Reply To: Cyber-Physical Fabric Summit: Panel 1 Cyber-Physical Fabric

Here’s 10:00 – 12:30
Good morning from sunny Hampshire!
Claire MacDonald to Panelists and Attendees (10:03 am)
good morning from essex (although currently remote working from home in overcast west scotland)
Shmuel Yerushalmi to Panelists and Attendees (10:03 am)
Good noon (here now exactly noon) from Israel
Me to All panelists and other attendees (10:04 am)
Morning from sunny Surrey!
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
Evening from chilly Melbourne, Australia
Helena (NDTp Admin) to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
Good morning from a chilly air conditioned office!
Jordan@melioro.co to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
Hello from Happy Hertfordshire!
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
just checking that this event has not started for anyone else yet either?
Andrew Smith to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
Good morning from overcast but warm Edinburgh
Inaki Esnaola to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
Good morning from tropical Sheffield!
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
Greetings from the Eternal City!
julian klein to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
Morning all
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
Hello from sunny Calderdale
Ruth Mallors-Ray to Panelists and Attendees (10:04 am)
Morning from my air conditioned pod in Kent. Looking forward to an intro into cyber physical
James Humphreys to Panelists and Attendees (10:05 am)
Morning from Hertfordshire
Prathapa Ravindra to Panelists and Attendees (10:05 am)
Good evening from Sydney 13 C   here , we are in the middle of winter!
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (10:05 am)
yes
Neil Tatman to Panelists and Attendees (10:05 am)
Good Morning from ‘balmy Belper’ in Derbyshire
Chris Dent to Panelists and Attendees (10:06 am)
(Now to attendees also) Morning from an overcast Renfrewshire – much better than the highs of 24C over the weekend which was far too hot for me.
Gailina Liew to Panelists and Attendees (10:06 am)
Good morning – I’ve just lost audio – anyone else?
James Law to Panelists and Attendees (10:06 am)
Audio fine here
Iain Wallace to Panelists and Attendees (10:06 am)
Audio ok here still (zoom client, not web browser)
john Curzon Price to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
no audio for me…
Neil Tatman to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
No audio for me also…I’ve redialed back in, but the same
Andrew Smith to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
Audio ok for me
James Humphreys to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
Audio ok for me on web browser
Jacob Coker to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
working for me on zoom browser version
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
audio ok for me on zoom app on pc
Gordon Masterton to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
Audio ok here
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
OK for me – but logging in was a problem
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
all working fine for me
Prof. Samer Bagaeen (Cllr.) to Panelists and Attendees (10:07 am)
Looking forward to the day
Gailina Liew to Panelists and Attendees (10:08 am)
Exited and logged in again – all fine now, thanks!
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:08 am)
Audio is crackly.
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (10:08 am)
Audio ok on the zoom client
Tim Danson to Panelists and Attendees (10:08 am)
Audio is fine – the problem will be on your end
Luke O’Rafferty to Panelists and Attendees (10:08 am)
All fine here. For those without sound check you have clicked on “join computer audio”
John Davies to Panelists and Attendees (10:12 am)
So right about harnessing data – is there a need for a discussion around a national Data Exchange of some sort, which seems to me to be perhaps be critical infrastructure going forward
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (10:12 am)
I think that in times when we need global international collaboration, all this talk about ‘global superpower’ etc is unhelpful as it builds a spirit of competition and not one of collaboration.
Ges Rosenberg (UoB) to Panelists and Attendees (10:14 am)
Key issue is to know who our allies are for collaboration – this is a soft power issue as well as security and defence.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:14 am)
Asking private companies to surrender their datasets is going to be the biggest challenge.
A central system of national datasets is also a threat as well as advantage to corruption and missuse.
Andrew Bush to Panelists and Attendees (10:16 am)
How do we control the security and use of the information and not let it turn into big brother
Sophie Peachey to Panelists and Attendees (10:16 am)
This has to be about sharing and not surrendering. No data lakes.No lake could be big enough!
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (10:17 am)
@Andrew – in brief through Trust – and the concepts in Data Trusts are key
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:17 am)
I’m very wary of a centralised approach. Self-sovereign and decentralised is the way forward IMO
Cambridge CDBB to Panelists and Attendees (10:17 am)
Cyber-Physical Fabric article mentioned by Paul just now: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cyber-physical-fabric-paul-clarke/?trackingId=WBEBcUp8tlOHvhp9K%2FPKsA%3D%3D
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:17 am)
Is it a bit like BIM? A great idea, but actually super hard to implement and will take longer to do than anticipated?
Ges Rosenberg (UoB) to Panelists and Attendees (10:18 am)
Be useful to hear thoughts on the democratisation of the technologies, models and tools & how this will be inclusive, not the ‘cherry picking’ of affluent-only areas for implementation.
Caitlin McDonald to Panelists and Attendees (10:18 am)
What is BIM please @Caroline?
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (10:19 am)
Building Information Modelling (or Management)
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:19 am)
Building information modeling (BIM) used for complex
John Davies to Panelists and Attendees (10:19 am)
@Mark – yes but federation will be required (in a controlled way of course), otherwise data will end up in silos and its full value will not be realised….
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:19 am)
Built Environment rather than CYber.
Was told it would take at least 200 years to implement BIM across the UK… at that is for existing building not future builds.
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (10:20 am)
Yes we have to design and architect for federation – nobody will ever have a copy of all the data
Martin Paver to Panelists and Attendees (10:20 am)
6 major construction companies are collaborating on a Construction Data Trust. They have agreed to securely pool data to address productivity challenges. So the obstacles can be navigated… if the appropriate controls are in place.
Simon Hart to Panelists and Attendees (10:20 am)
BIM was a UK success story in modernising a previously unproductive sector. Some of the story of how it worked: https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/bim-news/bim-level-2/84482/
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:20 am)
@john I don’t disagree. A federated, decentralised infrastructure is *exactly* what I would recommend
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:22 am)
On the positive side data collection has never been easier to do.
Robbie Allen to Panelists and Attendees (10:23 am)
@Martin Paver can you give more details on the Construction Data Trust. I’m at the sharp end of this process and finding it really difficult to get data – even if it’s ‘valueless’ in most contexts – from construction subcontractors.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:23 am)
Migrating and updating legacy systems is going to be interesting work to do.
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (10:23 am)
‘Federation’ requires a meta-layer for interoperability above existing design and visualisation tools. These are incumbent and will not easily be displaced in current practice.
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (10:23 am)
@Mark – yes, and this will arrive better with some facilitation which ought to be inspired from somewhere central – like today!
Chris Dent to Panelists and Attendees (10:25 am)
One point that I think will already be in everyone’s minds – when developing a DT strategy it is necessary to be clear what is meant by “DT”. @tom and others do you have please any documents from GO Science that indicate what is meant by “DT” in your context?
sue chadwick to Panelists and Attendees (10:25 am)
How do we create a system of governance when, in planning law, land is described as a “coporeal hereditament” – ie an exclusively physical entity.
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (10:25 am)https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Got-Here-Wont-There/dp/B07QW9LKTX/ref=sr_1_1
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (10:25 am)
Why isn’t there a way to learn expensively gained from manufacturing? I have been trying to do this but hit ‘concrete’ walls
Martin Paver to Panelists and Attendees (10:26 am)
@Robbie – that is one of the reasons for setting it up. It is a not for profit. See datatrust.construction for more details. We are in the process of updating the website. Early days, but things are moving.
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (10:26 am)
@Martin Paver I am also very interested in the Construction Data Trust (am part of the Geospatial Commission at the Cabinet Office building the National Underground Asset Register)
Ian Bailey to Panelists and Attendees (10:26 am)
We’ve been working on the federation aspects of the NDT architecture recently – testing different technologies and approaches. There is definitely a core set of data that needs to be managed centrally – standards, access policy, contracts, data models, etc. However, the broader federation can be truly distributed and in some cases asynchronous
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:26 am)
@john. centralise the principles, funding and facilitation, allow innovation in the implementation. The go-fair people have good ideas
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (10:26 am)
#expensively gained knowledge.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:26 am)
Yes, I haven’t heard of the Construction Data Trust before.
MarK Bass to Panelists and Attendees (10:27 am)
I don’t know who to trust anymore
frank to Panelists and Attendees (10:27 am)
could the statutory records of compliance with building standards/regulations form a basis for a publicly held foundation of a digital twin?
John Davies to Panelists and Attendees (10:27 am)
@Mark/Jeremy/John – yes, there are certainly technical challenges and a ‘meta-layer’ will be required I think. In addition, there will be data that is made available at a national level
Martin Paver to Panelists and Attendees (10:27 am)
If anyone would like to discuss the construction data trust then please contact me via Linkedin. Or Grant Findlay, who is the Chair of the Trust. Happy to help.
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (10:27 am)https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/system/files/documents/TheGeminiPrinciples.pdf
ucfscde to Panelists and Attendees (10:27 am)
Information overload is a challenge too – even assuming that all the information is opened up, how do we ensure that people get the information they need in the format they need, when they need etc – and can trust it once they receive it …
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:27 am)
@john – Metalayer – YES!
ucfscde to Panelists and Attendees (10:27 am)
I’m also interested in how location can be used to start to integrate some of these very disparate datasets ..
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:28 am)
@Frank Estonia has already made sure that all planning applications have to be sent in digitally and then this becomes the basis for data for DT.
Neil Tatman to Panelists and Attendees (10:28 am)
An ecosystems needs to be designed and launched. Roles and accountabilities need to be accurately understood (from Government to private sector). Commercial realties of available platforms/ tools, and the real need for credible capabilities here for scalable and accessible tools for industry to have confidence in…… IT ‘giants’ have a role to play here for the safe sharing/ storage of commercially sensitive datasets….
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (10:28 am)
The definition of DT here is as good as it gets for now: https://www.digitaltwinconsortium.org/glossary/index.htm
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (10:28 am)
@Neil agree, we need to navigate this carefully to really create national value
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (10:28 am)
What about cyber elements embedded in the physical fabric? i.e. the evolution of IoT and machine learning at the ‘edge’?
