Semantic Interoperability in Manufacturing: Why Data Definitions Matter More Than Connectivity

Data and analytics leaders in manufacturing spend enormous resources on integration—connecting disparate equipment, translating between vendor-specific data formats, and building custom adapters for every new system. Russell Waddell, Managing Director of the MTConnect Institute, argues that this integration burden stems from a more fundamental problem: the lack of shared definitions for industrial data. His perspective on semantic interoperability reveals why standardizing data meanings, not just connectivity protocols, determines whether your data platform scales efficiently or collapses under integration complexity.

‍

The Hidden Cost: Translation Layers That Multiply With Scale

‍

When you connect two different brands of CNC machines to your analytics platform, you write translators for each vendor's data format. Connect three brands, and the translation complexity grows exponentially—you're not just translating vendor-specific formats, you're mapping between different definitions of the same concepts.

Waddell explains the problem: "One vendor calls something 'axis_1' in all lowercase. Another uses capital letters with no spaces. A third uses numeric codes. Without standardized definitions, you spend time and cost on integration that scales poorly."

For data leaders managing enterprise platforms that need to ingest data from dozens of equipment vendors across multiple facilities, this manifests as:

• Exponential integration complexity: Each new equipment type requires translators to every existing data format, not just one standard interface
• Maintenance burden: When equipment vendors update their data models, you must update multiple translation layers across your platform
• Analytics fragility: Machine learning models trained on one facility's data often fail when applied to another facility using different equipment vendors, even when measuring identical processes
• Lost semantic context: Translation layers often lose contextual meaning—a "rotary axis" becomes just a number without units, temporal relationships, or hierarchical context

This isn't a connectivity problem—MQTT, OPC UA, and other protocols handle data transport effectively. This is a semantic problem: different systems use different definitions for the same real-world concepts, forcing you to build and maintain translation layers that add cost without adding value.

‍

What Semantic Interoperability Actually Means

‍

Semantic interoperability isn't about network protocols or data formats. It's about agreement on what terms mean and how they relate to each other. Waddell breaks this into two components:

Shared definitions across all devices:

• Standard terminology: What constitutes an "axis" versus a "spindle" versus a "tool"
• Consistent units: Measuring rotary velocity in degrees per second rather than RPM in some systems and radians per second in others
• Agreed attributes: Defining what properties each concept must have (an axis has position, velocity, acceleration)

Contextual structure for the data:

• Hierarchical relationships: Understanding that a rotary axis is a type of axis, which is part of a machine, which exists in a facility
• Temporal context: Relating measurements to specific time windows and production runs
• Operational context: Connecting equipment states to production schedules and quality outcomes

This matters because your analytics depend on semantic consistency. When you train a predictive maintenance model on vibration data from "axis_1" at one facility, you need confidence that "X_AXIS" at another facility represents the same concept with the same units and context. Without semantic interoperability, you're building facility-specific models rather than enterprise-scale analytics capabilities.

‍

The MTConnect Approach: XML-Based Semantic Modeling

‍

MTConnect addresses semantic interoperability through a standards-based information model that defines both what terms mean and how to communicate them. The architecture consists of four layers, each serving a specific purpose in your data platform.

Device layer—the physical equipment:Manufacturing equipment generates data in vendor-specific formats. This native data model reflects how each manufacturer thinks about their equipment, with proprietary terminology and structures.

Adapter layer—semantic translation:The adapter translates between native device data and MTConnect standard definitions. This is where "MAZAK_SPINDLE_SPEED_RPM" becomes the standardized "Spindle/RotaryVelocity" with defined units and context. Equipment vendors typically provide these adapters, eliminating the need for you to understand each vendor's proprietary data model.

Agent layer—standardized communication:The MTConnect agent exposes three standardized API calls over HTTP: probe (device discovery and capability listing), current (latest snapshot of all data points), and sample (buffered time-series data). This provides a consistent interface regardless of the underlying equipment vendor.

Application layer—your analytics:Your data platform consumes standardized MTConnect data without vendor-specific translation logic. One integration pattern handles all MTConnect-compliant equipment, whether from different vendors, different equipment types, or different facilities.

The key architectural insight is separation of concerns: equipment vendors handle translation to MTConnect (they understand their proprietary formats), while you build analytics against one standard interface (you focus on insights, not integration).

‍

Strategic Placement in Your Data Architecture

‍

For data leaders evaluating semantic standards, the critical question isn't whether MTConnect is "better" than alternatives—it's where semantic interoperability fits in your overall architecture and which standards serve which purposes.

MTConnect excels for discrete manufacturing equipment:

• CNC machine tools and fabrication equipment
• Industrial 3D printing systems
• Equipment with complex mechanical states (axes, spindles, tools)
• Shop floor monitoring and OEE measurement
• Production data for quality traceability

OPC UA handles broader industrial automation:

• Process industries (chemical, pharmaceutical, food processing)
• Building automation and HVAC systems
• Cross-domain data exchange between different automation vendors
• Complex security and access control requirements

MQTT provides the transport mechanism:MTConnect doesn't replace message protocols—it complements them. A common architecture uses MQTT to transport MTConnect-formatted data from equipment to your analytics platform. The semantic standard (MTConnect) defines what the data means; the transport protocol (MQTT) handles how it moves.

The strategic approach is layered standards: MTConnect for semantic interoperability in discrete manufacturing, OPC UA for process automation semantics, both transported via MQTT to time-series databases for analytics. Each standard serves a specific purpose in your data platform stack.

