CHANGE REQUEST |
Request identity number: |
C00069 |
Applies to: |
S01413 |
Type of request: |
Technically new |
Request status level: |
Resolved |
Proposal: |
Addition of the symbol quoted in IEC 60947-6-2, § 6.2
|
Reason: |
Users of computerised drafting are willing to use a symbol representing a CPS as already specified in IEC 60947-6-2, § 6.2.
Unfortunately IEC 60947-6-2 is a product standard and not a standard for software designers (IGE, XA0, E plan...)
|
Requested by: |
PAS
per-ake.svensson@se.abb.com
FR |
General comments: |
Extended procedure, approved, symbol released. |
Comments at evaluation: |
Submitted for evaluation 2001-10-16. Closing date for evaluation 2001-11-14. Extended to 2001-11-16.
Comment by the Secretary at the submission:
The appropriate parts of IEC 60947-6-2 Clause 6.2 are attached below as C00069proposal.pdf.
The actual standard explicitly proposes a symbol to be put on the equipment (and this proposal is therefore also forwarded to SC3C for possible action), but the proposer suggests the symbol being used also in diagrams.
The propsed symbol is a combination of known elements. It is composed from symbol S00227 + S00218 + S00219 + S00220 + S00222. As such it is already implicitly in line with the IEC standard.
The question is therefore if it is necessary or desirable to include it in the standard or not. If the conclusion is that it is so, then this is a typical case for the application of the normal procedure.
If accepted, the name of the symbol is suggested to be: "Control and protective switching device; CPS", "Appareil de connexion de command de protection; ACP"
DE(RESC): In my opinion it is not necessary to add the proposed symbol to the database. As it is shown and as I understand it, it is a combination of existing symbols. In the so called "global symbol" (what ever this could mean),all imaginable functions are shown. In the reality in a circuit diagram the user will document only the realized functions, and this he can do using the already standardized symbols as described in the secretaries comment to the evaluation.
AT(WGAS): It is allowed to combine standardized symbols for special use. Therfore it is not necessary to define a new symbol. To define all possible variations could cause a very big and unintelligible database.
FI(TAVI): We discussed about the proposed symbol. We see that from users side there is need about symbols based on their use or construction (like combined symbol). This kind of symbol can be used e.g. in overview diagrams. We should not create too much simplified symbols into IEC 60617. We should also work together IEC product committees. They shall be familiar about our principles for IEC 60617 and IEC 60417. Of course it helps if we will create new search function but it does not solve users needs. There is also goal in SC 3C to give rapid respond for need about new informative graphical symbols for equipment and also on screens. I have told several times that it is not so easy for users to be familiar of all fine classification differences for symbols. Very often they try to use same symbols for diagrams and e.g. on rating plate.
So I agree with this symbol for overview diagrams. In the future this kind of proposals should be worked together with product committees.
DK(KATH): The proposed symbol is - as already said - a combination of symbols from the standard and that is OK, but we agree with the comments from DE and AT.
The conclusion is, that it is not necessary or desirable to include it in the standard.
NO(ES): The proposed symbol is a combination of existing symbols, and as such it should not be necessary to be standardised. However, in many cases it might be useful to standardise commonly used combinations of symbols that have a spesific usage or purpose. when standardising symbol combinations, we prohibit the popping up of other solutions with the same usage or meaning. It is better for (symbol) users to retrieve specific meanings from the database than generating new combinations each time themselves. We need to think about whether we should only provide the building blocks in the database, or we also shall provide useful combinations.
Conclusion by the Secretary: The opinions on the inclusion of this symbol is 50/50 (including the proposing NC). Based on earlier discussions on the desirability to include some combinations just to get the possibility to include terms and keywords in the database, I have constructed symbol S01413 as a combination of C00069 and C00070. This symbol is submitted for validation. |
Comments at validation: |
Submitted for validation 2001-12-05. Closing date for validation 2002-01-18.
FI(TAVI): I accept the name proposed by the Secretary,Control and protective switching device; CPS
AT(WGAS): If this symbol is commonly used it should be included in the database. |
Voting at validation: |
FI(TAVI): YES
AT(WGAS): Symbol S01413 Yes
DE(RESC): NO
DK(KATH): The compromise S01413 as
an "combination" symbol YES
CN(GUTI): NO
Conclusion by the Secretary 2002-02-12: 3/5 approve and 2/5 disapprove. The rules for approval of an FDIS state that 2/3 must be in favour for approval and not more than 1/4 against. In this case the first condition is not fulfilled and the proposal is therefore rejected.
--------------------------------------------------
Comment by the Secretary 2002-10-25: Following the decision by the TC3 meeting in Prague, this Change Request is restarted in accordance with the extended procedure. Document 3/646/CD has been circulad to the National Committees for comments.
--------------------------------------------------
Comments by the Secretary 2003-02-13: The circulation of the CD resulted in 2 NCs accepting the proposal, 2 NCs negative to the proposal and 4 NCs having no comments, see document 3/664/CC. There were no comments asking for any changes to the proposed symbol.
The proposal will be continued unchanged as 3/665/CDV.
--------------------------------------------------
Comment by the Secretary 2003-02-20: Document 3/665/CDV was approved, with comments from four NCs. Document 3/684/RVC contains the result and the comments.
As a result of the comments the text of the Remark was modified.
--------------------------------------------------
Document 3/685/FDIS was sent for distribution 2003-08-20.
--------------------------------------------------
Document 3/685/FDIS was approved, see document 3/699/RVD.
The symbol will be released. The editorial comments from FR will be taken into account before release.
-------------------------------------------------- |
Requested on: |
2001-10-15 |
Evaluated on: |
2001-12-05 |
Resolved on: |
2003-11-10 |
Withdrawn on: |
|
Evaluation closing on: |
|
Validation closing on: |
|