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:29 am)
@jeremy virtualise them as digital twins
Ged Cunliffe to Panelists and Attendees (10:29 am)
There are lots of parallels with other government funded programmes which will want to take advantage of these types of capabilities – HS2 – Defence programmes – is there an opportunity for the UK to adopt a similar approach to the approach being adopted in Europe (Gaia-X)
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (10:29 am)
Avatars for machines/
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (10:29 am)
there’s a lovely formula in Ash Fontana’s book; value of data = uncertainty removed from decision making.  (Quality is in the eye of the beholder)
Ruth Mallors-Ray to Panelists and Attendees (10:29 am)
Please forgive the long post: for cyber physical I feel a key challenge for industry policy makers is being able to understand it against existing, well understood business value chains. Aerospace is a hierarchy, those at the top respond to the demands of airlines, airlines respond to travel trends. Space, whilst more complex in terms of its long term nature AND its diverse customers of multiple government departments, multiple sectors and us, the general public. But even it has a recognisable value chain … make, launch, operate, commercialise data.
frank to Panelists and Attendees (10:30 am)
@caroline yeah, estonia are leaps and bounds ahead, planning and in my view, building control data, and not just golden thread data, should form a basis, similar to estonia
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (10:30 am)
Digital Twin will have specialised definition for each sector but fundamentally the same idea. AMRC has produced a good paper on this – https://www.amrc.co.uk/files/document/404/1604658922_AMRC_Digital_Twin_AW.pdf We at the Institute of Digital Engineering are working on a bespoke definition for the sector, aligning with CDBB, AMRC, etc
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:30 am)
@jeremy +1
Ruth Mallors-Ray to Panelists and Attendees (10:30 am)
What therefore is the value chain of a cyber physical infrastructure and how clear is this to policy makers, decision makers and those that will use it?
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (10:30 am)
I think we should consider that there’s a lot out there already that could be consider pilots (due to budget levels) – lessons should be learned from them. Not least that there’s a very good reason this is hard and that isn’t just technical – the legal barriers around IP and contracting are significant.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:30 am)
Definition of DT is available at https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (10:31 am)
Challenges will extend to those fundamental institutions and structures that have not traditionally had to address issues raised by data and data concepts…assigning accounting standards to and about data, taxation, professional capabilities, law etc. For policy makers is about considering the performance of data and empowering communities…..beyond just data, beyond just data volumes
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (10:31 am)
Global context seems crucial
ucfscde to Panelists and Attendees (10:31 am)
@ruth – good point re: value chains .. !
Neil  Pennell to Panelists and Attendees (10:31 am)
The Construction Industry Data Trust is being supported by the Construction Productivity Taskforce a group formed from construction industry clients Landsec, British Land and GPE and some of the UK’s leading contractors including SRM, Mace, Lend Lease, Skanska and a number of leading figures from the industry who were brought together by Be the Business. grant Findlay is leading the Data Trust initiative.
David Lane  to Panelists and Attendees (10:32 am)
Market failure is not the way to think about this – market ENABLER is key. If we are looking at market failure, its too late, we have lost the strategic advantage, and we are simply applying patches to fix
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (10:32 am)
So whys this summit only UK?  Lots of fine RAEng Fellows abroad
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (10:32 am)
There is a fundamental issue in this discuss in that you are starting from the point of the technology application. Industry also made that mistake and squandered huge sums  before they realised that the starting point was the fundamental questions.  ‘What are the problems I am trying to solve , What are the objectives that I wish to achieve’
Steven Carter to Panelists and Attendees (10:32 am)
Standards are key if available citing ISO/IEC groups
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (10:32 am)
@Ruth, fully agree – well said
Neil  Pennell to Panelists and Attendees (10:32 am)
Grant Findlay of SRM.
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (10:32 am)
w.r.t. technology – that will change; the key structures to put effort into collaboratively are information structures and models
Emmanuel Kahembwe to Panelists and Attendees (10:32 am)
Blockchain technologies are integral to the CPF objectives. Digital Twins and being able to share and track data while maintaining trust, privacy and verifiability requires governments to fully engage in the global standards process. There is going to be a need for a global blockchain standards and protocol.. that allows for individual countries flexibility in implementation but ensures interoperability.
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (10:33 am)
Market failure: consider two primes in a sector with shared supply chains. Who would pay for C-P infrastructure to increase innovation in that supply chain? Sometimes that happens naturally but not always and who does it benefit? Are innovators incentivised in those cases?
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:33 am)
It’s impossible to follow the conference and the chat together. Any way to have the comments available afterwards?
David Lane  to Panelists and Attendees (10:33 am)
@Emmanuel – spot on. This will affect fintech also, and how value is transacted
Simon Hart to Panelists and Attendees (10:34 am)
The term “Market  Failure” is a key enabler for Govt and UKRI to enable us to unlock funding. Essentially without a clearly identified market failure, there is no rationale for state intervention.
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (10:34 am)
@jeremy – I agree. First place to start
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:34 am)
About fintech, CBDC is the next big issue, maybe eclipsing cryptos
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (10:34 am)
@David – yes think of all this as and ENABLER – of a vision for how organisations across the UK (and wider) can work together better and increase productivity
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (10:34 am)
I think @Oleg makes a very very good point here!! I am struggling to listen and read at the same time – and I am sure the panelists must be very stressed by this also
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:36 am)
How will this be implemented when we haven’t been able to make OS MasterMap data as OpenData over the past three years? And this is a Gov Com, not a private utility company?
bmurray25@dxc.com to Panelists and Attendees (10:36 am)
If the CPF is built fast enough, at least its critical components, it can help avoid market failures of other components.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:36 am)
What is the position/role of humans in this scenario?
Ilamaran Gunaratnam to Panelists and Attendees (10:36 am)
What is digital twin?
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:36 am)
Financial incentive will be key to unlock private companies datasets.
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (10:37 am)
We cannot ignore the actual physical fabric.  The growing capability of the physical and the demands paced upon it are the key drivers.  So 5-6G & full fibre are what really enables this
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:37 am)
@Oleg Missikoff – What is the role of the electorate?
@Will Stewart Agreed.
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (10:37 am)
We will be talking a lot more about what a digital twin is in the forthcoming discussions
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (10:37 am)
Mainstream/economic institutionalisation has selectivity reasoning for a justification for government intervention. There is more beyond market failure (e.g. evolutionary economics?).
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:38 am)
@Caroline – In the UK or internationally?
Ilamaran Gunaratnam to Panelists and Attendees (10:38 am)
Thanks
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (10:38 am)
People are absolutely central to making a digital transformation succesful.  Many industrial projects have failed as they had forgotten a key element – to bring along their workforce.
bmurray25@dxc.com to Panelists and Attendees (10:38 am)
Great message Will Stewart, lets not ignore the physical elements of the fabric!
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:38 am)
@Jeffrey – Totally agree
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (10:38 am)
@Ilamaran – DTs are a popularised generic term for modeling and simulation, with emphasis on fusing and federating models into more general frameworks
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (10:39 am)
@jeffrey agree about people. Across organisation collaboration is critical (and yes, I got your name wrong before, apologies)
Christopher Ross to Panelists and Attendees (10:39 am)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_twin   Glad someone asked
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (10:39 am)
… but although things might have been built different ways (as David Lane describes) the information user across these different approaches will in many cases be the same.  So, we perhaps need to focus on getting interoperable information models
Shmuel Yerushalmi to Panelists and Attendees (10:40 am)
I have two quetions to panelists of present session. First quetion, how cyber phisical fabric aproach can to support resolution of hard and difgicult social ptoblems and seccondly, i want to ask if this aproach can in practice to improve facing disastets as COVID-19? Thanks! Shmuel
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:40 am)
@Oleg Missikoff Well, everywhere. What is the advantage to the person in the street? There is a clear advantage for better for governance.
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (10:40 am)
Jeremy Watson – I know through the many discussions within the CDBB that your definition of what  DT is would be widely challenged. It is much more fundamental than that.
Ilamaran Gunaratnam to Panelists and Attendees (10:40 am)
Thanks Jeremy, I assume concepts like Building Information Management falls under this category?
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:40 am)
@Caroline . And healthcare too
ucfscde to Panelists and Attendees (10:40 am)
@peter w – can we also learn from previous work on data (and other) interoperability and standardisation – do we have existing examples of best practice?
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (10:40 am)
@Peter. Absolutely and that has been a key focus for the Information Management Framework that CDBB have been working on but hopefully also the National Data Strategy will deliver some of this infrastructure Lego
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (10:41 am)
@Jeffrey and @Oleg – I totally agree too.  Human factors are key to the success of the CPF.  We need to see it as a socio-technical change programme…
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:41 am)
DT is a holistic paradigm
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:41 am)
@Oleg Missikoff  Only if combined with personal health data. With all of these things the benefits have to outweigh the risks.
Sophie Peachey to Panelists and Attendees (10:41 am)
What is a Digital Twin: A live digital coupling of the state of a physical asset or process to a virtual representation with a functional output.  (Is one definition – by AMRC.)
frank to Panelists and Attendees (10:41 am)
@caroline if we had a digital twin of grenfell tower, the ability to investigate information and responsibility lines would have been easier, and maybe if responsibility lines and data on compliance was within a digital twin of the tower, the disaster may not have happened.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:42 am)
I think the biggest example of federated data is Social Media.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:42 am)
@Mark – Let’s connect on this later
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (10:42 am)
@Ilamaran Yes; some of the early thinking about DTs sprang from the challenges of generalising BIM
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:42 am)
@oleg yes. Agree that DT is not just about emulation
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (10:42 am)
Data standards/interoperability are a first step….next step will be heightened interpretative capability (people or tech/systems) and diminishing the need for comprehensive standardardisation (and overcoming issue of what standard applies)
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (10:42 am)
BIM is not a digital twin
Ilamaran Gunaratnam to Panelists and Attendees (10:43 am)
Great one of my favourite topics along with Intelligent Building Management
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:43 am)
@ilsa – semantic web?
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (10:43 am)
I am not sympathetic to discussions on definitions (eg DT & AI) and I think they put off the wider public.  Definitions tend to expand beyond what purists would like but this is a normal part of the process and to be welcomed.  Pure=niche
frank to Panelists and Attendees (10:43 am)
@caroline sorry, so in terms of value to the man on the street, its right there
ucfscde to Panelists and Attendees (10:43 am)
@caroline – but perhaps social media is not so integrated across the different platforms, which is something we would be needing here?
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:43 am)
@frank Raw datasets don’t do that, unfortunately. Need to translate data to information and then knowledge. And then action on knowledge or insight into future modelling.
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (10:43 am)
@mark, we have a very current example of a socio-technical challenge that could be used as an example!
Anthony Denniss to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
@paul Clarke as well as a National Data Strategy, do we also need a National ‘Cloud’ or ‘Data Centre’ strategy (infrastructure) to under pin CPF from a sovereign data perspective?
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
@robin – bring it on!
