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

RE: Integration of multiple BINs

Expand Messages
  • Isler, Bernhard
    Hi all, I have uploaded a respective update of BI-041 to the Twiki. This is addressing issues brought up in the teleconference, and in this email thread.
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Hi all,

       

      I have uploaded a respective update of BI-041 to the Twiki. This is addressing issues brought up in the teleconference, and in this email thread.

       

      http://bacnetit.cimetrics.com/pub/BACnetIT/Meetings/BI-041-4.docx

       

      Best Regards,

      Bernhard

       

      Bernhard Isler
      Siemens Switzerland Ltd
      Building Technologies Division

      From: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
      Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:46 PM
      To: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] RE: Integration of multiple BINs

       




      What I take from the statements below (from previous emails) is:

      An NTB device that participates in multiple BINs cannot arbitrarily map all of its objects into all BINs. The simple view of a device that has a single database of objects and each of those objects existing in all BINs in which the device participates does not work. At least not in cases where the objects have cross-device references.

      This implication is that devices which contain such objects are required to maintain separate object spaces (a schedule object cannot exist in multiple BINs if it contains any cross device references). All of the non-reference data can be mapped across BINs (the schedule data can exist in each BIN, but the List_Of_Object_Property_References cannot in the general case).

      The three main use cases that I see, are event notification / logging, scheduling and structured views.

      Scheduling - I think that the scheduling case is simple to solve and it could be solved in a standard way (maintain a List_Of_Object_Property_References per BIN, and from the NTB point of view there are either multiple lists or a conglomerate).

      Structured View - This case is probably simple to solve as well. Any view that crosses BINs is essentially outside the scope of any given BIN and probably should not be mapped into a BIN (the SV object would not exist in any BIN, only in NTB space).

      Event Notification / Logging – not sure.

       

      The other cases seem to be things that would naturally be contained within a single BIN.

       

      Object Types that can safely exist in multiple BINs:

      Accumulator

      Analog Input

      Analog Output

      Analog Value

      Binary Input

      Binary Output

      Binary Value

      Calendar

      File

      Group

      Loop

      Multistate Input

      Multistate Output

      Multistate Value

      Program

      Pulse Converter

      Load Control

      Credential Data Input

      CharacterString Value

      DateTime Value

      Large Analog Value

      BitString Value

      OctetString Value

      Time Value

      Integer Value

      Positive Integer Value

      Date Value

      DateTime Pattern Value

      Time Pattern Value

      Date Pattern Value

      Network Security

      Alert Enrollment

      Lighting Command

       

      Object Types that are able to contain direct cross device references:

      Averaging (Object_Property_Reference)

      Command (Action_List)

      Device (Device_Address_Binding, Time_Synchronization_Recipients, UTC_Time_Synchronization_Recipients, Active_COV_Subscriptions, Manual_Slave_Address_Binding, Slave_Address_Binding, Restart_Notification_Recipients)

      Event Enrollment (Object_Property_Reference, EventParameters.Command_Failure.Feedback_Property_Reference, EventParameters.Floating_Limit.Setpoint_Reference, EventParameters.Change_Of_Life_Safety.Mode_Property_Reference, EventParameters.Extended.Reference, EventParameters.Access_Event.Access_Event_Time_Reference)

      Life Safety Point (Member_Of)

      Life Safety Zone (Zone_Members, Member_Of)

      Notification Class (Recipient_List)

      Schedule (List_Of_Object_Property_References)

      Trend Log (Log_DeviceObjectProperty,

      Access Door (Door Members)

      Structured View (Subordinate_List)

      Trend Log Multiple (Log_DeviceObjectProperty)

      Access Point (Access_Event_Credential, Access_Doors, Zone_To, Zone_From)

      Access Zone (Credentials_In_Zone, Last_Credential_Added, Last_Credential_Removed, Entry_Points, Exit_Points)

      Access User (Members, Member_Of, Credentials)

      Access Rights (Accompaniment)

      Access Credential (Belongs_To, Last_Access_Point)

      Notification Forwarder (Subscribed_Recipients)

      Channel (List_Of_Object_Property_References)

       

      Object Type that are able to contain indirect/obscured cross device references (* == direct cross device references)

      Event Log (Log_Buffer)

      Global Group (Group_Members*, Present_Value, COVU_Recipients*)

      Carl


      This seems to require that data sources be included (where did the data originally come from). Any data that was not fixed up would not be able to be accurately transferred to a different BIN. The questions for me are:

                      Where does this problem occur?

