[Dan Rossiter]

Hi Lauren, I must say my preference also goes to the ISO 23247 definition.  Both ‘fit for purpose’ and ‘with syncronization’ do a lot of (positive) heavy lifting.

 

[Dan Rossiter]

Hi Robert, as someone who does a lot of terminology and vocabulary work at CEN and ISO, I can empathize.  In the early days of the DTHub, I championed the need for a robust definition as well as clarity around what is (and is not) a digital twin.  Unfortunately, words take on a permanence which makes them difficult to shift once they permeate a sector.  This is why homes have radiators which don’t radiate, ‘smart cities’ apply to communities other than cities, and BIM applies outside of building¹ (a structure people occupy) and building² (act of constructing).

However your argument is predicated on ‘twin’ being synonymous with identical.  Twins can be fraternal or identical.  Fraternal twins are siblings but not identical (see the classic 80s film), so the term ‘twin’ can cover this idea of siblings.  In addition, ‘twinned cities’ are not identical either, but merely share a relationship based on cooperation.

I personally think we are stuck with the term ‘digital twin’ but hope, with robust definitions, we can prevent its misuse by those who are taking advantage of market confusion.

[Dan Rossiter]

For Adrian.  What distinguishes a digital twin from a smart city?  Virtual Bradford seems quite citizen-focused, so your thoughts on the relationship between the two would be interesting.

[Dan Rossiter]

Hi @tombartley, thank you for this.  I’m glad you support the general premise, and I agree aspects like Applications (Uses) and Observable elements are important.  The goal of the workshop on the 11th is to test/challenge these headings with the community so Benefits may fall out.  As I mentioned in the previous post, I’ve (shamelessly) taken the clause structure from the manufacturing standard and adapted the headings to suit.

As the scope relates to an overview and principles standard (like ISO 19650-1) it behaves more like a guide to inform further standardization as opposed to a code of practice or a specification; meaning that a clause on benefits *could* work as guidance can include both recommendations as well as statements of fact.  However, just as Jeff Goldblum says in Jurassic Park:

Quote

“Your scientists standards authors were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”.

I think it’ll depend as to whether the benefits we can identify relate specifically to the applications, or are more generic benefits.

Fully agree that the standard needs to formalize terminology.  This has been a strong theme from the CDBB team too.

[Dan Rossiter]

Is what were is the physical asset, or where is the digital representation?

[Dan Rossiter]

Fab, thank you for posting this @Casey. 

Interestingly, I listened to a Digital Twin Consortium webinar last night (sorry for cheating on the DTHub!).  The narrative being used was around how BIM had failed to make real change and this (DTs) was almost the next attempt.  As @HenryFT mentions above, we don’t want digital twins to be mis-sold. 

I think understanding the distinction of what makes a digital twin “different” is an important one to make.

[Dan Rossiter]

Fab, thank you for posting this @Casey. 

Interestingly, I listened to a Digital Twin Consortium webinar last night (sorry for cheating on the DTHub!).  The narrative being used was around how BIM had failed to make real change and this (DTs) was almost the next attempt.  As @HenryFT mentions above, we don’t want digital twins to be mis-sold. 

I think understanding the distinction of what makes a digital twin “different” is an important one to make. 

[Dan Rossiter]

Hi @Tom Henderson, thank you for video.  Can I ask what is the relationship between the TechUK digital twin work group and the DFTG and/or DTHub? 

There sounds like there may be parallels between the taxonomy/architecture work proposed and work being done within the commons or around DT maturity as well as parallels between the case study collection you are doing and the DTHub DT Register.

[Dan Rossiter]

1 minute ago, Neil Brammall said:

 What’s your view on representing wayleaves and easements specifically?

My experience was mainly with DCWW easements when I worked in local authority in South Wales.  These were given to us as 3m from centreline.  I’m not familiar with other easement/wayleave criteria but I would think that a “Easement/Wayleave Offset” length property; attributed to the system (as opposed to each component) would be practical?

