Both of these comments fit into the
advertised-but-never-developed oBIX 2.0.
Some background:
In oBIX 1.0, we had to meet the need of the control companies.
To do this, we produced a standard abstraction of all of the base activities of
an embedded control system. This provides a standards-based way to get to all
functions of a traditional control system, to read all points and sensors in a
traditional embedded system, to receive events, and to request trends and logs.
oBIX 1.0, however, is not for the faint of heart, or at least,
anyone not in the systems/controls world. It is still detail oriented. It
interacts too intimately with all system functions. It cannot be safely shared
with anyone who might interfere with proper system operations.
One problem is that security at this level of detail does not
even make sense. What does it mean, in terms of business process, to “secure
a sensor”, or “secure a set point”. Unless and until the
sensor means something, or the set point is associated with something the owner
would recognize, security is, and must be, all or nothing.
oBIX 1.1 remains tied to the goals of 1.0, and has three goals.
(1) Errata and ambiguities, (2) adding an RSS or Atom binding to expand the
range of non-technical interactions, and (3) developing an enterprise-type
scheduling function, based around ICAL, for oBIX contracts.
As to oBIX 2.0. I have come to realize that it will *never*
come out of the traditional controls companies. They like it down there in the
controls. For me, BSP, is naming the things that need to be incorporated into
oBIX 2.0. Clearly, some of the concepts have changed, but I have a PowerPoint
from more than 3 years ago attached. I would draw you attention to the scanned
image on slide 6, describing the systems that need to interact on a campus
(not, this was 7 months before the GridWise Constitutional Convention, and does
not incorporate *those* concepts).
The list on Slide 7 is relevant to this forum, suggesting that
we have:
- Capabilities
Models
- One for each
control silo
- Analytics
Models
- Tenant Models
- Cross-Silos
“The Room”
- Uses:
Schedules and Variable Costs
These may have some similarities to the IDM ways of thinking.
Pull up slide 8 and let it build – it makes more sense
that way.
Slides 10, 11 look, again, like this forum:
- WS-Buildings
HVAC (based on GPC 20)
- WS-Buildings
Power
- WS-Buildings
Access Control
- WS-Buildings
Intrusion Detection
- WS-Buildings
CCTV
·
WS-Buildings Occupancy
- WS-Buildings
Performance (M&V, commissioning)
- WS-Buildings
Analytics
- WS-Buildings
Tenant Services
tc
"When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so
long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which
has opened for us." -- Alexander Graham Bell
|
Toby Considine
Chair, OASIS oBIX TC
Facilities Technology Office
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
|
|
Email: Toby.Considine@
unc.edu
Phone: (919)962-9073
http://www.oasis-open.org
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com
|
From:
bsp-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bsp-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Deborah MacPherson
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:19 PM
To: BSP Forum
Subject: Re: [bsp-forum] BISACS
Hi Everyone,
I some time the last couple days reading through OASIS
policies and procedures for something I'm working on for NBIMS Consensus.
I also looked at OBIX in more detail and have been thinking about OBIX,
in relation to BSP, in relation to NBIMS. In general, the scenarios and
exchanges get bigger and need to be more generic from one to the next. There
has got to be some vertical modularity and standards also.
Obviously protocols and access procedures like the NIST
report will be so important because control over building systems is not
something that should fall into the wrong hands. What I'm concerned about is
the accuracy and completeness of the data in the first place. 1. Sensors can
fail or be inaccurate. 2. The structural DESIGN of a building may not be the
actual building, and the building 50 years later is in a different condition
that may not be captured - how is ALL the building data kept up to date and
accurate?
For example in the NIST report Fig 25, pg 39 = what if this
was the old layout and walls or equipment have moved? Can the equipment or
walls keep themselves up to date in the most generic models?
At WDG, almost every building ends up with a series of
"Typical Floors" in other words there is only one plan drawing for the
3rd to 10th floors because they are all the same. What might be similar to a
typical floor in OBIX, BSP, NBIMS? What is the shortcut for future standards
like BISACS?
--
*************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
**************************************************
