Homepage › Forums › General Discussion › Towards a Web of Digital Twins discussion › Reply To: Towards a Web of Digital Twins discussion
-
2 minutes ago, Andrew Myers said:
That was a really interesting talk.
Northumbrian Water explored some similar themes at our Innovate East event last year.
Some of the outcomes/discussions points are below:
Standards need to be simple and broadly applicable. We don’t want a high barrier for adoption
- Core mandatory data items (as few and simple as possible)
- Optional but standardised data items (e.g. BIM/Uniclass)
- Any other data items (flexible and extendable standards)
Aim to keep the data sharing as simple as possible – how many types of data do we need? What level needs to be shared?
- Time Series Data – e.g. temperature sensor readings
- Event Data – e.g. an engineer visit, a status change
- Configuration or Meta Data – e.g. date of manufacture
Agree.
I noted the emphasis on ‘purpose’ in the GE definition – we also explored this with partners at Innovate East. It is clear that the need for common understanding (if not actually a standard) starts with defining the purpose and value.