-
Twinfrastructure discussion
-
3 minutes ago, holgerkessler said:
Built is generally the verb. Building a scope around the built environment is tough as it sits on top of the natural environment etc. Do you have an idea on other frames we could explore?
-
3 minutes ago, Michael Mulquin said:
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.
Hi @Michael Mulquin. People are more than welcome to suggest terms and definitions that have been used elsewhere such as those within the ISO online browsing platform and IEC electropedia. However, these terms need to be carefully considered to ensure that they are fit for purpose for the DT Hub community.
-
4 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:
Built is generally the verb. Building a scope around the built environment is tough as it sits on top of the natural environment etc. Do you have an idea on other frames we could explore?
ISO 37105 – Descriptive Framework for Cities and Communities – provides a framework to describe the key entities within a city.
It describes each element in detail and includes a fairly detailed ontology.
-
5 minutes ago, holgerkessler said:
I totally agree that a dynamic online approach is right!
From discussions with DT Hub members, we’ve also seen lots of interest in geospatial data (and related terminology and approaches to facilitate greater interoperability with other data sets). In addition, organisations coming in with a focus on (for example) transport operations can help us to identify existing good approaches to terminology in specific industries and domains.
-
1 minute ago, DRossiter87 said:
Hi @Michael Mulquin. People are more than welcome to suggest terms and definitions that have been used elsewhere such as those within the ISO online browsing platform and IEC electropedia. However, these terms need to be carefully considered to ensure that they are fit for purpose for the DT Hub community.
Exactly, and that is the point I was making. Many definitions in these glossaries were developed for specific purposes and we found were not necessarily relevant to smart cities. But it was an important starting place for us, and it meant that we needed to consider why we needed to reject the existing definitions before starting work on developing our own. We found that, even where existing definitions were not suitable, there was often some useful ideas that we could take forward in developing our own one.
-
The School of Cities at the University of Toronto is partnering with ISO/IEC JTC1, along with ISO TC 204 on intelligent Transport, to put together a hub to enable people working on data models that are relevant to cities to share information and discuss common issues. I know OGC (via Peter Parslow from Ordnance Survey) is involved in this.
-
23 minutes ago, Guest Charles Keen said:
Many thanks for the talk, Neil,
is their likely to be a link between the new terms and the appropriate technical standards related to and defining the term and orientating the applications?
Hey @Charles – You highlight something important about the Commons and what I’ve called our design principles. We have two modes of development, first is the creation of seeds. Where the seeds will either inform the development of existing standards or form the basis of new national/international standards. The second is establishing links to existing standards and supporting the extensibility of particular standards.
-
i know its hard – here some thinking donwe by planners and geologists
-
and it is even more philosophical as the built environment interdigitates, interacts and in many cases shapes and forms the natural environment – this is all part of the wider discussion about the #anthropocene
-
19 minutes ago, Guest Yu(Steven) ZHANG said:
Hi Neil.
It is good to listen to your presentation, and get to know a plan for ‘Information Management Framework Pathway’ paper. As a visitor (non-member), I can see 10 terms- common languages for people.
Meanwhile, I am also interested in the common languages for data. I’d love to hear your comments on the following 2 examples of data and meta data, particularly with relation to the Common Steam at DT hub- the foundation data model.
1. Use common terms within Data, Metadata and supporting information ( Energy Data Task Force)
“There are currently efforts to standardise the naming conventions used across a range of infrastructure domains by the Digital Framework Task Group as part of the National Digital Twin programme of work. The long term goal is to define an ontology which enables different sectors to use a common language which in turn enables effective cross sector data sharing.
In the near term, it is unhelpful to create yet another glossary so we propose a two staged approach.”
2. DAFNI-
as mentioned by Brian Matthews two weeks ago, and also mentioned in DAFNI’s news letter-“Transition to new metadata schema for the data store, adhering to standards which comply with the DCAT v2 vocabulary. ”
https://www.dafni.ac.uk/news/dafni-newsletter-may-2020/
Steven
there is also a Water Data Task Force and an emerging Telco Data Task Force that should be aligned
-
10 minutes ago, Guest Yu(Steven) ZHANG said:
1. Use common terms within Data, Metadata and supporting information ( Energy Data Task Force)
“There are currently efforts to standardise the naming conventions used across a range of infrastructure domains by the Digital Framework Task Group as part of the National Digital Twin programme of work. The long term goal is to define an ontology which enables different sectors to use a common language which in turn enables effective cross sector data sharing.
In the near term, it is unhelpful to create yet another glossary so we propose a two staged approach.”
Hey Steven, good to hear from you! This is a good point from the EDTF, the section under your quote says:
-
Organisations label data with keywords and the authoritative source of their definition e.g. Term [Glossary Reference]
This is exactly what our Glossary is doing, hence the shared status and the related meta data. This is not about creating a new ‘master’ glossary, our aim is to help the convergence of language in this space. They set out the problem statement well, there are many existing glossaries and there is a need to connect them!
On the DAFNI front, we are working in collaboration with them. Also, there can never be a single initiative. We need that competitive edge to drive innovation! I’ll soon be releasing an article on the hub about the history of the internet. There were a number of competing internet protocols HTML and FTP for example.
My urge is for members to contribute in linking these through the platform.
-
-
2 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:
Hey Steven, good to hear from you! This is a good point from the EDTF, the section under your quote says:
-
Organisations label data with keywords and the authoritative source of their definition e.g. Term [Glossary Reference]
This is exactly what our Glossary is doing, hence the shared status and the related meta data. This is not about creating a new ‘master’ glossary, our aim is to help the convergence of language in this space. They set out the problem statement well, there are many existing glossaries and there is a need to connect them!
On the DAFNI front, we are working in collaboration with them. Also, there can never be a single initiative. We need that competitive edge to drive innovation! I’ll soon be releasing an article on the hub about the history of the internet. There were a number of competing internet protocols HTML and FTP for example.
My urge is for members to contribute in linking these through the platform.
Thanks Neil and Steven. BTW, the video from the DAFNI talk is available here
-
-
5 minutes ago, holgerkessler said:
there is also a Water Data Task Force and an emerging Telco Data Task Force that should be aligned
We are connected to all these groups, this also links to my response to Steve. I’d rather we have many domain specific twins run with it and flesh out the use cases. This would enable the broader usecase of connecting them more stronger and the investment required. We must remember the business case for an intra-twin is different to the inter-twin case.
Log in to reply.