Project

General

Profile

Support #6304

part 6 - clarification on product naming / functional naming

Added by Maud Merley about 2 years ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Start date:
03/28/2023
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
ID:
Source:
RTE
TF Unique ID:
WG10 Proposal:
Estimated Completion:
Discuss in Upcoming Meeting:
Yes
To discuss in WG10:
No
Short Proposal:
Standard(s):
Needs More Information:
Yes
Assigned TF:
None

Description

Regarding the use of product naming or functional naming, some items need to be clarified :
- Where it is indicated that an IED accepts product naming or function naming, and restrictions that applied (for instance fixed prefix and LN instance number) (PICS?) ?
- Do we have the information in an SCL file if it uses product naming or function naming (Part 6 : 'the SCL language allows both options, even separate for different IEDs') ?
- Do we have a process for resolution of inconsistencies between ICT and SCT related to conflicting use of both options ?

#1

Updated by Vladan Cvejic about 2 years ago

  • Discuss in Upcoming Meeting changed from No to Yes
#2

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo about 2 years ago

  • Needs More Information changed from No to Yes

There is nothing to indicate if a device can modify its own data model. Only the ICT is capable of modifying the data model. Only the LD Name is able to be changed by SCT because it does not change the data model.
It does not seem so simple as using ConfLD/ConfLN.
We need more information from RTE.

#3

Updated by Maud Merley about 2 years ago

More information from RTE : for the configuration process it is necessary to know if a device can be configured (by the ICT) with product naming or functional naming. It is clear that is not the propriety of the IED itself, but it results from the ICT - IED association. It is possible that use of PICS to convey this information is not appropriate, but a way to formalize the capability of the ICT / IED is necessary.

#4

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo almost 2 years ago

We need to know why it is not enough with services ConfLDName and ConfLNs.

#5

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo almost 2 years ago

  • Assigned TF 61850-6-100 (Function modeling), 61850-7-5 added
#6

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo almost 2 years ago

  • Assigned TF None added
  • Assigned TF deleted (61850-6-100 (Function modeling), 61850-7-5)
#7

Updated by Carlos Rodriguez del Castillo almost 2 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Triage
#8

Updated by Maud Merley over 1 year ago

The confirmation than ConfLNs and ConfLdName are related to functional or product naming solves the issue.
- Where it is indicated that an IED accepts product naming or function naming, and restrictions that applied (for instance fixed prefix and LN instance number) (PICS?) ?
=> ConfLdName et ConfLN in the ICD .

- Do we have the information in an SCL file if it uses product naming or function naming (Part 6 : 'the SCL language allows both options, even separate for different IEDs') ?
=> ConfLdName et ConfLN shall be reported in the SCD file according to the value in the ICD.

- Do we have a process for resolution of inconsistencies between ICT and SCT related to conflicting use of both options ?
=> SCT shall verify ConfLdName and ConfLNs before modifying the LD / LN naming. No need to have a specific process.

Proposal to close the issue.

#9

Updated by Vladan Cvejic over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Triage to Closed
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

Also available in: Atom PDF