H2020-EUJ-02-2016
H2020 Grant Agreement Number 723076
NICT Management Number 18302

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating
Federation andTransferability
Version V1.5
October 3, 2018
ABSTRACTIn this deliverable, we define the criteria for validating the capabilities of the
CPaaS.io platform for federation and transferability. This document contains anoverall validation framework that we use as a basis for all validation work in the
project. We then focus on defining the actual transferability and federation
criteria. Our method is application-driven, i.e. we analyse the applications withrespect to our requirements from which we extract the key validation criteria. As
not all applications are suitable for transferring into other cities and regions wefocus on suitable driving applications.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Disclaimer
This document has been produced in the context of the CPaaS.io project which is jointly funded by theEuropean Commission (grant agreement n° 723076) and NICT from Japan (management number 18302).
All information provided in this document is provided "as is" and no guarantee or warranty is given thatthe information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk andliability. For the avoidance of all doubts, the European Commission and NICT have no liability in respect of
this document, which is merely representing the view of the project consortium. This document is subject
to change without notice.

Document Information
Editors
Authors
Reviewers
Delivery Type
Dissemination Level
Contractual Delivery Date
Actual Delivery Date
Keywords

CPaaS.io

Martin Strohbach (AGT), Chiaki Ishikawa (YRP)
Martin Strohbach (AGT), Alessia Neuroni (BFH), Juan Antonio Martínez Navarro(OdinS), Sylvain Prost (TTN), Toshihiko Yamakami (ACC)
Stephan Haller (BFH), Fahim Khan (UoT)
ReportPublic31/01/2018
31/01/2018
Validation, Federation, Transferability, cross-border, blue prints

Page 2 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Revision History
Rev.
0.1

Date
04/12/2017

Description
TOC and document structure

0.2

22/12/2017

0.3

04/01/2018

Initial input Validation
Framework
Initial version of section 4

0.408/01/2018

0.5

08/01/2018

0.6

08/01/2018

0.7

09/01/2018

0.8

10/01/2018

0.9

10/01/2018

0.10

14/01/2018

0.11

22/01/2018

0.12

24/01/2018

0.13

24/01/2018

0.14

26/01/2018

0.15

28/01/2018

0.16

29/01/2018

0.17

30/01/2018

1.0

31/01/2018

1.1

25/09/2018

1.2

26/09/2018

CPaaS.io

Waterproof Amsterdam
transferability
Final Validation Framework(Section 2)
Added Tokyo Management ofService Vehicle
Initial version of criteria (Section
2)
Integrated OdinS Smart Parking(3.1.3)

Transferability of TokyoManagement of Service Vehicle
Yokosuka Emergency Medical
Care (Section 3)
Integration of Stephan’sfeedback on section 2
Yokosuka Emergency Medical
Care (Section 4)
Added Introduction (section 1)
Added Summary, transferability
criteria and final pass over whole
document
Review
Addressed Fahim Khan’s Review
comments
Sapporo visitor Experience
Update Sapporo visitor
experience
Added EUE Architecture diagramand explanation in section
4.1.1.3, added links to D2.5
requirements in section 4.2.
Added requirements column insection 3.2
Added Smart Parking diagramand explanation in section
3.1.4.3. Added requirements tolast column in section 3.2
Page 3 of 32

Contributors
Martin Strohbach(AGT)
Alessia Neuroni(BFH)
Martin Strohbach(AGT)
Sylvain Prost(TTN)
Alessia Neuroni(BFH)
Toshihiko
Yamakami (ACC)
Alessia Neuroni(BFH)
Juan A. Martinez,
Agustín Cánovas,
Antonio Skarmeta(OdinS)
Martin Strohbach(AGT)Toshihiko
Yamakami (ACC)
Katsunori SHINDO(YRP)Alessia Neuroni(BFH)
Katsunori SHINDO(YRP)Martin Strohbach(AGT)
Martin Strohbach(AGT)
Stephan Haller(BFH)
Martin Strohbach(AGT)
Chiaki Ishikawa(YRP)
Chiaki Ishikawa(YRP)
Martin Strohbach(AGT)

Juan A. Martinez(OdinS)

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

1.3SVE

29/09/2018

1.4

01/10/2018

Added Sapporo Visitor
Experience diagram andexplanation in section X.Y.Z.
Integrated latest contributions

1.5

02/10/2018

Integrated final updates

CPaaS.io

Page 4 of 32

Chiaki Ishikawa(YRP)
Martin Strohbach(AGT)
Martin Strohbach(AGT)

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Table of Contents
1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Overall Validation Framework ..................................................................................................................................... 7

3

4

2.1

Motivation and Aim ............................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2

Previous Work ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3

Dimensions of the Overall Validation Framework ........................................................................................ 9

2.4

Dimensions from the Different Views and Criteria ....................................................................................... 9

Transferability Validation Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 12
3.1

Driving applications ............................................................................................................................................. 12

3.2

List of criteria ......................................................................................................................................................... 19

Federation Validation Criteria .................................................................................................................................... 20
4.1

Driving Applications ............................................................................................................................................ 20

4.2

List of Criteria......................................................................................................................................................... 25

5

Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 26

6

References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix 1– Joint Use Case Scenario ..................................................................................................................... 29

Personas ............................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Scenario Description......................................................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix 2– Sapporo Snow Festival Scenarios .................................................................................................... 31

Table of Acronyms
Acronym
IoT

CPaaS.io

Definition
Internet of Things

Page 5 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

1 Introduction
This deliverable defines the criteria for validating the capabilities of the CPaaS.io platform for federationand transferability. Our method is application-driven, i.e. we analyse the applications with respect to ourrequirements from which we extract the key validation criteria. As not all applications are suitable fortransferring into other cities and regions, we focus on suitable driving applications. These driving
applications are a refinement of the driving applications as defined in the description of work.

Figure 1: Overview of the CPaaS.io validation concept. Cities and local as well as virtual communities provide problems defining
the requirements. The consortium provides innovative technical solutions that are implemented as part of the platform. The usecase validates the platform including the transferability between Japan and Europe. (This picture is taken from the Grant Agreement
document).

Transferable applications are applications that can be transferred to different cities using different instancesof the CPaaS.io platform. This includes Waterproof Amsterdam, Yokosuka Emergency Medical Care, TokyoManagement of Service Vehicle and Smart Parking. Note that Waterproof Amsterdam and Yokosuka
Emergency Medical Care were initially not foreseen to be used for validation purposes. However, during
the course of the project we identified that they are very well suited to be transferred to other cities andthat, in the case of Yokosuka Emergency Medical care there are even concrete transfer activities. The TokyoManagement of Service Vehicle application relates to the Tokyo Public Transportation application and the
Smart Parking application is a new application that emerged in the project in relation to the technical workon Edge and Cloud Programming (WP 4).
Federation refers to linked platform instances that jointly provide the functionality required by anapplication. We are primarily interested in federating the European platform with the Japanese platform.
Driving applications include the Enhanced User Experience application and the Sapporo Visitor Experience
application, both part of Event Management use case.
Note that in Figure 1 above the Waterproof Amsterdam and Yokosuka Emergency Medical Care were only
considered for validating the platform capabilities irrespective of any transferability of federation

CPaaS.io

Page 6 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

capabilities. This validation is described in D2.6 Feedback and validation report covering all applications
developed in the project.
In this deliverable, we first describe an overall validation framework in section 2 that provides an overall
framework for all validation activities in the project, i.e., also the validation reported in D2.6. Then we
describe the transferability criteria in section 3 and the federation criteria in section 4. Both sections
describe the driving applications with respect to ongoing transfer or federation activities, their target cities
and required support on technical, business and social level. We conclude this deliverable with a summary
in section 5.

