433   Order of attributes in specialized CDCs for control service mapping

This tissue has following status: green

Created: 26 Oct 2006

Links:

Page: 122-126

Clause: E.4

Paragraph:

Category: Issue for edition 2 of this part

Issue: 7-3 specifies that the order of data attributes shall be followed as specified in the CDC table definitions.
For the specialized CDCs for control service mapping, it is not clear what their position is. It seems (although not explicitely stated) like there should be for any of these CDCs (SPC, DPC, INC, BSC, ISC, APC) first the SBO, SBOw, Oper, Cancel, than all those that are inherited from their definition in 7-3 (except the CO data attributes, which shall not be inherited).

Proposal: Please clarify the order of data attributes.

Discussion Created Status
?
Ballot until Editor
The TISSUE 168 resolves the issue. Normative Annex E (E.3 and E.4) of 8-1 is what is called an IEC extension. The Annex E.3 defines the oder of the SBO, SBOw, Oper and Cancel attributes, E.4 the order of the service parameters of the CDCs (ctlVal, origin, ctlNum,...) within SBOw, Oper and Cancel structures. 27 Oct 06 green
Tissue resolution of 168 basically solved this issue. Propose further extension to resolution:

Resolved text to change:

Within a MMS component, representing IEC 61850-7-4 DATA, the order of MMS components is determined by the order of the names of the common data classes ( as defined in IEC 61850-7-3 or IEC extensions of it). For private CDCs, or private Extensions ,the order of attributes within the MMS component shall be identical to the order within the SCL ICD file describing the data model.

To:

Within a MMS component, representing IEC 61850-7-4 DATA, the order of MMS components is determined by the order of the names of the common data classes as defined in IEC 61850-7-3 or IEC extensions of it (e.g. Annex E.3). For private CDCs, or private Extensions ,the order of attributes within the MMS component shall be identical to the order within the SCL ICD file describing the data model.
26 Oct 06 red
This is interesting. The original 8-1, prior to IS, had the concrete mappings of the control objects (e.g. SBO, etc..) actually specified in 8-1.

Prior to IS, WG10 directed that these mappings be removed and placed in 7-3.

This seems a reversal of the original decision. Additionally, this agreement will probably not allow specification of the actual control attributes in SCL.

My proposal is to reverse the decision of 173.



26 Oct 06 red

 

Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer