175   TrgOp or TrgOps

This tissue has following status: blue

Created: 08 Jul 2005

Links:

Page:

Clause:

Paragraph:

Category: No impact on this part

Issue: Throughout 7-2 the attribute is called TrgOp.

Throughout the main body of 8-1 (although not in Appendix E) it is called TrgOps.

Proposal: Make the name consistent everywhere.

Discussion Created Status
?
Ballot until Editor
As explained, 8-1 is correct, 7-2 needs changes.

The changes in 7-2 are already implemented with TISSUE 32 (7-2)
10 Oct 05 blue
obviously, no change are required. Turn to blue? A TrgOp is for instance d-chg, and TrgOps are d-chg, and q-chg, ... 10 Oct 05 red
It is correct that in 7-2 both TrgOp as well as TrgOps are used. May be, the intention was, to use TrgOps for the attributes in control blocks, where several trigger options can be selcted and TrgOp as an property of a data attribute.

However, it is used inconsistent accross 7-2. If above assumption is correct, in Fig 10 of 61850-7-2, TrgOp should be used instead of TrgOps (This would be in line with the table headers of Annexe E of 8-1 and of 7-3 as well as with the table headers of 7-2 Control blocks). On the other side, TrgOps should be used for the attributes of the control blocks - this is not the case for e.g. Table 23 and clause 14.2.2.11 of 7-2.

Using TrgOp (and not TrgOps) as property of the data attribute is in line with table 20 of 7-2.

So my suggestion is:
- use TrgOp as property of a data attribute according to table 20 of 61850-7-2
- use TrgOps for the attributes that are used to define or to transmitt the collection of Trigger options that has to be moitored or that lead to the inclusion of the data in the message.
- as a consequence, 8-1 seems to be ok; 7-2 needs some harmonization.

--> If this is agreed, a TISSUE in 7-2 needs to be created.
20 Sep 05 red
See also tissue 32.

In 7-2 we have TrgOp and TrgOps !!

TrgOps (plural, a list of possible trigger options), e.g., in the first row of Tables 23, 25, 26 (control blocks).

In all other cases we have TrgOp (one option!)
20 Aug 05 red
To be discussed in next WG10 meeting 19 Aug 05 red
This is intentional to maintain backward compatibility with the UCA report blocks. No change is needed in 8-1. This issue should be entered on 7-2. 09 Jul 05 white

 

Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer