2022 Change the XSD type of LNodeSpecNaming.sLnInst to be the same as LNode.lnInst (tLNInstOrEmpty), for
- Created
- 19 Jan 2026
- Status
- TriageNew, and not yet classified. The working group decides whether to take it forward as a technical issue or to close it. Show the workflow
- Part
- Part 90-30 (2025)
- Links
- None
- Page
- 58
- Clause
- 8 LNodeSpecNaming
- Paragraph
- XSD 6-100
Issue
LNodeSpecNaming has an attribute "sLnInst" which definition is:
"Has the value of the lnInst attribute of the specified LNode."
However, in the XSD, the type of this attribute is "scl:tLNInst", whereas the type of LNode lnInst attribute is "tLNInstOrEmpty"
To be able to handle the case of LLN0
Proposal
Change the type of LNodeSpecNaming sLnInst attribute to tLNInstOrEmpty
| Discussion | Created |
|---|---|
| Triage A possible use case — when working at the “Application” model level — is to represent a Control (for example an "Activation request") that an HMI (represented by a ProcessResource) sends to the LLN0.Mod | 09 Feb 26 |
|
Triage
I agree with the conclusion; I am not sure however if LLN0 is really referenced from the Process Section.
LLN0 is a consequence of the IED structure in term of LogicalDevices. What would be the use case to reference LLN0 from the Process Section? |
04 Feb 26 |