[Dan Rossiter]

Hi @Neil, I’m asking while I watch (apologies if it is covered mid-vdieo).  Does NUAR include the capture information related to any associated easements and if so, how is it captured?

[Dan Rossiter]

Hi @Miranda, this might be an unfair question (sorry) but how does the NDT programme plan to quantify what information is needed from stakeholders and support them in maintaining it. 

In your bridge example there is a cost (time/money/effort) to maintain a conforming dataset that may not support asset owner use cases.  In these instances, how does the NDT programme plan to incentivize altruism to enable these greater values.  Will it rely on the ethos of “data for the public good”  and the good will of asset owners or will it need to consider utilizing regulatory milestones such as a requirement to submit information to planning/building control to require these datasets to be made available?

[Dan Rossiter]

Hi @Miranda, thank you for the video.  An idea dawned on me as I was watching.  You mention the London Underground working in isolation successfully as well as the greater benefit that can be realized through their connectivity.  Do you think that we may end up with a twin classification such as:

• Lonely digital twins (those that have a complete dataset and fulfil their purpose entirely);
• Selfless digital twins (those that are built exclusively to export their dataset to third parties);
• Selfish digital twins (those that import third party datasets without exporting datasets themselves); and
• Collaborative twins (those that both export and import datasets).

This may be linked to the maturity work? but I think it would be a useful way to articulate how secure digital twins could take without giving (for example) as well as how isolated digital twins can exist while still conforming to the IMF

[Dan Rossiter]

Thank you for this @Tammy and @RachelJudson.  I’m still currently reading through with the aspiration to submit comments before the August deadline.  Some of my comments are grammar/terminology related but there is one I wanted to put here for others to discuss.

Under 3.5 (Foundation Data Model) there is a section that asks the question:

Quote

What is the relationship between a digital twin, and the kind of things it describes? Is this a twin of the make and model of my car, or of my specific car?

I was under the impression that “twinning” the make and model as opposed to the specific car would not be a digital twin according to the Gemini principles.  Specifically on page 10 it states:

Quote

What distinguishes a digital twin from any other digital model is its connection to the physical twin. Based on data from the physical asset or system, a digital
twin unlocks value principally by supporting improved decision making… (Emphasis mine)

If a manufacturer has a digital representation of a car, a potential twin, then surely it has no connection to the physical twin as there is no physical “thing” to connect to.  This is largely why I refute the idea that digital twins can be applicable to design and construction as during that period the digital representations created within design authoring tools are also potential twins with no connection to a physical asset/system.

I wonder how do we address the digital twins distinguishing feature (connecting to the physical) when there is no physical to connect to?

[Dan Rossiter]

17 hours ago, Ian Gordon said:

It feels like the established use cases for Digital Twins are usually twins for ‘things’ rather than ‘systems’. 

Yes, it does feel like that @Ian Gordon, especially when the messaging is about a digital representation of physical assets.  I don’t know if you’ve seen, but we have been doing a bit of research on use cases via a conversation starter Useful UseCases.  Please feel free to comment on the post or the linked document ☺️

I like that image @Peter, when I talk about digital twins I speak about them in a similar vein expect I use the less eloquent “thin twin” and “fat twin” to explain the same idea.

[Dan Rossiter]

Many thanks to @Neil and everybody on this chat for all of your comments and questions.

We are now coming to the end of our live discussion but we will keep this space open and available until the end of the day in case you have further thoughts or questions. We will continue to monitor the discussion during that time, but on a less frequent basis.

We will also add @Neil’s video, along with the videos from previous talks, to this page: https://digitaltwinhub.co.uk/digital-twin-talks/

We’ve also got some good really interesting threads to follow up on afterwards – we’ll reflect on each of these and work out the best way to take these forward.

Looking ahead, our next Digital Twin Talk, a digital round table which will take place on Tuesday 26th at 10:30 am.

Thank you all very much again.