Trace EQ-005's asset context
Connect EQ-005 to its subsystems, sensors, inspection, and planned maintenance while interpreting missing relationships.
Question for this chapter
What field context should accompany EQ-005's scores when a crew receives the work?
Why this matters now
An HI or RUL row alone forces the next person to rediscover the attached sensors and recent inspection. The ontology connects identifiers from separate datasets around the same equipment.
Try it
Run the ontology_materialization pipeline. Then execute this query in the Graph explorer console.
MATCH (e:hs_equipment {equipment_id: 'EQ-005'})
OPTIONAL MATCH (e)-[:hs_has_subsystem]->(s:hs_subsystem)
OPTIONAL MATCH (s)-[:hs_monitored_by]->(sn:hs_sensor)
OPTIONAL MATCH (e)-[:hs_inspected_on]->(i:hs_inspection)
RETURN e, s, sn, i
Choose Graph and expand the subsystems, sensors, and inspection around EQ-005.
Successful result
| Connected item | Current result | Context it adds |
|---|---|---|
| Subsystems | WINDING, BUSHING, TAP_CHANGER, COOLING, OIL_TANK | Five inspection areas on the transformer |
| Sensors | Temperature, partial discharge, vibration | Sources of thermal and electrical evidence |
| Inspection | One partial_discharge_check, result normal | The inspection evidence currently on record |
| Defects | No connected rows | No evidence that a defect has been confirmed |
| Past maintenance | No connected rows | EQ-005's estimated cost uses the scenario median |
| Planned maintenance | MAJOR_OVERHAUL, scheduled day 0 | Next action proposed by the analysis |
Missing defect and historical-maintenance nodes do not indicate a pipeline failure. They show that the
current inputs contain no such records for EQ-005.
Read the result
The graph does not recalculate why EQ-005 ranks second. It gives the crew the context behind the score
and schedule.
- One normal inspection exists, while DGA and operating-load scores are relatively weaker.
- The thermal-anomaly flag is false, but RUL is below two years and its lower interval bound is zero.
- With no confirmed defect,
MAJOR_OVERHAULis a proposed planning action rather than a declaration of failure. - With no past maintenance record for
EQ-005, the estimated cost falls back to the median across all maintenance history. Confirm the scope and quote before issuing real work.
Deep dive — complete ontology output
| Group | Row counts |
|---|---|
| Entities | Equipment 10, subsystems 14, sensors 28, inspections 33, defects 25, maintenance 20 |
| Relations | Subsystems 48, sensors 28, inspections 33, defects 25, detections 15, repairs 10 |
The sensor path is equipment → subsystem → sensor, not equipment → sensor. Following the current relation direction keeps the query aligned with the source contract.
Next decision
You now have EQ-005's current condition, remaining-time estimate, and relationship context. Next,
apply the same calculation to all ten assets and create a schedule under budget and crew limits.