[Andrew Myers]

Really interesting talk. It’ll be good to keep an eye on how this project progresses as there are lots of areas where this could be a world leading project and highlight the benefits and approaches that could accelerate other similar projects (as well as provide a great use case to demonstrate value).

The key points that I’ll take from this as we work on our Twin Strategy at Northumbrian Water are the importance of governance, not just in getting the twin set up, but also in the ongoing use of it. Also the importance on the inter-operability and data standards.

It would be good to know if any of these standards can be shared, along with lessons learned. It’s always a challenge between having high standards that enable high quality models, vs. lower standards that can enable greater number of data sources and participants to contribute to the model (especially when data from legacy systems and existing sensors is difficult to enhance).

Thanks

[Andrew Myers]

Thanks for sharing – this was a really interesting video. It was good to see the importance of open standards and interoperability being stressed, this is going to be key to ensuring that investment in twins today doesn’t become obsolete as technology moves on.

I’m keen to know what stage you are at with these projects – do you have any larger multi-domain twins in use today, or are most still in the proof of concept stage?

[Andrew Myers]

I’d be keen to get the thoughts from @Brian and other group members on the pros/cons of DAFNI vs. public cloud providers (such as Azure/Amazon). Also the potential for linking twins hosted the two environments (which links in well with the discussion from the ODI talk last week).

[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).

[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

[Andrew Myers]

Ian, Thanks for the reply. Your approach makes a lot of sense given the context within your organisation. I think I’ve been lucky to be appointed Data Architect just as we’ve been starting a huge overhaul of our core systems, hence have been able to have clear definitions and clear mastering built into these new applications. It hasn’t been easy,  but I think it puts us in a great place to better exploit our data for new emerging opportunities such as Digital Twins.

I think documenting our ontology more formally could well be a useful task for me to undertake once we complete our transformation (or when my involvement reduces to free up some time). I expect I’ll have similar issues with deciding the appropriate level of detail, so it’s great to see your example.

[Andrew Myers]

Hi Ian, 

There is certainly a lot to think about here. Thanks for sharing your ontology, it’s great to see how much thought you’ve put into it.

At Northumbrian Water we’re not quite as advanced in our thinking in this area. We’ve focused on ensuring that we have clear mastering of key data items in our corporate systems and have clear classification and relationships within and betweeen these systems (typically oracle relational databases).  For semi-structured data we’ve typically used XML or JSON filed in our Data Lake which have a pretty simple ontology and a limited number of links with our more structured databases.

Tools such as the examples above may well have assisted me in my role as Data & Information Architect, but I  doubt many of our end users or other IT teams would be as interested (they just want it to work).

I’d be keen to know who you would expect to use an ontology system, and how you’d be able to keep it in sync with any changes to the data models/classifications of the corporate systems where the data is mastered.

Thanks

Andrew

[Andrew Myers]

Really interesting post. Good to see the consideration of the information architecture as a key enabler. If we want to get twins talking to twins then this will be essential, and it’s so much easier if it’s designed in from the start.

[Andrew Myers]

This is an interesting topic. The reason that I’d be unclear on the classification of Air Traffic control is not about the realistic representation, but more about the added value of having an element of intelligence or modelling, rather than just a display of the current data. If it’s just displaying the data from the sensors for a human to view then I don’t think I’d class it as a twin, however if it’s got some type of model or intelligence inbuilt that understands the relationships between the data sets then I think it would qualify. If pressed, I’d probably assume that modern air traffic control systems would have some intelligence so would qualify as a twin.

For a simpler example, I would not class a dashboard that just showed the current status of a lightbulb as a twin, even if it had amazing 3D visuals of the room. If we then added a light sensor to the room and a basic model that alerted when the ambient light from the window was high enough that the lightbulb could be turned off, then I think we’d have a useful twin (even if we had no graphical representation).

I’m keen to hear other opinions on this though.

[Andrew Myers]

Ian – interesting topic. I’m keen to take a look and let you know my thoughts.

Within NWG we’re not quite as advanced in our thinking around Ontologies, but we’ve done a lot of work on Classification and Taxonomies of our assets as part of our Digital Transformation programme (utilising Uniclass where possible).

I’ve signed up now – andrew.myers@nwl.co.uk Andrew Myers