Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network

[Cheng Zhou <[e-mail]>]

No intention to bring more confusions here. 
- Digital twin network (DTN) in the draft means 'digital twin for network', which can mean more than just building a twinning entity of network. And from perspective of introducing Digital Twin in the network field, DTN can be the whole interactive virtual-real mapping system, building with the DT concept or techniques. 
- Network digital twin (NDT) means ' network's digital twin', the twinning entity of the physical entity, focusing on all functionalities in twin layer, including data, models, emulation, etc.
This way, DTN and NDT is possible to co-exist in the draft with few confusion. 

Surely, if this is acceptable, current draft needs update via clarifying both terms. 


Thanks and Regards,
Cheng 

-----Original Message-----
From: nmrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:40 AM
To: Alexander Clemm; Christopher Janz; Christopher Janz; Jürgen Schönwälder
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network

Sorry for jumping in, Following this thread discussion, I begin to understand why NDT and DTN is interchangeable, since both terms want to emphasize digital twin, in DTN, the network is not physical network but digital representation of the physical network, or abstract representation of the network, therefore this network is built on top of the physical network, can be virtual network, twin network. In NDT, the network is a special case of digital twin, besides the network, other real world component,
Can be a car component or motor component in the manufacture which can be modelled using CAD tool or 3D modelling tool, but modeling tool can be completely different for network field.

But I keep on hearing the discussion, I begin to confuse again, we use A of B construction, but for this construction, sometime it will emphasize A in the construction, e.g., the cost of roof, the core part of this construction is the cost,
But in other cases, it will emphasize B in 'A of B' construction, e.g., a cup of tea, in this case, the core part is team.
I hope we can avoid using "A of B" construction, to further explain DTN or NDT.

BTW:
I think digital twin network is built on top of SDN Network or Intent Based Network, the essence of DTN is Data driven network, the Data-Information-Knowledge Cycle, verification tool should be investigated under the umbrella of DTN or NDT.
-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: nmrg [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Alexander Clemm
发送时间: 2023年3月9日 7:36
收件人: Christopher Janz <[e-mail]>; Christopher Janz <christopher.janz=[e-mail]>; Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>
抄送: [e-mail]
主题: Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network

If this is the definition, then that's fine with me.  It is the "interchangeability" remark that threw me off here. ( I can think of scenarios in which you might have digital twins which are viable on their own, but then decide to model their interactions in which case you would effectively network them.  I do agree that this is not the focus here, but instead on a digital twin of the network, but still think to avoid confusion the distinction needs to be clear.) Cheers
--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Janz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:23 PM
To: Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>; Christopher Janz <christopher.janz=[e-mail]>; Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network

I know what a 'digital twin of a network' is. It is what the term Network('s) Digital Twin suggests to me - and what the term Digital Twin (of a) Network seems to suggest to others.

But I don't know what a 'network of digital twins' is. In what sense or to what purpose are a group of digital twins "networked" - other than, potentially, in the creation of a digital twin of a network, as you describe?

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: nmrg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Alexander Clemm
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Christopher Janz <christopher.janz=[e-mail]>; Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network

Sorry, now I am getting confused.  

I think there are two concepts:  One, a network of digital twins.  Second, a digital twin of a network.  Clearly, those two are _not_ the same and I don't think they are interchangeable.  Can someone please clarify which term is which?  (Of course, one could argue that a realization of a digital twin of a network would be to have a digital twin of each of the "pieces of equipment" and "entities" that the network is comprised of, then to have a software framework in which these digital twins are "interconnected" or communication between them simulated - but that does not make them the same.)  

--- Alex


-----Original Message-----
From: nmrg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Christopher Janz
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:23 AM
To: Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network

Especially since - flogging the expired horse further (apologies) - a couple of other native English speakers just convinced me that DTN "works" if you are reading it as digital twin-network ... an adjective before a compound noun, if you see what I mean. A little like one of those trick pictures where some people see an old lady and others see a water jug: you'll "see" the phrase one way or the other.

Amazing what we can spend time on in standards 😊

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Janz
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:32 AM
To: 'Jürgen Schönwälder' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cheng Zhou <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'Diego R. Lopez' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network

Your suggestion (second para) seems a good idea.

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:06 AM
To: Christopher Janz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cheng Zhou <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'Diego R. Lopez' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network

Thanks for the explanation. I started this thread because I saw students investing time trying to understand the difference between the terms DTN and NDT. I then checked the NMRG document and it defines one term but then occasionally uses both. I am happy with whatever term native English speakers consider the right term.

And even better would likely be explicit text saying that both terms exist and that they effectively mean the same and thqt both terms are used (or can be used) interchangeably. Then readers simply know.

