diff --git a/text/0243-app-telemetry-schema-vision-roadmap.md b/text/0243-app-telemetry-schema-vision-roadmap.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..51fc74622
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/0243-app-telemetry-schema-vision-roadmap.md
@@ -0,0 +1,386 @@
+# Introducing Application Telemetry Schema in OpenTelemetry - Vision and Roadmap
+
+----
+**Author**: Laurent Querel, F5 Inc.
+
+**Keywords**: Schema-First Approach, Telemetry Schema, Semantic Convention,
+Discoverability, Interoperability, Type-Safe Client SDKs, Client SDKs Generation,
+CI/CD Integration, Data Governance, Data Privacy.
+
+**Related OTEPs**: [OTEP0152](https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/blob/main/text/0152-telemetry-schemas.md), [OTEP0202](https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/blob/main/text/0202-events-and-logs-api.md).
+
+----
+_Unlike the traditional data ecosystem (OLTP and OLAP), the world of telemetry
+generally does not rely on the concept of a schema. Instrumentation is deeply
+embedded in the code of applications and libraries, making it difficult to
+discover all the possible telemetry signals an application can emit. This gap
+prevents or limits the development of CI/CD tools for checking, reporting,
+documenting, and generating artifacts from telemetry signals specific to an
+application. This document presents a long-term vision aimed at enabling the
+OpenTelemetry project to address this issue and extend its impact to a broader
+ecosystem. It proposes extending the initiatives of Telemetry Schema and
+Semantic Conventions to include logical concepts of Component Telemetry Schema
+and Resolved Telemetry Schema. A series of OTEPs and Tools will be proposed in
+this overarching document to detail each aspect of this vision._
+
+## Current State Overview
+
+Traditionally, the instrumentation of applications is deeply integrated into the
+source code of the applications and their components. The current stack of
+OpenTelemetry follows this approach and offers a unified mechanism that allows
+this ecosystem to report telemetry data jointly via a generic client interface
+and a common protocol through an SDK. Moreover, OpenTelemetry's semantic
+conventions establish a vendor-agnostic and standardized vocabulary to ensure
+more consistent instrumentation over time. This standardization facilitates the
+analysis and utilization of these metadata data across the entire telemetry
+pipeline.
+
+But this approach is not without challenges:
+
+* **Discoverability and Interoperability**: It is difficult to discover a priori
+ and automatically what an application as a whole specifically generates in terms
+ of telemetry and associated metadata. This makes it difficult to integrate with
+ enterprise data catalogs, compliance procedures, or automated privacy
+ enforcement in _CI/CD pipelines_.
+* **User experience**: Although very flexible, generic clients do not offer the
+ same benefits as a strongly typed dedicated API. A type-safe API is more
+ ergonomic, more robust, and more easily maintainable. Modern IDEs are capable
+ of providing smart autocompletion and contextual documentation based on the API.
+ Compilers can automatically detect errors in case of refactoring or evolution
+ of the telemetry schema.
+* **Extensibility**: Adding metadata to the basic signal specification is
+ essential for enabling use cases like data security, privacy enforcement,
+ metadata-driven data transformation, and knowledge graph enrichment. Currently,
+ there's no standard way to add metadata separate from an application's or
+ library's development cycle. These metadata definitions should be distinct from
+ the signal definitions and could be specified by teams other than development
+ teams.
+* **Performance overheads**: A significant downside of generic telemetry
+ instrumentation is the various overheads it generally introduces due to inherent
+ layers of abstraction. For example, the collection of attributes is typically
+ represented as a list of key/value pairs or as hashmaps, resulting in memory
+ overhead. A simple struct or a set of well-typed function arguments will be more
+ efficient and less error-prone for representing this list of attributes. In the
+ same way, it is possible to use a dictionary encoding for values whose domain is
+ specified in the form of an enumeration in the schema definition.
