Emerging ICT areas –Smart Cities

Tuomas Nurmela20.7.2019 / upd 22.8.2019

Contents

1. Premeeting2. Meetings

1. JTC1 WG11 meeting2. Catalyst workshop3. JTC1 WG11 and IEC SSC joint workshop

Premeeting

Building smart city standards –Existing and ongoing ISO related

work ISO has over 200 standardsdirectly related to energyefficiency and renewables. E.g.ISO 17742, Energy efficiencyand savings calculation forcountries, regions and cities

Modified from ”ISO and Smart Cities”https://www.cys.org.cy/images/PUB100423.pdf

ISO has more than 1 300standards and standards-type documents dedicatedto all aspects of health andwell-being, a number ofwhich are devoted tohelping cities ensureaccessibility and a goodquality of life for anincreasingly olderpopulation

View by industry analysts

• Forrester– “A "city" that uses information and communications technologies to make

the critical infrastructure components and services of a city —administration, education, healthcare, public safety, real estate,transportation, and utilities — more aware, interactive, and efficient.”(Forrester Glossary)

• IDC– “Smart Cities are, by definition, focused on using emerging technologies

and innovation to make cities more livable, and offer new services andeconomic opportunities” (No glossary openly available; IDC usesTaxonomies to define market, this definition is from IDC SCAPA Awards,which provides a shorthand for the longer taxonomy definition in“Semiannual smart cities spending guide taxonomy, 1H18”)

• Gartner– ”Smart cities and intelligent urban ecosystems are using an integrated

approach to digital technoogy to collaborate and engage citizens,ecosystems and governments. That integrated approach allows cityecoystems to respond to societal, environmental and economic life cycleof urban requirements” (No definition in the Gartner IT Glossary, fromSmartt cities technologies and solutions hypecycle, 2018)

View on industry players

(Sadowski 2016)

Current state of view by industryanalysts – the technology view

Off from hype cycle (compared to 2017): LPWA; Big Data; Health InformationExchange and Smart Lamppost https://spectrumsmartcities.com/featured-content.html

Current state of view by industryanalysts – behind the visuals

Do cities need a “smart city platform”? Itdepends. Clients have been asking Forresterabout our thoughts on new IoT-enabled smartcity platforms launched by vendors focused ontransforming city government infrastructure andapplications.- Forrester blog, Dec 3, 2018

Holistic applications addressing digital security andethics are still in the Innovation Trigger phase. This isbased on concerns of citizens and councils that securityand digital ethics should not only be technology-driven,but also include the perception and trust thattechnologies are secure. It is necessary to appeal to thehuman acceptance of digital technology to enable dataexchange for integrated business models.– Gartner Smart city hype cycle 2018

Gartner’s four strategy recommendations on smartcities1) Understand which issues directly impact citizens

and apply technology to solving those problemsfirst.

2) CIOs should be mindful of the digital divide and payequal attention to the challenges faced by citizenswith fewer IT skills.

3) Third, create an open data strategy.4) Fourth, CIOs are urged to use clear measurements

and KPIs to explain the progress of smart cityprogrammes to their stakeholders.

– Gartner Smart cities 2018 press release

The era of the connected city has arrived, asmunicipal leaders around the globe invest innew technologies to optimize existing servicesand improve overall citizen experience. But withthese new interconnected systems come newsecurity and privacy challenges.- Forrester July 2019

View of web media adoption

Emerging ICT areas and theirstandardization in FI

Area Group NotesAugmented/ Mixedreality (SR 313)

JTC1/SC24,JTC1/SC29

Related to TC 159/SC 4 Ergonomics of human-systeminteraction; Vision, natural language processing andlexicons/vocabularies; wearables

3D printing andscanning (SR 313)

JTC1/SG Related to TC261; Additive Manufacturing; TC215Medical healthcare

Block chain & DLT(SR 229)

TC307

Big Data (SR 315) JTC1/WG9

Cloud computing(SR313)

JTC1/SC38 Previous SR 310; merged

IoT (SFS/Sesko group) JTC1/WG10 IoT (incl. RT IoT), Sensors and Wearables (inc.Implantables); RFID focus; SC41

Smart cities (SR 313) JTC1/WG11 Related to TC 268 Sustainable cities and communities

Artificial Intelligence(SR 315)

JTC1/SC42

Building smart city standards –JTC1/WG11 evolution

• Origin– Study Group formed in November 2013– Produced study report

https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/developing_standards/docs/en/smart_cities_report-jtc1.pdf

