876   GenLogiclNodeClass and SGCB, GoCB, MsvCB, UsvCB

This tissue has following status: green

Created: 30 Jul 2012




Paragraph: ObjectReference

Category: Issue for edition 2 of this part

Issue: Table 16 defines that the various control blocks can be defiend in any logical node if it is defiend in the corresponding "compatible LN class". This could be defined in a standard IEC xxx-y-z ... in the future.

Clause for SGCBNames and other clauses for GoCB, MsvCB, and UsvCB do NOT allow this, because they fix the scope to LLN0: e.g., SGCBName – setting group control name
The attribute SGCBName shall be “SGCB” within the scope of a LLN0.

Proposal: Change rule in Table 16 (to define that SGCB, GoCB, MsvCB, UsvCB could be only in LLN0) or change name scope to something like:

The attribute SGCBName shall be “SGCB” within the scope of a LN.

    Note: To see attachments you have to log-in first.

Discussion Created Status
Ballot until Editor
12 Apr 13 green
Final proposal:
Domain name space owner needs to specify explicitly the presence of Log in the definition of their compatible logical node classes where the support of Log is required additionally to the LLN0of name space IEC 61850-7-4

The attached specification Tissue_876_GenLogicalNodeClass_2013_03_13 correct the GenLogicalNodeClass definition of IEC 61850-7-2:2007
The proposal has been aggreed in the UML TF of 2013-Mar-11.
13 Mar 13 final proposal
What is the requirement, to have Logs attached to some compatible LN classes? Whch ones would be defined in 7-4 or other specifications to allow to have a log? 25 Aug 12 red
not accepted. However, the GenLogicalNodeClass has been remodeled in order to restrict, as in Ed1, the SGCB, GoCB, MsvCB, and UsvCB to the LLN0 class. (see attached file); LogControlBlock to any Compatible Logical Node Class, and LOG restricted to the domain compatible logical node calls definition.
21 Aug 12 final proposal 2012-09-24


Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer