Industrial operations are messy, diverse, and constantly evolving. So why are we still trying to squeeze them into rigid ontologies?
In theory, standard frameworks like ISA-95 offer a neat, one-size-fits-all approach to organizing factory data and building context.
โ
But hereโs the problem: ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ.
โจ Different equipment
โจ Different processes
โจ Different teams
โจ Different priorities
Rigid ontologies often donโt match this reality.
When we apply them blindly, we create limitations instead of unlocking value.
True context isn't delivered by a standard. It's built, iteratively, through curiosity and questioning.
You donโt start with a rigid ontology.
You start with:
โ
โ
What does this data mean here?
โ
Why does it matter to our operation?
โ
How do we use it to improve?
Thatโs how we build context, through meaning-making, not just metadata. Itโs a process of learning.
And that learning needs to happen quickly, because the pace of change on the shop floor doesnโt wait for you to finish your data model.
โ
Industrial data &ย AI ย architecture guides, implementation tutorials and use-case blueprints, delivered as theyโre published.