‍

The Business Case: Integration Costs That Don't Scale

‍

The value proposition for semantic standards becomes clear when you calculate integration costs at enterprise scale. Consider two scenarios for a manufacturer deploying analytics across 50 facilities with an average of 30 different equipment types per facility:

Without semantic standards:

• Initial integration: 30 custom adapters per facility × 50 facilities = 1,500 integration points
• Maintenance: When any vendor updates their data model, you update translators across all facilities using that equipment
• Analytics development: Models often require facility-specific tuning because semantic differences prevent generalization
• New facility deployment: Months of integration work to connect equipment and validate translations

With semantic standards:

• Initial integration: One MTConnect integration pattern handles all compliant equipment
• Maintenance: Vendor updates happen in their adapters; your analytics platform remains unchanged
• Analytics development: Models trained on standardized data generalize across facilities
• New facility deployment: Weeks instead of months—equipment either provides MTConnect natively or vendors supply adapters

Waddell emphasizes this scaling advantage: "The real headache is when you try to do this with more than three or four brands. You end up with exponential growth in how many connections you have to build without a one-to-many translation to centralized standardized definitions."

For data leaders at companies managing global manufacturing operations, this dramatically affects total cost of ownership for your data platform. The upfront investment in standards adoption pays dividends as you scale analytics across facilities.

‍

Implementation Realities: What It Takes to Deploy MTConnect

‍

Understanding the technical architecture matters less than understanding the organizational prerequisites for successful deployment. Based on Waddell's insights, here are the practical requirements:

Equipment vendor support is essential:MTConnect requires adapters that translate from native equipment data to standard definitions. Equipment vendors increasingly provide these adapters, but older equipment or smaller vendors may not. Before committing to MTConnect as your semantic standard, audit your equipment inventory and verify vendor support. For unsupported equipment, you'll need to build custom adapters or use alternative integration approaches.

XML expertise helps but isn't required:MTConnect uses XML schemas to define data structure and relationships. Your integration teams benefit from XML understanding, but most implementation happens through provided adapters and agents rather than manual XML manipulation. The standard provides schemas and documentation at mtconnect.org—development teams can implement without deep XML expertise.

Start with high-value equipment clusters:Don't attempt enterprise-wide deployment immediately. Identify equipment clusters where semantic standardization provides clear ROI—typically your newest, most critical equipment with strong vendor support. Prove value with pilot deployments before scaling.

Plan for hybrid approaches:Your facility will contain mix of MTConnect-compliant equipment, OPC UA-based systems, and legacy equipment requiring custom integration. Design your data platform architecture to accommodate multiple semantic standards and integration patterns simultaneously. Pure MTConnect deployments are rare; hybrid architectures are the norm.

‍

Security Considerations: What Standards Can and Cannot Solve

‍

A common concern about industrial standards is security. Waddell provides useful clarity: "Definitions for data are not inherently secure or insecure. The language itself is not secure or insecure."

MTConnect addresses security through:

Protocol-level security:

• HTTPS support for encrypted transport
• One-way communication pattern (data flows off equipment, not commands back to equipment)
• Integration with existing IT security infrastructure

Semantic support for security features:

• Operator identification and authorization data
• Equipment access control hooks
• Audit trail support through contextual data

What MTConnect doesn't provide:

• Complete security solutions (that's your network architecture responsibility)
• Protection against all threats (defense-in-depth requires multiple layers)
• Automatic compliance with industry security standards

The strategic message is that semantic standards enable better security practices by providing consistent data for access control and auditing, but don't replace comprehensive security architecture. Your security strategy must address network segmentation, access control, and threat monitoring independently of semantic standards.

‍

Participation Strategy: Observer vs Active Contributor

‍

One of the most actionable insights from Waddell concerns standards participation strategy. You don't need to fully commit resources to standards development to benefit from engagement.

Observer level (minimal commitment):

• Monitor standards development activities
• Receive advance notice of upcoming changes
• Understand direction before committing architecture decisions
• No cost, minimal time investment

Active contributor level (higher commitment):

• Influence standards direction based on your requirements
• Ensure your use cases are addressed in specifications
• Connect with other manufacturers facing similar challenges
• Requires dedicated staff time and travel for in-person meetings

For data leaders, the strategic approach is starting as observers for any standard you're evaluating, then escalating to active contribution only for standards critical to your platform architecture. The MTConnect Institute (like many standards organizations) operates primarily remotely, minimizing participation costs.

Waddell's advice: "Your minimum requirement to not shoot yourself in the foot and be subject to the whims of somebody else's decisions—get in there as a watcher and observe what's happening. That doesn't cost anything."

‍

Conclusion

‍

The data integration challenge in manufacturing isn't primarily about connectivity—message protocols handle data transport effectively. The challenge is semantic: different equipment vendors use different definitions for the same concepts, forcing data platforms to maintain exponentially growing translation layers that add cost without adding value.

For data and analytics leaders building enterprise-scale platforms, semantic interoperability through standards like MTConnect fundamentally changes the economics of data integration. Instead of custom translators for every equipment-vendor-facility combination, you build one integration pattern that scales across your operation. Instead of facility-specific analytics models, you build enterprise capabilities that leverage standardized data across all manufacturing sites.

The strategic decision isn't whether your equipment can connect to your data platform—everything can connect somehow. The decision is whether you'll continue paying escalating integration costs as you scale, or invest in semantic standards that make integration costs linear rather than exponential. For manufacturers operating multiple facilities with diverse equipment, the difference determines whether your data platform becomes a strategic asset or a cost center that consumes resources without delivering proportional value.

‍