/js

On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:50:17PM +0000, Christopher Janz wrote:
> Juergen, in your examples, "electric" is an adjective, as is the compound "software-defined" (properly takes a hyphen when used as an adjective). Adjectives precede the nouns they qualify in English. That is invariable: it is precisely the order which indicates what is the noun and what is the qualifier. It's a little awkward if common to use nouns where adjectives belong, but what is certain is that what precedes is the qualifier and what follows is the noun qualified. A "network digital twin" is a digital twin (noun) for or of a network (qualifier). A "digital twin network" is a network ... but the meaning of the qualification "digital twin" is unclear intrinsically. I don't think any English speaker would instinctively interpret DTN as meaning a digital twin of a network. 
> 
> Perhaps the construction "DTx" has been used, but if so, my guess is it has been used by non-native English speakers.
> 
> Not a hill to die on, but since the matter has been raised.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:15 AM
> To: Cheng Zhou <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; 'Diego R. Lopez' <[e-mail]>; 
> Christopher Janz <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network
> 
> My naive understanding of the English language is that an "electric car" is a special kind of car and a "software defined network" is a special kind of a network, Hence, a special kind of a digital twin would be ...
> 
> /js
> 
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 09:04:12PM +0800, Cheng Zhou wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > As Diego mentioned, we have discussed this topic some time ago. I 
> > remembered that the conclusion was to remove acronym ‘DTN’ to avoid 
> > conflict with ‘Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking’ (a working 
> > group of IETF).  However, we didn’t decide to change the term of ‘digital twin network’.
> > 
> > As one of the coauthors, I am open on both names. However, I still 
> > prefer to use ‘digital twin network’ with below concerns.
> > 
> > 1)      Network is the target filed to implement Digital Twin technology.
> > As DT used in other industrial fields, similar terms  ‘DTxx ‘ are 
> > being used, such as ‘digital twin city’, ‘digital twin 
> > manufacturing’, ‘digital twin factory’, ‘digital twin energy’, etc.
> > The terms are with same meaning as ‘DT for xxx’. And in definition 
> > of current draft, we also pointed that ‘digital twin network’ is 
> > also called digital twin for networks.’
> > 
> > Digital twin network: a digital twin that is used in the context of 
> > networking. This is also called, digital twin for networks.
> > 
> > 2)      If not considering the acronym confliction, DTN can be a better
> > acronym for a relatively systematic networking technology, such as SDN, CDN,
> > IBN, TSN, etc.   
> > 
> > 3)      In academy, both NDT and DTN can be seen. And, the there seems a bit
> > more papers using of ‘DTN/digital twin network’ or the extensions, 
> > such as ‘digital twin edge network’, ‘digital twin optical network’, 
> > ‘digital twin 5G network’, etc. And from extension perspective, DTN 
> > seems more easily to be extended to specific network domains, with terms of DTxN.
> > 
> > 4)      In some other SDOs such as ITU-T, 3GPP, the term of ‘Digital twin
> > network’ is being used. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Regarding the difference between ‘digital twin network’ and ‘network 
> > digital twin’ in this draft,  DTN can be the whole interactive 
> > virtual-real mapping system, building with the DT concept or 
> > techniques; and NDT can be the twinning entity of the physical 
> > network, focusing on data and models in digital twin layer. Hope this can help remove the confusion.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > More comments are welcome. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thank and Best Regards,
> > 
> > Cheng Zhou
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: nmrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Diego R. 
> > Lopez
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:01 PM
> > To: Christopher Janz; Jürgen Schönwälder; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thanks for the observation and the recommendations.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > As one of the coauthors, let me say we already went through this 
> > discussion some time ago, and my reckoning is that the use of the 
> > term DTN, initially employed, was caused by some language 
> > misunderstanding, and that we all agreed on moving towards the more 
> > adequate NDT. If there are still remnants of the old naming in the 
> > document, this is something that obviously needs to be solved.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Be goode,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > “Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno”
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Dr Diego R. Lopez
> > 
> > Telefonica I+D
> > 
> >  
> > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw
> > %2F&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce5efc29cc630417963fd08db20
> > 2c1930%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6381391459999392
> > 82%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT
> > iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aHuTRoaeH0DUAVaLPSrS
> > Ql6DCKwJhniGMA5yb56FWy4%3D&reserved=0
> > ww.linkedin.com%2Fdr2lopez%2F&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7C
> > edd03176369d4146949008db1ff9cb9c%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%
> > 7C1%7C0%7C638138929995672680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA
> > wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&
> > sdata=4k6%2BElK8fouyAZJYlIL04Qn9h0Zihj1yHx0oSvJW4c4%3D&reserved=0>
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > %2F&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce5efc29cc630417963fd08db20
> > 2c1930%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6381391459999392
> > 82%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT
> > iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wOAm5lRpGzQEF8%2B032
> > wrUI0YyMI06vKIx2S656fq7GE%3D&reserved=0
> > w.linkedin.com%2Fdr2lopez%2F&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce
> > dd03176369d4146949008db1ff9cb9c%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7
> > C1%7C0%7C638138929995672680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
> > MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&s
> > data=4k6%2BElK8fouyAZJYlIL04Qn9h0Zihj1yHx0oSvJW4c4%3D&reserved=0
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > e-mail:  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > [e-mail]
> > 
> > Mobile: [phone]
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > On 7/3/23, 15:38, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Good observation Juergen. I'll let the authors of [1] speak with 