2 Overall Validation Framework
In the course of the project, we realized that validation activities are fragmented and presented in different
deliverables. An overall perspective is needed; we decided to invest resources in developing an “overall
validation framework”. Its focus goes beyond the criteria for validating federation and transferability.
The framework serves as a tool for self-assessment for the CPaaS.io team. It is meant as an overall validation
framework covering both deliverables D2.6 and D2.7. Its applicability and their results will be presented inD2.9 Validation Federation and Transferability and D8.4 Project Final Report. Furthermore, it can be used
for assessing from a bird's-eye view other IoT projects in smart city contexts.

2.1 Motivation and Aim
How do we evaluate the success of our project? How do we track and assess trends and prioritize different
activities in order to maximize the positive impact in our cities and beyond? We realized that a holistic
approach was needed and decided to develop a validation framework as a cockpit for value creation.
Ensuring the creation of added benefits for different stakeholders is a way of guaranteeing sustainability
beyond the financed project.
The framework needs to consider different validation views: the CPaaS.io project, the cities view regarding
the four use cases and the joint use case, as well as the CPaaS.io platform. Furthermore, the assessment
takes into account various approaches and possible challenge areas, such as technical, social, political andlegal ones.
From a project point of view, the framework assesses the developments regarding the EU-programme’s
aims, the formulated motivation and objectives, the concrete impact and generated value, the maturity
level (incl. collaboration), as well as the transferability and sustainability approaches. Furthermore, in the
project we work with different use cases and concrete scenarios: The validation framework evaluates towhat extent our proposed solution reduces formulated pains and creates added value in the concrete
scenarios. In addition, it focuses on transferability opportunities for new application areas. Finally, as an IoT
research and development project, the framework will validate the platform, mainly in the areas of usage,
maturity, transferability and federation capabilities (e.g. exchange of personal data).
The framework considers the success criteria mentioned in the Description of Action (Tab. 1).
Table 1 Formulated Success Criteria (Description of Action, Annex 1 – Part B, p. 5)
Objective
Open Data Platform

Cloud-based Solution

CPaaS.io

Success Criteria# of OGD data sets interlinked with IoT data
SPARQL access point in the platform
Technology Readiness Level (TRL)# of third party applications built on the top of the platform# of deployed platform instances in the Cloud

Page 7 of 32

Target Value
3
Available
653

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Citizen Empowerment
Use Case Validation
Blue Prints
Impact for cities

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability# of federations# of credible demonstrations showing redeployment of analytics functionality
Dashboard easily usable by citizens to control access to their data
# of credible demonstrations showing adaptive, context-dependent data access# of use cases implemented and positively validated by the City Stakeholder Group# of blue prints developed and successfully transferred and adapted to another region# of cities testing prototype# of cities interested in continued operation of the platform beyond the project# of standards contributions

1
3
Available
3
4
2
3
2
4

2.2 Previous WorkIn the recent past, the assessment of value creation in smart cities has enjoyed attention in the egovernment research area. An early conceptualization of smart cities by Nam/ Pardo (2011) distinguishes
three fundamental components: Technology factors, human factors, and institutional factors and relates
them to strategic principles a city needs to follow to realize its smart city vision.
Jaekel (2015) defined a maturity model for smart cities. This model consists of 12 components (planning,governance, stakeholder management, leadership, participation, innovation environment, digital businessmodels, digital technologies, smart services, business cases, investment planning, processes & structures),with 5 maturity levels defined for each component. Based on the CPaaS.io empirical evidence, Haller et al.
(2018) suggest for developing Smart City Strategies grouping the strategic relevant elements into four
dimensions:••••

Governance: Covers the strategic aspects how the smart city is run, like motivation, governancemodel and institutional factors (Nam/Pardo 2011).
Implementation: Includes the more tactical aspects, e.g., which applications a city is focusing
on, and how the smart city activities are run and coordinated.
Infrastructure: In the smart city context, we are mainly looking here at the available ICT
infrastructure, or in other words, the technology factors (Macadar et al. 2017).
City Context: The context of a city, e.g., its size and structure is an often neglected aspect inother frameworks. The human factors as mentioned by Nam and Pardo (2011) are also an
important part of the city context.

The contemplation of value creation as a relevant smart city framework dimension is not yet established.
Indeed, the focus on value generating mechanisms and types of public value (cf. Puron-Cid 2017, Macadar
et al. 2017, Harrison et al. 2011) will gain significance, especially while reflecting both the delivery of services
and the efficiency of public authorities. Haller et al. (under review) suggest to use an ecosystem approachand reflect the value proposition from different perspectives: (a) the different given strengths andweaknesses of the city, (b) people, processes and infrastructures as enablers and challenges in theecosystem, as well as (c) the existing public policy that determines the political commitment, shows power
structures and defines activity foci. The assessment for public value creation regards four areas: city
peculiarities, city ecosystem, city strategy and public value. Each area contains different criteria with
relevant manifestations. The idea is to have anchors respectively reference points and information onframework conditions, relationships and networks, and politics.
The smart city framework for public value creation may find use for different purposes and application
scenarios: In research and development, while comparing different strategies in action, studying thecorrelations between different or designing innovative research and development projects aiming at
increasing the public good at local level. In practice, especially for municipal agencies, the framework can
support the policy making process, can help develop a line of argumentation for an investment, supports

CPaaS.io

Page 8 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

the evaluation of different approaches for a concrete goal within a project or program. Finally, theframework can help to better capture public value creation in a given smart city ecosystem.

2.3 Dimensions of the Overall Validation Framework
Based on the validation aim stated in chapter 2.1 and the main results presented in deliverable D2.6, wedeveloped the validation framework with the following four dimensions: maturity, federation andtransferability, transformation and sustainability. In the first dimension, we assess the impact of ouractivities in terms of maturity contribution in the call areas, the accompanying use cases and the concrete
platform components and functionalities. Transferability and federation criteria focus primarily theplatform view (cf. chapter 3 and 4) – transferability means that an application can be transferred to anothercity. This could be in the same country/region or cross-regional. Federation in contrast refers toapplications that require federation of platform instances and we are primarily interested in federating theEuropean platform with the Japanese platform. In the third dimension – transformation – we assess theability to change, innovate and make a difference in established processes, services, tools etc. With the last
dimension, we evaluate our endeavours with regard to sustainability, focusing in particular dissemination
activities, value creation in the use cases and finance model for the platform.
These four aspects contribute to the value creation of CPaaS.io from a project, a city resp. use cases, and aplatform point of view. This means, the validation framework sees an assessment for maturity, federationand transferability, transformation and sustainability aspects of the project, the conducted use cases, andthe platform.
Figure 1 Dimensions of the Validation Framework

2.4 Dimensions from the Different Views and Criteria
The overall validation framework assesses the evolution of parties, processes, concrete scenarios, andoutcomes - respectively impacts. The following table offers an overview of the different areas.
CPaaS.io

Page 9 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Table 2 Different areas for the Validation
Project view (A)• Formulated objectives fulfilment• Concrete contribution to thedeclared motivation areas• Contribution goals EU-JPN-Call(incl. collaboration rate EU-JPN)