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
@oleg try https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/files/flourishing-systems_revised_200908.pdf for centring this on human flourishing
frank to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
@caroline datasets on compliance would
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
@Robert If you blend real-time (sensor) information with static CAD data, I suggest it is a kind of DT
Simon Hart to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
A Digital Twin is a digital replica of a physical thing, person or process that shows the past, present and future.
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
blockchain has energy/sustainability issues
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
@frank Consider the built in bias of your statement… : )
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
@Ilsa – agree – good points for the 11:40 session
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:44 am)
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CDBC) are exploding
julian klein to Panelists and Attendees (10:45 am)
Wont be any natural resources in 50k years!
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (10:45 am)
Definitions are part of standardization and the basis for ISO and ANSI and more.
frank to Panelists and Attendees (10:45 am)
@caroline person then.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:45 am)
@frank : )
Melissa Zanocco, ICG to Panelists and Attendees (10:45 am)
Our Vision for the built environment: http://www.visionforbuiltenvironment.com
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (10:46 am)
@Mark Not sure….have come across theory that points to this as a possibility….could be simple interpretation (binary, on/off) but Ai is another
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (10:47 am)
@will crypto does have environmental issues but not all aspects of blockchain do… tokenisation may be key to keep rights over data clean at point of use, and trackable… also transparency and clarity of accountability for automated decision-making.
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:47 am)
@ilsa – I’m a bit wary of NLP in this arena
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:47 am)
A thesaurus is needed to help newbies
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (10:48 am)
Powering circular economies and optimising for reuse and extensibilities are important outcomes. The idea of shared pre-competitive building blocks built upon common standards, interfaces and middleware will be important in underpinning those outcomes
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (10:48 am)
@liam – not crypto – just blockchain
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:48 am)
@Paul Clarke Yes.
Melissa Zanocco, ICG to Panelists and Attendees (10:49 am)
Our Vision is for a built environment whose explicit purpose is to enable people and nature to flourish together for generations… Just as we live with the choices that our predecessors have made for the built environment, the decisions we make now will impact the generations to come.  We therefore need to focus on outcomes for future generations as well as for the people using the built environment today. http://www.visionforbuiltenvironment.com
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (10:50 am)
@Paul Clarke, how are you addressing the market failure / market enablement question?
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:51 am)
Industry 4.0 is another field for DTs
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (10:52 am)
Ind4.0 is the european banner for digital transformation ( particularly in manufacturing) . A DT can be one element in that , but it is only 1 element.
David Lane  to Panelists and Attendees (10:53 am)
@Miranda – trying to persuade Govt to think differently in their policy thinking and where intervention is needed – like ARPA for the internet
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (10:53 am)
We absolutely cannot wait for a market failure to happen! The market will not build the secure core underpinning infrastructure built with common standards and pre-competitive building blocks. Traditional funding models are not setup to fund this either.  So we need to create new delivery and funding models to build that core which academia, industry and public sector can then build upon
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:53 am)
@Jeffrey – A powerful one though
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (10:53 am)
there is little doubt that cocreation is the right approach and akin to living labs. the challenges are not only human or only technology. We need investment and development which really combines these aspects, not pursue technology first technology try to persuade after the fact.
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (10:56 am)
Oleg: each element is powerful , it depends upon the problem you are trying to solve. DT’s are being promoted as ‘The Solution’ but that is in danger of being oversold. Digital transformation is a journey and the creation of a DT could be a part of that – but not necessarily.
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (10:56 am)
that’s great news, thank you @Paul and @David, interesting times
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (10:56 am)
the market failure is already here in the sense that the ability to share across systems, sectors and so on is very hard to do in real world now and limits potential now. it is possible but very expensive and complex to do and the case then isn’t there. For example most people accept the notion of having end to end visibility of a global supply chain and the value it can unlock, but doing it for real is very challenging and too expensive for widespread use, even before you get to trust, security, ethics etc.
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (10:56 am)
and that’s before you imagine new possibilites
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (10:57 am)
@caroline I think that social media is more of an example of how *not* to do it… walled gardens, no interoperability, wildly skewed power relationship between data holder and data provider, no rights maintained over data at point of use. Internet much better, but that was much more of an emergent tech from a set of standards agreed by … accident, really. I remember HTML5 standards development became just a case of ‘document what people are already doing most frequently and make that the standard’. May be an interesting approach here.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:57 am)
@Jeffrey – to tackle complexity we need holistic approach
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (10:57 am)
Key potential market failures:1) Federation failure = multiple, bespoke, proprietary connections between digital twins would build friction into the network/ecosystem. 2) Ethics failure = unregulated development of the market would not default to “data for public good”
Sophie Peachey to Panelists and Attendees (10:57 am)
@Chris Courtney – please see the Rail Digital Twin Ecosystem IOTICS is creating with Rolls-Royce.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:57 am)
Systems thinking
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (10:58 am)
@Paul C Agree but are models/approaches there but remain untested, unused (eg innovation contracts, managing degrees of unknowns, accepting outcomes may not necessarily be achieved)? Goes to Sabine’s point about robots
Jordan@melioro.co to Panelists and Attendees (10:58 am)
Technology is the ‘easy bit’ (comparatively!). The difficult bit is around governance, ownership, policy, legality, ethics, assurance, etc. and the ability to get the core underpinning capabilities (including data) up and running. Co-creation (co-delivery?) has got to be key – but how do we find the right ‘experiments’ to drive the narrative?
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (10:58 am)
@chris and @liam – great related points
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (10:58 am)
Jordan@melioro.co Yes.
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (10:59 am)
we didn’t do well over the past 40 years with the EU in terms of collaboration – we need to learn from that lesson
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (10:59 am)
In Italy we have already started a collaboration with Cdbb
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (10:59 am)
@rob buckingham. JUST START! Yes, oh, yes. learn by doing
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (10:59 am)
@Liam, agree, though as a colleague at the ATI said.  HTML had a broad spectrum use case in the ablity to publicize and transact.  What is the equivalent for the CPF?
Ilamaran Gunaratnam to Panelists and Attendees (10:59 am)
What type of new age companies are you advocating get started to support this great initiative?
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (10:59 am)https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/strategy-data
Syed Ali R. Zaidi to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)
@Rob, excellent point at some point we need to start building stuff 🙂
Graham Meaden to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)
Standards on Data Quality and Data Quality Criteria and how to apply them. Without these orgs cannot establish effective data governance.
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)
@Jeremey, agreed, doing what you say gets you closer to a DT and leads you to the understanding we need a top down ontology for AI, DT, ML, etc. An ontology will also make it clear where marketing and waffle stops, and interoperable engineering and computer science begin. The hard part of DT needs a lot more work but currently gets subsumed by the view that it’s about data science and information management.
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)
in a Digital Transformation, the application of technology in whatever form is an Outcome and not an Objective.
Greg Demchak to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)
create interactive prototypes by combining parts in ways!
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)
Just start but also make what you are doing shareable. Interoperabile, or at least documented. Ontologies conformed with, standards more-or-less kept to..
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)http://dataspaces.info/common-european-data-spaces/#page-content
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)
Another EU example of a federated data service (very top down standards driven) https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/
Alain Waha to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)
Themes interesting part of the internet success is that is is triggered by very few “narrow waist” technologies and governances? v. Light touch; retrospective adoption of “what works”;
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:00 am)
@liam that’s our approach
Greg Demchak to Panelists and Attendees (11:01 am)
everything already exists, they just need to be combined and demonstrated. Check out how the laser was developed…
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (11:01 am)
Taxonomy and ontology is critical to demystify and ensure we’re pulling in the same, right direction
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:01 am)
@Robert: we need a TLO by ideally it should emerge from what-is, not be imposed upon it. Otherwise adoption will be *hard*. Need to enable little bits of adoption for little bits of interoperability.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:01 am)
@Claire Ellul, UCL Yes, INSPIRE programme is great! : )
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:02 am)
@navein. I agree
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (11:02 am)
@sabine – yes, finding a coalition of the willing – forming a federation of the willing – and several of them for that matter – is a good way to start.  We need to encourage and help people to do this.
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (11:02 am)
think the collaborate versus compete debate depends on which layers you are focussing on and use case, sectors etc. the approach for building a global set of standards for a platform might be different to application into nuclear, pharma etc
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:02 am)
@Mark Wharton: excellent. Whose approach?
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:02 am)
IOTICS
(sorry for shameless self promotion)
Cambridge CDBB to Panelists and Attendees (11:03 am)
Gemini Principles: https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/DFTG/GeminiPrinciples
Neil Tatman to Panelists and Attendees (11:03 am)
We need to “get on with things’ as discussed. Today, Industry carries too much risk in developing these capabilities, but has the need to do so to answer their business challenges….. We have many Use Cases, the risk is ‘analysis paralysis’ and we have to allow a more organic approach to succeed. The Living Lab is a great concept, but we need to address the scale and security as-part of the commercial realities……. Bring in the organisations which can enable this to happen….
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:03 am)
@caroline – yes, but it is top down and with a very specific (environmental) purpose – not sure that would work for the wide variety of use cases for DTs mentioned in this chat…
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:03 am)
(not sorry)
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:03 am)
How about open a permanent chat to address the topics more quietly?
Here is too fast
Steve Maclaren to Panelists and Attendees (11:03 am)
How do we create a more innovative approach to security of data? multiple channels for sharing, disaggregation? de-centralise??
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (11:04 am)
@Neil, agreed. Building to scale and not just chasing after proof of concepts. Building to scale requires the foundational layers being discussed in this CPF
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (11:04 am)
We need dynamically settable permissioning of information associated with DTs – temporal and identity variables. Concept of ‘Digital Trusts’?
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:04 am)
@Claire Ellul, UCL Yes, this is about governance and data and how it affects society… so more dialogue is required and we are talking about commercial data, which has its own legal issues.
Steve Maclaren to Panelists and Attendees (11:04 am)
I think we need to bust some preconceptions regarding security and understand the value of the data or not as each case dictates
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (11:04 am)
One point I’ve not seen mentioned yet. I’m a veteran of the UK e-science and grid days. I’m also involved in the current UKRI Digital Research Infrastructure. The on,y way we can make something like this work, evolve and be sustainable (for people and the software/hardware infrastructure) is to ensure long term ensured funding. 5 year plan, 10 year rolling vision etc.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:05 am)
Blockchain?
Ian Bailey to Panelists and Attendees (11:05 am)
We’ve opted for an ABAC approach in the National Digital Twin architecture as it’s hard to align roles across multiple stakeholders. Crypto and auth are pretty much commoditised these days, and it’s just a case of picking a suitable framework
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:05 am)
Blockchain rather than crypto
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (11:05 am)
@Oleg Blockchain is about provenance assurance not security
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:06 am)
@Robin Yes, as I mentioned before for the built environment and digitising it would take 200 years to do.
