-
Thank you for this @Tammy and @RachelJudson. I’m still currently reading through with the aspiration to submit comments before the August deadline. Some of my comments are grammar/terminology related but there is one I wanted to put here for others to discuss.
Under 3.5 (Foundation Data Model) there is a section that asks the question:
Quote
What is the relationship between a digital twin, and the kind of things it describes? Is this a twin of the make and model of my car, or of my specific car?
I was under the impression that “twinning” the make and model as opposed to the specific car would not be a digital twin according to the Gemini principles. Specifically on page 10 it states:
Quote
What distinguishes a digital twin from any other digital model is its connection to the physical twin. Based on data from the physical asset or system, a digital
twin unlocks value principally by supporting improved decision making… (Emphasis mine)If a manufacturer has a digital representation of a car, a potential twin, then surely it has no connection to the physical twin as there is no physical “thing” to connect to. This is largely why I refute the idea that digital twins can be applicable to design and construction as during that period the digital representations created within design authoring tools are also potential twins with no connection to a physical asset/system.
I wonder how do we address the digital twins distinguishing feature (connecting to the physical) when there is no physical to connect to?