Explore / Case study / Brownfield Tag Mapping

Brownfield Tag Mapping

Self-hostTerminal

Match cryptic PLC signals to equipment attributes, then flag unit and binding conflicts for review.

by admin · listed 7 days ago

⚡ What System1 does here

Jev chooses an equipment folder and then a measurement or feedback signal from explicit candidates, including a none option. Code owns data-type filtering, unit checks, duplicate-binding checks and review policy; the model does not create PLC tags or establish physical wiring.

About

An industrial integration example for turning an OPC-UA browse export and an equipment model into a proposed binding plan. For example, it tries to distinguish pump-speed feedback from a similarly named speed setpoint. Jev first selects a device folder, then selects a signal from the candidates for each equipment attribute. Python filters incompatible data types, checks engineering units and duplicate assignments, and separates proposed bindings from review and unmapped rows. The runner writes binding_plan.json; it does not commission the plant. Stage: a reproducible engineering sample using prepared and synthetically altered water-plant data. The author's stress tests still produced wrong automatic matches when pump numbering was swapped. Names alone cannot establish physical wiring, so a real installation requires field checks. The confidence threshold is an example policy, not a validated reliability guarantee. Run locally with Python and your own TypeSafe API key; model usage may cost extra. This listing was checked against the README and implementation, not independently run. Sources: https://github.com/smslavin/jev-industrial-samples/tree/main/03-tag-mapping https://github.com/smslavin/jev-industrial-samples/blob/main/03-tag-mapping/mapper.py

🧪 Community test reports

0 reports · 0 passed on the real model
No one has tested this yet. Be the first.

💬 Discussions

New post →
No discussions yet.