Feedback on Pipe Entity Attributes

[bahimc]

We would like to request feedback from the community on the Pipe entity attributes in the ICEG Data Model. Specifically, we would like to know if the following attributes for the Pipe entity are sufficient to cater for various use cases or if there are any attributes that are missing.

Also, we have provided some values for the attributes below, but we would appreciate confirmation of the specific type of values that these attribute can take, when relevant:

• pipe.pressure: The maximum allowable operating pressure at which a product is conveyed through a pipe (source: INSPIRE). (e.g., "3 bar", "6 bar", "10 bar"). We propose to have a string field.
• pipe.diameter: For convex shaped objects (e.g. a circle) the diameter is defined to be the largest distance that can be formed between two opposite parallel lines tangent to its boundary (e.g., "100 mm", "200 mm", "300 mm") (source: INSPIRE). We propose to have a string field.
• pipe.status: The current operational status of the pipe (e.g., "operational", "out of service", "scheduled for maintenance"). We would like to inquire with the community about the range of values associated with this attribute and whether the values we have suggested are comprehensive or if any are missing.
• pipe.type: The type of pipe (e.g., pressure pipe). We would like to ask the community about the different values for pipe types or if it should be a string field.
• pipe.geometry: Shape and position characteristics of an object (e.g., polyline) (source: OSLO). We propose to have a string field.

In addition, we would like to know if the community would prefer any of these attributes to be optional or mandatory and what the cardinalities should be. We would also like to know if the community would be able to provide all the mandatory information, and with data minimization in mind, or if some of the entities and/or attributes should be stripped off.

Please share your feedback and suggestions so that we can improve the ICEG Data Model. Thank you in advance for your valuable input!

[VPiersonSWDE]

pipe.type:
On our side, we distinguish different classes of pipes:

• production pipes
• transport pipes
• distribution pipes
• discharge pipes
• ...
  Each of these classes of pipes can be under pressure or not. Is this the kind of information you are looking for ?

[VPiersonSWDE]

pipe.status:
What is the purpose of this field? In my opinion, what matters is the status of the hydrant. If the pipe is out of service, the system operator must have taken the hydrant out of service as well. I'm also wondering about the "scheduled for maintenance" status, the purpose of it, the communication of this information and its update.

[bahimc]

Thanks for the input provided on the pipe.type and pipe.status attributes @VPiersonSWDE.

Regarding pipe.type, I think it would be valuable to consider distinguishing between different classes of pipes, such as production pipes, transport pipes, distribution pipes, and discharge pipes, and whether they are under pressure or not, as suggested by @VPiersonSWDE. Let's wait and see if the group members agree to this suggestion.

Regarding pipe.status, I think it's worth considering the point raised as for the purpose of this field. It may be helpful to determine if the pipe.status attribute is necessary for any use case, and if so, what specific values would be needed. If no feedback is received indicating that a group member finds it necessary, we may recommend that it be removed.

[bahimc]

pipe.type: On our side, we distinguish different classes of pipes:

• production pipes
• transport pipes
• distribution pipes
• discharge pipes
• ...
  Each of these classes of pipes can be under pressure or not. Is this the kind of information you are looking for ?

Waterlink provided with a list of values for leidingtype, which is as follows;

• Distributieleiding
• Toevoerleiding
• Private Distributie
• Aansluit Leiding
• Demi Leiding
• Ruwwaterleiding
• Niet in gebruik

To determine the values for the attribute pipe.type, we can identify the common factor between the two lists, which includes:

• Distribution pipes (Distributieleiding)
• Transport pipes (Toevoerleiding)

Considering the additional information we received, the pipe type varies depending other sources. IWVA reports it as "Drukleiding" (pressure pipes), while the Watergroep refers to it as "Distributie" (distribution pipes), and for Knokke, it is also classified as "Drukleiding" (pressure pipes). Therefore, "Drukleiding" should indeed be added to the proposed list of pipe types. Could you confirm?

[bahimc]

In addition, concerning the pipe.status, different organizations provide various values. AIEC uses "Bon/mauvais/à remplacer" to represent the status. Farys documents the status as follows: "In Bedrijf Ligging Onbekend" and "In Bedrijf". Knokke uses "Afgeschaft" and "In gebruik" to denote the status. IWVA also included "In gebruik" for the status. Please note that this analysis is based on actual data received, and it may not cover all potential pipe statuses.

Furthermore, Waterlink has provided a extensive list of statuses, including:

• Opgevuld
• Uitgenomen
• Impact Incident
• Drinkbaar
• Bijzondere status
• Ondrinkbaar
• Afgesloten
• Verlaten
• In ontwerp
• Werken in uitvoering (druk)
• Werken in uitvoering (droog)
• In dienst
• Buiten dienst
• Ondrinkbaar afgesloten

Regarding the drinkability of water, this information is documented at the hydrant level, specifically using the attribute hydrant.usage.

Although we have observed different values in various models, we are confident that they can be mapped to the initial proposition mentioned in #131 (comment): "operational," "out of service," and "scheduled for maintenance".

However, we would appreciate it if you could confirm whether these three attributes are exhaustive for a code list on pipe.status, or if additional values are needed.

[VincentFeremans]

During the first Thematic Workshop, it was indicated by a participant that the attribute pipe.material was irrelevant for our model and thus it was not added to #131 (comment). However, we have already come across it several times in inputs received from actors such as VIVAQUA, IWVA, AGSO Knokke and AIEC. We therefore urge the working group to inform us in case this attribute does indeed need to be included in our data model.

[VincentFeremans]

Based on input received from several participants, we propose a code list for pipe.diameter.

Our current consolidated list of inputs received from AIEC, IWVA, Farys and AGSO Kokke, De Watergroep, contains: 32mm-40mm-50mm-60mm-63mm-75mm-80mm-90mm-100mm-110mm-125mm-150mm-160mm-175mm-200mm-225mm-3/4'-4/4'-5/4'-6/4'-2'.

We ask the working group if they agree with a code list for this attribute and if this list is exhaustive enough.

Furthermore, from AIEC's data model, we found an attribute which is not in our model:

• pipe.waterSupply (which refers to the water tower from where a hydrants water supply originates)

We ask the working group whether this attribute needs to be added to the model. If so, we propose a string value.

[VincentFeremans]

We have initiated the public review of the ICEG Hydrants model. We appreciate all the feedback we received within this conversation and want to notify that everything has been addressed in the model, which can be accessed via the following link: https://belgif.github.io/thematic/models/hydrants/index_en.html

We advise you to review the model internally and welcome any final adjustment requests or suggestions you may have.

Kind regards,
The ICEG Hydrants Team

[thirions]

PipeType
• OK (=netwerk) distribution or transport

Status
• OK (=status)

Geometry
• OK

Diameter
• OK (=nominale diameter)

Identifier
• OK (=G3E_FID)

Address
• Not Mandatory = OK

WaterType
• OK (=discipline)

FlowPressure/FlowRate
• Not possible to provide this information