• SG Transformed to WG11– In October 2015– Overview available in the JTC1 history web

pages https://jtc1historyblog.wordpress.com/isoiec-jtc-1-working-groups/wg-11-smart-cities/

Building smart city standards –WG 11 approved work items (AWI)

ISO WG 11 5th meeting, report October 2017

JTC1 WP on smart city standards(by WG11)

Example content• Section 5: What distinguishes Smart City ICT

from other ICT– Software platform for Open City Data– Semantic Interoperability of City Data– Coordinating City Operations– Urban operating system– Measurement of Smart City (from ICT perspective)

• Annex A: Standards related to smart cities inmain international SDOs

• Document available through SFS SR313– ISO-IECJTC1_N14000_Strategic_White_Paper_on_Smart_City_Standardization

Smart city related standards –ISO TC268 (and BSI PAS input)

Time

Tom Digby-Rogers, Urban Big Data Center, May 19 2017, University of Glasgow(updated modifications)

(2019)

Transforming ourcities – Guidelines for37101 implementation(37104) (2019)

Inventory of existingguidelines(TR 37121)

ISO 268 definition lifted to becommon definition for smart city

Smart city ”evolution” throughevents in different regimes

(Anthopoulos 2017)

”Smart” and ”Sustainable city”conceptual evolution in media

Evolution through time provides means to understand conceptual divergence and convergence of smart andsustainable cities (focus on ”Smart city” and its ”ICT component”). As such, separation of TC 268 and JTC1/WG11remains a continuous discussion point.

Phase 1 Phase 2 [Phase 3] Phase 4 Phase 5

Concept Digital city Smart city Smart city Smart city Sustainable andsmart city (SSC)

Loci Use of Internet,connected-ness

Use of ICT withcost-efficiency

Own platform forsmart cities,policy actions

Big data andInternet ofThings platforms

Holistic design

Timeframe Pre-2000 Early 2000 Early 2010 ~2015- 2017-

Competingimaginaries

Uncontested Digital city Participatorycommunity

Actual projects

Intelligent city

Local andecologicallysustainable

(Integration ofpreviouscompetingimaginary;climate changeboom)

Underlyingtechnicalconcepts

Internet SmartComputing,Smartenergy/energyefficiency

(Urban Operatingsystem)

Sensors and IoTtechnologies

Frameworks,emergingtechnologies,modeling (digitaltwin)

EU, smart city and standards

1. Smart cities and communities (SCC) EIP– established a smart cities stakeholder platform– action cluster on Integrated Infrastructures and Processes an initiative of

110 cities and 93 industry partners– reference architecture and design principles for an open urban platform

• Mentioned in the Rolling plan for 2019• became a standard of DIN and is moving towards a standard in the

international SDOs2. ETSI

1. SmartM2M Technical Committee (ESO level)• SAREF (Smart Appliances REFerence ontology) standard (first final

version from 2015)• Three new specifications for 1) smart cities, 2) industry and

manufacturing (“industry 4.0”), 3) and smart agriculture and food chaindomains released in July 2019

2. ETSI is additionally working on a report on citizen requirements for smartcities (06/2020 expected publication)

3. Additionally EU EIP on Active and Healthy aging has listed ten ISO, PNE (NBSpain AENOR) and UNE (NB Spain AENOR) standards back around 2015

Note: many areas continue to be IoT centric. Sustainabilty orCitizen well-being is not embedded or added extensively, yet showsas a multi-factor concern

Key focus points for the plenarymeeting

What What Why relevant Result ImplicationsTerminology state(Foundation area)

Current state and approach Understand how and with whom terminology hasbeen addressed

Reference framework(Foundation area)

Alignment with VOCAB Understand how the sync is done and state of sync

Use cases Current represented areasin terms of technologiesand users

Understand the linkage to industry/research field.Understand scoping in comparison to IEC SyC SCand ISO 268

Stakeholderrepresentativenes andliasoning

Which stakeholder domainsare represented and how iscommunications donefrom/to WG?

Who are the liason repsand why are theyparticipating?

Understand viewpoints considered and channels ofcommunication on progress.

Understand potential PAS, collateral work and itsimplications. Understand possible Foundationareas relevance to liasons.

FI and EU representation in liasons.

