Towards a Web of Digital Twins discussion

[Nicholas]

 

 

[iain miskimmin]

Network of Twins...

A potential case study is already out there, where the UK's Royal Engineers conduct cross sector analysis of infrastructure primarily to understand criticality and vulnerability for disaster protection and relief, but this also create the basic framework that a network of twins could be hung from. Its been used in real situations in places like Nepal after the Earthquake and The British Virgin Islands after the Hurricane. In my part time role as a reservist i am involved in this and can assist if it is of interest?

[Guest Dr Max Mallia-Parfitt]

Digital Twin standards...

In order for digital twins to reliably work across sectors and be interoperable we need to ensure that communications and data standards are adhered to!

Technologies such as Bluetooth works across all devices and suppliers as there are clearly defined standards that device manufacturers have to demonstrate their technology/solution adheres to.

How will this be managed for Digital Twins? There are already competing protocols/standards being developed by AEC software suppliers.

Surely, we need something like the Bluetooth Alliance; where all AEC software providers come together, to agree on and enforce the standards to ensure compatibility and common purpose moving forwards. Without this we will see Digital Twins becoming the next failed implementation, like IFC, where all software companies can read the data into their platforms but not reliably return the data back out.

Round trip analysis of data must show no degradation or loss when data is exchanged between platforms, otherwise the Digital Twin dream is dead before it even left the drawing board.

Standards, Standards, Standards!!! Please discuss.

[Nicholas]

37 minutes ago, iain miskimmin said:

Network of Twins...

A potential case study is already out there, where the UK's Royal Engineers conduct cross sector analysis of infrastructure primarily to understand criticality and vulnerability for disaster protection and relief, but this also create the basic framework that a network of twins could be hung from. Its been used in real situations in places like Nepal after the Earthquake and The British Virgin Islands after the Hurricane. In my part time role as a reservist i am involved in this and can assist if it is of interest?

Hi Iain - Many thanks for this. It does sound like an interesting example and it would be great to find out more (including any highlights that are directly relevant to today's discussion or we could follow up on it 1-2-1)

[olivierthereaux]

Hello everyone — looking forward to this conversation!

I hope the video is a good intro to the work the team at the ODI has been conducting, and more broadly to the work being done by the National Digital Twins programme and others. 

As a quick introduction: I am the head of R&D at the Open Data Institute, with a professional background in various facets of open tech. I worked for many years in open standards (including several roles at and with the W3C), which is something that may transpire in some of the focus of the video. My team's focus at the ODI is quite broad, but we mainly aim to create a more open and trustworthy data ecosystem, so a lot of our effort is put towards data infrastructure but also trust and ethics.

We've just updated our project page on Digital Twins with a slightly extended deck from the one you see in the video. There is also an annotated version with ample notes and links: https://theodi.org/project/rd-digital-twins/

[olivierthereaux]

26 minutes ago, Guest Dr Max Mallia-Parfitt said:

Digital Twin standards...

In order for digital twins to reliably work across sectors and be interoperable we need to ensure that communications and data standards are adhered to!

[...]

How will this be managed for Digital Twins?

Completely agree - we are going to need standards. The good news is that there are actually a lot of existing standards we can build on and rely on, and some initiatives (like the DFTG) are doing important groundwork for more.

It's important that we resist the urge to see Digital Twins as a single stack that needs to be standardised centrally. The power of digital twins is that it is an approach / methodology, not a single tech stack. That has an impact on how we create standards for it.

My hunch is that at this point, the most useful thing to do would be for practitioners to share which existing standards they are building on to create and connect twins - whether IoT standards for connectivity, W3C standards for discovery, BIM, etc.

[Guest Charles Keen of Baikal AR]

Hello Olivier, can you tell us how we can get [free] access to the data standards and indexes, please? Seems that despite all the talk of an open environment, everyone is playing cards very closely to their chests ... thanks

[Guest Dr Max Mallia-Parfitt]

Where is the live Q&A going to be held?

Have not received an email or link to zoom/goto/temas - please advise

[DRossiter87]

3 minutes ago, Guest Dr Max Mallia-Parfitt said:

Where is the live Q&A going to be held?

Have not received an email or link to zoom/goto/temas - please advise

Hi Max, the live Q&A is happening here, now.  This "Digital Jam" is a discussion thread where you can pose questions and get near-immediate responses from Olivier and the DT Hub facilitation team.  Please feel free to post your questions here as you have already started to do.

[olivierthereaux]

6 minutes ago, Guest Charles Keen of Baikal AR said:

Hello Olivier, can you tell us how we can get [free] access to the data standards and indexes, please? 

There are a number of standards being developed - I don't think there is a single list anywhere yet (that sounds like something useful to develop). As for free access, we all know that it varies from forum to forum and from initiative to initiative: the W3C "web of things" standards are fully open, and the work done in the DFTG commons will be, I presume, publicly accessible.

Generally speaking, it will be quite important that standards for digital twins are developed as openly as possible to create greatest impact. The ODI has been creating a guidebook on that topic, which I encourage all to use: https://standards.theodi.org/

[Guest Dr Max Mallia-Parfitt]

3 minutes ago, Guest Dr Max Mallia-Parfitt said:

Where is the live Q&A going to be held?

Have not received an email or link to zoom/goto/temas - please advise

Whoops just read the top of the page.

It is a shame there is no 'live' component to the Q&A rather post a question and wait for a response.

[Guest Dr Max Mallia-Parfitt]

17 minutes ago, olivierthereaux said:

Completely agree - we are going to need standards. The good news is that there are actually a lot of existing standards we can build on and rely on, and some initiatives (like the DFTG) are doing important groundwork for more.