City/ Use cases view (B)• Maturity use cases and joint case
• Clarification political, legal andorganizational issues• Amount scenarios beyond the
project

Platform view (C)• # functionalities andcomponents (incl. usefulness)• Usage of functionalities andcomponents in different scenarios• Stability and performanceassessment

Federation andTransferability criteria(II)

cf. BII and CIITransformation criteria(III)• Project goals evolution andcreated value assessment• Cross-border collaboration
options and exchange rates ofbest-practices• Transferability options for use
cases scenarios in other cities(activities, plans or ideas)• Participants transformationassessment (cities, companies,
citizen)Sustainability criteria(IV)• Dissemination rate and launch
new R&D-Ideas respectively new
projects• Benefit assessment for different
stakeholder• Impact measurement in the use
cases

Overall:
Value creationassessment• Created value and innovation in
the area “IoT – Smart cities”• Created value in the EU-JPNconstellation• Created value for the cities• Created value for other servicedeliverers• Amount of federate cross-borderinstances that enable applications
using different platform instances• Transferability of functionalities,
applications and data to different
city• Platform Evolution Assessment(2016-2017-2018), incl. data
quality, governance andapplications• Benefits and pains reliefs fordifferent stakeholder• Platform usage evidence• Finance model for the platform
maintenance beyond the project• Created value throughfunctionalities and components ofthe platform

Maturity criteria (I)The concrete criteria for the validation framework are:•

Ad Maturity

Reference

Criteria

Description

KPI

IA

Fulfilment

CPaaS.io combines IoT, Big

Cf. Tab. 1 - Self-assessment goals attainment, e.g.

objectives

Data, and Cloud with Linked# of OGD data sets interlinked with IoT data

Data and Open Government

SPARQL access point in the platform

Data to create Smart City

Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Innovation (cf. Figure 1.1.a# of third party applications built on the top of the platform

DoA, p. 3) – are the# of deployed platform instances in the Cloud

formulated objectives# of federations

fulfilled?

# of demonstrations showing redeployment of analytics functionality

Contribution areas

Which are the main project

Self- assessment of addressed scopes in the call (scale 1 to 5):/ callcontribution areas?

“The scope is to realise IoT/Cloud/Big Data platforms in social

IAapplication contexts.”“Specific requirements include multiple sensors and devices linked with
big data analytics and cloud data management, edge-heavy
computing, machine learning and complex event discovery, and a
programmable IoT logic and IoT Data Warehouse.”“The research will address technological issues in big data application
scenarios such as: elasticity and scalability of cloud data management;
transregional federated clouds; distributed storage; distributed and/oredge computing; wireless sensor networks; cross-sectoral and spatiotemporal data analysis; etc.”“Applications related in particular to smart cities supporting urban
needs and green manufacturing should serve as test-bed andverification areas.”IA

CPaaS.io

Collaboration EU-

Description of the

Self-assessment of collaboration quality for IT matters

JPN

collaboration (quality, in IT

Self-assessment of collaboration quality for business mattersand business view) and value# of scenarios with value generation (incl. description)

Page 10 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

IB

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Implementation

How can we assess the

Cf. Tab. 1 - Self-assessment goals attainment, e.g.

state use cases

implementation state of the# of use cases implemented and positively validated by the City

different use cases and the

Stakeholder Groupjoint case?

# of blue prints developed and successfully transferred and adapted toanother region

IB

Clarification

Were political, legal andY/Ngeneral conditionsorganizational issues

Description of specific contributions

clarified? Contribution?
IB

Scenarios beyond

Concrete follow-ups?

# of scenarios beyond the project

Functionalities andDeveloped functionalities# of functionalities and components

Components

and components?

Usage

Usefulness of the# of scenarios with usage of functionalities and components

functionalities andQualitative self-assessment usefulness

the projectIC
IC

components?
IC•

Stability andStability and performance of

Performancethe platform?

Qualitative self-assessment / results D2.6

Ad Federation and Transferability

The overall validation framework provides a holistic assessment which is supported by more detailed
criteria as listed in chapters 3 and 4.
Reference

Criteria

Description

KPI

II B

Collaboration Use

In what way have cross-# of collaboration scenarios / knowledge & experience transfer

Casesborder collaboration options

between use cases / joint case (incl. short description)and best-practice exchanges
taken place?
II B

Transferability Use

Transferability options for# of activities, plans or idea for reproducing a scenario in a newCases

use cases scenarios in othercontext (incl. short description)

cities (activities, plans orideas)II B

Exchange ofCan the CPaas.io platform be

Availability prototype that shows the exchange of personal information

personal

used to exchange personal

and an explanation how platform components support the exchange

information

information between Europeof personal information

and Japan taking respective
regulations into account?
II C

Federation

Can the CPaaS.io instances# of applications

Feasibility

be federated to enable the

At least one implemented application that relies on federated platform

implementation of a cross-instances

regional application withvalidated business value?
II C

Transferability
Feasibility

Transferability of# of transferred components

functionalities, applications
and data to different city•

Ad Transformation

Reference

Criteria

Description

KPI

III A

Moving targets

Any changes (goals,

Y /N (if Y, description of goals evolution)emphasis) during theexecution of the project?
III B

CPaaS.io

Transformation in

Any changes in processes# of changed processes (incl. short description)

citiesand service delivery?

# of changed services (incl. short description)

Empowerment citizen?

# of scenarios with citizen empowerment (incl. short description)

Page 11 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

III C

Evolution platform

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Platform evolution from# of additional functionalities resp. components (compared to DoA)

conceptualization to# of credible demonstrations showing adaptive, context-dependent

realization?

data access
Dashboard easily usable by citizens to control access to their data(available Y / N)
Data quality principle (available Y / N)
Data governance concept (available Y / N)•

Ad Sustainability

Reference

Criteria

Description

KPI

IV A

Publications

Dissemination rate

# of paper at IoT / Big Data / Cloud / LOD / Smart City scientificconferences# of contributions at IoT / Big Data / Cloud / LOD / Smart City
professional events# of standards contributions

IV A

New projects

Launch new projects# of new international projects and activities (short description)

IV B

Benefit

Benefit description /Qualitative self-assessment / reflection results D2.6 + D7.5

stakeholders

stakeholder (overall)(given Y / N - pro stakeholder: scale 1 to 5)

Impact use cases

Concrete impact in practice# of areas where value has been created (short description)# of new national projects and activities (short description)

IV B# of cities testing prototype# of cities interested in continued operation of the platform beyond
the project
IV C
IV C
IV C

Benefit and pains

Benefit and pains reliefs

Qualitative self-assessment / reflection results D2.6 + D7.5

reliefs

platform(given Y / N - pro stakeholder: scale 1 to 5)

Usage

Usage of the CPaaS.Io# of scenarios with platform usage (evidence)

platform

Qualitative self-assessment usefulness

Finance model for theConcrete options / finance model Y / N

Business model

platform maintenancebeyond the project?

3 Transferability Validation Criteria
In this section we provide the validation criteria related to the transferability of applications to different
cities.