Std roadmap What are the upcomingNWIPs and how will theyuse foundation work

Are there technicastandards

Understand options/timetable for engaging WG11and poll NB participants for interest

Understand how topical issues addressed / to-be-addressed are

Std patterns How does the WG11approach mirror otheremerging/new tech

Understand if std approaches used in otheremerging/new tech ISO standardization could applyor help std effort

Locations and agenda of meeting

1. Plenary and WG11 work– BSI facilities, July 15-16 and July 19– Review of projects under development– Task force work discussion– Potential future work (standars roadmap)– Liasoning, Cooperation, Future meetings

2. Workshop on Smart Cities– Connected Places Catapult facilities, July 17– Awareness and engagement of stakeholders

3. Joint meeting with IEC– BSI arranged facilities for IEC SyC SC, July 18– Alignment of work and sharing of common targets

JTC1 WG11Meeting

WG11@BSI

Projects under work

1. ISO/IEC AWI 30145-1 ( Dapeng Zhang )– Ref: ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG 11 N 0529, N 0530, N 0532– Smart city business process framework– Framework adapted from TMForum

2. Updates of ISO/IEC CD 30145-2 (Junfeng Zhao)– Note: CD ballot from 2019-05-18 to 2019-07-12– Ref: ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG 11 N 0504– Smart city reference framework – smart city knowledge management framework

3. Updates of ISO/IEC DIS 30145-3 ( Dapeng Zhang )– Note: DIS ballot from 2018-08-17 to 2018-10-12– Ref: ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG 11 N 0508, N 0509– Smart city reference framework – smart city engineering framework

4. Updates of ISO/IEC DIS 21972 ( Mark Fox )– Note: DIS ballot from 2019-05-23 to 2019-08-15– Ref: ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG 11 N 0484, N0485, N 0486– Upper ontology for Smart city indicators (using OWL), with indicators primary use

focus on automations in city5. Updates of ISO/IEC FDIS 30146 ( Tangli Liu )

– Note: FDIS ballot from 2019-07-10 to 2019-09-04– Ref: ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG 11 N 0505, N 0506, N 0507

6. ISO/IEC NP 24039 Information Technology - Smart city digital platform ( Yun li )– Ref: ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG 11 N 0510– Content scope etc somewhat open

Projects under work:Secretary view 1/2

Expected content contribution window end-point

Projects under work:Secretary view 2/2

Expected content contribution window end-point

Overview of 30145 framework

Other items: Smart city ICTindicators FDIS

1. There is currently no information on what hasbeen used to establish these

2. Wrt work item– this was “handed over” to WG11, refers to TC

268 standards– ETSI has a similar document (European

view), possible overlap/differences not known• ETSI liasoning relationship does exist

– ITU-T FG SSC provided similar document(FG report, not standard), possibleoverlap/differences not known

Projects under work

1. ISO/IEC AWI 30145-1 Smart city businessprocess framework– Framework adapted from TMForum– Single layer framework with outcome based

approach– Focus on “Smart” as basis for scoping which

processes to include– Focus on incremental improvement through

optimization focused (no radical changes)

Projects under work

ISO/IEC CD 30145:2 –Smart city knowledgemanagement

The CD comments were covered, new clean version was produced. 21 pages of comments, many editorial.Resolved mostly by editor. 1 negative vote (JPN), many abstrains. Endless discussion followed on CD2(e.g. Australia) (only 2 months, avoids possible bad optics and long DIS2) vs DIS (China) (longer period toprepare) based on results.

”City data model”

”City specific data”

Projects under work

CD CD2 Decide: DIS or not

• New commentscan be added

• 2 or so monthson WG level

CD JTC Decide: DIS or not

• NB 4 week reviewon ISO / IEC level

Not approved

Current state

Current state

ISO/IEC CD 30145:2 –Smart city knowledgemanagement – options discussed

selected

Projects under work

ISO/IEC DIS 30145:3 –Smart city engineeringframework

(Should say part 3)

Also has mappings to IoT RA (30141). Yet• no relationship to cloud computing (17788) or others• no clarity on RA vs. framework

Projects under work

ISO/IEC 21972 Upper ontology for Smart cityindicators

– Not related to the TC 268 work• Smart city data concept model (ISO/IEC 30182)• Indicators for city smartness (ISO 37122)

View on liasoning - internal

JTC1 WG11(Smart Cities)

ISO TC204/WG1(ITS)

Ontologies relatingto transportation

SQuaRe forSmart citysystems

Architecturebasework relatingto metaRA

JTC1 SC7(Software andsystems)

JTC1 SC40(ITSM, ITG)

JTC1 SC27(Security andPrivacy, SecPriv)

Privacy guidelinesfor Smart Cities

Guidelines for IoTDomotics SecPriv(system boundary?)

