-
I think I would also agree, trying of be overly prescriptive in a tight definition of a Digital Twin could be counterproductive.
Digital Twins suffer from the same problem as Artificial Intelligence, as the English grammar goes the term is very simple and self-descriptive, but what it is trying to describe is very broad and complicated and so it just leads to an easy misuse of the term as it just “sounds” so simple.
Trying to tightly bind a detailed technical definition to a simple term will never remove the misuse and repeated misunderstanding.
I think I would be more interested in trying to define a spectrum of digital twin capabilities. Again, like AI, where we have Local, Broad and Extreme generalisation ability, perhaps in digital twins we could have tightly coupled and loosely coupled and then perhaps synthetic copies?
If we are striving for complex interconnectivity of digital twins from different sectors and representing different technologies and objects surely, we would be wanting to cast our net as wide as possible?