-
Twinfrastructure discussion
-
36 Replies
-
Welcome to the start of today’s Digital Twin Talk on #Twinfrastructure and a big thank you to @Neil from SNC-Lavalin’s Atkins and CDBB for joining us. We’re looking forward to your thoughts and questions related to Neil’s video – and maybe posing one or two of our own.
Please do start adding your thoughts by replying to the conversation thread.
-
2 minutes ago, DRossiter87 said:
Welcome to the start of today’s Digital Twin Talk on #Twinfrastructure and a big thank you to @Neil from SNC-Lavalin’s Atkins and CDBB for joining us. We’re looking forward to your thoughts and questions related to Neil’s video – and maybe posing one or two of our own.
Please do start adding your thoughts by replying to the conversation thread.
Thank you @DRossiter87 Looking forward to the debate!
-
1 minute ago, Guest Miranda Sharp said:
Thank you Neil, Do we have examples from other fields where a glossary approach like this has worked?
Hey @Miranda, good question! Yes, if we look at things like Github and Stackoverflow in the software world we can see how effective it is to connect technical people in this way. interestingly it creates a vital learning environment!
-
Hi @Neil, are there particular areas/domains/topics where you would like members to add to the Glossary (areas where you and the Commons team are specifically looking for input)?
-
3 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:
Hey @Miranda, good question! Yes, if we look at things like Github and Stackoverflow in the software world we can see how effective it is to connect technical people in this way. interestingly it creates a vital learning environment!
We’re also seeing demand for this kind of flexible approach to terminology related to standards in fast changing areas…for example working on an iterative vocabulary for Connected and Automated Vehicles
-
Hi how do you propose to link with the many existing catalogues/vocabularies/dictionaries that already exist?
-
1 minute ago, DRossiter87 said:
Hi @Neil, are there particular areas/domains/topics where you would like members to add to the Glossary (areas where you and the Commons team are specifically looking for input)?
@DRossiter87 We would like to see how BIM and DTs interface, we would also like contribution on roles…. also even something as simple as the view of what a Digital Twin is will be interested to see evolve.
-
5 minutes ago, holgerkessler said:
Hi how do you propose to link with the many existing catalogues/vocabularies/dictionaries that already exist?
@holgerkessler – this is a great question! We will use the meta data of the shared status of a term to learn the connectivity to existing standards. We will aslo learn if there are any overlaps too!
-
9 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:
Hey @Miranda Sharp, good question! Yes, if we look at things like Github and Stackoverflow in the software world we can see how effective it is to connect technical people in this way. interestingly it creates a vital learning environment!
We had a similar approach, though much more clunky, in our IEC Smart Cities Systems Committee Terminology Working Group. We wanted to ensure that the members of the other working groups could suggest terms that needed definitions, could suggest definitions for those terms and could comment on the suggested definitions from others. It provided a great foundation for the Working Group to get going as we had a clear indication of the terms that were most important for our members and were able to begin from a position which made it much easier to build consensus on what the terms should be.
-
2 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:
@holgerkessler – this is a great question! We will use the meta data of the shared satus of a term to learn the connectivity to existing standards.
Hi @holgerkessler and @Neil
A further thought is that this is a benefit of making this Glossary online/dynamic – it is easier to update as more thinking emerges including from other areas and industries
-
Hi Neil, thank you for your talk . Is the long term view to create a common data dictionary for digital twin infrastructure/assets?
-
Just now, Neil Thomspon said:
1 minute ago, Neil Thomspon said:
Some of the Geospatial Commission’s partner bodies (eg the BGS) have large controlled vocabularies – not all relevant of course – i feel the DTHub need to work really hard to break out of the civil engineering silos and bring in others – who at the moment struggle to see their role in here or don’t even know CDBB exists….
the name “Built Britain” doesn’t help….
-
2 minutes ago, Koye said:
Hi Neil, thank you for your talk . Is the long term view to create a common data dictionary for digital twin infrastructure/assets?
Absolutley! This is the start of that, as I said this this the human side. There will also be a technology aspect of the data structure aspect. It is on our roadmap.
-
3 minutes ago, Nicholas said:
Hi @holgerkessler and @Neil
A further thought is that this is a benefit of making this Glossary online/dynamic – it is easier to update as more thinking emerges including from other areas and industries
I totally agree that a dynamic online approach is right!
-
3 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:
@holgerkessler – this is a great question! We will use the meta data of the shared status of a term to learn the connectivity to existing standards. We will aslo learn if there are any overlaps too!
I know it is an adjacent subject, but in our IEC Smart Cities Terminology Working Group, when developing definitions for terms, we initially searched through the IEC, ISO and ITU glossaries and captured whatever relevant definitions we could find there. Our preference was then to take an existing definition, if it was suitable, as this would help consistency with other standards work. If no existing definitions were quite right, the next stage would be to see if there was an existing definition which could be made appropriate by adding an explanatory note. Only when we couldn’t do any of these did we develop a new definition.
Log in to reply.