Subject: EnronOnline
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:36:00 -0800 (PST)

Michael

David (F) forwarded me a query from yourself re. long form descriptions. 

I attach a note that I sent to David Minns recently summarising how a long 
form description will be built on Online using attributes of the underlying 
products and concatenating descriptive passages associated with them. Can we 
have long descriptions in this format?

M

Mark Dilworth
02/02/2000 01:38 PM
To: David Minns/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: David Forster/LON/ECT@ECT, Paul 
Smith/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul 
Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Allan 
Ford/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 

Subject: Re: Australian Power: EOL Long Form Description  

David

Being consistent with the local Australian Power conventions is key - so 
please proceed with your original format. 

I have whittled down the attachments to just reiterate my original comments 
on the ordering that would currently be generated by the system (which would 
concatenate descriptive text elements according to the underlying attributes 
of a product selected). 

I feel certain we will be able to accomodate any specific ordering 
requirements - either through manipulating the descriptive passages or 
writing rules specific to your product types - if the current rules will 
suffice, however, that will save some effort. 

rgds

M

I have reviewed the language sent by Paul. 

The description is broken down into 8 paragraphs - for the record:

Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7 all cover details usually covered in the Product Type 
description (7 is actually settlement date[s] for which we do not have a 
separate attribute). 

Paragraph 4 is reference period.
Paragraph 5 is Index.
Paragraph 6 is loadshape.

These look fine to me - subject to my observations on whether we can use the 
'Averaging' language. 

Paragraph 8 covers 2 attributes - currency (looks fine) and Unit of Measure - 
for which I suggest we go with our current language for MWh - which details 
that the volume submitted by the counterparty is MWh per hour. 

---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Dilworth/LON/ECT on 02/16/2000 10:31 
AM ---------------------------

David Forster
02/15/2000 02:50 PM
To: Mark Dilworth/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Elena Kapralova/LON/ECT@ECT, Dale Neuner/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: EnronOnline

Mark,

Do you know what this is about - or what changes on the system are 
represented by the attached documents?

Dave

---------------------- Forwarded by David Forster/LON/ECT on 02/15/2000 02:48 
PM ---------------------------

Michael Sim@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
02/15/2000 06:18 AM
To: Elena Kapralova@ECT, Dale Neuner@ECT
cc: Paul Smith/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, david forster/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: EnronOnline

Elena, Dale

We have just tested the EOL test web site and still have not seen the changes 
to the Long Form Descriptions. If there is anything we can do to help get 
this put through, ASAP, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Michael Sim
---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Sim/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 
15/02/2000 16:16 ---------------------------

Michael Sim
09/02/2000 15:10
To: Elena Kapralova@ECT, Dale Neuner@ECT
cc: Paul Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 

Subject: EnronOnline

Hi

I am working in Australia with Paul Smith to get EOL rolled out.

Paul has asked me to send you the following documentation covering the final 
LF descriptions.

Should you need anything else, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Michael Sim