TC268/WG4(smart processes andoperating models)

TC268/WG2(city indicators)

JTC1 SC24(AR/VR/MR)

(TC268/SC1,Smart CitiesInfrastructures)

SFS SR 307

SFS/FI O member

SFS SR 314

SFS/FI O member

SFS/FI O member

SFS/FI O member

SFS SR 313SFS SR

SFS SR 308

CEN TC 278

TC211(Geo Information)

Indicators(relationship open)

SFS SR 304

Framework

Framework

ICT Indicators

”Indirect viaOGC”FrameworkPart 2Ontologies

Relationshipexists,not discussed(?Participatorydesign?

?Urban/Citymodels?)

Relationship exists,Not discussed(?Goverance?)?ICT Indicators?

View on liasoning - external

JTC1 WG11(Smart Cities)

CEN/CENELEC/ETSI SF-SSCC

SBS()

OGC(works also withTC211)

ITU-T SG20(IoT Smart Citiesand Communities)

ITU-T SG 17(security)

Interoperability ofSmart city systems

Open data use inSmart cities

Relationship exists(referred to, notdiscussed)

(ETSI TC SDMC)(part of ATTM)(IEEE)

()

TMForum(SmartCityForum)(Digital Twin)

CityGML data model(for Smart cities and AR)

Slow animation (e.g. decline)

CityGML data visualization

Use of SensorThings andHyperCat (rather than SSN)

Note: Separate white paper providing a more generic overview exists in ”strategic white paper”(JTC1 N14000)Note2: Most of the liasoning is based on reports, no document transmits. Some email sharing.

Relationship exists(referred to, notdiscussed)

Relationship exists(referred to, notdiscussed)

Relationship exists(referred to, notdiscussed)

No relationship open(referred to, notdiscussed) Relationship open

(referred to, notdiscussed)

WG11 view of TC 268 – layers(as explained in the meeting)

Infrastructure

Community

Services

ICTWaterRoads….

SchoolsHospitalsPolice s.….

Services offeredby communities

Goals(Participatorydevelopment).Citizen enablement….

Infrastructure (SC1)

Community

Services

MSS(WG1)

Cityindicators

(WG2)

Comms(TG1)

Collectinggood practices

(TG2)

TC 268 Strategicpositioning support

(TG3)

Supportingwork

Contentwork

Key

Cityanatomy

andsustainability terms

(WG3)

CAG(CAG1)

Smartprocesss

andoperating

model(WG4)

WG11 view of TC 268 – layersmapped to TC268 sub-elements

Future work: NP ”ontologies”

Background– Based on research project work done at

University of Toronto• 30 years of expertise• 20 years work on practical tools for transportation

planning (focus of initial contribution)• Has been used in US/Canada as well as other

countries– Active use in Turkey,– Socializing with numerous other countries

– Presentations available upon request on contentand use of the standard• Documentation of the multipart standard proposal

content available as N-doc

Future work: NP ”Ontologies”

This may subsequently change with the NWIP, terminological changes in that1) Data model (over ontology),2) general to smart cities (rather than transportation planning)… also a workshop on ”data models” to socialize with liasons (particularly OGC, TC 268)may impact content

x

4

4 4

4

4

33

3

3

3

2 2 2

Indicationof part inmultipartstandard(currentplan), NPwill proposeopen ended

1Technical notes1) OWL based2) Does import base

vocabulary from outside3) Usage areas: a) smart

applications, b) citysimulation applications andc) dashboards

Governance notes1) Has been socialized withTC 204 (ITS)

Future work: NP ”Digital platform”ISO/IEC NP 24039 Information Technology - Smart city digital platform ( Yun li )– Chinese input, includes example of Chinese projects

• No discussion or any description of this (originally N14067, N14068 on JTC1 level which JTC1 wanted to refocus)• No request for contributions• Who is this for and what is to be done with it

Discussion on Chinese expert input– Supposed to build on 30145 (covers the advanced middleware services)

• Not really aligned for that• Does not define Reference Architecture and Framework difference

– Not a working draft• No discussion whether the base is based on some existing reference architecture

– Options: 1) revision of engineering framework (30145:3), 2) focus on middleware (definition, characteristicsand content) using 30145 (i.e. how it extends 30145)

– Focus on base structure

Future work: NP ”Digital platform”

Proposed revised digital platform ”reference architecture”(N562, post meeting)