+
+Databases and RPC systems (e.g., Protobuf & gRPC) have already addressed some of
+these issues with a schema-first approach. There is nothing to prevent adopting
+a similar approach in the context of telemetry. **This document discusses how to
+apply a schema-first approach in the OpenTelemetry project and its implications
+for the existing Telemetry Schema and Semantic Conventions.**
+
+## Possible/Desired Future State
+
+The following diagram provides a conceptual overview of the relationships
+between the various components, processes, and artifacts of what could be a
+typical schema-driven end-to-end telemetry system in the future.
+
+
+
+The Application Telemetry Schema concept is divided into two key logical parts: the
+Component Telemetry Schema and the Resolved Telemetry Schema, as shown in the
+previous diagram (more details on these two concepts in the proposal section).
+These concepts are central to unlocking a variety of use cases.
+
+Examples of use cases include:
+
+* Automatic generation of Telemetry Client SDKs from telemetry schemas,
+ improving user experience and performance.
+* CI/CD pipelines using telemetry schemas to:
+ * Check compatibility between different schema versions.
+ * Ensure security and privacy compliance.
+ * Integrate with enterprise data catalog systems.
+ * And more.
+* Telemetry backends capable of:
+ * Automatically updating database schemas or dashboards.
+ * Triggering schema-driven transformations or processing in stream processors.
+ * And more.
+
+This recent [paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.07509.pdf#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20the%20benchmark%20provide%20evidence%20that%20supports%20our,LLM%20without%20a%20Knowledge%20Graph)
+from [data.world](https://data.world/home/), along with
+the [MetricFlow framework](https://docs.getdbt.com/docs/build/about-metricflow)
+which underpins the [dbt Semantic Layer](https://www.getdbt.com/product/semantic-layer),
+highlights the significance of adopting a schema-first approach in data
+modeling, especially for Generative AI-based question answering systems. Tools
+like Observability Query Assistants (
+e.g. [Elastic AI Assistant](https://www.elastic.co/fr/blog/introducing-elastic-ai-assistant)
+and [Honeycomb Query Assistant](https://www.honeycomb.io/blog/introducing-query-assistant?utm_source=newswire&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=query_assistant))
+are likely to become increasingly prevalent and efficient in the near future,
+thanks to the adoption of a schema-first approach.
+
+> **Note: The names and formats of these concepts are still under discussion. A
+> detailed analysis of pros and cons will be covered later in the document. The
+> final decision will be deferred to future dedicated OTEPs.**
+
+Another problem this proposal aims to address is the inherent complexity of the
+ecosystem where OpenTelemetry is utilized but not fully addressed by existing
+solutions. OpenTelemetry has been adopted by enterprises of all sizes. While
+offering the possibility to inherit standardized semantic conventions is
+beneficial, it often proves insufficient due to the need for customizations in
+diverse contexts, such as overriding some properties (e.g., changing the
+requirement level from recommended to required). Additionally, the presence of
+vendor-specific attributes and metrics in the existing official OpenTelemetry
+semantic convention registry does not align with the goal of offering a catalog
+of attributes, metrics, and signals that are vendor-agnostic. **These issues are
+indicative of a lack of standardized mechanisms for extending, customizing, and
+developing an ecosystem of schemas and semantic convention registries.**
+
+In response to these problems, a hierarchy of telemetry schemas can be defined,
+ranging from the most general to one that is specifically refined for an
+application. Each child schema inherits the properties of the parent schema and
+can, if necessary, override these properties locally. Additionally, any
+telemetry schema can import one or several semantic convention registries,
+allowing for the definition of OpenTelemetry, vendor-specific, and
+enterprise-level registries. These two enhancements make OpenTelemetry more
+customizable, extensible, and ecosystem-friendly.
+
+The following section will elaborate on the concepts of the Component Telemetry
+Schema, Resolved Telemetry Schema, Semantic Convention Registries, and their
+relationship with both the existing OpenTelemetry Schema v1.1 and the
+OpenTelemetry Semantic Conventions.
+
+## Proposal
+
+### Overview
+
+Conceptually, this proposal is based on three main concepts: **Component Telemetry
+Schema**, **Semantic Convention Registry**, and **Resolved Telemetry Schema**.