Ian Bailey to Panelists and Attendees (11:06 am)
Where there is no centralised authority for contract verification, Blockchain has application. Hard to see where else it fits in this work.
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (11:06 am)
@Naveien, there are  processes for undertaking a digital transformations which includes the creation of PoCs/MPV’s and Full Scale . Manufacturing has already been through this . How do people like me share that knowledge?
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (11:06 am)
Embed privacy, trust, protections….. in code?
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:06 am)
Right, cryptography rather than cryptocurrencies
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (11:06 am)
agree @Jeremy and the National data strategy round table made that point exactly and are looking for projects https://dcmsblog.uk/2021/07/national-data-strategy-forum-themes-from-the-first-discussion/
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (11:07 am)
@Liam, agreed, it’s the chicken and egg. But we’re past the point of understanding the difference between a virtual representation (BIM) and a true DT (oilfield well models). And ontologies are not intended to be static, we can see that in the medical ontologies.
Sophie Peachey to Panelists and Attendees (11:07 am)
@Alexandra Bolton – be as open as possible but no more so – in our language: let the Digital Twin be in control of its own destiny and choose to share what it likes with whom it likes, revoking that at any time.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:07 am)
I think the debate is very stimulating… thank you everyone for your links! : )
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:08 am)
@sophie: “share what you can, nothing more, nothing less”
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:08 am)
realistically, how far are we away from ‘having a robot come and mend a washing machine’?  Wouldn’t the washing machine be picked up and taken to the place where it would be repaired?
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:08 am)
@robert: yes! Ontologies should be Agile.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:08 am)
And its parts rather than expert robots that we need for washing machines! : )
Syed Ali R. Zaidi to Panelists and Attendees (11:08 am)
@Sabine: You made good point around data sensitivity and preservation mechanism at edge. However, there is often a conflict between commercial exploitation, i.e.: 1) I want to get all the data and who knows what I will find from it ; and 2) I know what I am looking for and I only need that data with consent for a specific use case. The problem is how do we educate people so they let go of obsession of over collecting the data without understanding value proposition attached to it.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:09 am)
@robert: they should be an agreement of commonality between all that is and is planned.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:09 am)
@Liam – and federated
Ian Bailey to Panelists and Attendees (11:09 am)
For ontologies to be extensible over long periods of usage it requires a lot of up-front design of the basic foundational patterns. If you don’t get this right, you create huge amounts of technical debt down the line.
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (11:09 am)
@Peter – don’t have washing machines at home – it’s a terribly inefficient use of resources. Have a robot collect clothes from a box outside your house, deliver them back afterwards
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (11:09 am)
@Liam. They as in ontologies?
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (11:09 am)
ontologies aren’t always required – eg , a closed system DT ( a factory) .
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:10 am)
@jeffrey, surely that’s not what today is about, tho’?
Ian Bailey to Panelists and Attendees (11:10 am)
@Jeffrey – I guarantee there’s some kind of data structure even in a closed community
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (11:10 am)
Hear hear! On bureaucracies.
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (11:10 am)
@mark I refer to washing machine at home as ‘washing at the edge’ 🙂
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (11:10 am)
@David Lane Too true…limitations to ethical frameworks. Interesting research by CAIDE at University of Melbourne on this point
John Grant to Panelists and Attendees (11:10 am)
The New Breed review: The case for treating robots as animals https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25033310-500-the-new-breed-review-the-case-for-treating-robots-as-animals/
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
@chris courteney. Can I borrow that?
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
@mark.emerton – I agree.  we need complete transformation of the system and that includes tasks like washing clothes
Graham Meaden to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
Bureacracy is a bit of a misnomer. The problem is the organisations and staff are do not share common motivation.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
@Robert: yes. @Jeffrey – even a closed system needs to be shareable, so the learnings can be shared, and so that new bits can be nailed on.
frank to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
not sure about england, wales and NI, but in Scotland we have public registers of building regulation compliance for buildings.
Greg Demchak to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
robots can be great for reality capture in dangerous environments–capture high-res LiDAR and photos so people can interact with a digital capture safely. Apply AI-ML to the images to locate high-risk defects…
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
@Liam McGee  Yes.
Joseph Weston to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
crypto could also be key to facilitating a national digital twin – ability to handle billions of micro-transactions to enable monetisation of data could encourage actors to share their data with the NDT. Thoughts?
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
@Jeffery, your point is why we need an ontology. For me a Siemens automation system would not be a DT.
Luc Bidaut to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
about size of regulatory, etc. too many la(w)yers?
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (11:11 am)
@Chris – perhaps – but autonomous logistics has many second and third order effects – what is central and what’s ‘edge’ changes if moving ‘stuff’ around becomes cheap and seamless.
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (11:12 am)
DT for me entails instantiation and aggregation.
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (11:12 am)
Time for the lawyers who are versed in computers, technology and code?
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:12 am)
DT is technically possible it is the data silos that make it difficult to achieve. Shared platforms are the answer.
Graham Meaden to Panelists and Attendees (11:13 am)
@ilsa should we start with engineers first!
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (11:13 am)
great point @Alexandra!! Very true
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:13 am)
@caroline hear, hear!
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:13 am)
@Ilsa and who are familiar with the problems of judicial mercy, context and nuance within automated decision systems. Always like Jonathan Zittrain on that kind of thing.
Steve Maclaren to Panelists and Attendees (11:14 am)
@caroline, completely agree
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (11:14 am)
is there a question to which the answer is not “more joined up government and decision making?”
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:14 am)
At todays speed when one finishes niversity the world has already changed
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:15 am)
@Miranda Sharp Agreed.
Ges Rosenberg (UoB) to Panelists and Attendees (11:15 am)
May engineers and Universities are working collaboratively, on living labs and well-versed in codes. Scaling up and delivering education around a systems approach looking at socio-technical, co-design and interconnectedness/interdependencies.
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:15 am)
@caroline shared platforms, but don’t centralise the data
Ges Rosenberg (UoB) to Panelists and Attendees (11:15 am)
*many
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:15 am)
Plan Ceibal is a model to follow: https://microbit.org/impact/case-studies/plan-ceibal/
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:15 am)
@Mark Wharton Yes.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:15 am)
@Rob – with edutainment
Rich Walker to Panelists and Attendees (11:15 am)
I’m old enough to remember the Sellafield visitors centre on a wet July afternoon as a warm and welcoming place 🙂
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:16 am)
Uruguay has a lot of things right when it comes to getting young people to use computers
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:16 am)
@oleg “All university courses are different forms of history”
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:16 am)
@Mark – hehehe
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (11:16 am)
I agree that you have data structures which  are vitally important but when we have designed a factory DT , we understood the data well , its structure, completeness , correctness , links, etc. As it was a closed system, the need for ontologies was very limited. This reduced the cost . The reverse of that was true when we were creating a DT of a rail system.  the data was so different and diverse so that we had to use a ‘data lake’ approach and sophisticated ontolgies. Once again,  you mustn’t start the journey with the idea of a specific technology but asking the fundamental questions and the appropriate technologies will be the outcome.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:17 am)
@jeffrey lake Agreed. : )
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:18 am)
@jeffrey lake – agreed – but also need to consider how we can bring the existing siloes into the mix ..
Sophie Peachey to Panelists and Attendees (11:19 am)
Hi Jeffrey – Difference and diversity shouldn’t be a reason to create a data lake – isn’t that just creating a new set of challenges around duplicated data, multiple sources of ‘truth’ and yet another data silo. Decentralised secure interoperability is the way to go!
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:19 am)
“Don’t digitally recreate what we’ve had before”
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:19 am)
Potentially a one-stop-shop for data for all utilities first, then water and waste water, then products/purchasing/shopping.
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (11:19 am)
@jeffrey – excellent description of real world experiences – we will all learn more if we can have more such examples/case studies
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:19 am)
Then, we can integrate all of these various systems.
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:19 am)
@caroline I can’t find you on LinkedIn, but we should talk
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (11:19 am)
@jeffrey, also agree. Related to David’s panel comments too but we need envision a new world. One that is more sustainable and very compelling for all generations.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:20 am)
@jeffrey fair point. I guess I’m just pushing for interoperability to be designed in even to closed systems, for the benefit of other systems and later systems. Ontology is just one way of achieving that.
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (11:20 am)
@Graham M @Liam Might be biased – am interested in engineering and law
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (11:20 am)
The market – particularly  CAD OEMs – don’t yet see the market drivers and opportunity
Graham Meaden to Panelists and Attendees (11:20 am)
@jeffrey, agreed, but how do we motivate operatives on the railway to spend that extra time out on the network to collect better, high quality data which has no direct impact on their job.
Ges Rosenberg (UoB) to Panelists and Attendees (11:20 am)
University labs are great but tend to be reductionist.  Getting graduates integrating, collaborating across disciplines, innovating with society around real-world problems.  Universities teach engineers maths and physics and design, but insufficient codesign and innovation with public engagement.  Many US Universities are more civic by virtue of their civic approach.
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:20 am)https://www.ceibal.edu.uy/es – the 2021 robotics and view games olimpiad is being advertised there.  The UK needs to be levelled up to the state of Uruguay when it comes to using computers in education
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (11:20 am)
David Lane pointed out earlier we’ve had cyber-physical simulation, HIL, SIL and MIL for 40 years, and Michael Grieves claims DT is an evolution of the Apollo 13 ‘digital twin’. But like others have said above, the Ontology should remain flexible – the more I think about the terminology DT the more I don’t like it. At the end of all this we need the language to be computable and minimally ambiguous.
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (11:21 am)
@ges – the link to industrial challenges is also critical
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:21 am)
@Mark Wharton – You can find me here: https://nl.linkedin.com/in/caroline-robinson-560a1b35
Jeremy Watson to Panelists and Attendees (11:21 am)
@ Rob Government procurement preferences can help
Sophie Peachey to Panelists and Attendees (11:21 am)
@Graham – Rolls-Royce and IOTICS has created a Rail Digital Twin Ecosystem  which is decentralised and in which each separate data owner – different companies) has control of what they share with whom. There is no data lake.
Ges Rosenberg (UoB) to Panelists and Attendees (11:21 am)
@pinning – agreed
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:21 am)
I don’t like the fact that either i loose the chat or the conference
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:21 am)
My background is in Community Renewable Energy/Transport and grass-roots activism as well as data management! : ) And I find this topic fascinating!
Melissa Zanocco, ICG to Panelists and Attendees (11:22 am)
Agreed!
