Sensor-level data access, without redesigning the historian

Scope, mostly. The industrial-machinery page covers whole-machine telemetry — production counts, cycle times, machine-level alarms. This page covers the sensor layer that feeds those systems and many others: individual pressure, temperature, vibration and flow readings that get aggregated into machine-level and plant-level views. A plant operator's request can land at either level, and your catalog should be able to answer both. See the machinery page for the whole-machine version of this same access-layer pattern.

Rarely the calibration constants themselves — those are usually needed just to interpret the raw reading correctly, which makes them metadata the Act expects you to disclose alongside the reading. The proprietary part, if any, is more likely the compensation algorithm or drift-correction model that consumes calibration data internally, which is a much stronger candidate for the trade-secret process than the calibration record a user needs to make sense of their own readings.

Yes, provided the plant operator is the one directing the sharing and the vendor isn't a Digital Markets Act gatekeeper. Article 5 exists precisely for this case: a user pointing their own sensor data at a third-party analytics or maintenance provider they've chosen, for a purpose agreed between them, rather than staying locked into the sensor OEM's own analytics offering.

Only where continuous or real-time delivery is both relevant to the request and technically feasible. The Act requires delivery of the same quality available to the holder, but it doesn't create a new duty to build real-time infrastructure that doesn't already exist. If your historian only refreshes hourly, a compliant export can reflect that same cadence rather than inventing sub-second delivery no internal system actually has.

Often yes, in practice, if you're the one who receives and can make the combined sensor data available — for example running the plant historian that ingests readings from several sensor OEMs. The Data Act looks at who actually holds and controls the data flow, not only who stamped their name on the sensor housing, so an integrator operating the aggregation layer should expect to carry data-holder obligations for that layer.

Potentially, where the sensor or its gateway is itself a product with digital elements under the CRA. A new external API is a security-relevant change to that product's attack surface, and should go through the same vulnerability-handling and secure-development process as the rest of the connected product rather than being treated as a pure data-access feature outside CRA scope.