3.1 Driving applications
Driving applications for transferability include waterproof Amsterdam, Yokosuka Emergency Medical Care,
Tokyo Management of Service Vehicle and Smart Parking. We first describe the applications with respect
to their transferability, describe transfer activities, the target cities and finally present requirements.
3.1.1 Waterproof Amsterdam
The Waterproof Amsterdam application is in itself a city-agnostic application as it is not bound by any
geography. However, it is addressing urban challenges that are only relevant for cities dealing with large
amounts of (rain) water and/or outdated sewerage infrastructure.
It is also a complex application to transfer in its full breadth to other cities, due to the number of different
stakeholders involved in an implementation, even at a small scale. It requires first of all a willing and capable
local water management company. Next, different hardware vendors and distributors need to be
CPaaS.io

Page 12 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability(technically) aligned and open to collaborate with the water management company. Lastly, real estate
owners and developers have to be willing to implement smart rain buffer solutions on their rooftops andpotentially delegate part of the control over the mechanisms.

Figure 2 - Waterproof CPaaS.io integration

Transfer Activities
At the time of writing, there are no concrete plans for transferring the Waterproof application to anothercity. The reason behind this is that even for Waternet, the water management company for the city of
Amsterdam, the application is highly experimental, and the scope limited to a limited number of rooftops
that contain smart rain water buffering capacity. The Netherlands makes a good geography for broader
implementation of the Waterproof application due to its wet climate and its susceptibility to water
problems.
We however have been in touch with water management company from the city of Delft(Hoogheemraadschap Delfland) and with the city of Enschede (east Netherlands) and University of Twente
to familiarize them with the Waterproof application.
Target Cities
The Waterproof Amsterdam application is applicable cities that must deal with intensifying volatility of
weather conditions due to climate change. Often, sewerage infrastructure capacity is dated from decades
back, and overhauling this infrastructure is mostly not an option due to heavy investments involved.
Therefore, we target cities that seek to implement novel and out-of-the-box solutions that can be built on
top of a city’s existing sewerage.
The following conditions need to be met for a city to be a target for the Waterproof application:•

The city SHOULD have a history of hindrance by rain water and acknowledge the drainage capacity
limitations potentially emerging with climate change.

•

The city MUST have a policy or strategic priority in place to actively deal with rain water tocomplement the existing sewerage infrastructure.

CPaaS.io

Page 13 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability•

The city SHOULD have some kind of regulation in place that forces real estate developers tocompensate for the natural rain water drainage capacity they take away by their building structures.
This regulation could also be an incentivising one in the sense of availing subsidies for
implementing innovative water management solutions.

•

The city SHOULD be open to innovative, riskier solutions that may not have a track record of provensuccess.

•

The city MUST acknowledge the added value of centralised data collection and centralised control.

•

The city and stakeholders MUST work together to integrate the various components in the value
chain, such as hardware, applications and real estate.

•

There SHOULD be a wireless infrastructure that can be used to connect the smart rain buffers totransfer its data. This could for instance be a public LoRaWAN network provided by a municipality.

Required Transferability Support
The solution is based on micro-services that are packed into docker container and orchestrated by
FogFlow. Only a few configurations files are to be modified for the application to be transferred to anothercity. It is also preferable to have a hosting server close from the city it is responsible of.
Concerning security, the certificate and encryption key will have to be regenerated/updated to ensure
maximum safety and identification.
No data from a region are to be transferred to another for several reasons:
1. The application operates on one city only with one company.
2. Data collection policies apply. All country doesn’t have the same laws concerning security andpersonal information collection.
3. User only agreed to share their personal information with only one application & company.
Finally, the key for a successful transfer is the hardware support and availability. Connected water tankaren’t easy to install and most of the time will require an expert. Before transferring the application, one
should make sure there is people capable of selling, installing and maintaining the water tank in the city.
3.1.2 Yokosuka Emergency Medical Care
The Yokosuka Emergency Medical Care application provides two main functions. One function is video
transmission, which enables it possible for doctors in hospital to see patients’ images or monitors in realtime. The other function is ambulance location shared, which enables it possible for doctors to know
ambulances’ arrival time precisely.
These functions are city-agnostic but some cities have already installed other medical care systems. To
extend service area of this application requires regulation with fire bureau of target cities, nearby hospitals,
and installed systems in the cities.
Transfer Activities
In April 2018, fire bureaus of Yokosuka City and Miura City, next to Yokosuka City, are joined and both
medical care systems are also integrated. Therefore, we expanded our Emergency Medical Care application
to Miura City and other nearby cities. In addition to that, we will introduce other cities visited for inspections.

CPaaS.io

Page 14 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Target Cities
Yokosuka Emergency Medical Care application has a hardware requirement that the ambulances havesome equipment to install camera(s). To operate this application, we should gain the cooperation of firebureau of target cities and nearby hospitals.
Required Transferability Support
In business or social context, conformance to the regulations of the cities and the medical practices(admission policies, etc.) of nearby hospitals is required.
In technical context, scaling is required to support more areas and population, and compatibility with theexisting ICT framework of cities is important. However, the transferability of Yokosuka Emergency Medical
Care System hinges mostly on the non-technological factors such as legal regulation, and the admission
policy, etc. of involved hospitals.
Yokosuka Emergency Medical Care application is developed on a cloud-based service, so scaling support
is realizable using cloud service technology.
To expand this application to countries outside Japan, we should tackle laws and privacy policies of thesecountries. This seems very difficult as of now.

Figure 3: u2-based Architecture Diagram

3.1.3 Tokyo Management of Service Vehicle
It is still early stage of experiment of Tokyo Management of Service Vehicle from the perspective of
deployment.
Transfer Activities
At the time of writing, there is no concrete plan of transfer activities.
The prototype application has little dependence on a specific city as long as map application requires
licenses of location-specific map data.
CPaaS.io

Page 15 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

There is no linguistic barrier when it is transferred to another city in Japan.
The current prototype exhibits a 10-times scalability without any new instances on the cloud.
Tokyo is a relatively large city in the world, so capacity has very small constraints when a transfer is planned
from Tokyo to another city.It is possible to extend the Tokyo Management of Service Vehicle to B2C
application which can cover new revenue generation opportunities for transportation companies.
Target Cities
For B2B applications (for monitoring, maintenance, delivery and collecting), any cities with public
transportation companies can be possible targets.
For B2C applications for new revenue generation opportunities, a certain level of population to secure thenumber of eyeballs (like Tokyo) is needed.
The target use cases of Tokyo Management of Service Vehicle could be non-Japanese specific, especiallyfor the B2B use part. However, the field test in Japan is still its early stage.
Required Transferability Support
Business: For ongoing cloud-service support, commitment of ground level operation is needed, especiallyto introduce smart-phone based monitoring, maintenance, delivery and collecting services. In order tomaximize the delivered benefits, business intelligence to utilize gathered data is needed. The evidences ofbusiness merits are needed from earlier deployments.
For B2C revenue generation opportunities, a coordinated event handling to implement marketing
campaign to get eyeballs is needed.
Social: For B2C, public acceptance of smart-phone-based location-oriented advertisement is needed forusers and advertisers. Privacy protection for technical infrastructure and operations should be ensured.
Technical: Mobile and cloud infrastructure and deployment/operational skills are needed.
Integration to local open data, wireless infrastructure is needed. Deployment and operational support isneeded.
The local support both of UI and operation is needed.