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:22 am)
Let’s do a chat later on
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (11:22 am)
Greg – get a software update – chat should be a side-panel
Tim Rawlins (NCC Group) to Panelists and Attendees (11:22 am)
the challenge with Ontologies is that they go out of date so fast – there is an ISO for telling the date and time but   everyone uses a different way to say it…
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (11:22 am)
we designed the factory ( closed system)  to be able to be integrated into a wider industrial digital twin (open system).  the factory was a black box and we designed the ‘outlinks’ with future interoperability in mind
Wendy Hall to Panelists and Attendees (11:23 am)
@Tim – we’re addressing those problems in the next panel
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:23 am)
@jeffrey lake – essentially, an API …
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:23 am)
@jeffrey lake  YES. : )
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:23 am)
@Tim if you build an ontology more on the lines of HTML5, then it self-heals as it diverges from reality. It’s job becomes to document the most frequent ways of modelling the real.
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (11:23 am)
yes a sophisticated API
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:24 am)
much talk of ontology in the chat.   we need to agree an upper-level ontology for all other ontology developments to reference, otherwise we just develop a number of silos
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:24 am)
@claire APIs are ok, but tend to be too specific, not generic enough. I believe metadata should be more important than APIs
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (11:24 am)
@Tim, could you have intelligent agents or multi agent systems updating outdated ontologies….?
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:25 am)
@Mark Wharton  Can combine both. : )
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:25 am)
@mark wharton +1 to the primacy of data over APIs
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (11:25 am)
market failure = do we mean economic change, when we discover that the imagined value does not exist and we need to align to a new measure.     Or market failure – does not do the right thing?
Tim Rawlins (NCC Group) to Panelists and Attendees (11:25 am)https://xkcd.com/927/
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:25 am)
@mark – interesting idea .. sometimes the ‘metadata’ word scares people/puts them off ..  I think that with data you need both the API to serve the data and the metadata to document what is being served?  (API was in relation to Jeffrey’s black box concept)
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:25 am)
@caroline – yes, that’s my firm belief
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:26 am)
@peter w: or agree that the upper/top level ontology will be derived from existing frequently used ways of modelling data, and then the ontology seeks to comply with as many domain ontologies as possible, with the outlier domain ontologies then being brought in to alignment by peer pressure rather than command and control..
Greg Demchak to Panelists and Attendees (11:26 am)
does AI require such rigid ontologies, or can it learn and make decisions by making best guesses based on historical patterns?
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:27 am)
@Greg depends what you mean by AI. Automated reasoning? Requires ontologies, really. ML? That’ll do pattern finding in unstructured and semi structured data.
Wendy Hall to Panelists and Attendees (11:27 am)
@Greg – that is such a good question. One for the UKRI research programme in this space
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (11:27 am)
@tim. Exactly!
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:27 am)
@claire our key principles
1. Digital twin is in control of its desting
2. Metadata describes the API
3. There’s no need for a centre
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:27 am)
Knowledge graphs are also very useful
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:27 am)
@mark – exactly that!
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:27 am)
*destiny*
Wendy Hall to Panelists and Attendees (11:27 am)
I agree – no need for a centre to control. But we need a way to exchange info etc
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (11:28 am)
re keeping up with chat in parallel with speakers:     I’m using a desktop screen and the Zoom app, and both panels are visible at the same time, and I find this works well.  But on smaller screens YMMV …
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (11:28 am)
@Navein; yes you can have auto updating ontologies . You have a heavy use of AI’s , we did this for a client developing power systems. We used AI to investigate CAD models ( early gen models) , updated them and then used AI to create ontologies to create in filed links – they wanted to use the power of analytics to predict power outages
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (11:28 am)
Completely agree abou knowledge graphs and semantic maps
Graham Meaden to Panelists and Attendees (11:28 am)
In a safety critical environment  it is evident that the personal fear of incurring liability stymies the sharing of  data. A baseline for describing the quality of data is fundamental to enable reduction in liability.
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (11:28 am)
@paul I agree one of the key missing blocks is the means of sharing data but also the means of transacting.  (We are addicted to “free” or “open|” services which has skewed our view on transacting)
Max Zadow to Panelists and Attendees (11:29 am)
CGA just provided a HD map delivered through a Digital Twin funded by CCAV to help a Westfield CAV drive in real world.
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (11:29 am)
Are commenters above confusing ML with AI?
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:29 am)
@jeffrey lakeOoooh, that sounds like an interesting project. Please keep in touch: https://nl.linkedin.com/in/caroline-robinson-560a1b35
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (11:29 am)
@Wendy – I agree that ‘central control’ would not work, but we would benefit from ‘connection and coordination’ to join things up.
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (11:29 am)
The key issue for the client was that these power systems were constantly being relocated so new links had to be constantly updated.
Paul Hunter to Panelists and Attendees (11:29 am)
@greg, this is where ML comes in, Machine Learning will solve as it learns from data??
Bill Murray   to Panelists and Attendees (11:29 am)
What is the minimum Viable CPF to avoid most market failures? What is the extent of the ecosystem that creates the CPF? What is the size of the data sharing universe around the CPF?
Glen Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:29 am)
I agree that technology to support a decentralised data collaborative is still a short way off, but the centralsied approach, the custodian model, exists today, and I/we (Microsoft) still see very low adoption due to a fundamental struggle to understand the value in sharing data.
John Grant to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
What has to be built first? Collaboration and cooperation protocols and frameworks.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
Neural networks/deep learning
Ian Bailey to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
@Wendy & @Mark – you’ll need to centralise the core standards
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
@Graham: and yet it’s also important not to accidentally think that autonomous vehicles (or any other autonomous system) do things that no one is responsible for.
Bill Murray   to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
DEEP SOCIO…YES!
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
Will the CPF arguably be endless….need for build/bolt on approach, design to adapt/recognise cost of change and recognising there will be risk (and degrees thereof) associated with the path taken/embedding positions?
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
@ Mark E, coordination  and connection and more importantly leadership. Points to empowerment as well
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
@glen the “altruism problem”?
Neil Tatman to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
Made Smarter Innovation Hubs have this ambition, i.e host and demonstrate multiple solutions, and multiple vendors – bridging the software and physical environments…. Even demonstrating collaboration across geographical instances…. Chris Courtney – discuss
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
#deepsocio will now trend on linkedin…
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (11:30 am)
the integration between current data, where it is, how its stored and used etc is really important. We need to be careful not to just create a new model that is needed for future systems as if they operate in a green field, because for many industries they don’t.
Graham Meaden to Panelists and Attendees (11:31 am)
@Liam absolutely
Matthias Gropp to Panelists and Attendees (11:31 am)
Exactly, not collecting everything is the key. You only want to store what doesn’t change and allow for interfaces for dynamic data. Nearly all data is dynamic, as the real world is. Geospatial parameters give a good starting point to relate data to the world.
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (11:31 am)
@Ian – I completely agree – we need shared rules: “collaborate on the rules; compete in the game”
jeffrey lake to Panelists and Attendees (11:31 am)
I have been looking for ways to share knowledge with the ‘built environment’ for some time but find it very difficult to break through though my last project was very successful.
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:31 am)
@chris Courtney – exactly, the legacy siloes are very rich in data!
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:31 am)
@Chris Courtney  Agreed.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:31 am)
Consensus systems
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:31 am)
@matthias +1
Wendy Hall to Panelists and Attendees (11:32 am)
@Ian – I know. But it can be a virtual centre – doesn’t need a building a lots of staff
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (11:32 am)
@Neil – ha! one for a smaller discussion but an opportunity to create more of this approach and ambition is certainly in mind. Only a start but a start none the less
Glen Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:32 am)
@mark , indeed. Although the few places we see adoption today is around sustainability data sharing as most orgs we work with feel they are clear on the value here, which is good for us all. A good use case to get data collaboratives going and proven before moving into other areas.
Max Zadow to Panelists and Attendees (11:32 am)
We have built a Digital Twin so far used for virtual learner driving, CAV and installation of a 5G infrastructure – in real world and taking into account social data. In real world with benefits from cyber. Working on MaaS with TfGM at moment.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:32 am)
Isn’t this wat hubs should do?
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (11:33 am)
David Lane’s approach sounds much more that of engineers that make things happen
David Lane  to Panelists and Attendees (11:33 am)
@will – thanks!
Glen Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:33 am)https://planetarycomputer.microsoft.com/ an example of a planetary computer built around data sharing.
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (11:33 am)
@Alexandra – well said!
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (11:34 am)
In democratising innovation, we need to enable citizens to see themselves as innovators that that innovation being something that others do and is then done to them. Maker labs and other institutions such as cyber physical campuses at a national scale could be important here
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:34 am)
@Max Zadow Awesome.
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (11:34 am)
@Alexandra – yes, the subject is very much systems of systems
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:34 am)
Valuing intangibles such as data, carbon embodiment, human capital, seems like a great place to start.
Anthony Denniss to Panelists and Attendees (11:34 am)
ESA Earth (planet scale) Digital Twin info can be found here https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2020/09/Digital_Twin_Earth
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:34 am)
@glen data “communities” or “consoritia” is a good starting point. See IOTICS’ work in the UK Rail industry.
The world is built on “enlightened self interest”
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:35 am)
This is an initiative for an Earth Digital Twin https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/destination-earth
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (11:35 am)
On the planetary DT example – the prediction / historical review / modelling / visualisation aspects are intuitive – but what are the cyber-physical interventions – i.e. the robots / smart machines.
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (11:35 am)
@Paul Clarke I think the coming together in living labs across traditional disciplines or sectors is a major gap, whereas we have many (perhaps too small) attempts at narrower living labs/innovation hub appraoches
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (11:35 am)
@Liam – I agree.  We need to value digital assets, then the money people will care about them.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:35 am)
@Mark Wharton The world is also built on solidarity.
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (11:35 am)
+1  thank you
Melissa Zanocco, ICG to Panelists and Attendees (11:35 am)
@alexandra and @mark enzer second that – that is a quote right there: “The planet is the ultimate system of systems and the cyber physical fabric is the only thing we can use to manage it”.
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (11:35 am)
And how do you model SOS, realtime, and in sync. That’s the hard problem i mention above.
Laurie Reynolds to Panelists and Attendees (11:35 am)
@ David Lane, your point about multi-disciplinarity is key for me. Bringing different professionals deepens and broadens and develops shared understandin, but we need more structure and tools for mapping the relationships.
Chris Courtney – UKRI INNOVATEUK to Panelists and Attendees (11:36 am)
@laurie – 100% agree
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (11:36 am)
I live around a lot of F1 engineers (this w/e especially).  It seems clear to me that FE will replace F1 in as few years – can we get Hamilton to endorse this?
