1714 Description of attribute 'general' in AMD1 versus consolidated version
- Created
- 27 Aug 2020
- Status
- In Force (Editorial)Closed: the editorial correction is part of the standard. No further comments are taken. Show the workflow
- Batch
- 57/2445/INFThis tissue went out with this batch, which was closed on 11 Nov 2021.
- Part
- Part 7-3 (2020; Edition 2.1)
- Links
- None
- Page
- 80 (AMD1)
- Clause
- 8
- Paragraph
- table of data attribute semantics
Issue
For the description of attribute 'general' in AMD1 document it is said that:
"Replace text with:
General indication of a command operation or of a protection activation e.g. by a fault.
Depending on the function, the general attribute may or may not be resulting from the phase
attributes."
In the consolidated version the description is, however, a bit longer and more "restrictive":
"General indication of a command operation or of a protection activation (e.g. by the fault). Depending on the function, 'general' may or may not be resulting from the phase attributes (phsA', 'phsB', 'phsC', 'neut'). I.e. 'general' may be set while none of the 'phsX'/'neut' is set, 'general' shall be set if one of the 'phsX'/'neut' is set."
Proposal
Clarify that the description in the consolidated version is what is intended.
The 'general' attribute is not totally independent on the phase attributes (phsA', 'phsB', 'phsC', 'neut') like one could interprete the description in AMD1.
| Discussion | Created |
|---|---|
| In Force (Editorial) Batch '57/2445/INF' (1) closed | 11 Nov 21 |
| Editorial Editorial | 24 Sep 20 |
|
Triage
The text from the consolidated version is valid. That text is in the nsd file as well.
In case a second amendment to part 7-3 will be produced, we will clarify that as well in the Amendment. Otherwise, if an Ed 3 is produced, the text will be there as it is directly taken from the model. Set to Editorial |
24 Sep 20 |
|
Triage
So do we agree that the description as in the consolidated version is the one that is valid?
As the consolidated version id from the UML, this is what will be in the nsd file and in future versions, so it could be considered an editorial issue on the Amendment. Should we consider that in a Ed 2.2 Amendment? |
24 Sep 20 |
|
Triage
The definition in Ed2.1 is correct. The definition in AMD1 clause 6 could be enhanced to reflect the intention. The definition in Ed2.1 is not more restrictive, on the contrary, it defines that a PTRC.Op may have phsX and general in its structure, but may not set phsX if the Operate is issued by a non-phase sensitive protection function (frequence), while a phase sensitive protection will set the phase and the general attribute
|
03 Sep 20 |