CPaaS.io

Page 16 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Figure 4: u2-based Architecture Diagram for Tokyo Management of Service Vehicle

3.1.4 Smart Parking
This application is presented to the citizens as a mobile app with the purpose of helping her in finding afree parking place either in a private parking site or in the regulated parking zones (RPZ). This way, its final
goal is to reduce the amount of traffic and its corresponding pollution caused by vehicles moving aroundthe city looking for such a parking place. When the user uses this application, she indicates her destination,and she will obtain a place with the estimated probability to find a free parking slot. The application will
also guide the user to the selected parking area. This application is also useful for those cities which arepromoting the use of the public transport service in the city centre. For this scenarios, the application could
also interact with the information obtained from the public transport service in order to provide anintermodal solution where the user is advised to leave her car parked in the outskirts of the city and use
the public transport service to reach her destination.
To do so, the concessionary companies responsible for private parking sites management, as well as for
the RPZ management, must publish their information about free parking slots, and their expended tickets
to a smart city platform using open interfaces.
Transfer Activities
Since the development of this use case is still in an early state, it is still too soon to define concrete activities
regarding its transferability. Nevertheless, the goal of this application provides a way of dealing with acommon problem that medium/big-sized cities suffer which are the optimization of the resources of thecity; traffic congestion and pollution. For this reason, we have planned and envisioned the following
transfer activities which can serve as a minimum set of measures to succeed in the deployment of thisapplication in other cities:

CPaaS.io

Page 17 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability•

Promote different workshops related to the issue of Smart Cities where the issues of traffic andparking activities are also considered. As a matter of fact, the presence in events such as Smart City
World Congress, FIWARE Summit, Urban Intelligence is planned•

Establish commercial relation with other companies (NEC) to help and guide us in the distribution
and application of the solution into other cities.

•

Define a portfolio related to the traffic application, features, advantages and direct results.

Target Cities
In the last decades, there exists a global concern and care for the environment, which is also aligned withthe recent concept of Smart City and its main goal of optimizing the available resources improving thequality of living of its citizens. In this sense, traffic is tightly related to pollution, and this application
provides a possible solution to reduce the amount of vehicle wandering in search for a free parking slot.
For this reason, the possible target of this application is nearly each city suffering the common and wellknown traffic problems. Another advantage of this application, is that the provision of information is notvery difficult to achieve since the involved third parties usually provide APIs to access the information
related to parking slots, as well as expended tickets.
Obviously, such APIs are a requirement to successfully deploy the Smart Parking application in the city.
Required Transferability Support
The main transferability requirements for the SmartParking application are as follows:•At business level, the concessionary companies responsible for managing private parking sites andregulated parking zones should be able to export their data to any other platform. Usually, this is
the first obstacle to deal with, since the common contracts do not consider it. This involves bothIoT Broker and FogFlow components.

•

The specific knowledge on the sensor deployment for each scenario is also relevant for the Smart
Parking scenario, since the particular FogFlow deployment for the use case is tightly related to the
distribution of edge nodes.

•

Since the application can be used anonymously, and no personal information is transferred, security
and privacy are not the main concern for this solution.

CPaaS.io

Page 18 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Figure 5: The Smart Parking Use Case requires FogFlow, as well as the IoT Broker information.

The Smart Parking application has a strong requirement on the Platforma Management, Federation andOperation Pillar, and more specifically in the FogFlow component which is highlighted in Figure 6. We havealso identified strong requirements on the information edge nodes must process (EUE-1 and EUE-2) since
the location of the private parking sites is a high dependence for the deployment.

3.2 List of criteria
Based on the driving applications described above the synthesized list of transferability criteria is as
described in Table 1. Please note that we link the criterion back to the relevant requirements that wehighlighted in D2.5 Requirements Specification (V2) as being used for validation. SP-x identifies Smart
Parking requirements, TMS-x identifies requirements from the Tokyo Management of Service Vehicles
application, WA-n refers to the requirements of the Waterproof Amsterdam application, and YEM refers to
the requirements from Yokosuka Emergency Medical Care. We also link to the non-functional (NFREQ.nn)
and functional (FREQ.nn) platform requirements that were described in deliverable D3.5 CPaaS.io System
Architecture. The table below only captures the relevant subset for transferability.

CPaaS.io

Page 19 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Table 1: List of Transferability Criteria

Criterion

Description

KPI

Transferability
Feasibility

Can the CPaaS.io
platform support thetransferability of
applications toanother city?

Easy orchestrationand deployment by
FogFlow
framework.
Developed newreal application forthe city of Murcia.

UnifiedInterface

Do the various
platform instances
provide the sameinterface so that no
adoption in theapplication is required
when transferring toanother city that is
running anotherplatform instance.
Are there generalapplication domain
models available into
which city specificdata sources can bemapped?

FogFlowmanagement tool
allows for an easy
deployment asproved by Smart
Awning as well as
Smart Parking

DomainmodelsCommonrepresentation forparking availability
information basedon NGSI.
Recommendation
also follows NGSI
representation.

Platform
Layer
IoT Data &Integration
Layer;
Platform
Management,
Federation
andOperation
PillarPlatform
Management,
Federation
andOperation
Pillar; Virtual
Entity Layer;
IoT Data &Integration
Layer
Virtual Entity
Layer, IoT
Data &
Integration
Layer

Requirements
SP-1, SP-2, SP-3, SP-4,
SP-5, TMS-3, TMS-18,
WA-1, WA-2,
FREQ.13, NFREQ.25,
YEM-2, YEM-14

SP-1, SP-2, SP-3, SP-4,
SP-5, WA-1, WA-2,
WA-11, NFREQ.25,
NFREQ.26, NFREQ.27,
FREQ.12, FREQ.13

SP-1, SP-2, SP-3, SP-4,
SP-5, WA-1, WA-2,
WA-11, FREQ.13,
YEM-6, YEM-14

4 Federation Validation Criteria
In this section we provide the validation criteria related to federating CPaaS.io platform instances, inparticular a European and Japanese instance for cross-border smart city applications.

4.1 Driving Applications
Here we describe the driving applications for the Federation Criteria. These applications are part of the
Event Management applications use case.
4.1.1 Enhanced User Experience
The Enhanced User Experience application is part of the European driven component of the event
management use case. Here we describe how this application drives the criteria for validation of the
CPaaS.io platform. As described in deliverable D2.4, Second prototype release, the My Events web
application has been implemented. We foresee two ways how this application can drive the federation
requirements to the platform:

