The Engineering Intelligence Ontology (EIO): entity and relationship specification
A specification in drafting, covering the canonical entity types, the governed relationships between them, alignment to ISO 14224, and the amendment process by which the ontology may be changed. The scope is published ahead of the document because a shared vocabulary that one vendor wrote alone is not a shared vocabulary.
This specification is in drafting and is not yet released as a document. The scope, entity set and open questions below are published now so that comment can shape it before it is written. Comment window closes 2026-09-30; every comment is answered in the disposition log.
ABSTRACT
126 WORDSEngineering knowledge does not transfer between plants because the same physical situation is recorded under incompatible vocabularies. Asset registers, maintenance systems, design documents and reliability studies each name entities differently, so evidence cannot be pooled and a failure understood at one site is unavailable at the next. This paper specifies a governed ontology of eleven canonical entity types and the permitted relationships between them, distinguishing entities that are asserted from those that are derived, and requiring every derived entity to carry its provenance. Alignment to ISO 14224 taxonomy is stated where it exists and departures are justified where it does not. An amendment process is defined so the specification can change under review rather than by vendor preference, with the Engineering Intelligence Council holding the arbitration role.
CONTENTS
9 SECTIONS PLANNED · SCOPE FOR COMMENTDerived entities may never be cited as asserted fact. A life estimate carries the model, the inputs and the confidence that produced it, or it is not admissible in a decision record.
Open questions in this draft
Three specification decisions are unresolved. Comments on these carry the most weight, and each will be answered in the disposition log whether or not the draft changes.
Is a functional location an entity or an attribute?
ISO 14224 treats it as a hierarchy level. Treating it as a first-class entity supports asset replacement in place; it also duplicates structure.
Should a constraint be versioned independently of its design basis?
Independent versioning allows temporary derates to be recorded cleanly. It also permits a constraint to drift from the document that justifies it.
What majority should an ontology amendment require?
The draft proposes a two-thirds Council majority with a published dissent. A simple majority moves faster; unanimity would freeze the specification.
How to cite this draft
ENGINPILOT (2026). The Engineering Intelligence Ontology (EIO): entity and relationship specification. EP-WP-002, Revision 0.4 (draft for comment). Bengaluru: ENGINPILOT Intelligence Systems.