+The relationships between these entities are described in the following diagram.
+
+
+
+The Component Telemetry Schemas are created by the OpenTelemetry SIG members,
+application, or library authors. A Component Telemetry Schema may import any
+number of Semantic Convention
+Registries as needed. During the schema resolution process, a Resolved Telemetry
+Schema is created from a Component Telemetry Schema. This **Resolved Telemetry
+Schema is self-contained** and has no external references. Optionally, a Component
+Telemetry Schema may extend an existing Telemetry Schema, whether component or
+resolved (this aspect is still under discussion). Typically, the official
+OpenTelemetry Telemetry Schema is inherited by a Component Telemetry Schema to
+include the standard OpenTelemetry Semantic Convention registry. In complex
+cases, large enterprises might create their own intermediary telemetry schemas
+for custom definitions.
+
+Each signal definition defined in the Component Telemetry Schema, where possible,
+reuses the existing syntax and semantics defined by the semantic conventions.
+Each signal definition is also identified by a unique name (or ID), making
+schemas addressable, easy to traverse, validate, and diff.
+
+The key design principles to be followed in the definition of the Resolved
+Telemetry Schema are:
+
+* **Self-contained**: No external references are allowed. This artifact contains
+ everything required to determine what an application or a library produces in
+ terms of telemetry.
+* **Easy to exchange**: This artifact must be easily accessible to actors
+ via a URI. This artifact must be small and avoid the repetition of
+ definitions.
+* **Easy to parse**: A widespread and well-defined format should be preferred.
+ JSON is an example of such a format.
+* **Easy to interpret**: The internal structure of this artifact must be
+ straightforward to avoid any misinterpretation and must be efficient.
+* **Platform- and Language-agnostic**: This artifact must be independent of any
+ platform architectures and programming languages.
+
+The following diagram describes two main use cases for the Resolved Telemetry
+Schema. The key points to remember are: 1) both use cases result in a Resolved
+Telemetry Schema, 2) Resolved Telemetry Schemas serve as the mechanism for
+distributing Telemetry Schemas throughout the entire ecosystem, and 3) Resolved
+Telemetry Schemas would replace/augment existing SchemaURL.
+
+
+
+Note: The relationship between Telemetry Schema v1.1
+([OTEP 0152](https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/blob/main/text/0152-telemetry-schemas.md))
+and the Component and Resolved Telemetry Schema concepts is still being
+discussed. This will be clarified in future OTEPs (refer to the last section).
+
+The following diagram illustrates a possible instance of a complex hierarchy of
+schemas and semantic convention registries. It involves several vendor and
+enterprise artifacts, in addition to the standardized OpenTelemetry artifacts.
+The schema resolution process will produce a self-contained Resolved Telemetry
+Schema that can be easily consumed by various tools and applications, such as a
+Client SDK generator, compatibility checker, compliance checker, data catalog
+feeder, and more.
+
+
+
+This hierarchy of telemetry schemas helps large organizations in
+collaborating on the Component Telemetry Schema. It enables different
+aspects of a Component Telemetry Schema to be managed by various teams.
+
+For all the elements that make up the Component Telemetry Schema, a
+general mechanism of annotation or tagging will be integrated in order to
+attach additional traits, characteristics, or constraints, allowing vendors
+and companies to extend the definition of concepts defined by OpenTelemetry.
+This annotation mechanism will be included as part of the Component Telemetry
+Schema definition.
+
+Annotations and Tags can also be employed to modify schemas for
+diverse audiences. For example, the public version of a schema can exclude all
+signals or other metadata labeled as private. Similarly, elements can be
+designated as exclusively available for beta testers. These annotations can
+also identify attributes as PII (Personally Identifiable Information), and
+privacy policy enforcement can be implemented at various levels (e.g., in the
+generated client SDK or in a proxy).
+
+For each important component, the following diagram defines the responsibilities
+and key design properties that will be considered in future OTEPs defining the
+Component and Resolved Telemetry Schemas.
