-
Hi Dan, I would recommend you read the terminology developed by Digital Twin Consortium. It attempts to create robust definitions, but fails on deeper inspection. While it’s true to say DT is widely used terminology it makes no sense to promote something which fails the most basic grammar test. Your post makes my point for me, e.g. “Yes, it is not a twin in the true meaning of the term, but it is a virtual representation of a physical system and is enough of a twin to be useful.” You’re incorrectly conflating virtual representation with the concept of DT which is, at its heart, the synchronization of something actual with something virtual.
Personally I would like to see DT die on the vine, and at some point be replaced by a sound and more meaningful terminology. I dabbled with the idea of referring to ‘Digital Twinning’ while a member of DTC and note Grieves has used that term recently – it’s still not good enough tho.
FYI – I opted to make the original posting after noting now DT had dropped off the ‘radar’ for two of the most influential groups in this arena. I am now increasingly concerned the emperor has no clothes and, worse still, is distracting us and wasting a lot of time and money. E.g. conferences costing millions of dollars that achieve nothing, and government grants that waste taxpayers money. The hard part of twinning is being starved of funding whilst the tens of millions are spent on fluff and eye-candy. Perhaps this is the reason CDBB was closed down?