CPaaS.io

Page 20 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

1. Extend the scope of covered events to Japanese events
2. Use data managed both by the European and Japanese CPaaS.io instance
3. Use services (e.g. analytic services) of the federated platform
While following a more general design, the My Events application currently is only based on data related
to the Color Run Utrecht. The idea is to extend it to other, Japanese events, for instance the Sapporo Snow
Festival1. A second dimension is to consider use cases in which data is shared to a federated platform forother use and applications. Finally, we can consider that the platforms provide a diverse andcomplementary set of services. So for instance, a platform instance may use an analytics service that isprovided by the federated platform.
In the following subsections we elaborate on these scenarios and describe current and planned federation
activities, target cities as well as the required federation support.
Federation Activities
Currently there are the following federation activities related to the Enhanced User Experience application• The development of a joint use case scenario• Proposal for Sapporo Snow Festival scenarios incl. data collection effort• Data Collection event at Sapporo Snow Festival• Data Transfer agreements and consent forms
As an initial step towards defining a joint use case we have developed a scenario description, i.e., a highlevel user oriented view on how the My Events application can be combined with the Kokosil application(see D2.2 First prototype release for a description of the Kokosil application).
The scenario describes concrete use cases in which My Events is extended to Japanese events. It also shows
how data stored in both platform instances needs to be accessed and combined, how the user is in controlof managing his data and how analytic services can be used. The full scenario is described in Appendix 1.
The joint use case scenario includes a step in which the main persona, Marcus Terada, visits the Sapporo
Snow Festival in which he uses the My Events application to get event highlights and in which his data isused in anonymized form for the event organizer and the City of Sapporo2. The Sapporo Snow Festival has
been chosen for the following reasons: on the one hand Sapporo is one of the Japanese target cities forthe event management use case, and with Kokosil Sapporo there is a dedicated application on top of theJapanese CpaaS.io instance. On the other hand, the Snow Festival lends itself perfectly to the idea of the
My Events application in which sensor data obtained from wearable sensors are used to enhance the user
experience of visitors and use the aggregated information in anonymized for cities and event organizers.
In order to better understand how the My Events application works in the setting of the Sapporo Snow
Festival we have looked at all the events and attractions and selected 6 scenarios that we consideredfeasible and valuable for using them to quantify the event experience for visitors and the city. The scenarios
have been selected in several stakeholder workshops with domain experts from AGT International that aredeveloping data analytics solutions for sports and entertainment events. The concrete scenarios wedeveloped are the following:•

The Hottest Sculpture – The main idea of this scenario is to use cameras, microphones andwearable sensors for comparing audience reaction over time and correlate it to context changes

1 http://www.snowfes.com/english/
2 Note that the City of Sapporo is only used as a placeholder to show how services and applications can be implemented on top

the CPaaS.io platform. The City of Sapporo has not made any statement about this scenario yet.
CPaaS.io

Page 21 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

•
•

•

•

•

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

such as music and lighting). The idea is to compare audience feedback between sculptures andprovide it as open data. The scenario targets primarily organizers, sculpture owners and sculptors.
My Watching Experience – This scenario is based on the hottest sculpture, but targets the visitors
providing a personalized experience of watching various snow sculptures.
The Coolest Sculptor – The coolest sculptor provides an IoT view on the International Snow
Sculpture Contest. The main idea is to provide alternative rankings and insights based on wearable
sensors including such metrics as the movement smoothness and least effort.
Coolest Attraction – The Coolest Attraction scenario focuses on attractions such as the snow slides
in which participants are actively participating. The main idea is to have sensor-based feedback andrecommendations based on the experience of an attraction and metrics and possibly sensor data
as open data on the city portal. This scenario primarily targets attraction owner, event organizer,
and the city as well as visitors that want to look up the attractions before and after the event.
My Attraction – My Attraction is a personalized version of Coolest Attraction that provides thevisitor with a highlight when using the attraction. Based on sensor data and metrics such as motion
anomalies and excitement levels, personalized content is chosen. Visitors may also get a summary
how they used the attraction (e.g, “dare devil” vs. “excited smoothie”).
IoT Snow Labyrinth – The main idea of the IoT Snow Labyrinth is to offer a time-lapse video
showing metrics such as excitement, activity and agitation levels. In addition, aggregated metrics
such as dwell time of people could be offered as open data.

Of the six scenarios we had to discard the Hottest Sculpture and My Watching Experience as they require
the use of video cameras. Based on previous experiences this has been considered as to privacy intruding
as this would be perceived as surveying the visitors. The highest priority we see for the Coolest Sculptor
and attraction use cases. The coolest sculptor provides an interesting complementary IoT view on thecontest that has the potential to reach more people that are not physically present at the event and istherefore worth exploring. The attraction use cases are interesting as they show potential value both forindividual visitors and for increasing the attractiveness of the city as part of an open data strategy.
Appendix 2 provides a more detailed comparison of the Sapporo Snow Festival scenarios.
Currently we are planning to collect data from about 10 participants that would be visiting the Sapporo
Snow Festival 2018. The data collection event is planned to be organized in a similar way as the datacollection event for the Color Run in Utrecht: participants would be equipped with mobile phones andwearable devices and video data would be used for collecting ground truth and content creation.
For all data that has been collected as part of the Enhanced User Experience, we have taken care that thedata can be shared among all European and Japanese consortium members. Two conditions need to besatisfied
1. Individuals must consent to what data is shared with whom for what purpose
2. Data Transfer Agreements and Data Protection Agreements have been made between AGT andrelevant parties
Individuals have signed consent forms in which they agree that their data can be shared with all European
and Japanese consortium members. The consent form used can be found in deliverable D2.3 First Ethics
Report. In addition, a data transfer agreement is necessary for each party that processes the data. To thisend such a data transfer agreement has been agreed between AGT and OdinS, the operator of theEuropean CPaaS.io instance, and the signature process is currently in progress. The data transfer agreementtakes in particular into account the new EU General Data Protection Regulation - Regulation (EU) 2016/679("GDPR"). We are also planning to have data protection agreements in place between partners that are notnecessarily processing AGT data, but may come in contact with the data, e.g. when maintaining
components that are used by AGT. One such example is for instance the IoT Broker provided by NEC.
CPaaS.io

Page 22 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Finally, we are considering to apply the My Events app to other new events such as the Color Run 2018 in
Paris.
Target Cities
As any city, even the smallest ones, are hosting events that people like to join, the target cities for the
Enhanced User Experience are free of any restrictions, i.e. it applies in principle to any city. A particular
benefit of the application is that it does not require from the city or event organizer to deploy any special
infrastructure. Using wearable devices and user generated content, enough data is available that can beused for the My Events application. Even with this minimal setup it is possible to create aggregated,anonymized, data that can provide valuable insights for cities and be used as part of their open data
strategy. Of course specific questions and insights from cities and event organizers can help to better
customize and localize the solution.
Required Federation Support
The main federation requirements for the Enhanced User Experience application are as follows••••

Manage consent to personal data across regions
Scale up to millions of personal real-time data streams handling large events in large cities whereas
several events may be taking place in parallel
Secure personal data against unauthorized access
Provide a unified access method to data between platform instances in order to avoid solving data
integration problems on application level

Figure 6: The Enhanced User Experience Use Case requires SPARQL Federation between the platform instances in order to achievesemantic interoperability

The Enhanced User Experience application has a strong requirement on obtaining transparent access of
personal data stored in different platform instances. In fact, we have identified in deliverable D2.5 that thisuse case requires Semantic Data Integration (EUE-11) in order to collect data from heterogenous data
sources and platform instances. Figure 6 shows that the main validation criteria for this application isfederate the European IoTKnowledge Server with the Japanese ucR Manager. Both are part of therespective CPaaS.io Semantic Integration Layer and provide data managed in the respective platform via a

CPaaS.io

Page 23 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

SPARQL endpoint. Consequently, we envision to provide SPARQL federation. This can for instance beachieved using CostFed3.
4.1.2 Sapporo Visitor Experience
We are planning to add features to Sapporo visitor experience, which include digital signage with IC card
authentication. The service is developed on Omotenashi Cloud service and its architecture is based on
CPaaS.io.
Federation Activities
Omotenashi Cloud is also providing services to other tourist information application services in othergeographical areas. Omotenashi cloud is a common platform service that includes open data information
service, especially PDS (Personal Data Store) and ID management (authentication, etc.) that can use very
popular IC card systems in Japan. The PDS and ID management will be used by many applications including
the tourism service as in Sapporo Visitor Experience, but many types of services in other geographicalareas, too.
Target Cities
Generally speaking the type of tourism service, a major component of Sapporo Visitor Experience can beextended to many other cities. The service can be extended to:•

any cities that have active tourism industry, nice tourist spots that sustain the visitor activity all theyear around, and preferably a big annual event and additionally many smaller events. The
maintenance cost of permanent installations of signages and such requires enough number ofvisitors spread over many months, and the maintenance/upgrade/update cost of the backend
software system favors cities that use such software years every so often.