+
+
+
+This design enables the definition of semantic conventions in a distributed
+manner. OpenTelemetry, vendors, and enterprises can define their own semantic
+conventions in different registries simplifying the existing process.
+
+> Although there is no direct lineage between these systems, a similar approach
+> was designed and deployed by Facebook to address the same type of problem but in
+> a proprietary context (refer to
+> this [positional paper](https://research.facebook.com/publications/positional-paper-schema-first-application-telemetry/)
+> for more information).
+
+### Development Strategies
+
+Two development strategies coexist and must be supported. The first strategy, a
+monorepo type (single source of truth), has complete control over the
+applications, their dependencies, and the associated telemetry schemas. The
+second strategy is more heterogeneous, composed of multiple repositories, where
+the build process of external dependencies is out of the control of the entity
+owning the applications or services.
+
+In the first model, each build process can independently apply telemetry schema
+policies in parallel, knowing that the policies are shared and the entire
+environment is controlled by the same entity.
+
+In the second model, the application or service environment does not control the
+telemetry schema policies of external dependencies. There is a need for a method
+to retrieve telemetry schemas from these dependencies. The mechanism for
+distributing these schemas is still being discussed (refer to the Open Questions
+section). Ultimately, this will enable the CI/CD pipeline of the application or
+service to apply its own local policies to these schemas from the dependencies.
+
+
+
+## Open Questions
+
+During the review of this document, several questions were raised, and some
+remain unresolved. We've decided to postpone the answers to these open questions
+to future OTEPs. This approach seems more practical as the resolution of these
+questions is not critical at this stage and will likely become clearer as we
+define and implement future OTEPs.
+
+### Should we use a single Telemetry Schema or the combination of Component and Resolved Telemetry Schema?
+
+The debate between adopting a single Telemetry Schema or separate Component and
+Resolved Telemetry Schemas remains unresolved.
+
+Advocates of a single-schema approach see it as a simplification in terms of
+schema definition, implementation, and even cognitive overhead. They suggest
+using the same schema but disallowing any external references for schemas
+intended for publication and reuse by third parties. The schema resolution
+process would then remove these references.
+
+Proponents of a two-schema approach believe that each format is intended for
+different users and use cases (app/lib developers vs telemetry tool developers),
+and therefore, having two distinct structures and formats would make it easier
+to optimize each for its specific use case (in multiple dimensions).
+Furthermore, the group of developers using the Component Telemetry Schema will
+most likely be much larger than the group of developers who need to understand
+the details of the Resolved Telemetry Schema.
+
+### What should be the schema(s) be named?
+
+The naming of the schema(s) was also discussed but without consensus. The current proposals are as follows:
+
+- Single schema approach: Retain the existing Telemetry Schema name, supporting
+different formats depending on the use case (e.g., YAML for app and lib
+developers, JSON + JSON schema for publication and tool consumption).
+- Two schemas approach:
+ - Component Telemetry Schema alternative names: Telemetry Schema, Weaver Schema.
+ - Resolved Telemetry Schema alternative names: Compiled Telemetry Schema, Published Telemetry Schema, Weaver Schema.
+
+### What distribution mechanism should be used for retrieving dependency schemas?
+
+Currently, two main methods are being considered:
+
+1) Establishing a public, centralized repository for resolved schemas, where
+ library authors can register their resolved telemetry schemas as part of their
+ build process.
+2) Embedding the Resolved Telemetry Schema directly within the library artifact
+ (such as binary libraries, jar files, crates, Go modules, etc.), ensuring
+ automatic collection during the application's build process.
+
+At present, the second option is preferred as it is fully decentralized and
+eliminates the need for a global schema registry. A specific OTEP will be
+developed to define this distribution mechanism.
+
+## Roadmap
+
+### OTEPs
+
+To facilitate the review process and progressively deliver value to the
+OpenTelemetry community, a series of OTEPs and tools are suggested.
