CIM Issues #5093
[GMDM #6] Clarify ambiguity on using Terminal phases for unbalanced loads.
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
| terminalphases.jpg | View terminalphases.jpg | 297 KB | |||
| GMDM 6 - Streamline approach to phase modeling.docx | GMDM 6 - Streamline approach to phase modeling.docx | 3.05 MB |
Decision
Form a focus group: Pat Brown, Martin Miller, Martin Bass, Tom McDermott, Chuck DuBose, Alan McMorran, Chavdar Ivanov