Task force: Implementation anduse cases

1. Working with one smart city project to try outdeliverables– Covers currently only a small subsection

(governance)2. Attempts to assess how good smart city is

through indicators3. Trying to publish white paper end of August4. Waiting for city officials on whether the case can

be used as a reference5. Open how to get more cities engaged

(reoccurring problem)

Potential items floating around

1. Smart community PAS (UK, China)– How do you map a community– Services, objectives, other

2. Smart city indicators extension– Data available for city in relation to goals of data

collection per area(gap analysis; more than required data or not enoughdata)

– Certification process discussed but not considered(where to submit)

3. Towards a common data model (N525)– TC 204/JTC1 WG11– Data semantics (I.e. ontologies. E.g. OWL

expressions. Not syntax and really not about dataexchange mechanisms/protocols as was mistaken)

Engagementworkshop(Catalyst)

Catalyst workshop programme09:00 Registration09:30: Intro and welcome

(Gavin Summerson – Connected Places Catapult, Heng Qian - JTC1 WG11, and Michael Mulquin - IEC/CPC)09:45: Keynote (Trevor Gibson, Opportunity Peterborough)10:05: The value of standards for cities (Michael Mulquin)10:25: Developing smart city digital standards and their relevance to smart cities (Heng Qian)10:40: Smart City Indicators and Benchmarking

• Tangli Liu - ISO 30146 Smart City ICT Indicators• Chris Cooper - Using PAS184 to guide smart city projects• James Gumble – Insights Plus: Using city data tools to measure your city

11:30: Break11:45: Workshop - Measuring smart city progress12:35: Feedback to group13:00: Lunchbreak14:00: Using a systems approach with smart cities - SyC Smart Cities – Scope and work (Gennaro Ruggiero, IEC)14:25: Building a digital planning system

(Stefan Webb – Director of Digitising Planning and Standards, Connected Places Catapult)14:45: City level digital twins

• Michael Mulquin – IEC Smart Cities Systems Committee• Bruce Wang - Expert from Smart City Industrial Ecosphere• Timea Nochta - Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure

15:10: Workshop on city level digital twins15:40: Break16:00: Feedback to group16:25: Panel session – Strengthening links between cities, industry and standards bodies16:50: Reflections on day (Gavin Summerson, Michael Mulquin, Heng Qian)17:00: Close

Note: it was indicated the presentations and workshop results would be separatelydistributed (some of the presentations were captured on video). Link to be providedlater. (possibly will be at location web: https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/urban-innovation-centre/about/)

Review - General

• The workshop was focused on standardization & standardsawareness raising and engagement improvement

• Most of the participants were either from the IEC or ISO“camps”, though there were a few city representatives(both presenting and in audience)– The workshop also worked as a kick off event for the

thursday joint meeting and next week workshops onsmart cities standardization

• Top level message by different camps was not prominent– IEC: Electricity required in all things by cities

(references to e.g. NYC blackout)• Content was presented in the prevailing view (positive

benefit messages), with imaginary push of standardsthrough listing large participant lists (nationalities,corporations), cases and visualizations

Review - AM

• Presentations covered two main themes: value of standards(with overviews of standards in the arena) and usingindicators or measuring use of standards

• Overview and value of standards– ISO, IEC and JTC1 overview embedded in presentations– Use areas of standards (focus on management,

procurement and project/city interoperability)– Short discussion on genericity of global standards vs

accounting for local issues, yet positivist tone– Adoption and impact indicated as “complicated topics” (not

discussed)• Using indicators or measuring use of standards

– Separation between indicators and maturity models– Examples of use of these in planning (building shared

view of priorities and focus areas) and evaluation(particularly in China, measuring 200 city initiatives andcentralized governance of cities)

Review - PM

• Presentations covered two main themes: systems view and inclusionof digitalization to cities

• Systems view pushed by IEC– Green IT 3.0: (Focus of 1.0: no business evaluation, blind faith;

2.0: business-driven view on Green IT; 3.0: climate anxietyleading to relabilling sustainable to cover / push this in “allcases”)

– Methodology push (implicit values and priorities not discussed)• Digitalization to cities

– 21st century city planning system (conceptualization of a planningsystem & data model and its modularization; frameworkexploration; current planning IS/software decomposition; legalmandates vs. open source SW and open data to supportmandates; interoperability; authority compentence on writingrules etc)

– Digital twins presented from very different viewpoints. High leveltop down approach for creating a holistic city digital twin seemedlike a VERY long road, where as Cambridge university bottom-up“tackle a problem at a time” –approach seemed to createlearnings and results, while aligning to previous, long term workon Urban Models, also having relevant subject matter expertspresent.

