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

[BACnetLighting] Responses part I

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Jan 28, 2011
      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 2 of 4 , Feb 7, 2011

        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.