Point Naming Standards – Haystack vs. UFGS

Problem

Building one system with Niagara, another with Metasys, a third with custom Modbus devices. No consistent naming convention makes it hard for technicians to understand point purposes or query data.

Solution

Option 1: Haystack (Project Haystack) – Semantic Tagging

Advantages:

• Platform-agnostic (works with any BAS)
• Hierarchical and human-readable
• Example: chiller_1_evaporator_leaving_temp automatically implies it's a chiller, temperature sensor, on the leaving side of evaporator
• Enables smart analytics and fault detection based on tag relationships

Structure:

[Site][Building][System][Component][Measurement][Device]

site: example-campus
building: building-a
system: chiller-loop
equipment: chiller-1
point: leaving-water-temp

Full name: chiller-1-leaving-water-temp

Example Naming Scheme:

ahu-1-supply-air-temp (temperature sensor, AHU discharge)
ahu-1-return-air-temp (temperature sensor, AHU return)
ahu-1-damper-position (actuator feedback)
vav-301-zone-temp (zone temperature in room 301)
vav-301-supply-air-flow (flow measurement)
vav-301-setpoint (user-adjustable setpoint)

Option 2: UFGS (Unified Facilities Guide Specifications)

Advantages:

• Familiar to many integrators and government projects
• Structured, standard format

Structure:

[Equipment-Type]-[Building]-[Area]-[Unit]-[Measurement]

AHU-BLDG-01-1-SAT (Supply Air Temp, AHU 1, Building 1)
VAV-BLDG-01-301-ZT (Zone Temp, VAV in Room 301)
CHW-RETURN-T (Chilled Water Return Temperature)

Recommendation

• Choose Haystack if you're using Niagara heavily (native support in 4.9+)
• Choose UFGS if you're primarily Metasys and need government compliance
• For mixed environments, use a mapping layer between naming conventions