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (11:36 am)
@Mark Wharton – yes we must encourage the creation of communities of enlightened self-interest
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:38 am)
@mark enzer: we’re doing a *lot* of work on evaluating this from the outside for exactly this reason. If you can’t put it on a balance sheet you can’t invest in it in the long term. So: humans; knowledge; data. In that order.
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (11:41 am)
In my view, the CPF needs to unlock and empower the inherently messy, unpredictable and non-linear nature of successful innovation. Fostering the collaboration and co-ordination but also the networking, serendipity, leaps of faith, chance encounters, chaos etc
Cambridge CDBB to Panelists and Attendees (11:41 am)
Please do continue the conversation from the first panel on the Digital Twin Hub. A discussion thread has been created: https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/forums/topic/430-cyber-physical-fabric-summit-panel-1-cyber-physical-fabric/
Video from the day as well as the follow-up summary will be sent out but also available on the DT Hub: http://www.digitaltwinhub.co.uk
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:43 am)
@Cambridge CDBB  Awesome.
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:43 am)
@Cambridge CDBB – great, very interesting discussion, glad to continue ..
Cambridge CDBB to Panelists and Attendees (11:44 am)
Read Dame Wendy’s post on this panel discussion: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6821735265854394368
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:46 am)
use DCAT to store data stewardship information : https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-3/
Mark Wharton to Panelists and Attendees (11:47 am)
“The interoperability layer” – amen to that
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:48 am)
Building on Dame Wendy Hall’s intro… and given the knowledge we have in this chat room… is there a thing that you think everyone should read to help with thinking about CPF? I’d be grateful to build out my reading list. Here’s mine: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4455262/Zittrain_Future+of+the+Internet.pdf?sequence=1 — thinking about how much this feels like the early days of the web, and the legal and ethical things to be bearing in mind.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:49 am)
And here’s https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads/Data-for-the-Public-Good-NIC-Report.pdf, which is indeed great.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:49 am)
BIMs are not connected to the context and static whereas DTs are connected and dynamic
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (11:50 am)
@Chris and @Laurie – I agree too.  I think that this means the ‘Delivery Vehicle’ for the UKDT/CPF needs to be both integrated and collaborative.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:51 am)
Some great analogies in here too: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2016.0126
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (11:52 am)
Be great to hear more from panellists about Metaverse as a term and how we should adopt it. Sir Tim and Dame Wendy didn’t call it ‘the internet for the WWW’ they just called it ‘the WWW’ – same could well be true for the Metaverse; it’s another internet application. Is ‘metaverse’ bubbling up because ultimately it’s the most memorable, intuitive term for a world-wide DT system.
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (11:52 am)
it is not only ‘value’ of data, but also the scope that it has to expose you to risk
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (11:52 am)
why does value and sharing have to be co-joined ?  Is this a framing of our economic model of growth?
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:52 am)
@Oleg Missikoff Yes. Agreed.
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (11:52 am)
@Mark – I agree
jcogman@red-scientific.co.uk to Panelists and Attendees (11:53 am)
Do you see a place for shared ontologies / taxonomies to assist with interoperability?  In which case who do you see leading on this?
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:53 am)
@tony fish this is surely thinking of value in terms of common good, not finance?
Ian Bailey to Panelists and Attendees (11:53 am)
Matthew West is leading on the NDT ontologies
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (11:53 am)
what is the market failure ? economic, value creation, growth, competition, delay or not doing the right thing to be a better ancestor
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (11:54 am)
@jcogman ODI is also a good place to start
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:54 am)
In a EU project we have developed an interoperability Platform based on ontologies and consensus system
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:54 am)
@oleg – that’s a good definition, although I think within the BIM community there are efforts for both (and we also have GeoBIM which is specifically looking at geospatial + BIM + real time etc)
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:54 am)
Is the only benefactor from integrated data collection government and businesses that sell services to government?
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:55 am)
@Claire – Any links?
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (11:55 am)
@liam  “value for public good”  is different from “value” which can mean anything you want to frame it as.
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (11:55 am)
@Mark – ‘Metaverse’ is one of those flexible terms that can mean different things to different people, so it is great for getting people excited, but not so good for engineering.  In general terms it is ‘the sum of all digital worlds’
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (11:56 am)
@mark “sum” or “integration”
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (11:57 am)
@Tony – both/and
Carsten Roensdorf (OS) to Panelists and Attendees (11:57 am)
@Oleg https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=96354 Built environment data standards and their integration
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:57 am)
Has gaming already built cyber worlds and we are only now catching-up?
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (11:57 am)
@Caroline – Thanks
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (11:58 am)
Of the data that is intended to be shared…do utilities have a handle on the meta data, particularly data sourced from third parties? Further, how do proposed developments contrast to those existing frameworks that already pay for use/license re copyright in “data” (in Australia, surveys for land title registration and for data generators i.e. surveyors)?
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (11:58 am)
On terminology – I recall a very stubborn early drone industry – rejecting the term ‘drone’ at every opportunity – leaving behind a messy range of alternatives like UAV, UAS, UA, RPA, RCA, RPAS etc – ‘Drone’ ultimately won that fight, and the negative connotations of the term faded away – but the time spent on terminology didn’t help the community and probably pushed the public, government and other sectors out of the conversation (and the real conversations and growth went on in the organisations who just started using ‘drone’ and got on with it. – the fact that Metaverse is a flexible term is fine, so is Drone – it’s not as if this community has exactly pinned down what we’re trying to build yet anyway, so a broad but intuitive term might help gather momentum (and the technology terms underneath can also coexist but we need and intuitive term to talk to public and government and other sectors.
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (11:58 am)
@Caroline – The difference in gaming is that it doesn’t need to be “accurately” linked to the physical or any physical element. As Matthew mentions, cost is a great driving power
Wendy Hall to Panelists and Attendees (11:59 am)
Good point @mark emerton
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (11:59 am)
@Caroline – Yes.  It’s just that gaming has done it for entertainment.  Now we are talking about engineering-quality cyber worlds that can be used for public good.
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (11:59 am)
@oleg – a couple of years old now but: https://3d.bk.tudelft.nl/pdfs/18_georeferencing.pdf
Wendy Hall to Panelists and Attendees (11:59 am)
Perhaps we should just be talking about the interoperability standards for the Metaverse. Not quite so catchy 😊
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (11:59 am)
@tony and @liam value is subjective, like data quality, which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and measure it.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (11:59 am)
@Navein Madhavan And yet https://www.enr.com/articles/51650-digital-tools-join-traditional-methods-for-notre-dame-rebuild
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (12:00 pm)
@sarah re: culture change around data. In applied (not tech) industry some see the value of that but like much of this there’s a leap of faith in many organisations that gets lost in communication between the company’s innovation lead and the company budget decisions
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:00 pm)
@Pinning, Robin Agreed.
Louise Wright  to Panelists and Attendees (12:00 pm)
I think that gaming environments tend to focus on looking realistic. When we move to the real world and  a wider range of measurement modalities (different bits of the E-M spectrum, ultrasound, etc.)  we have to go well beyond what is currently possible within games.
Pinning, Robin (STFC,DL,HC) to Panelists and Attendees (12:00 pm)
As ever, this is another part of trusting other organisations
Carsten Roensdorf (OS) to Panelists and Attendees (12:00 pm)
@Navein Depends on the game – a few years ago Realtimeworlds built a massively multiplayer online platform to run multiple games in parallel in a fairly realistic world. They had the idea that they would start with a simple 3D model that people playing the games would then enhance building up their neighbourhoods or other areas of interest in more detailed. Great concept, but apparently wasn’t successful commercially.
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (12:00 pm)
@Wendy – I agree!
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:01 pm)
@Louise Wright Yes, we can go beyond and build on what has already been created. : )
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:01 pm)
I say it again: it’s impossible to follow conference and chat!
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (12:02 pm)
@Oleg – try harder! Chat should be in a side panel
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (12:02 pm)
@Caroline, Carsten – agreed! Learning from gaming and building upon with specific needs we require.
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (12:02 pm)
@Oleg – you can save the chat at the end and review, and you can re-watch the conference from the recording.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:02 pm)
Chat is super stimulating; thank you for contributing! : )
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:02 pm)
It’s the density of issues not the vision
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (12:03 pm)https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/files/the_pathway_towards_an_imf.pdf
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (12:03 pm)
We will be writing up the key points in the chat and making the recording available
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:03 pm)
@Paul Clarke Super.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:03 pm)
Thank you Paul
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (12:04 pm)
@carsten – gaming is definitely something to be explored further .. and we now have integration of Cesium and unity which can help ..
Gailina Liew to Panelists and Attendees (12:04 pm)
Excellent and thank you,  Paul.
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (12:04 pm)
@Louise – that’s been the approach in engineering circles for a while – that the game engines are only suitable for visualisation – but i’d wager that that’s changing, and the game engines are highly flexible, highly scaleable platforms that could well be at the heart of a complex DT / metaverse architecture.
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:04 pm)
I won’t miss Liz, so see you later
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:05 pm)
@Claire Ellul, UCL Yes, we worked on Cesium : )
@mark.emerton Great observation.
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (12:06 pm)
@mark – I think that’s why the cesium/unity plug in is interesting – cesium has more of an ‘information system’ basis (location data + semantics)  ..
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:07 pm)
@mark.emerton I think what our cyber models don’t usually factor people, but gaming does and puts the narrative first. Interesting thoughts.
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (12:08 pm)
@Caroline – yup and Unreal has the RESTful API for data integration into UE
Ges Rosenberg (UoB) to Panelists and Attendees (12:08 pm)
Data sharing great. Digital twins however also require the mathematical modelling, analysis and simulations to turn data into useful knowledge for the different stakeholders. Different users will need to build different modelling layers. Democratisation/interpretation/sharing/transparency for model algorithms is an issue we need to consider. There is a public interest and we know this most recently from GCSE/A level examination algorithms.
Martin Aston to Panelists and Attendees (12:08 pm)
It’s important to clarify what “engineered” means as this could be confusing in this context. Engineering is not a physical process per se. It is the conversion of science to a viable product definition and so is a knowledge-based function. The use of digital systems within the engineering process is key to delivering future products.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:08 pm)
@mark.emerton Agreed.
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (12:08 pm)
I forget where I saw this. Philosophers debate, scientists speculate…. and engineers get on with the job. To make the ‘links’ mentioned by Wendy we need more engineers involved in digital twin initiatives. MIT for example have been asked by the Super Majors to refactor their graduate programs to produce ‘Digital Engineers’ who are capable of effectuating oil company transition from fossil to renewable.