Joint workshop(IEC SyC SmartCities (SSC) &

ISO JTC1 WG11)

Joint workshop programme

• Introduction/Opening speech• Morning topics

– JTC1 WG11 ToR (Liu Tangli & Hang)• Presentation covered work program and JTC1, not

WG11 ToR (reiteration of catalyst workshop content)– WG11 work program (other work items)– IEC Framework and RA fit and alignment– Building Smart cities with SCRAM and SCRA

presentation• Lunchbreak• Afternoon topics

– IEC SSC work program– Potential new work in collaboration– Collaborative practices in future (online, offline)

Opening speech

• Multiple perspectives to cities– Organization, Systems, Technology, Decision making, … other

perspectives• Strategic approach requires a single overview approach

– To support it requires compatible international standards• Standards collaboration/cooperation has been discussed for years

– some success in communication (workshops, document sharing,liasoning etc);

– today new level (going to working group level)

• View did not really acknowledge why/for whom/when standardswould most urgently be used in smart city arena– no justification on why a single overview and who would be the

first order user– no discussion on different contexts (cities vs. regions; smart vs

sustainable; greenfield vs. brownfield; scope of application)

IEC SyC Smart Cities scope andwork programme

• IEC SSC scope and work programme– Presentation covered Systems work (5 year journey)– Facilitating systems approach across SDOs

• Not about creating standards• Focus on advocacy of use of standards and usage guidance• Covers e.g. use cases, RA/methodology and ontology guidance

– Use cases -discussion• content use cases in cities (needs & requirements; city car parking (business

use case) vs. stakeholders and user stories actually, technical use case)– Smart city reference architecture (SCRA) / SCRA methodology

• 2-3 more competent systems engineers (INCOSE trained). However, only 1intimately familiar with proposed new approach

• Seems to be an abstraction above actual domain practices (e.g. transportationplanning and operations)

• Hard to understand how expected to be implemented (training/competenceramp-up in real projects/national level) and when expected to be used (what isthe scale expected). India interested (“hundreds of smart city projects”)

– Ontology guidance• Seemed to be somewhat confused in terminology (would not know how to use

with a reasoning engine and ontology language)

IEC SRG and IEC SyCs

SCRA and SCRAM: SCRAM

SCRA and SCRAM: SCRA

SCRA and SCRAM

SCRA and SCRAM

Joint meeting recommendations

(N559)

Final notes

• There was a general worry that if a task force is toimprove IEC and ISO (potentially also ITU-T)collaboration, JTC1 WG11 will not be considered (asit has no active representation)– See next slide for visualization of discussion

• There was a general notion that while liasons wereset, information was not exchanged– It seemed unclear that liasons can do more than

reporting, e.g. sending content over• It was indicated that the material in the workshop

would be published, yet in some other manner thanN-documents– These may be available in the IEC side, but they

have not been published in the JTC1 WG

View on challenges with cooperation– content and process

IECSyC SmartCities (”SSC”)

ISO TC268(Sustainablecities)

ITU-T SG20(IoT and SmartCities andcommunities)

JTC1 WG11(Smart Cities)

General• No established common forums (Task force to discuss this)• Smart regions/communities etc are not spefically noted

occasionally• Scope delianiation often fuzzy/non-existent

• No agreementon scope or ToR

• Non-clarity oncity indicators

• Non-clarity ondata model vs.ontology

Limited by ITfocus

Seemingly openscope (as longas its city)

Seemingly openscope (currentlyIoT driven)

Companies candirectlycontribute

Only NBs candirectlycontribute

Potential joint working practices and content

IEC and ISOpractices

ITU-Tpractices

Summary

General observations onchallenges

1. Different implicit views of scope of work within WG11 duedifferent interests– Some very holistic (and also jumping from one topic to another)

• Some talk of ”complete architecture” (first ”ICT architecture”, then”comprehensive security architecture”)– Security is not the competence area of WG11, specialists are in

SC27– No discussion of differences of scale in applying the standards

• India: ”we have 100 smart cities, we have 4400 cities waiting for pilots…”• Canada: ”Toronto has been doing transport planning for 30 years with 14

or 17 areas of ontology covered…”2. Very architecture-driven view of world

– However, no terminology in foundation to support conceptualarchitecture of ICT in smart cities

