What is the Semantic Utility Architecture

1. What is the Semantic Utility Architecture John Gillerman, SISCO IEC WG 16 Montreal 9/2006

2. Problem Statement • The exact data exchanged (messages) and the business processes used in energy markets varies across different geographic/political regions. • Data exchanged and business processes in an energy market susceptible to change as business conditions change • Utilities may operate in more than one market each of which may be slightly different.

3. Problem Statement • Today, software architecture typically based on a data and process model that is homogeneous and fixed. • Cannot base architecture on a single homogeneous information model such as the CIM (as it exists today) • How a MOS is designed and integrated into the utility needs to be flexible

4. The Semantic Utility Architecture • Assumes that data and process models differ across MOS deployments • Data and process models are configured at the time of system deployment • Based on explicitly modeling heterogeneous information model and configurable business processes • Requires the use of technology that can model heterogeneous information models and processes. • A heterogeneous information model is one that includes overlapping, conflicting, and/or disjoint information

5. Heterogeneous Information Model Example Continental European Market Information Model CIM Describe relationships Describe Mapping Legacy ETSO Message Model Describe Similarities and Differences Describe relationships Nordic Market Information Model Legacy Nordel Message Model Describe Mapping

6. Proposed Solutions • Drive Business Process off of configurable process script • Most modern integration environments support business process workflow scripting • Use market independent service definitions for added flexibility • Drive data model off of an explicit description of the heterogeneous models • Describe relationship from 61970 CIM to Market IM’s • Describe similarities and differences between Market IM’s • Describe mapping to legacy messaging models • This last two require a technology such as OWL that can describe heterogeneous semantics

7. Benefits • Integration and analysis infrastructures can support a heterogeneous information model • Provides a way to manage the complexity of operating in more than one market • Analysis applications can span markets • Unified risk management for entire utility • Vendors can more readily deliver products off the shelf using a single code base that can be applied to different markets • The larger the code base (total lines of code that need to be maintained) the greater the cost of software • Software is more adaptable to change • These factors lower costs and reduce risk for utilities

8. Conclusions • Architecture and software must be developed to support heterogeneous models • White paper under development – new rev will be produced if preliminary buy in achieved in WG 16. • Move to support OWL in TC 57 • WG 16 would need to do the additional modeling required • Change from a fixed information model to a flexible one will require significant development by vendors • Need to get buy in from industry on this approach before we attempt to standardized