As for the tourism support, we need to mention rather mundane but very important feature that the cities
need to have:•a strong commitment or leadership of the regional government to use such ICT-based tourism
support.

This is because the mere act of installing signages in populated areas along the road (most often under
government's jurisdiction), and stations (quite likely to be under the management of local public
transportation operators) would require the cooperation of regional government offices and public bodies
such as transportation operators).
Without such commitment of the regional/local government offices, sooner or later, the efforts tointroduce such service would hit a dead end. CPaaS.io has been lucky to have the strong support of themayor of the city of Sapporo and the local business communities so far.
As a concrete target for the next federation targets, the digital signage service will be expected to be
deployed to other cities by Olympic/Paralympic 2020. Chiba City and its 3rd sector company (jointly createdby the city office and private sector) which manage “Makuhari Messe”, a large convention facility in Chiba
City, wants to use the digital signage system that used open data and cloud service in an effective way.
Chiba city is the capitol city of Chiba prefecture immediately next to Tokyo. Makuhari Messe, one of thelargest convention centers in Japan boast many large events throughout the year and attract many visitor.
With the commitment from city office, this activity fits the conditions of the criteria mentioned above. The
envisioned service includes the following.
•

Installation of several digital signages around “Makuhari Messe”

3 https://github.com/dice-group/CostFed

CPaaS.io

Page 24 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7•••

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Provision of the content that supports domestic/international visitors using Kokosil service.
Switching used languages on digital signages will use the preferred lanage of the visitor, a personal
data obtained after IC card authentication
The personal data including the preferred language, food preference, etc. will be managed on
Personal Data Store (PDS) on Omotenashi Cloud

Required Federation Support
CPaaS is the architecture and Omotenashi Cloud is service phase. So there is still gaps for actual social
service. In that sense, Chiba City case will be the stage of PoC (Poof of Concept).
In business aspect, business model should still consider, who must pay the maintenance and operational
cost: city government or servicer who provide content for tourists?
From the technical point of view, PDS must secure personal data in the cloud. So we need to establish
security management on Omotenashi Cloud by including personal data protection as one of the key
features. This feature has to use the popular IC cards used in Japan for the wide acceptance. But pleatenote that it does not necessarily mean that the Omotenashi could uses the card service providers’ software
backend, but it is planned that the basic hardware characteristics of the IC cards, such as their uniquehardware IDs embedded in the individual IC chip is used to identify each user anonymously.

Figure 7: u2-based Architecture Diagram for Sapporo Visitor Experience

4.2 List of Criteria
Based on driving applications described above the synthesized list of federation criteria is as described inTable 2 below. Please note that we link the criterion back to the relevant requirements that we highlighted
in D2.5 Requirements Specification (V2) as being used for validation, as well to non-functional (NFREQ.nn)
and functional (FREQ.nn) platform requirements that were described in D3.5 CPaaS.io System Architecture.
EUE-nn refers to requirements of the Enhanced User Experience Application and SVE-nn refers to
CPaaS.io

Page 25 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

requirements of the Sapporo Visitor Experience application. The table below only captures the relevant
subset for federation.
Table 2: List of Federation Criteria

Criterion
Consistentdata
operations

Description
Is there a unified accessmethod acrossplatform instances ?

KPIPrototype of thesemantic integration
layer that can be used
to federated platform
instances

Platform Layer
Semantic
Integration Layer

Federation
Feasibility

Can the CPaaS.io
instances be federated
to enable theimplementation of across-regional
application withvalidated businessvalue
Can the CPaas.io
platform be used to
exchange personal
information between
Europe and Japantaking respective
regulations into
account

At least one
implemented
application that relies
on federated platform
instances

Semantic
Integration Layer

A prototype thatshows the exchange of
personal information
and an explanation
how platform
components support
the exchange of
personal information

Semantic
Integration Layer,
Security andPrivacy Pillar

What is the effort tolink data managed by
the European andJapanese instance?

Demonstrate anapplication prototype
that uses the samedata operations acrossplatform instances sothat the application is
not aware which
platform instanceactually manages thedata

Semantic
Integration Layer

Exchange of
personal
information

Effort forlinking data
betweenseveralplatform
instances

Requirements
EUE-11, EUE13
SVE-11, SVE13
NFREQ.25,
NFREQ.26,
NFREQ.27,
NFREQ.29,
FREQ.12,
FREQ.13,
FREQ.14
EUE-11, EUE13
SVE-11, SVE13
NFREQ.25,
NFREQ.26,
NFREQ.27,
NFREQ.29
EUE-11, EUE13, EUE-3,
SVE-11, SVE13, SVE-3
NFREQ.12,
NFREQ.13,
NFREQ.16,
NFREQ.17,
NFREQ.20,
NFREQ.22,
FREQ.23,

EUE-11, EUE13
SVE-11, SVE13
NFREQ.25,
NFREQ.27,
NFREQ.29,
FREQ.12,
FREQ.13,
FREQ.14

5 Summary

CPaaS.io

Page 26 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

In this deliverable we defined 29 general validation criteria for validating project results and 8 detailed
federation and transferability criteria. 3 Transferability criteria have been defined that we use to validate
how well the CPaaS.io platform supports the transfer of applications to other cities, especially between
Europe and Japan. 5 federation criteria have been defined to validate how cross-border applications canbe used to validate the federation capabilities of CPaaS.io platform instances, in particular federated
European and Japanese instances. Furthermore, we have described an overall validation framework for
CPaaS.io that covers the wider scope of validating all project results.
As a process for identifying the detailed transferability and federation criteria we used 6 innovative Smart
City applications for which prototypes have been implemented. For applications such as the Emergency
Medical Care, transfer activities between Yokosuka and Miura are already ongoing. We also described our
extensive work of a joint event experience use case that we use for validating CPaaS.io federation
capabilities that also validates how applications can be transferred between Europe and Japan and viceversa.
We believe that the criteria defined in this deliverable provide a focused set for validating the CPaaS.io
platform against its objectives. As a result we will be able to provide blueprints for transferring applications
between cities and countries.

