New topics must be sorted with suitable terms. They make communication efficient, because in the best case the sender does not have to explain things from scratch.
The term Product Lifecycle Management was a fairly good way of doing this. You remember: “From the cradle to the grave” and so on. But as the Germans are, they go to the bottom of everything and even deeper. Over the years, there have been plenty of challenging definitions, many of them, which have not helped much.
Here we go again, I thought while reading a recent article The Digital Twin Theory. The authors on the beginnings of their work: “On the other hand, the idea of ‘Digital Twin Theory’ matured during a random contact with quantum physics…: From the point of view of quantum physics, electrons are located in several places simultaneously… It seemed exciting to examine whether these properties could also be assumed for digital twins”.
OK, the freedom of science is a great asset, and original thinkers are in demand. But please don’t be too original. That something is not wrong is not enough, right? It should also be somewhat helpful.
Why the fuss? The Digital Twin is a beautiful, simple picture to understand the potential behind the Internet of Things. It would be a pity if this were lost according to the motto “Why just when you can make it complicated?”
And by the way, the English Wikipedia says: “A digital twin is a digital replica of a … physical entity…”
Interessant!!
Habe den Digital Twin aus dieser Perspektive noch nicht betrachtet;