It's important that we resist the urge to see Digital Twins as a single stack that needs to be standardised centrally. The power of digital twins is that it is an approach / methodology, not a single tech stack. That has an impact on how we create standards for it.

My hunch is that at this point, the most useful thing to do would be for practitioners to share which existing standards they are building on to create and connect twins - whether IoT standards for connectivity, W3C standards for discovery, BIM, etc.

Hi Oliver,
I agree in part, but when it comes to data excahnge there has to be a confirmed standard that is extensible, otherwise the benifit of the data exchange will be minimal and people will continue to use 'Air Gapped' systems due to their concirn over what data is being shared.

[Andrew Myers]

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

[iain miskimmin]

43 minutes ago, Nicholas said:

Hi Iain - Many thanks for this. It does sound like an interesting example and it would be great to find out more (including any highlights that are directly relevant to today's discussion or we could follow up on it 1-2-1)

Hello Nicholas,

be great to follow this up. drop me a message and we'll share some of the details and work done so far.

[olivierthereaux]

2 minutes ago, Guest Dr Max Mallia-Parfitt said:

I agree in part, but when it comes to data excahnge there has to be a confirmed standard that is extensible, otherwise the benifit of the data exchange will be minimal and people will continue to use 'Air Gapped' systems due to their concirn over what data is being shared.

One of the things which our research hints at, is that we may not be seeing (only) direct data connectivity between twins, but in many cases there will be pooling/aggregation of higher level data by intermediaries. 

[Chris Jones (NWG)]

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.

[Guest Dr Max Mallia-Parfitt]

5 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

Seconded - Would love a conversation with you Andrew, it seems like we are on the same page.

[Chris Jones (NWG)]

2 minutes ago, olivierthereaux said:

One of the things which our research hints at, is that we may not be seeing (only) direct data connectivity between twins, but in many cases there will be pooling/aggregation of higher level data by intermediaries. 

The need for standards and protocols starts is driven initially by a need to connect sub-systems, rather than to enable an extensive web of systems. If we think about VCRs (apparently the go to case study for standards), it was important from an ecosystem point of view to develop and adopt standards, not from a wider connectivity point of view. So, if I buy a digital twin of a pump (ideally provided alongside the physical asset), I need to know it will plug into my exiting digital twin of my pumping station, and to my network digital twin. We can then in time scale from there to an infrastructure level.

[Nicholas]

3 minutes ago, Chris Jones (NWG) said:

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.

Thanks Chris and Andrew. I think that you have been doing some interesting work to look at connections between twins in different sectors/areas (or twins that connect across these sectors). Are there any specific thoughts on what might help networks of cross-sector twins?

[Guest Yu(Steven) ZHANG]

2 minutes ago, olivierthereaux said:

One of the things which our research hints at, is that we may not be seeing (only) direct data connectivity between twins, but in many cases there will be pooling/aggregation of higher level data by intermediaries. 

The intermediaries reminds me of Data Trust. "A data trust is an intermediary between data providers, data users and other stakeholders in the sharing and use of data. "  ref: https://theodi.org/article/data-trusts-decision-making-report/ 

I also recorded it in my twitter.

 

[olivierthereaux]

4 minutes ago, Chris Jones (NWG) said:

The need for standards and protocols starts is driven initially by a need to connect sub-systems, rather than to enable an extensive web of systems. 

This is incredibly important, and I agree that the first connections will need to be between similar twins and relevant sub-systems. The whole approach (and I hope what the talk conveys) is that over time, these connections will grow and scale up to be a whole web.

[Chris Jones (NWG)]

2 minutes ago, Nicholas said:

Thanks Chris and Andrew. I think that you have been doing some interesting work to look at connections between twins in different sectors/areas (or twins that connect across these sectors). Are there any specific thoughts on what might help networks of cross-sector twins?

Hello Nicholas. As I mentioned - finding that common purpose. As Olivier mentioned in his excellent presentation, the greatest value is likely to be from cross sector connections but these will be the most difficult to engineer and will require some imagination as to how the costs and benefits are shared. I can see that in time new business models will emerge to enable this, and digital twins will themselves be an useful tool in designing, testing and operating those new business models.

[DRossiter87]

2 minutes ago, olivierthereaux said:

This is incredibly important, and I agree that the first connections will need to be between similar twins and relevant sub-systems. The whole approach (and I hope what the talk conveys) is that over time, these connections will grow and scale up to be a whole web.

Yes, fully agree!  To develop these standards and protocols we need to first understand the use cases that these interconnected twins need to facilitate.  There may be a need, for example, for protocols to support different levels of aggregation to suit these different use cases.

[Andrew Myers]

3 minutes ago, Nicholas said:

Thanks Chris and Andrew. I think that you have been doing some interesting work to look at connections between twins in different sectors/areas (or twins that connect across these sectors). Are there any specific thoughts on what might help networks of cross-sector twins?

I think the main limiting factor on this has been how few projects we've seen that involve more than one twin (either cross sector or within a sector). I think we have lots of ideas on how twins could be connected, and some ideas where connected twins could add more value, but most of the investment is still focused on individual twins and how we get data into and out of them. However, some of the protocols for ingesting data into Twins could be directly applicable to sharing data between twins in future (e.g. web service protocols).

[Richard Stirland]

17 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 with this also. One of the things we've been doing within BIM4Water is using Uniclass as a common classification for data items at an equipment level (pump, valve) - but one of our groups run by a colleague David Bell, has started to look at how we can apply this common classification at higher levels of our Water Industry data hierarches, so facilitate potential standardisation at higher levels. It would be interesting to look at how this approach could be applied at a cross-sector leve.