– However, no clear deliniation of scope– Architecture-approach stretches to views on liasoning, which

can be problematic if the liasons are not architecture-driven• Different paradigm for thinking alongside lack of vocabulary can easily

lead to

Analysis: JTC1 stages ofSmart City standards content

Taso/Vaihe Prestudy 1. phase 2. Phase 3. PhaseInstitutional White

paper

Organizational Indicators

Technical Digital platform

Conceptual Framework(no terminology)

Ontologies / datamodels

Generic ”Market study”

Industry and other liasons (contributions)Nationalbodies

NP stage• If starts, fits new

participant type(technologists e.g.university)

CD stage• Last chances

to contributecontent/review

(Inheritedwork, requiresTC 268 standards)

Observations: industryparticipation to standardization

• If Smart Cities is industry driven, there should be industryparticipants on important forums

• At the moment, participants in standardization are from– Standards organizations– Consultants (individuals)– Universities (few individuals)

• Challenges in getting participants to WG11– Industry members i.e. leading vendors

• IBM had been in past, Panasonic was looking to move to thisspace

• no Tier 1 consulting organizations– Users i.e. city management (exception: India NB)

• the multitude of standardization forums does not help• common global events and co-located meetings with industry

events would serve better– … yet no funding as no funding from e.g.industry

Analysis of foundational work 1/2

1. The conceptual standards in Smart cities will not have impact to design/delivery– Conceptual standards are on too high level

• If they provide new information, then people using them are inexperienced/incompetent andwill make mistakes in some other way (i.e. they should have not been involved to begin with)

• If the users are experienced, they have a more extensive model which they will taylor to theoccasion

– Shared view of what is the conceptual model seems to be lacking• It is not the content of conceptual model but the shared view of target audience and use, and

this seems to be a bit fuzzy• Given the dependence to e.g. TC268 terminology and limited alignment of the conceptual

ICT framework to TC 268 framework work seems non-sustanable over time– Possibly will be used for some high level evaluation/checklist

2. Different politics around various bodies hinder progress– Given the work started for WG started in 2015 with a complited SG that already

produced content visible in reports, having a conceptual framework still in CD stageseems quite slow (compared to e.g. cloud computing, big data, IoT or otherconceptual area)

– Particularly around ISO and ITU-T, though this may hinder focus/coverage of otherwork (particularly peripheral standards reuse, which limits boundary spanning basedinnovation, e.g. OGC possible PAS contributions etc)

– Content- and processwise there are differences to other ICT concepts, which canbe useful to contrast

• Differences in content with e.g. terminology can hinder cooperation– This can be somewhat masked by the architecturally-driven perspective

• Differences in process (e.g. how to work with other SSOs, e.g. ITU-T)

Analysis of foundational work 2/2

1. Beyond conceptual standards, having systems approaches that provide an overlay of conceptualstandards (e.g. SCRAM/SCRA by IEC) seems problematic

– Even use of enterprise architecture practices for information systems domain has been problematicin FI government and municipalities, extending it to cover the WHOLE city

– The practical challenges start with competence and baseline development• No trained people in FI and seems to be very few in IEC• For existing cities would first need to do a baseline (yet ongoing development is done concurrently, so

complicated even for a subset area)• Benefits would be hard to estimate (pilots are the only viable way, as full projects take too long)• Additional complexity by the expected evolution of the city reference architecture itself (tools,

guidelines, model versions etc)2. Much of the approaches implicitly focus on centralized design and development with operations

supporting management decision making– Community collaborative involvement not in the approach to design to design of the ICT system– Community participation over time after the development and deployment not discussed beyond

providers of metric values– Scandinavian participatory development and collaborative/sharing economy based impact on ICT not

included– Examples would include Helsinki co-innovation platform as part of smart city evolution

3. Language of working group may continue to be a barrier– Much of the content produced in China but translated to English– While readable, if the original content creator is not in the meeting, occasionally the WG members

were lacking context4. Subject matter expert participation in the F2F meeting seemed relatively low

– It seemed the main SMEs are in national level and not travelling to the meeting to Europe– In this sense, . Future participation of Australia (now present) and Italy (possible partner to

Canada’s ontologists) may change this a little.

