accept the minutes as revised. Scott Ziegenfus seconded. Committee approved.





          5.Discussion and approval of the agenda for this meeting. (8:45 - 5 minutes)



          Dave Ritter moved that the committee accept the agenda as revised. Scott Ziegenfus seconded. Committee approved.





          6.Liason updates (NEMA, IESNA, DALI) (8:55 - 5 minutes)



          No updates at this time. Rick Leinan to request updates from Robert Hick and provide update to committee via email by 2/28.





          7.Brief re-articulation of issues we would like to resolve in next addendum for public review â€" LA Open issues 20101026-4.docx



          Remaining issues to resolve:



          Blink warning trigger



          Automatic relinquish



          Lighting command with multiple priorities





          8.Proposal Discussion (9:00 â€" 6.5 hours)





          Blink warning trigger



          Remove “present value (0) = blink.†Replace with 2 lighting commands WARN_AND_OFF and WARN_AND_RELINQUISH. Blink occurs via the lighting command only. We have a partial draft from Dave Fisher for discussion purposes.





          Committee discussed whether the blink_warn_delay (time from notification to user until darkness) should be included as parameter of the command, a property of the object, or configured as part of the local device, or more than one of the above. The lighting output object should have a required blink_warn_delay property (10-0-1). What happens during the blink_warn_delay is a local matter. Should be able to set blink_warn_delay using a standard network visible method. (straw poll showed unanimous approval by committee). Does a client need the ability through BACnet to override the property that’s resident in the object without changing that property (7-1-1). Then the lighting command should have a blink_warn_delay parameter, and the parameter can optionally be included in the command. The object property can be, but is not required to be writeable. (9-2-0)





          Based on the discussion we had around this issue as relates to the writeability of configuration properties, in the new addendum our other O1 properties should be R in the table (we have consensus)





          Discussion over whether we could use parameters in a command to eliminate the relinquish commands. (Goto plus null = relinquish) .Wanted to be consistent with the DALI concepts and constructs. But as long as we’re providing the same functionality, the translation will happen regardless and doesn’t necessarily need to match their “commands.†If we provide parameters rather than explicit commands, it puts more onus on the programmer to understand how the parameters affect the commands. If efficiency in transfer of and understandability of messages is important, then different messages (as currently written) are the better way to go. Decided to table this discussion in favor of the two remaining open issues.





          Automatic relinquish



          Do we want/need duration? If so, one duration timer is probably not enough. Rick will propose a solution with field use cases to support the solution and email to the committee by February 8.





          Lighting command at multiple priorities vs. command at a single priority



          If we remove the ability to specify a priority for a command, much of the complexity of arbitration and the confusion over execution of multiple simultaneous commands and durations goes away. However, we also push the burden of remembering “where I was†to the commanding entity, rather than the commanded one. And we lose the flexibility of commands at multiple priorities. Is the need for more flexibility and arbitration of multiple clients worth the complexity of the ability to handle all of the relinquish and duration issues that come with commanding at multiple priorities? (Yes â€" 8, No â€" 2, abstain â€" 2) Enough to move forward with multiple priorities





          9.Plan to get addendum to public review. (4:00)



          Every other week conference calls between now and Spring meeting beginning Tuesday Feb 15 at 8am-10am PST. Scott will set up and email information to committee.





          The committee needs two days at spring meeting. Steve Karg to request when Dave Robin makes call for time at that meeting.





          Goal to have PPR-5 and PPR-4 review comment responses ready for BACnet plenary at spring meeting.





          Reviewers to evaluate their own comments of PPR-4 against PPR-5 by Feb 8 so we can make our action plan.



          2 and 3 â€" Christoph



          4 â€" Sharon



          5 â€" Rene



          6 â€" Dave Ritter



          1 â€" Steve Karg





          10.Discussion of Non-Agenda Items (4:45PM - 10 minutes)





          11. Schedule for future meetings.(4:55PM - 5 minutes)



          Every other week conference calls between now and Spring meeting beginning Tuesday Feb 15 at 8am-10am PST



          The next meeting will be in conjunction with the BACnet Interim Meeting.
        • Leinen, Rick
          Greetings, Just wanted to let you know that I will not have the Automatic Relinquish issue ready for tomorrow. The people I want to include in the issue have
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 7, 2011
          • 0 Attachment

            Greetings,

             

            Just wanted to let you know that I will not have the Automatic Relinquish issue ready for tomorrow.  The people I want to include in the issue have been out of the office.  Most will be back starting this Thursday and I have a meeting in place to discuss this topic.  Look for something on Friday or Monday.

             

            Rick Leinen
            Engineering Manager, R&D Projects

             


            T: 503 404-5561

            F: 503 404-5661
            C: 503 860-6305
            rleinen@...

            Leviton Mfg. Co.
            20497 SW Teton Avenue
            Tualatin, OR 97062
            www.leviton.com

             

             

            From: BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of SKarg
            Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 8:48 AM
            To: BACnetLighting@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [BACnetLighting] Re: Meeting in Las Vegas

             

             



            Hello BACnet Lighting Working Group!

            We met on Thursday January 27, 2011, from 8am to 5pm, at the ASHRAE Winter Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. Here are the minutes from the meeting, which will be available as LA-034-1 in the official BACnet records. Thank you, Chariti Young, for taking our minutes!