> > respect to their document, but looking elsewhere (e.g., ETSI ZSM, 
> > papers, etc.) as well as at normal English language usage:
> > 
> > - the digital twin of a network is properly a 'network digital twin' 
> > - this is the clear native interpretation of the term as well as the 
> > broadly used sense.
> > - 'digital twin network' does not broadly have the connotation you 
> > suggest (a network operated by a digital twin), nor does the term 
> > intrinsically suggest such a meaning. If anything, the term suggests 
> > a network used in the implementation of a digital twin. I'd thus 
> > suggest the term is not a very useful one.
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Chris
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nmrg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jürgen Schönwälder
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:28 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I see both terms being used in [1] but only one of them is defined 
> > and I am a bit confused about what the exect difference is between these two terms.
> > Perhaps both should have a clear and explicit definition?
> > 
> > Naively, I assumed that the digitial twin of a network would be 
> > called a 'network digital twin' and that a network that is operated 
> > by using digital twins as a 'digital twin network' but that does not 
> > seem to align with what [1] says.
> > 
> > /js
> > 
> > [1] <draft-irtf-nmrg-network-digital-twin-arch-02>
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jürgen Schönwälder              Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fconstructor.university%2F&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce5efc29cc630417963fd08db202c1930%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638139145999939282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VLFPZDPuHL0duQpCTTrfs2f2kuTMvtozi4rLfZLbfgU%3D&reserved=0>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > nmrg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > %2F&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce5efc29cc630417963fd08db20
> > 2c1930%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6381391459999392
> > 82%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT
> > iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wOAm5lRpGzQEF8%2B032
> > wrUI0YyMI06vKIx2S656fq7GE%3D&reserved=0
> > w.irtf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnmrg&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurew
> > ei.com%7Cedd03176369d4146949008db1ff9cb9c%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d
> > 5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638138929995672680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj
> > oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%
> > 7C%7C%7C&sdata=KQFcKJLMOE8BWEEYSeyIAj02Z9y4eDyyOv6Hfyz%2F7cc%3D&rese
> > rved=0 _______________________________________________
> > nmrg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > %2F&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce5efc29cc630417963fd08db20
> > 2c1930%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6381391459999392
> > 82%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT
> > iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wOAm5lRpGzQEF8%2B032
> > wrUI0YyMI06vKIx2S656fq7GE%3D&reserved=0
> > w.irtf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnmrg&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurew
> > ei.com%7Cedd03176369d4146949008db1ff9cb9c%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d
> > 5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638138929995672680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj
> > oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%
> > 7C%7C%7C&sdata=KQFcKJLMOE8BWEEYSeyIAj02Z9y4eDyyOv6Hfyz%2F7cc%3D&rese
> > rved=0
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >   _____
> > 
> > 
> > Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su 
> > destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial 
> > y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es 
> > usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, 
> > utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar 
> > prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este 
> > mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente 
> > por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
> > 
> > The information contained in this transmission is confidential and 
> > privileged information intended only for the use of the individual 
> > or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the 
> > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
> > distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
> > If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. 
> > Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this 
> > communication in error and then delete it.
> > 
> > Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu 
> > destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e 
> > é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é 
> > vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a 
> > leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente.
> > Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique 
> > imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Jürgen Schönwälder              Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fconstructor.university%2F&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce5efc29cc630417963fd08db202c1930%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638139145999939282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VLFPZDPuHL0duQpCTTrfs2f2kuTMvtozi4rLfZLbfgU%3D&reserved=0>
> 

-- 
Jürgen Schönwälder              Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fconstructor.university%2F&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce5efc29cc630417963fd08db202c1930%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638139145999939282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VLFPZDPuHL0duQpCTTrfs2f2kuTMvtozi4rLfZLbfgU%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irtf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnmrg&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce5efc29cc630417963fd08db202c1930%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638139145999939282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lVS6hzq7b7IgEIwpMFNkHqnMRAD06KPUqBVikRanEuw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irtf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnmrg&data=05%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Ce5efc29cc630417963fd08db202c1930%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638139145999939282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lVS6hzq7b7IgEIwpMFNkHqnMRAD06KPUqBVikRanEuw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg
_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg