Hi all I have just posted about the launch of the Gemini Papers in DT Hub discussions. Here is the link, if you would like to comment in the run-up, or on the day of the launch. Many thanks and best wishes Catherine

Very interesting topics, but perhaps may be enhanced with some appendices of Digital Twins that are built to this standard. For the IMF was any "standard" such as http://www.openoandm.org/isbm/ reviewed ? If I came to this paper to consider "how" to implement a Digital Twin, I would leave disappointed (and perhaps frustrated)

Interesting document. I think that is is more a manifesto than an exposition and so would be improved by changing statements of "proof" to belief or vision.

Wow, there is a lot of material here in around 30 pages of text. I suspect that there will be a range of potential readers, with a spread of prior knowledge and understanding, attracted to the material. Some wishing to gain a foothold into the topic, knowing very little. Potentially, some readers will be experienced practioners looking to ensure that the correct and appropriate messages are being propagated. However, I suspect that most potential readers will be people looking to expand their knowledge in specific areas – or to challenge aspects based upon their own experiences. It is impossible to meet all these needs in one document. So, I suggest that the target audience for this set needs to be identified and the needs of others met by pointers to other sources. At this stage of DT engagement there will be many looking to take their first steps. This is not the ideal source for them because there are too many branches to the main thread. It would be most appropriate for the mid-range of potential readership wishing to expand their knowledge in specific areas. However, as others have said, pointers to the sub-topics need to be included in the to-be-added sections and cross-referenced in the body. I think it would be easier for reviewers if the comments of others were not included in the main text. It is distracting to meet additions and crossed-out material when trying to get an overview. The approach will be fine when it comes to final draft and clarifications of details are being addressed. I am sure that other documents will be added to the library. It is a great idea to poll for opinions as the documents are created. I would like to suggest that it starts with bullet-points of topics to include (or not) as the first-step, rather than as a pseudo-document. In that way, the requirements/ needs can be established before solutions are presented and the two can be more easily identified. I hope this helps and is seen as a positive contribution to a lot of good work that has been put into meeting a genuine need of the community. Dave

Hi Tammy, Commented directly. Like Lee, I read in the order received but agree in his comment that this sets up and answers fundamental questions in the first two papers. A couple of comments relating to Society 5.0 and Open Source formats as well as a City Digital Twin example. Kind regards, Khezar

Hi Tammy, Commented again directly on the document. There are elements which I believe could help if included. Such as the exploration of productization of the built environment, cumulative value benefits post-occupancy, risk management and access authority levels. Not sure if this has already been discussed (pardon me if it has) but has the 'Virtual Bradford' case study been explored? It would be a good example. Some elements have been lifted to demonstrate and added to the Google document. Kind regards, Khezar

Hi Tammy, I commented directly into the Google document. On the whole I found the paper to be a good definition but lacked the links with the other papers produced. Examples of these and some points suggested for inclusion (even following a reword) are saved in the file. There is an element about the 'goal' of a digital twin which is missing but I have captured this amongst other things in my comments. Kind regards, Khezar

Would be interesting to see inclusion on the cost of the data silos and duplication of data (digital waste) Do we know how much digital waste we create in the UK and how this can be prevented with open data sources. indicates this for the US, but most infrastructure projects start with "their" copy of the asset.

I observed some small changes and perhaps some reworking of a single section as well as perhaps an omission What By increasing the openness and availability of shared data between … could this be clarified to "By enabling an openness as defined in the Gemini principles for sharing data between … Is the question on climate change the purpose of the connected digital twin, or is that referring to an holistic view ? Are we saying that national digital twins are critical to alter the course of climate change ? Suggest stopping after holistic view. What do we mean by a digital twin ? Would we really have a digital twin of a "person" This results in faster, better and often more cost-effective decisions. Better is a "subjective word" This results in more informed decisions, which can result in faster decision maker and often enabling cost effective actions. fundamental principal … If principal is the noun here then it perhaps should be fundamental principle. Ie it would read correct as fundamental proposition, but not fundamental first Interventions The intervention can be a preventative measure to avoid an issue highlighted by the twin, rectifying an issue or a reaction to an external action on the physical twin. Which twin highlights the issue, is this the digital twin. Perhaps it should be clearer, ie we mention physical twin, but then just use twin. Build Environment Systems The built environment is made up of economic and social infrastructure. However, built environment systems will never be complete. Buildings and infrastructure are constantly being adapted to cope with changing demographics, demands and a growing population. Two main areas, economic and social infrastructure, involve political, institutional and commercial structures where ideas and information can often be siloed, preventing collaboration and cooperation. Reducing barriers, especially cost and time, or sharing information within the built environment presents opportunities to drive innovation, optimise services, tackle climate change and enable sustainable growth.iv I am not sure what this paragraph is trying to say. Paragraph 1 is OK, but then we try and make what statement are you trying to make. Sharing information include cost and time within the built environment represents opportunities to drive innovation, optimise services, tackle climate change and enable sustainable growth. Was the statement lifted from the Arup paper ? The second paragraph I think is trying to say that the various owners of infrastructure have different drivers, such as economic or social impact, enabling a common platform to drive innovation, optimise services etc requires a change in the collaboration and cooperation … Overall There is no discussion on the commercial barrier or stake holders are. Ie if we want a digital twin of a town, who is responsible for that digital twin, the local council, the builders, the homeowners etc. There should be a discussion around stakeholders, there is some start of the discussion in economic and social infrastructure, but the complexity should be stated as problematic so it can be addressed in the how, or listed as still a problem if it is.

I really enjoyed this one. It has a slightly different style asking questions at the beginning. In fact, if you read this one first (I read it last) then it sets everything up nicely. Do you plan to add any links across the Gemini papers so that relevant sections / words can be accessed by the reader. There are lots of words and phrases here that could hyperlink across the the what paper. Linked to the above, it is a bit of an isolated comment about CReDo on page 4. Needs more detail (although probably not the best place to do so) or a link. P5: The sub-headings don't all work. For example: Q: How do you encourage a new market in DTs? A: Legal barriers! Ending still looks like it is work in progress? As the final paper do you want a summary figure for all the Gemini papers - is it even worth including the same thing in all the papers to create more 'glue' and show where the principles introduced fit in the wider scheme of things?

I like the structure of this and especially the link to the SDG's. I also like 'purpose-led technology' - spot on! My only comment would be that it refers a few times to a paradigm shift - a term which is frequently overused but I do think applies here, however does it explain in sufficient detail early in the document why it is such a shift? For example, I am thinking of the modeller who has used observations for many years for asset management - will they get the full transformative potential of what is proposed compared to current state-of-the-art? It is clear as you read through it, but I do think you need to be careful when using the paradigm word (and phrases like game-changing) to to keep the reader on side early doors.

Hi, read this one first and I think it does what it sets out to do. Comments are really just about moving things around for maximum clarity: P2: Combine the 1st and 2nd paragraphs and actually start with the 2nd to get the WHAT clearer. Dropping the connected part is fine here as you do come to that later. P2: The example of climate change feels a bit isolated (1st para) - maybe add a couple more P3> It could be clearer if you stick to the headings in the preceding figure when introducing physical and digital twins. The data section for the physical twin may not seem logical to some with the data being discussed in more detail in the digital bit. You could also mention AI in the modelling section of the digital twin. Finally, would interventions be more logical to be discussed in the connected section that follows? P7> Systems of systems - too many headings! I think you need different different levels of headings to make it easier to follow.

What did you think?

What did you think?

What did you think?