Project

General

Profile

CIM Issues #5093

[GMDM #6] Clarify ambiguity on using Terminal phases for unbalanced loads.

Added by Eric Stephan about 3 years ago. Updated 2 months ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Author/Contact Info:
Pat Brown
Base Release:
CIM17
Solution to be Applied To:
CIM18
Solution Version:
Solution Applied By:
Completion Date:
CIM Keywords:
Breaking Change:
No
Breaking Change Description:
CIM Impacted Groups:
WG13
Requestor:
Pat Brown
Standard(s):
Version:
Clause:
Sub-Clause:
Paragraph:
Table:
Originally Closed in Version:
Origination Date:
Origination ID:
Originally Assigned To:

Description

I believe the attribute was introduced to support unbalanced modeling when that was added to the CIM. Tom McDermott has found he does not need it in his significant work with unbalanced modeling (in GridApps-D and other projects). We’ve had discussions within our Friday ‘device datasheet’ calls that would indicate there is a viable approach to unbalanced modeling that would not require it. (It’s the universal use of companion xxxPhase instances for all ConductingEquipment child class instances).

The unbalanced CIM model has had far less ‘test driving’ than the balanced and, to be honest, currently requires lots of local assumptions to be made when it is used. It would be (at least in my mind) of significant benefit to the industry if we could get unbalanced data exchanges in a place where they more clearly support interoperability. And this question is one little piece of that.

The purpose of discussing this topic in a WG13 setting is not to ‘resolve’ the question, but rather to identify other folks who could provide input and to identify other use cases that we may have missed.
Attached is a .jpg of a UML diagram that shows all the ConductingEquipment child classes and their existing/proposed xxxPhase classes.


Files


Decision

Form a focus group: Pat Brown, Martin Miller, Martin Bass, Tom McDermott, Chuck DuBose, Alan McMorran, Chavdar Ivanov

18-Sep-2024 Joint TF Hybrid Meetings - Minneapolis:
Reviewed and it was determined this is required in the UML so should not be removed.

#1

Updated by Eric Stephan about 3 years ago

  • Requestor set to Pat Brown
#2

Updated by Pat Brown almost 2 years ago

#3

Updated by Chavdar Ivanov 3 months ago

  • Status changed from New to Open
#4

Updated by Todd Viegut 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Open to Review
  • Decision updated (diff)
#5

Updated by Todd Viegut 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Review to Closed

Also available in: Atom PDF