Twinfrastructure discussion

[Nicholas]

 

[DRossiter87]

Welcome to the start of today’s Digital Twin Talk on #Twinfrastructure and a big thank you to @Neil Thomspon from SNC-Lavalin's Atkins and CDBB for joining us. We’re looking forward to your thoughts and questions related to Neil’s video – and maybe posing one or two of our own.

Please do start adding your thoughts by replying to the conversation thread.

[Neil Thompson]

2 minutes ago, DRossiter87 said:

Welcome to the start of today’s Digital Twin Talk on #Twinfrastructure and a big thank you to @Neil Thomspon from SNC-Lavalin's Atkins and CDBB for joining us. We’re looking forward to your thoughts and questions related to Neil’s video – and maybe posing one or two of our own.

Please do start adding your thoughts by replying to the conversation thread.

Thank you @DRossiter87 Looking forward to the debate! 

[Guest Miranda Sharp]

Thank you Neil, Do we have examples from other fields where a glossary approach like this has worked?

[Neil Thompson]

1 minute ago, Guest Miranda Sharp said:

Thank you Neil, Do we have examples from other fields where a glossary approach like this has worked?

Hey @Miranda Sharp, good question! Yes, if we look at things like Github and Stackoverflow in the software world we can see how effective it is to connect technical people in this way. interestingly it creates a vital learning environment!

[DRossiter87]

Hi @Neil Thomspon, are there particular areas/domains/topics where you would like members to add to the Glossary (areas where you and the Commons team are specifically looking for input)?

[Nicholas]

3 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:

Hey @Miranda Sharp, good question! Yes, if we look at things like Github and Stackoverflow in the software world we can see how effective it is to connect technical people in this way. interestingly it creates a vital learning environment!

We're also seeing demand for this kind of flexible approach to terminology related to standards in fast changing areas...for example working on an iterative vocabulary for Connected and Automated Vehicles

[holgerkessler]

Hi how do you propose to link with the many existing catalogues/vocabularies/dictionaries that already exist?

 

[Neil Thompson]

1 minute ago, DRossiter87 said:

Hi @Neil Thomspon, are there particular areas/domains/topics where you would like members to add to the Glossary (areas where you and the Commons team are specifically looking for input)?

@DRossiter87 We would like to see how BIM and DTs interface, we would also like contribution on roles.... also even something as simple as the view of what a Digital Twin is will be interested to see evolve.

[Neil Thompson]

5 minutes ago, holgerkessler said:

Hi how do you propose to link with the many existing catalogues/vocabularies/dictionaries that already exist?

 

@holgerkessler - this is a great question! We will use the meta data of the shared status of a term to learn the connectivity to existing standards. We will aslo learn if there are any overlaps too!

Edited May 19, 2020 by Neil Thomspon

[Michael Mulquin]

9 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:

Hey @Miranda Sharp, good question! Yes, if we look at things like Github and Stackoverflow in the software world we can see how effective it is to connect technical people in this way. interestingly it creates a vital learning environment!

We had a similar approach, though much more clunky, in our IEC Smart Cities Systems Committee Terminology Working Group. We wanted to ensure that the members of the other working groups could suggest terms that needed definitions, could suggest definitions for those terms and could comment on the suggested definitions from others. It provided a great foundation for the Working Group to get going as we had a clear indication of the terms that were most important for our members and were able to begin from a position which made it much easier to build consensus on what the terms should be.

[Nicholas]

2 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:

@holgerkessler - this is a great question! We will use the meta data of the shared satus of a term to learn the connectivity to existing standards. 

Hi @holgerkessler and @Neil Thomspon

A further thought is that this is a benefit of making this Glossary online/dynamic - it is easier to update as more thinking emerges including from other areas and industries

[Koye]

Hi Neil, thank you for your talk . Is the long term view to create a common data dictionary for digital twin infrastructure/assets?

[holgerkessler]

Just now, Neil Thomspon said:

1 minute ago, Neil Thomspon said:

Some of the Geospatial Commission's partner bodies (eg the BGS) have large controlled vocabularies - not all relevant of course - i feel the DTHub need to work really hard to break out of the civil engineering silos and bring in others - who at the moment struggle to see their role in here or don't even know CDBB exists....

the name "Built Britain" doesn't help....

 

 

[Neil Thompson]

2 minutes ago, Koye said:

Hi Neil, thank you for your talk . Is the long term view to create a common data dictionary for digital twin infrastructure/assets?

Absolutley! This is the start of that, as I said this this the human side. There will also be a technology aspect of the data structure aspect. It is on our roadmap.  

Edited May 19, 2020 by Neil Thomspon

[holgerkessler]

3 minutes ago, Nicholas said:

Hi @holgerkessler and @Neil Thomspon

A further thought is that this is a benefit of making this Glossary online/dynamic - it is easier to update as more thinking emerges including from other areas and industries

I totally agree that a dynamic online approach is right!

[Michael Mulquin]

3 minutes ago, Neil Thomspon said:

@holgerkessler - this is a great question! We will use the meta data of the shared status of a term to learn the connectivity to existing standards. We will aslo learn if there are any overlaps too!

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.

[Neil Thompson]

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? 

[DRossiter87]

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.

[Guest Charles Keen]

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?

[Michael Mulquin]

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. 

[Nicholas]

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.  

[Michael Mulquin]

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.  

[Neil Thompson]

Just now, Michael Mulquin said:

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. 

That is one of my favourite illustrations of our systems of systems. This links nicley with https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/news/flourishing-systems the flourishing systems paper, also links to @holgerkessler question about the built aspect of the B in CDBB. Something you can maybe contribute to the Glossary? 

[Michael Mulquin]

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.