Hi all. I'm a full-stack software engineer doing outside-the-industry research on the gap between independent MSIs (5-50-building mixed-vendor portfolios) and the vendor agentic AI platforms (JCI OpenBlue / Honeywell Forge / Siemens Building X / Niagara 5 native AI) that keep AI capability inside each vendor's controls walls.
The argument in one line: independent MSIs do the Brick/Haystack alignment work between whatever ontology the client lands on and whatever vendor tooling is in the building, but ezhuk's protocol-level bacnet-mcp doesn't reach into Brick/Haystack tagging, and the vendor agentic platforms don't reach across multi-vendor portfolios. The slot for a read-only Brick/Haystack-aware BACnet/IP MCP gateway looks empty.
Since the article posted, I shipped a v0.1 alpha at https://github.com/Yveshby27/brick-bacnet-mcp (pip install brick-bacnet-mcp; on the MCP registry; 4 MCP tools exposing tagged topology to any LLM agent). Read-only, local-only, no PHI/credentials/external egress. Brick library 37 rules; Haystack library 31 rules.
Honest pushback welcome: where am I misreading the slot, and do MSIs in your network feel this gap acutely enough that a read-only Brick/Haystack-aware MCP layer is useful as-is?
Yves Habchy Yesterday
Hi all. I'm a full-stack software engineer doing outside-the-industry research on the gap between independent MSIs (5-50-building mixed-vendor portfolios) and the vendor agentic AI platforms (JCI OpenBlue / Honeywell Forge / Siemens Building X / Niagara 5 native AI) that keep AI capability inside each vendor's controls walls.
Write-up: https://habchy.dev/research/bacnet-msi-semantic-gap
The argument in one line: independent MSIs do the Brick/Haystack alignment work between whatever ontology the client lands on and whatever vendor tooling is in the building, but ezhuk's protocol-level bacnet-mcp doesn't reach into Brick/Haystack tagging, and the vendor agentic platforms don't reach across multi-vendor portfolios. The slot for a read-only Brick/Haystack-aware BACnet/IP MCP gateway looks empty.
Since the article posted, I shipped a v0.1 alpha at https://github.com/Yveshby27/brick-bacnet-mcp (pip install brick-bacnet-mcp; on the MCP registry; 4 MCP tools exposing tagged topology to any LLM agent). Read-only, local-only, no PHI/credentials/external egress. Brick library 37 rules; Haystack library 31 rules.
Honest pushback welcome: where am I misreading the slot, and do MSIs in your network feel this gap acutely enough that a read-only Brick/Haystack-aware MCP layer is useful as-is?
Yves Habchy https://habchy.dev