Project

General

Profile

CIM Issues #4941

Equipment.aggregate on GeneratingUnit only to avoid redundancy

Added by Herbert Falk almost 3 years ago. Updated 9 months ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Low
Author/Contact Info:
ENTSO-E N6
Base Release:
61970cim16v21
Solution to be Applied To:
Solution Version:
Solution Applied By:
Completion Date:
CIM Keywords:
Breaking Change:
No
Breaking Change Description:
CIM Impacted Groups:
WG13
Requestor:
Standard(s):
Version:
Clause:
Sub-Clause:
Paragraph:
Table:
Originally Closed in Version:
Origination Date:
05/29/2013
Origination ID:
13_161
Originally Assigned To:

Description

Equipment.aggregate on GeneratingUnit
only to avoid redundant data at SynchronousMachine.
IOP agree to open WG13 discussion on this issue. What may need to be changed is to have change in UML that will forbid having multiple SynchronousMachines associated with one GeneratingUnit.


Proposed Solution

Move the aggregate attribute to ConductingEquipment.


Decision

It was decided not to move aggregated to ConductingEquipment.
Related issue 13_98.
Svein will start on a white paper, Jay and Lars-Ola will contribute.
2013-06-05/LOO

Oslo, 14-Jun-2023:
No change in CIM18. Constraints on profile level will need to restrict the usage of the attribute.

11-Oct-2023:
We don't see the need add the constraint which overrides the Oslo decision above. We have decided to close the ticket and leave as is.

#1

Updated by Chavdar Ivanov over 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from Equipment.aggregate on GeneratingUnit only to avoid redunda to Equipment.aggregate on GeneratingUnitonly to avoid redunda
  • Status changed from Open to Review
  • Decision updated (diff)

WG13 to discuss and agree what we do here. We need to consider potential impact on teh usage of aggregate.

#2

Updated by Chavdar Ivanov about 1 year ago

  • Decision updated (diff)
#3

Updated by Todd Viegut 9 months ago

  • Subject changed from Equipment.aggregate on GeneratingUnitonly to avoid redunda to Equipment.aggregate on GeneratingUnit only to avoid redundancy
#4

Updated by Todd Viegut 9 months ago

  • Decision updated (diff)
#5

Updated by Todd Viegut 9 months ago

We have defined that a constraint needs to be written but the decision isn't specifying where. Should it be constrained to the GeneratingUnit (via inheritance from Equipment) or vice versa on SynchronousMachine and then have the constraint prohibit it on the GeneratingUnit. This needs to be clarified in the Decision notes.

#6

Updated by Todd Viegut 9 months ago

  • Decision updated (diff)
#7

Updated by Todd Viegut 9 months ago

  • Status changed from Review to Closed

Also available in: Atom PDF