[Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu
Sat Apr 6 15:25:11 UTC 2013
Hi Martin, Pieren,
Looks fine, but why do we need a relation for single-site facilities
> (examples Fukushima and Themis)? A site-relation is usually only necessary
> if not all features of the "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they
> are dispersed. I would strongly recommend keeping it this way.
I agree with such a point of view.
Nevertheless relations allow us to link generators to the power plant where
they're located in.
They enable automatic rate computation by adding all individual generators'
power for instance.
Even if power plant is a single site infrastructure, it may be divided
between several buildings and no link would easily be made between
generators and power plant output.
As I said I'm aware relations are complex objects and they don't seems to
be necessarily in conventional power plant mapping at first sight.
But it's the only way Don-vip found and I can't find *a better one* to make
> P.S: Please change "Experimented users" into "Experienced users" in Simple
> tagging ;-)
Sure I'll do :)
If you see other Frenglish expressions, please let me know.
Thanks alberto for you're useful suggestions too.
I'm currently updating examples to match correctly to the rest of proposal.
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging