Scope
Compared
- How each represents an asset and its state
- How each treats identity and lifecycle
- How governance and ownership are handled
Not compared
- Real-time telemetry pipelines or sensor integration
- Physics simulation or 3D visualization
- Specific IoT platforms
Terminology mapping
| OCOM | Digital Twin | Equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| Object | Twin / asset model | Partial |
| Identity | Asset identifier | Similar |
| Metadata | Telemetry / properties | Partial |
| Lifecycle | Asset lifecycle | Similar |
| Evidence | Sensor history | Partial |
| Ownership | — | None |
Conceptual differences
| Aspect | OCOM | Digital Twin |
|---|---|---|
| Intent | Governance of objects across their life | Fidelity to a physical asset's current state |
| Subject | Any object, physical or abstract | A specific physical (or virtual) asset |
| Time | Governed history and evidence | Real-time or near-real-time state sync |
| Governance | First-class: ownership, policy, contract | Not defined by the model |
Capability matrix
| Capability | OCOM | Digital Twin |
|---|---|---|
| Real-time state sync | – | |
| Identity | ||
| Lifecycle | ||
| Governance | – | |
| Ownership | – | |
| Evidence | Partial | |
| AI retrieval | Partial |
Interoperability
- A Digital Twin MAY be modelled as an OCOM Object with an identity and a lifecycle.
- OCOM MAY govern a fleet of Digital Twins — assigning ownership, policy and evidence around them — without replacing the twin's real-time state.
- The recommended composition is the Digital Twin for live state and OCOM for governance around that state.
References
- OCOM Object
- OCOM Identity
- OCOM Ownership
- Digital Twin concepts (e.g. ISO 23247)