Main Subcommittee Category
Policy, Standards, Management, and AcquisitionHow would you label your submission?
GovernmentAbstract
The term “digital twin” (DT) has become ubiquitous across various industries, including defense. So much so that DoDI 5000.97 prescribes a digital engineering framework to include the creation of a “computerized representation… that serves as the real-time digital counterpart of a physical object or process.” The Instruction states there can be multiple twins of a physical system, but each should be “based on authoritative sources of information and have clearly defined uses and scopes.” While these definitions are helpful to understand the potential context of and usages for a DT, it falls short of prescribing a common data architecture to ensure consistency and utility of the data generated or consumed by the twin itself.
Much of the discussion around DTs within the defense community have stopped short of defining an open standard to enable a common data storage construct wherein all data produced or consumed by a DT must conform to a specific standard. Instead, discussions have favored allowing original equipment manufacturers to define how data is transferred, stored, or processed. Choosing between a closed vs. open standard approach is currently the focal point of the DT discussion in the defense industry.
This paper proposes a common taxonomy to define the terms, roles, and responsibilities for an open standard based approach to data production, management, consumption, and analysis. Additionally, this paper proposes a connectivity framework based on the Object Management Group Data Distribution Service (DDS) standard. The Unified Data Reference Architecture currently in draft is used to define an open standard for DTs to enable a convergence between modeling and simulation, test, and engineering. By leveraging DDS, the proposed open standard for DTs can ensure interoperability, scalability, and security across defense applications.