            Best Regards,

            Steve Karg
            WattStopper
            -----------
            Minutes
            BACnet Lighting Applications Working Group
            ASHRAE Winter Meeting
            Room N212
            Las Vegas Convention Center, North Hall
            Las Vegas, Nevada

            8:00AM â€" 5:00 PM on Thursday, January 27, 2011.
            --------------------------------
            1.Opening remarks - working group (8:20AM - 5 minutes)
            2.Circulation of attendance sheet, and introduction of those present (8:25 - 5 minutes)
            Steve Karg, WattStopper
            Rick Leinen, Leviton
            Barry Bridges, Sebesta Blomberg
            René Kälin, Siemens
            Bernhard Isler, Siemens
            Klaus Wachter, Siemens
            Scott Ziegenfus, Lutron Electronics
            Dana Petersen, Johnson Controls
            Chariti Young, Automated Logic
            Sharon Dinges, Trane-Ingersoll Rand
            Christoph Zeller, Sauter
            Grant Wichenko, Appin
            Dave Ritter, Delta Controls
            Glenn Nichols, Delta
            David Fisher, Polarsoft
            Dave Robin, Automated Logic

            3.Meeting role assignments (8:30 - 5 minutes)
            time keeper: (breaks: 10AM, 2PM, 3PM, 4PM) â€" Dave Ritter
            scribe â€" Chariti Young
            non-agenda item attendant â€" Scott Ziegenfus

            4.Approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. (8:35 - 5 minutes)
            Minutes do not reflect the decision to have an updated version of the addendum before this meeting to address comments and to discuss that revision at teleconference(s) between the October and January meetings, and those meetings did not happen and the revised addendum was not circulated. Would like to discuss plan to get revision to public review as part of today’s agenda.
            Dave Ritter moved that the committee accept the minutes as revised. Scott Ziegenfus seconded. Committee approved.

            5.Discussion and approval of the agenda for this meeting. (8:45 - 5 minutes)
            Dave Ritter moved that the committee accept the agenda as revised. Scott Ziegenfus seconded. Committee approved.

            6.Liason updates (NEMA, IESNA, DALI) (8:55 - 5 minutes)
            No updates at this time. Rick Leinan to request updates from Robert Hick and provide update to committee via email by 2/28.

            7.Brief re-articulation of issues we would like to resolve in next addendum for public review â€" LA Open issues 20101026-4.docx
            Remaining issues to resolve:
            Blink warning trigger
            Automatic relinquish
            Lighting command with multiple priorities

            8.Proposal Discussion (9:00 â€" 6.5 hours)

            Blink warning trigger
            Remove “present value (0) = blink.” Replace with 2 lighting commands WARN_AND_OFF and WARN_AND_RELINQUISH. Blink occurs via the lighting command only. We have a partial draft from Dave Fisher for discussion purposes.

            Committee discussed whether the blink_warn_delay (time from notification to user until darkness) should be included as parameter of the command, a property of the object, or configured as part of the local device, or more than one of the above. The lighting output object should have a required blink_warn_delay property (10-0-1). What happens during the blink_warn_delay is a local matter. Should be able to set blink_warn_delay using a standard network visible method. (straw poll showed unanimous approval by committee). Does a client need the ability through BACnet to override the property that’s resident in the object without changing that property (7-1-1). Then the lighting command should have a blink_warn_delay parameter, and the parameter can optionally be included in the command. The object property can be, but is not required to be writeable. (9-2-0)

            Based on the discussion we had around this issue as relates to the writeability of configuration properties, in the new addendum our other O1 properties should be R in the table (we have consensus)

            Discussion over whether we could use parameters in a command to eliminate the relinquish commands. (Goto plus null = relinquish) .Wanted to be consistent with the DALI concepts and constructs. But as long as we’re providing the same functionality, the translation will happen regardless and doesn’t necessarily need to match their “commands.” If we provide parameters rather than explicit commands, it puts more onus on the programmer to understand how the parameters affect the commands. If efficiency in transfer of and understandability of messages is important, then different messages (as currently written) are the better way to go. Decided to table this discussion in favor of the two remaining open issues.

            Automatic relinquish
            Do we want/need duration? If so, one duration timer is probably not enough. Rick will propose a solution with field use cases to support the solution and email to the committee by February 8.

            Lighting command at multiple priorities vs. command at a single priority
            If we remove the ability to specify a priority for a command, much of the complexity of arbitration and the confusion over execution of multiple simultaneous commands and durations goes away. However, we also push the burden of remembering “where I was” to the commanding entity, rather than the commanded one. And we lose the flexibility of commands at multiple priorities. Is the need for more flexibility and arbitration of multiple clients worth the complexity of the ability to handle all of the relinquish and duration issues that come with commanding at multiple priorities? (Yes â€" 8, No â€" 2, abstain â€" 2) Enough to move forward with multiple priorities

            9.Plan to get addendum to public review. (4:00)
            Every other week conference calls between now and Spring meeting beginning Tuesday Feb 15 at 8am-10am PST. Scott will set up and email information to committee.

            The committee needs two days at spring meeting. Steve Karg to request when Dave Robin makes call for time at that meeting.

            Goal to have PPR-5 and PPR-4 review comment responses ready for BACnet plenary at spring meeting.

            Reviewers to evaluate their own comments of PPR-4 against PPR-5 by Feb 8 so we can make our action plan.
            2 and 3 â€" Christoph
            4 â€" Sharon
            5 â€" Rene
            6 â€" Dave Ritter
            1 â€" Steve Karg

            10.Discussion of Non-Agenda Items (4:45PM - 10 minutes)

            11. Schedule for future meetings.(4:55PM - 5 minutes)
            Every other week conference calls between now and Spring meeting beginning Tuesday Feb 15 at 8am-10am PST
            The next meeting will be in conjunction with the BACnet Interim Meeting.

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.