OPC standards now let equipment vendors expose only business-relevant data instead of thousands of raw PLC tags. This cuts historian storage costs and feeds clean data into low-code apps for analysis and cross-machine comparison without vendor-specific tag differences.
The new OPC standards, I think, is also critical for that perspective of, you know, there's no need to take 30,000 tags into a historian. Right. You can do OPC and the vendor that created that particular piece of equipment is, you know, taking the, let's say, 200 different tags on that one machine, but only really exposing the 15 that makes any sense for somebody that doesn't know the intricacies of how this machine is programmed. Etc., right? Just taking those and exposing those in, and then the customer can take those and, and use systems data aggregation and low-code, no-code and into a storage system and whatever. But they don't have to deal with all those minute, small detail tags that have been used just to— and some of them are really just at the PLC level to measure to make sure my machine doesn't have a catastrophic failure of some sort, right? Right. But they're really not used for the business side. It's not about— they don't have any impact on the product quality that's coming out of the machine, etc. So there's definitely some areas there at the data level where you can simplify a lot and then easily have some low-code, no-code applications sitting in as a middle layer to use that information, be able to compare 3 machines together at the right level. Don't have to worry about, you know, different vendors' machines. What is the same value in this machine versus this machine versus that machine? Getting some of that standardization as part of it too. I think it— there's, there's a lot of opportunities for not just having low-code, no-code, but using this entire infrastructure to kind of start looking at standardizing that data infrastructure that the low-code, no-code is used for today.