                ;       In how many different use cases do we expect it to occur?

                      What problems are expected if the data is transferred without being fixed up?

                      Can non-fixed up data be dropped in a manner that would not break implementations?

      [BI] I will go and address these questions in BI-041. I will go from:

      -           It is not a use case that data is exchanged between two BINs that are both connected to NTB. This should be excluded, it did not work before as well.

      -          Data from one BIN is invalid in another BIN, in particular IDs and references using such IDs.

      -          Data exchang e between BINs need an application level mirror that is aware of how to mangle data for the target context.

      What I am planning to do:

      -          Narrow and enumerate the places where the problem may occur

      -          Enumerate the use cases, and propose a triage among those th at apply and those that we should exclude

      -          Enumerate problems, requirements, behavior etc. when data is exchanged.

      Any help in this would be appreciated, e.g. in enumerating use cases and problems that are in mind.   

       

       

       

      Carl

       

       

      From: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Isler, Bernhard
      Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:01 AM
      To: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] Integration of multiple BINs

       

       

      Hi all,

       

      Back to the teleconference discussion we had on Tuesday, it became obvious that:

       

      -          The requirement for being capable of integrating multiple BINs implies a larger increase in complexity. This includes:

      -          Introduction of some additional identification, for dealing with colliding Device IDs.

      -  &n bsp;       This additional identification has to be incorporated into the data model, mainly in references.

      -          This means that the data model is modified.

      -&nbs p;         Proxied NTB Devices require BIN specific Device IDs, so that an NTB Device can always participate in multiple BINs.

      -          For this, appropriate proxying between legacy BACnet and NTB is comple x.

      -          In particular for setting references, for reading references, and mapping of Device object Object_Identifier on the far side of the proxy.

       

      Do we really want to pursue this requirement?

       

      Best,

      Bernhard

       

      Bernhar d Isler
      Siemens Switzerland Ltd
      Building Technologies Division
      IC BT CPS GDT AS
      Gubelstrasse 22
      CH-6301 Zug, Switzerland

      Tel: +41 (41) 724 33 87
      Mob: +41 (79) 561 77 23
      Fax: +41 (41) 723 48 94

      mailto:bernhard.isler@...
      http://www.siemens.com/buildingtechnologies

      Note: This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail without being the proper recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, copying or distribution is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author of this e-mail and do not necessarily represent those of Siemens Switzerland Ltd, unless otherwise specifically stated.

      &nbs p;




       




    • James F. Butler
      Dear IT-WG members, As most of you know, the IT-WG meeting in Atlanta will start at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, and we have four hours. Our primary agenda item is
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

        Dear IT-WG members,

         

        As most of you know, the IT-WG meeting in Atlanta will start at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, and we have four hours.  Our primary agenda item is to continue the discussion of BI-041.  Bernhard published an updated document last week (see below); please read it and review the recent e-mail traffic prior to the meeting.

         

        I also encourage you to attend the TBA session that begins at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, in which we will have a discussion about the future of BACnet.  The outcome of that discussion is likely to affect the direction of the IT-WG.

         

        See you in Atlanta .

         

        - Jim Butler

          BACnet IT-WG convener

         


        From: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Isler, Bernhard
        Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:02 PM
        To: bacnet-it-wg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [bacnet-it-wg] RE: Integration of multiple BINs

         




        Hi all,

         

        I have uploaded a respective update of BI-041 to the Twiki. This is addressing issues brought up in the teleconference, and in this email thread.

         

        http://bacnetit.cimetrics.com/pub/BACnetIT/Meetings/BI-041-4.docx

         

        Best Regards,

        Bernhard

         

        Bernhard Isler
        Siemens Switzerland Ltd
        Building Technologies Division

         

      • James F. Butler
        Dear IT-WG members, We had a productive discussion of BI-041-4 in Atlanta. Our next F2F meeting will be in Dallas during the ASHRAE winter meeting in late
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 28, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear IT-WG members,
           
          We had a productive discussion of BI-041-4 in Atlanta.  Our next F2F meeting will be in Dallas during the ASHRAE winter meeting in late January.
          Bernhard plans to do another revision of BI-041 prior to our meeting in Dallas. We request your comments on BI-041-4; please read it and respond as soon as possible so that your feedback will be taken into consideration for the next revision.  You may download the document from:
           
           
          Thanks,
           
          - Jim Butler
            BACnet IT-WG convener
           
           
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.