+
+* **Telemetry Schema(s) - Structure and Formats**: This OTEP will weigh the pros
+ and cons of a single schema versus a dual-schema approach. It aims to identify
+ the optimal solution and define the structures and formats for the two
+ concepts introduced in this OTEP: the Component and Resolved Telemetry Schema.
+ We plan several sub-OTEPs to progressively introduce and phase the concepts
+ discussed in this document:
+ * **Phase 1**: Introduce a registry section with a list of fully
+ resolved attributes, metrics, and other telemetry signals from the existing
+ semantic convention registry. Upon implementation, the OpenTelemetry project's
+ telemetry schema will include a registry of all standardized attributes,
+ metrics, and signals as defined by the semantic conventions.
+ * **Phase 2**: Add sections for resource, instrumentation library,
+ and schema sections to represent telemetry signals emitted by an application
+ (and its dependencies) or a library. Initially, only metrics, logs, and spans
+ definitions will be supported.
+ * **Phase 3**: Enable application or library authors to
+ override definitions inherited from a parent resolved schema.
+ * **Phase 4**: Implement support for events in the schema
+ section, pending the approval of events in OpenTelemetry.
+ * **Phase 5**: Introduce support for multivariate metrics in
+ the schema section, relevant only if the Client SDK Generator plans to support
+ multivariate metrics.
+* **Dependency Management and Telemetry Schema Distribution**: This OTEP will
+outline the method for collecting resolved telemetry schemas from dependencies.
+
+### Proof of Concept and Tools
+
+A proof of concept, OTel Weaver, is under development to test the feasibility of
+the proposed approach. It will support the following commands:
+
+* `resolve registry`: Generates a Resolved Telemetry Schema from an
+OpenTelemetry semantic convention registry.
+* `resolve schema`: Creates a Resolved Telemetry Schema from a Component
+Telemetry Schema.
+* `search registry`: Offers search functionality within an OpenTelemetry
+semantic convention registry.
+* `search schema`: Provides search capabilities within a Component or Resolved
+Telemetry Schema.
+* `gen-client sdk`: Generates a Client SDK from a Component or Resolved
+Telemetry Schema.
+* `gen-client api`: Produces a Client API from a Component or Resolved
+Telemetry Schema.
+
+A Plugin System is planned to allow community contributions to the OTel Weaver
+tool. Proposed plugins include:
+
+* An example of plugin for gathering resolved telemetry schemas from external
+dependencies.
+* An example of compatibility checker plugin to ensure successive versions of
+the same Telemetry Schema follow specified compatibility rules.
+
+Additional plugins and tools are anticipated to be developed by the broader
+community, leveraging the OTel Weaver Plugin System and the standardized format
+of the Resolved Telemetry Schema.
+
+## Links
+
+- [Positional Paper: Schema-First Application Telemetry](https://research.facebook.com/publications/positional-paper-schema-first-application-telemetry/)
+- [A benchmark to understand the role of knowledge graphs on Large Language Model's accuracy for question answering on enterprise sql databases](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.07509.pdf#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20the%20benchmark%20provide%20evidence%20that%20supports%20our,LLM%20without%20a%20Knowledge%20Graph)
+- [MetricFlow framework](https://docs.getdbt.com/docs/build/about-metricflow)
diff --git a/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-component-schema.svg b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-component-schema.svg
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..589be2e8c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-component-schema.svg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-concepts.svg b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-concepts.svg
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..40594b271
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-concepts.svg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-dev-strategies.svg b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-dev-strategies.svg
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd1d893a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-dev-strategies.svg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-hierarchy.svg b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-hierarchy.svg
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b7ea11580
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-hierarchy.svg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-overview.svg b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-overview.svg
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..33a17a5ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-overview.svg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-resolved-schema.svg b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-resolved-schema.svg
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..1424b913b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-resolved-schema.svg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-responsibilities-properties.svg b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-responsibilities-properties.svg
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..273c342c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-responsibilities-properties.svg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-use-cases.svg b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-use-cases.svg
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..77597df17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/img/0243-otel-weaver-use-cases.svg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+
\ No newline at end of file