Analysis on indicators –Different views on targets and

brownfield state• Framework is complemented with KPIs which drives

managers towards certain goals– Indicators are already directing management

towards a certain view (“you get what youmeasure”)

– Different city areas already have indicators (e.g.transport), alignment not considered in practice

– Framework is for mapping (stakeholders,processes), does not tell what to do, but map howthey are doing it

– Prescriptive approach not in the initial step• Fit to greenfield may be easier than brownfield

– Putting indicators in place to new cities is quitedifferent from changing existing practices

Key focus points for the plenarymeeting

What What Why relevant Result ImplicationsTerminology state(Foundation area)

Current state and approach Understand how and with whom terminologyhas been addressed

No clear own vocabularyexists or in works. Uses TC268 and other ISOvocabulary

Use of TC 268 terminologycreates challanges (noownership of domain)

There is no clear notion of”smart city ICT”

Reference framework(Foundation area)

Alignment with VOCAB Understand how the sync is done and stateof sync

No clear view as no ownVOCAB

Meta-RA (AG8) or later jointtask force may clarify this

Use cases Current represented areasin terms of technologiesand users

Understand the linkage to industry/researchfield. Understand scoping in comparison toIEC SSC and ISO 268

Possibly use case WP at endof August.

Possibly aligned with IEC usecases paper, could bereviewed with SESKO in FI

Stakeholderrepresentativenes andliasoning

Which stakeholder domainsare represented and how iscommunications donefrom/to WG?

Who are the liason repsand why are theyparticipating?

Understand viewpoints considered andchannels of communication on progress.

Understand potential PAS, collateral workand its implications. Understand possibleFoundation areas relevance to liasons.

FI and EU representation in liasons.

ISO 286 not participating andalignment not active

IEC alignment most active

See liasoning analysis forother relationships

Non-aligned terminology andconfusion about scope &terms of reference expected tocontinue

Joint task force is best bet forharmonization, yet cannot beconsidered a silver bullet

No EU expectations given lackof discussion?

Only relevant PAS/Technicalcontent on ontology side

Std roadmap What are the upcomingNWIPs and how will theyuse foundation work

Are theree technicalstandards

Understand options/timetable for engagingWG11 and poll NB participants for interest

Understand how topical issues addressed /to-be-addressed are

Work still focusing onframework and related parts(the new digital platform)

Ontology work wth OWL anexclusion

For EU, alignment with WG11roadmap remains open (i.e.contrasting to EIP SCC andDIN roadmaps)

Std patterns How does the WG11approach mirror otheremerging/new tech

Understand if std approaches used in otheremerging/new tech ISO standardizationcould apply or help std effort

Lacks terminology comparedto othersUse cases published as WP

See terminologyabove

Use of WPs can get bettertraction than e.g. standingdocuments

Note: WG11 London meeting recommendations separate, in N560

Recommendations for the FImirror

• Nordic viewpoint inclusion now would require active contributions– If Nordic viewpoint is to be contributed (e.g. impact of seasons, use case descriptions

relevant around smart X applications, even though these will not be standardized),these are becoming the

• Consider the contribution possibility separately for different types of standards– Ontologies standard is a technical standard, this could be very suitable for e.g.

university semantic web work on smart cities in Finland (University of Helsinki, Aalto-University and University of Oulu CS departments)

– Conceptual smart city ICT framework could benefit from smart city ICT projectdescriptions that relate to potentially reusable elements

• Particularly the scandinavian participatory design could be a worthwile perspective– Current smart city ICT work in WG11 seems to be very focused on centralized

systems promoting managerial measurement view.– Citizen participation in design and use of systems could be enhanced, relating to e.g.

conceptual smart city ICT framework• This can be combined with previous proposal of contributing to the conceptual framework by

e.g. promoting co-innovation, citizen sharing economy and/or collaboration systems• At current state the main value of the forum seems to be s on socializing and lower

level technical content– Reusable elements, such as ontologies, developed elsewhere and brought to the

forum are relevant– Connections to leads (for future backchannel status checks) and specialists remain

relevant (though subject matter experts seemed not to be present. Likely in India orChina F2F meetings)

Recommendations for the EUwork

• Ontology work on ETSI may need alignment– With start of ontology (”data model”) work in ISO, ETSI

smart cities extension to SAREF could benefit fromcontribution (if influencing) which would need to happen.Regardless, eventually reviews of ontologies will beneeded

• The alternative of creating a mapping with SAREF exists, in casegoing beyond ESO to SDO level is considered a target

• EU reference architecture may need periodic alignment– Espresso interim draft work referenced 30145 part 3

(engineering viewpoint) draft, but lacked other frameworkparts (likely as the parts move at different pace inJTC1/WG11)

• RA is not maintaining reference framework alignment– Furthermore due to conceptual nature and changing

imaginary, RA work would need periodic reviewing as wellas lobbying (if DIN content is to be the focus and

The end