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (12:08 pm)
@ mark Emerton – well put. Visualisation is absolutely critical as well for mere mortals to understand data and digital twins etc.
Claire Ellul, UCL to Panelists and Attendees (12:09 pm)
@navein – 100% agree – visualisation is a great way to get non-specialists interested in DTs and to democratize the data ..
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:09 pm)
@Robert Oooh, I like that. Do you have a link?
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (12:09 pm)
@Martin  +1
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (12:10 pm)
@Mark – agreed – engineering owes less to science than scientists believe!
John Davies to Panelists and Attendees (12:10 pm)
Would be interesting to know the extent to which the Game developers use ontologies in their metaverses…
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:10 pm)
@Navein Madhavan Agreed.
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (12:11 pm)
@Claire and @Navein – the visualisation outputs also have significant engineering uses – in autonomous vehicles for example in change detection and GPS-denied visual navigation.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:11 pm)
@John Davies How about a Gaming vs Data Engineers Blue Sky session? We could learn so much. : )
Martin Paver to Panelists and Attendees (12:11 pm)
There is also an ontology for how the physical asset was delivered. Engineering challenges, risks, schedule variance etc. This extends beyond DAFNI but is critical for a joined up ecosystem.
John Davies to Panelists and Attendees (12:11 pm)
@Caroline +1
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (12:11 pm)
Good to see some support for ontologies coming out of UCL. What is their view on competing ontologies (e.g. Smith vs. West)
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:11 pm)
Where are we considering modelling notations?
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:11 pm)
@Liz Varga that was great. Does ‘precision’ include levels of truth?
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (12:11 pm)
The digital commons required for stitching together other types of synthetic environments beyond digital twins (especially emulations) and smart machines will be an extension of the digital commons/ IMF required for UKDT programme.  Issues such as real-time coupling, impedance matching of models build at different levels of fidelity/ abstraction and the concept of shared time (that David Lane mentioned) will be particularly important
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:12 pm)
Modelling notations?
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (12:12 pm)
Ontology relativity?
Rob Solly to Panelists and Attendees (12:12 pm)
@mark.emerton there a lot of merit in using game technology to visualise and integrate DTs. Our approach at Improbable adds the “highly flexible, highly scalable platform” to the visualisation part that you can find in many game engines
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:13 pm)
@Ilsa Kuiper Awesome. : )
Ilyas Oren to Panelists and Attendees (12:13 pm)
@Liz Varga, please state again the reference you recommended for TLO.
Liz Varga to Panelists and Attendees (12:13 pm)
@Liam how we know what we know and indeed the whole road to computational epistemology is critical to versions of the ‘truth’  Listen up to Peter Rai!!
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (12:13 pm)
loving this
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (12:13 pm)
@Rob Solly – I was expecting you to be lurking here!
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:13 pm)🙂 am a big epistemology fan.
방대한 to Panelists and Attendees (12:13 pm)
A South korean government agency operates the wonderful digital twin platform. Let me introduce it next time.
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (12:14 pm)
@liam you can spell it – ahead of me !
Matthew West to Panelists and Attendees (12:14 pm)
@Tony Curzon: Agreed. We anticipate a distributed architecture with service providers providing resources in much the same way as web service providers do.
Liz Varga to Panelists and Attendees (12:14 pm)
The DAFNI link is https://dafni.ac.uk/dafni-champions-2-2/dafni-champions-infrastructure-research-ontologies-2/
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:15 pm)
@tony fish: Can recommend Peter Lipton, “Inference to the Best Explanation”
Liz Varga to Panelists and Attendees (12:15 pm)
At CDBB there is a survey of top level ontologies https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/news/publication-top-level-ontologies-and-industry-data-models
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (12:15 pm)
@Caroline R. The potential for such posited from theory…
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (12:15 pm)
@Liz, brilliant, thanks
Ben Pritchard, Thales to Panelists and Attendees (12:15 pm)
(My Alexa just tried to answer Pete’s example question) 🙂
Wendy Hall to Panelists and Attendees (12:16 pm)
Fabulous 🙂
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (12:16 pm)
who says truth is truth
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (12:17 pm)
Tony ‘Pontius’ Fish
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:17 pm)
First order Logic?
Miles Elsden to Panelists and Attendees (12:17 pm)
I like the idea of ontologies – but in my experience they are extremely difficult to develop, particularly the top-level (real-world) ontologies. Cyc has been at this for a long time…
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (12:17 pm)
Epistemology, Ontology, Methodology and method. All well understood by the medical and science communities, however, engineers can go through their whole career without being exposed to it. Which is a huge failing of the UK’s Universities.
Wendy Hall to Panelists and Attendees (12:18 pm)
They should come to Southampton then
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:18 pm)
Am learning so much… fascinating, how we interpret language and nuance.
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (12:19 pm)
Device attestation +1
Liz Varga to Panelists and Attendees (12:20 pm)
In the DAFNI report we say:  First order logic deals with predicates (or objectives) and uses quantified variables to create expressions of logic or axioms. A theory may be expressed in first order logic. Only one semantics is studied. Second and higher order logics allow predicates and higher level relations to be quantified introducing the capability to have several possible semantics or full semantics (D. Miller, 1991). This makes it more expressive, but with higher order logics, there is no effective deduction system
Matthew West to Panelists and Attendees (12:20 pm)
@Robert: This is our evaluation of the different TLOs we could find (more than just WEST vs SMITH) and our rationale for choosing and the choice we made. https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/files/file/91-the-approach-to-develop-the-foundation-data-model-for-the-information-management-framework/
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:20 pm)
@pete: Also when was it true and do two data sources disagree and how important it is to be true to a given level of accuracy for a particular use context.
Ivo Willems to Panelists and Attendees (12:20 pm)
Impressed with Pete’s explanation !
Jordan@melioro.co to Panelists and Attendees (12:20 pm)
@Miles Elden – I was wondering if you were here!
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (12:21 pm)
Hi Wendy Are you saying engineering undergrads are taught EOMM at Southhampton?
Miles Elsden to Panelists and Attendees (12:21 pm)
@Jordan
Martin Sadler (UK) to Panelists and Attendees (12:21 pm)
In addition to epistemology might be worth paying attention to narratology (how we tell stories) as the basis for citizen involvement and democratising
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (12:21 pm)
Thanks Mathew. Will check it out
Miles Elsden to Panelists and Attendees (12:21 pm)
Didn’t realise I was only posting in the Panelists channel!
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:21 pm)
@Robert MK:U’s integrated data science degree apprenticeship will also be covering these areas (if I have anything to do with it 🙂 )
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:22 pm)
@Martin Sadler (UK) Yes. : )
claudia gibbard to Panelists and Attendees (12:22 pm)
Will this summit be recorded ie will we be able to watch another time. I haven’t been able to commit as much time to today as I would have like to
Matthew West to Panelists and Attendees (12:22 pm)
@Andrew J: Agreed classification systems are important. We refer to them as Reference Data in the Information Management Framework.
Navein Madhavan to Panelists and Attendees (12:22 pm)
@Martin S, absolutely! Critical to ensure widespread adoption and democratisation and not be put off by pure “technical”
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (12:22 pm)
Yes, recording will be shared
Ana Basiri to Panelists and Attendees (12:23 pm)
I wish chat was also recorded, there is a really good conversation to go back and watch/read
What’s the meaning of SI in this context?
Wendy Hall to Panelists and Attendees (12:23 pm)
I think we can share the chat as well?
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (12:23 pm)
We are capturing chat and will attempt to write up the key points, questions etc
Ges Rosenberg (UoB) to Panelists and Attendees (12:23 pm)
Sharing the chat would be excellent
Ana Basiri to Panelists and Attendees (12:23 pm)
@Paul Thanks, that would be fab!
Rich Walker to Panelists and Attendees (12:24 pm)
SI is Systeme Internationale I think – the common reference for physics
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (12:24 pm)
metre kilogram second etc
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:24 pm)
Metrics? Pk
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (12:24 pm)
doing some AI on the chat might just give us the solution 🙂
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:24 pm)
Re epistemology: also interesting to understand it in terms of inductive reasoning and explainability. Explanation needs only to be sufficient to the use.
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (12:24 pm)
I would massively appreciate a copy of the chat also.
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:24 pm)
@Holger Kessler Ha! : )
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (12:24 pm)
@Holger – might save the chat and stick it into GPT3 and see what comments I can auto-generate!
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (12:25 pm)
Liam, I am jealous of them 😉 Push for it, there are some interesting conversations going on in the USA between the top-tier schools and the major corporations who fear for their relevance post I4,0. Undergraduate programs need to change.
Rich Walker to Panelists and Attendees (12:25 pm)
@mark – have the Office for AI got a way to detect “government briefs” that were generated from GPT-3? seems like an important tool…
Geoff McCormick to Panelists and Attendees (12:25 pm)
I am also keen to see a copy of the chat !
Pete Rai  to Panelists and Attendees (12:26 pm)
A presentation on Towards Computable Epistemology can be found on my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_7te9o9Oic
Pedro to Panelists and Attendees (12:26 pm)
@Robert, how so, the change of the programs, in that perspective?
Andrew Scullion to Panelists and Attendees (12:27 pm)
A domain agnostic ontology for metrology. Is that not what the Semantic Sensor Network Ontology is? Why do we need another one?
Miguel Xochicale to Panelists and Attendees (12:27 pm)
Not sure what are the policies regarding the chat for  GPT-3 but also keen to have access to it. Lots of good questions, references and conversations.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:27 pm)
My favourite metric from the national rail ontology: BTU Foot per Square Foot Hour Degree Fahrenheit
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (12:29 pm)
“we already have a market failure, otherwise we would have interoperability already” – I totally agree
Matthias Gropp to Panelists and Attendees (12:29 pm)
Louise, very good, very crucial points, we call this Geospatial Certainty in our industry. To keep track of this quality status of data is crucial.
Cambridge CDBB to Panelists and Attendees (12:29 pm)
The video for the day, chat and follow-up summary will all be available on the DT Hub http://www.digitaltwinhub.co.uk
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (12:29 pm)
Pedro, that needs a long answer! Feel free to ping me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-robert-prince-wright/
John Davies to Panelists and Attendees (12:29 pm)
“Pete Rai
To
Everyone
12:26:43

“A domain agnostic ontology for metrology. Is that not what the Semantic Sensor Network Ontology is? Why do we need another one?” There will always tend to be overlapping ontologies describing similar domains. Ontology mediation can be used to mitigate the issue (to some extent)
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:29 pm)
What about enterprises other than industry? Tourism, Trade, etc
John Beard to Panelists and Attendees (12:29 pm)
re chat – we could be brave and share the raw chat, as an annex to the distilled version that the hosts are kindly providing
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (12:29 pm)
Legitimisation (across macro-meso-micro levels)? Data institutionalisation?