CPaaS.io

Page 27 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

6 References
Stephan Haller, Alessia C. Neuroni, Marianne Fraefel and Ken Sakamura. 2018 (under review). Perspectives
on Smart Cities Strategies: Sketching a Framework and Testing First Uses.
Teresa M. Harrison, Santiago Guerrero, G. Brian Burke, Meghan Cook, Anthony Cresswell, Natalie Helbig,
Jana Hrdinov, and Theresa Pardo. 2011. Open government and e-government: democratic challenges
from a public value perspective. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government
Research Conference Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, John Bertot (Ed.). ACM,
New York, NY, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037556.2037597
Michael Jaekel. 2015. Smart City wird Realität: Wegweiser für neue Urbanitäten in der Digitalmoderne.
Springer Vieweg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04455-8
Marie Anne Macadar, Josiane Brietzke Porto, and Edimara Luciano. 2017. Smart City: A Rigorous Literature
Review of the Concept from 2000 to 2015. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-670-5-203
Taewoo Nam and Theresa A. Pardo. 2011. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology,
people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research
Conference Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, John Bertot (Ed.). ACM, New York,NY, 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037556.2037602
G. Puron-Cid. 2017. From Technology to Social Development: Applying a Public Value Perspective to Digital
Government in Local Governments in Mexico. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International
Conference on Digital Government Research - dg.o ’17, Charles C. Hinnant and Adegboyega Ojo (Eds.).
ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1145/3085228.3085272

CPaaS.io

Page 28 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Appendix 1 – Joint Use Case Scenario
The event management scenario demonstrates how sensor data, personal data and governmental data
can be used to generate value for municipalities, event organizers and event participants.

Personas
Marcus Terada – Marcus was born in Japan and grew up in France. His mother is English and his father
Japanese. He says about himself “I am a world citizen”. Being 19 years old he is a post-millennial havinggrown up with Information Technology and social media. He is also an early adopter of wearable IoTtechnologies: He owns a smart watch, a smart phone and an action camera with various accessories. He
likes sport, music and enjoys events like the Colour Run, pop concerts and other events where he can meet
new people in his age group all over the world. He has even been twice to the Sapporo Snow Festival. He
already collects data from his smart watch and videos from his action-cam and he hasn’t found the app
yet that memorizes for him a trail of event highlights.
YourEvent is an event management company. They manage pop concerts, mass sport events and otherfun and entertainment events. They are interested in innovative ways of getting more quantifiable
information about event participants. YourEvent primarily uses aggregated information about the event.
For instance, they would like to learn about the relationship between people’s location, their activity(standing, jumping, dancing) and bands and the songs they are playing. They are also interested to learn
about how runners are dressing up.
City X is interested in innovative applications using existing and new open data. They are looking for new
sources of open data and platform solutions that deliver value to their citizens making X more attractive.
For instance they would love to offer a map comparing life event data. Examples may include showing
number of participants, their nationalities and how actively people are participating at events. They also
would like to offer transportation services for events participation and improve the safety of the events.
For instance, they would like to optimize the placement of emergency vehicles and first aiders using
predictive analytics.

Scenario Description
Marcus learned that YourEvent is organizing a Colour Run in Paris. Jacques, a friend of his, told him about
the MyEvents app that is able to create views and trails based on his smart watch, mobile phone and action
cam footage and open link data from the event organizers and the city. He likes the app and decides to
go to the Colour Run with Jacques and a couple of other friends.
One day before the event he and his friends create an account in the app, register their devices and linkwith each other. Marcus is strapped with his action cam and running with his friends who are all wearing
their fitness bands. They enjoy the colour run getting sprayed with colour on their way. When they arriveat the finish they open MyEvents. The app shows Marcus being an “Ambitious Runner” meaning that hewas taking a professional approach to the colour run. But the most interesting content presented in theapp, is one of three videos that shows how Jacques was going through the orange colour station. Whenapproaching the colour station he was not running anymore. The app shows that Jacques is unhappy justbefore entering the station. All of Marcus friends remember the moment when he fell behind and agree
that this is because he was completely exhausted. But as he traverses the orange colour station the mood
CPaaS.io

Page 29 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferabilitychanges to happy and one can clearly see the smile on Jaques’s face. His friends are having a lively
discussion whether this is because of the colour, the music, or the fresh drinks that were offered just after
the drink station were his friends were already waiting.
Before Marcus and his friends go partying, Marcus wants to check what data was collected about him
during the run. So he uses the “Manage My data” button in the app that allows him to download all thedata the app has about him including the data just collected during the run.
After the event YourEvent is analysing aggregated anonymized data realizing that a higher percentage of
ambitious runners than expected was participating at the event.
Six months later Marcus is just coming back from the Sapporo snow festival where he has been with hisfamily and his six year old brother. He was using Kokosil Sapporo to get around in Sapporo and MyEvents
to enhance his event experience. As Kokosil and MyEvents are using both the CPaaS.io technology he gets
notified that he can use the Kokosil data in MyEvents to access all data from one event with a single app.
He confirms that his data is joined and picks the Snow Festival app. Using the Kokosil data he can see all
the places he has been to. One place is highlighted to contain additional IoT-based content. It is the snow
slide he was riding doing his little brother a favour. He is quite surprised that the app rates his brother as“dare devil” and himself as “smooth rider”. But then, seeing the video his parents shot of his brother heagrees: his brother was wreckless.
Finally, Marcus clicks on a link that directs him to the Open Data Portal of the City of Sapporo that shows
anonymized ratings of slide riders: 5,000 automatically generated ratings, 23% smooth riders, 67% dare
devils and 10% safety aware riders.

CPaaS.io

Page 30 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Appendix 2 – Sapporo Snow Festival Scenarios
Table 3: List of Sapporo Snow Festival Scenarios

Name

Description

Target Group

Sensors

Metrics

The Hottest
Sculpture

How did visitors
watch sculptors?
Compare audience
reaction over time.
Correlate it tocontext changes
such as music andlighting. Compare
audience feedback
between sculpturesand provide it asopen data.
What were myemotional
responses whenseeing individual
sculptures ?
Personal interest
and aggregatedemotions per
sculpture
What effort andelegance did thesculptors put inmaking the
sculptures ?

Organizers,
sculpture owners,
sculptors

Video cameras(including infrared
cameras),microphones,
mobile phones,
wristbands

AggregatedEmotions, Mobile
phone interactions,activity, agitation,
excitement

Visitors

Video cameras(including infrared
cameras),microphones,
mobile phones,
wristbands

AggregatedEmotions, Mobile
phone interactions,activity, agitation,
excitement

Sculptors, Visitors

Wristbands, optional
action cam forcontent

Smoothness, effort,
crazy move, heart
rate

What are people
experiencing whenusing anattraction? sensorbased feedback andrecommendations
based on experienceof an attraction.
Provideas metrics andrankings as open
data

Attraction owner,
event organizer, city,
visitors

Phone, wristbands
action cam,
deployed camera

IoT attractiveness,
Motion Intensity,
velocity, activity,
Number of Ratings,
Participants statistic
based on classified
attraction type,
demographics,
excitement,
emotions, agitation,
crazy moves

My Watching
Experience

The Coolest
Sculptor

Coolest Attraction

CPaaS.io

Page 31 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016

Deliverable D2.7

Criteria for Validating Federation and Transferability

Name

Description

Target Group

Sensors

Metrics

My Attraction

How did I
experience theattractions ?
provides the visitor
with a personalized
highlight andsummary about theexperience of using
the attraction.
Includes metrics andcontent.
How do visitors
experience thesnow labyrinth?
offer a time-lapse
video with metrics.
Publish aggregatedmetrics as open
data

Visitors

Phone, wristbands
action cam,
deployed camera

Motion Intensity,
Velocity, usage
summary (cooldaredevil vs excitedsmoothie),
excitement, activity,
emotions, agitation,
crazy moves

Visitors, event
organizers

Phone, wrist-wornwearable, cameras

excitement, activity
and agitation levels,
dwell time

IoT Snow
Labyrinth

CPaaS.io

Page 32 of 32

H2020 EUJ-02-2016