I have a new proposal.

I think points should have the option of having 2 more numeric tags.

• numericTag called: minVal
• numericTag called: maxVal

These will be used by applications to do things like, don't let the user change the value higher or lower than these values. Or if you drag a point on a gauge, then use the minVal, and the maxVal of the point for the stops on the gauge.

Again, these are optional parameters.

Bacnet and Niagara have these already, so I suggest that the application server that is talking to Bacnet or Niagara map in the correct points as well. IE... For Niagara's facets via nHaystack we map in the minimum Value to minVal, and maximum value to maxVal. If you guys are ok with this we can change nHaystack asap.

+1

+1

Your analogy with Niagara is spot on. It is essentially metadata on a point so we should include that automatically as well as having them formally defined as tags in our specs.

+1

I see value here for the analytics side to do quick "cached" comparisons. Nice.

Should we consider a numeric precision tag as well?

Sounds good.

+1

Should we consider a numeric precision tag as well?

I think precision is a bit of a hack. If we do anything, then I think we should use a proper formatting pattern. In SkySpark we use a simple subset of the Java decimal formatting pattern:

format: "#,##0.00"

I'm open to standardizing that as well

I'm not so sure about the format idea or precision for that matter. Formatting to me is more of a client side or presentation issue.

Is it really something we want to build into the semantic modelling of real world equipment?

I know it's done in Niagara but right now I'm struggling to find a use-case outside of displaying the numeric value.

I'm mostly concerned about scope here, is the Haystack modelling getting out of the original domain by trying to include these sorts of tags?

minVal and maxVal are different because they have value in analytics. format I'm not so sure about.