Emmanuel Kahembwe to Panelists and Attendees (12:30 pm)
Cambridge CDBB shared a link for a thread related to the summit.. If anybody has been in the zoom call from the start, please share the whole chat there: https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/forums/topic/430-cyber-physical-fabric-summit-panel-1-cyber-physical-fabric/
Cambridge CDBB to Panelists and Attendees (12:30 pm)
DT Hub links to continue the conversations: Panel 1 – Cyber-Physical Fabric https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/forums/topic/430-cyber-physical-fabric-summit-panel-1-cyber-physical-fabric/ Panel 2 – Tech/Data Interoperability https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/forums/topic/431-cyber-physical-fabric-summit-panel-2-techdata-interoperability/ Panel 3 – Research https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/forums/topic/432-cyber-physical-fabric-summit-panel-3-research/ Panel 4 – Adoption https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/forums/topic/433-cyber-physical-fabric-summit-panel-4-adoption/ Panel 5 – Lessons learnt https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/forums/topic/434-cyber-physical-fabric-summit-panel-5-lessons-learnt/
Tony Fish to Panelists and Attendees (12:31 pm)
what is the (this) market failure? do we all agree? When was the market asked to optimise for this thing that we are saying the market has failed at?
Matthew West to Panelists and Attendees (12:31 pm)
@John: “A domain agnostic ontology for metrology. Is that not what the Semantic Sensor Network Ontology is? Why do we need another one?” It is rather the case the SSNO is a domain ontology, which needs to fit with other ontologies in other domains, and in that sense it is not domain neutral.
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (12:31 pm)
@Andy P-H – maybe ‘within’ proprietary commercial applications, but not between…
Miles Elsden to Panelists and Attendees (12:32 pm)
Referring back to Rob Buckinghams’s earlier point we can use the existing network of Living Labs (Federated). There is plenty of infrastructure already there across multiple technology areas that are relevant, we need to link them up and then identify (and fill) the gaps.
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (12:32 pm)
Very very interesting!!
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:32 pm)
@Miles Elsden Yes.
Matthew West to Panelists and Attendees (12:32 pm)
@Tony Fish: One market failure is just the failure to recognise the value of data and its use.
Emmanuel Kahembwe to Panelists and Attendees (12:33 pm)
@Tony one of the market failures is that there is limited data interoperability.. no standards, data silos
sue chadwick to Panelists and Attendees (12:33 pm)
there is an existing register of information sharing agreements Register of Information sharing agreements under chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 of part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Graham Meaden to Panelists and Attendees (12:34 pm)
@MarkEnzer, it’s not a market failure, it’s a societal failure. A society that has chosen capitalism.
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (12:34 pm)
@Andy P-H – HTML?
Andy Parnell-Hopkinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:34 pm)
My bad, posting only to panellists: Yes, @Mark Enzer between. If there’s a need and a budget, there’s a way
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:35 pm)
@Graham Meaden Open and transparent data from public funds would make life easier… US has this advantage.
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (12:35 pm)
Standards need indeed to be simple to be widely adopted
mark.emerton@innovateuk.ukri.org to Panelists and Attendees (12:35 pm)
Are the technology components and architectures really ready for standardisation, or is this too much a moving target?
Laurie Reynolds to Panelists and Attendees (12:35 pm)
Someone should develop an ontology from the chat.
Andy Parnell-Hopkinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:35 pm)
You don’t need standards for interoperability
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (12:35 pm)
perhaps not just simple but minimal
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:35 pm)
@Andy Parnell-Hopkins Bombshell. : )
Ges Rosenberg (UoB) to Panelists and Attendees (12:35 pm)
Naturally the agenda comprises a lot of cyber/digital/data, but to establish value from practicable use cases, we need discussion of digital-physical system integration, sensors (observability) and actuation (controllability) would help steer towards the cyber-physical fabric – where physical should cover social, natural and anthropogenic physical systems. Lots of knowledge from control systems community, natural and behavioural sciences will be beneficial in this conversation.
Andy Parnell-Hopkinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:35 pm)
@Caroline reality
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:36 pm)
Human centred approach
David Lane  to Panelists and Attendees (12:36 pm)
Thanks @Wendy! Will try and pick this up in the next panel session on research
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (12:36 pm)
@tony excellent discourse here on market failures in tech and the need for a new way if defining anti-trust legisaltion https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2021/06/23/microsoft-censorship-and-china/
Paul Clarke to Panelists and Attendees (12:36 pm)
It’s a long term vision failure which is a recurring challenge. We have to fix this for climate change and come up with new democratic structures to own and tackle 20+ year challenges at a national and planetary scale across multiple governments
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (12:37 pm)
UKRI should fund standards for government info
Emmanuel Kahembwe to Panelists and Attendees (12:37 pm)
UKRI should be funding national data provenance technologies (e.g. blockchain) which are critical to talking about the truth of any digital data..
Holger Kessler to Panelists and Attendees (12:37 pm)
Breaking down the structures that reward competition and prevent collaboration
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:37 pm)
Stakeholders’ Engagement
James Humphreys to Panelists and Attendees (12:37 pm)
Creating hand-crafted ontologies are clearly a major challenge.
Could machine learning to learn its own form of ontology (which might not look the same as how we think of the world)?
It would open it up to vastly more data and lower the bar to sharing data.
Ilsa Kuiper to Panelists and Attendees (12:37 pm)
Scope for government/public sector to enhance data capability (I.e. deeper realisation of transparency, new public services). …but also to realise scope in managing risk where data will be used in new and unexpected….and possibly negative ways?
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:37 pm)
We need to widen the comprehension and adoption of the paradigm
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:37 pm)
@Matthew West is would be good to open up those problems more widely for discussion
Laurie Reynolds to Panelists and Attendees (12:38 pm)
UKRI wish A graph-based tool for organising knowledge and context which could be used for capturing content and understanding from sessions like today.
Miles Elsden to Panelists and Attendees (12:38 pm)
The need for public engagement has run through all the discussions. As was mentioned earlier, we need a wide systems approach looking a techo-social-economic perspectives. All supported by work on trust, ethics, regulation and assurance…
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:38 pm)
Can we have the speaker on the main screen?
Miranda Sharp to Panelists and Attendees (12:38 pm)
pluralistic views and pluralistic creation of value @liz
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:38 pm)
Truth is a religious concept. I’d rather talk about reality
Ilyas Oren to Panelists and Attendees (12:38 pm)
Research area idea: Construction industry-specific data science to develop AI and machine learning to inform decision making.
Paul Hunter to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
while standards are agreed, we also need to look at the review and change timeline that also happens, OS is reviewed and can change the position of any data already logged for example.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
@Laurie Reynolds… graph based tool for making KG’s and ontolgoies human-friendly and explorable:  I think we may be able to offer you one of those.
Chris Dent to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
Like in many intrinsically collaborative areas, funders should minimise barriers to entry for relevant teams who do not already have track records in this area – for instance there are many people who would not call themselves “digital twin” but who have much to bring to the table (e.g. people who work on applied methodology for decision analysis)
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
@Oleg Missikoff Yes, a faith system.
Matthew West to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
@Andy Parnell-Hopkinson “You don’t need standards for interoperability”. No, but standards reduce the cost of interoperability by orders of magnitude. Consider the history of nuts and bolts, before standards a nut and bolt had to be made as a matched pair, afterwards any nut compliant to the standard would fit any bolt to the same standard. Applied to rifles this has won wars.
Graham Meaden to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
Support for pluralism in standards are key for liberty
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
@Caroline – agree
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
@Oleg: no, truth is a transcendental quality. And science uses it as it’s anchor.
John Grant to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
Technological evolution and appropriate standards is one key aspect, but I’d argue more needs to be done to support lifelong learning and learning in the open.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:39 pm)
@Oleg but it’s not a binary measure.
Martin Paver to Panelists and Attendees (12:40 pm)
The US have an AI construction institute. Worth looking at what they are up to.
Stephen Ashley to Panelists and Attendees (12:40 pm)
UKRI should be funding work around using technical and governance frameworks such as data trusts, to enable indsurty to share data to go after use cases that prove the value of the cyber phycisical framework
Matthew West to Panelists and Attendees (12:40 pm)
The thing about standards is that you need to develop the standards that give you freedom to do things rather than ones that prevent it. You don’t have mobile phones without the standards that enable them.
Mark Enzer to Panelists and Attendees (12:40 pm)
@all – UKRI should put money into the overall ‘socio-technical change’ – ie work with the humans as well as the tech
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:41 pm)
We’re modelling the reality not the truth
Me to All panelists and other attendees (12:41 pm)
Desperately trying to follow both panel and chat… In response to discussions about games, Epic has been investing heavily to support Digital Twins through Unreal. There is a good overview here: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/what-are-digital-twins
Caroline Robinson to Panelists and Attendees (12:41 pm)
@Stephen Ashley Data Trusts – yes.
Robert to Panelists and Attendees (12:41 pm)
Funding needs to focus on CPS simulation. We got so far in the 90s and 2010s and then funding bodies decided the knowledge had been transferred to industry. That was a false assumption. How for example do we simulate a multi-physics SOS realtime and in synch with the ‘real’ twin.  This is the hard part being ignored both in the USA, EU, and UK. We also need to move beyond ODE/DAE systems to include PDEs.
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:41 pm)
@louise: yes, we’re doing a lot of work on visualising truth vs value in intuitive way.
Emmanuel Kahembwe to Panelists and Attendees (12:41 pm)
@Mathew West +1 ” standards reduce the cost of interoperability by orders of magnitude. ”
Will Stewart to Panelists and Attendees (12:41 pm)
RSS does provide courses for MPs – not sure they are listening!
Liam McGee to Panelists and Attendees (12:41 pm)
On my wish list: a threaded chat area…
Miles Elsden to Panelists and Attendees (12:41 pm)
@Mark Enzer. Completely agree – a real opportunity for this area to be a leader for real cross-disciplinary research in UKRI
Oleg Missikoff to Panelists and Attendees (12:42 pm)
Food, drinks and toilet! That’s a good news… 🙂
MarK Bass to Panelists and Attendees (12:43 pm)
Is it ok to say -I’m Listening?
peter w to Panelists and Attendees (12:43 pm)
Wendy, you’re still broadcasting

Homepage