1. Data Interoperability and City Indicators Draft TAFT Charter

2. Submission date2104-03-dd TitleData Interoperability and City Indicators Acronym(lower case)dici Thematic Area(s)TA2 ; TA7 Keywordsdata, interoperability, indicators, evaluation, ontology Team Leadership Contact e-mail Duration (months)12 CPA typeCPA-PR Deliverable typeFramework Status (version) v0. – TAFT formation v1. – Work in progress v2. – CPWD submitted to CPA Editor dici_v0.1 Data Interoperability and City Indicators

3. 1. Summary (project teaser) Dici aims at creating data interoperability protocols to enable transparent and smart data sharing among cities and citizens and to develop city indicators based on the common framework provided by the City Anatomy. The objectives of the charter are to: (i)Identify initiatives that are suitable to describe city data with the purpose of facilitate data sharing and reuse it. (e.g., Data Catalogue Vocabulary (DCAT), Asset Description Metadata Schema (ADMS)). (ii)Propose a data catalog and a common vocabulary (ontology) for the city anatomy (ancha). (iii) Produce a list of indicators to guide and help city transformation projects by measuring the different areas of the ancha model (City Evaluation Framework). Data Interoperability and City Indicators

4. 2. Problem statement (charter focus/purpose and scope) Efficient city operation requires advanced data management strategies. Even city-related data are emerging rapidly, there is still a lack of data standards to easily compare, share and reuse best practices from other cities. Thus there is a need for protocols to standardize datasets describing the City Anatomy. Raw data are not sufficient to describe the high level functions of ancha, so the protocols need has to be extended to more complex indicators or indexes in order to best describe and measure the city functions and services. The current availability of advanced computing and sensing platforms facilitates the access to massive data repositories, often collected in real time, which contain city information at various levels. However, data repositories provided by different cities and organizations contain heterogeneous information, which is often incomplete or ambiguously described. As a result, data repositories cannot be integrated and processed in a coherent way making for instance comparative city analysis unfeasible or city performance evaluation difficult. Thus, the focus of dici is to provide the proper tools to ensure the usability of city-related data, in the form of calculated indicators or directly from raw data. The overall objective is to establish a set of recommendations for data interoperability and city ontology, as well as a City Indicators model (CEF) to allow high level analysis of ancha and help decision making. In the long-term, dici protocols aim to be transparently applied to many cities or urban communities. Data Interoperability and City Indicators

5. 3. Relationship of this TAFT with published CPAs N/A at this moment. It will be linked to ancha. 4. Exit Strategy The work will be deemed complete when the submitted CPWD-PR to the CPA Editor is approved and published as a CPA-PR_dici. 5. Current activities by other active TAFTs linked with this TAFT This TAFT builds upon the concept of Anatomy of City Habitat (conceptualized in the TAFT ancha), providing an implementation that will facilitate the access to the information flows in the City Anatomy, so will also be linked with all TAFTs that develop ancha. 6. Objectives 1.CPS data catalog. A list of metadata to describe completely and unambiguously CPS datasets. 2. CPS ontology. A common vocabulary to describe objects and relationships in the ancha framework. 3. CPS indicators. A comprehensive board of indexes for executive evaluation and analysis of ancha framework. Data Interoperability and City Indicators

6. TaskContentDeliverableExpected dateCompleted date T1 Complete the draft Charter document and identify key partners and stakeholders Charter2014-03-17 T2Prepare a draft of the CPS data catalog structureWorking document2014-04-30 T3 Identify and evaluate existing city ontologies in the context of the Anatomy of City Habitat Working document2014-06-15 T4 Prepare a draft of indicator matrix according to ancha areas. working document2014-04-30 T5 Identify and adapt existing methodologies and indicator metrics to ancha matrix working document2014-05-20 T6 City indicators Case study with interested CPS cities. Report2014-06-15 T7 Extend data catalog structure to describe dataset contains according to CPS ontology working document2014-09-15 T8 dici Workshop Present elaborated working documents and compile input from participants and relevant stakeholders. to be decided 2014-4Q T9Final writing of the CPWDCPA-PR dici2014-12 7. Tasks, deliverables and planning

7. Data Interoperability and City Indicators 8. Description of expected participants The TAFT can benefit from a multidisciplinary group of participants, including cities and commercial organizations and universities with backgrounds on architecture, urban science, data management, analysis and modeling. The participation of cities, industry and academia shall be balanced 9. List of initial participants No.Name of ParticipantInstitutione-mail P1Robert RalloURVrobert.rallo@urv.cat P2Michael JansenCityzenithm.jansen@cityzenith.com P3Gary WachowiczMicrosoftgawach@microsoft.com P4José Antonio OndivielaMicrosoftjoseantonio.ondiviela@microsoft.com P4Ger Baron (?)Amsterdamg.baron@amsterdameconomicboard.com P5Vicente GuallartBarcelonavguallart@bcn.cat P6Lluís SanzBarcelonalsanz@bcn.cat P7Francesc GiraltCPS Affairsfgiralt@cityprotocol.org P8Jordi ZacariasBismartjordi.zacarias@bismart.com P9Enric MartiBismartenric.marti@bismart.com (*) and additional participants in the DUDES Working Group (Defining Urban Data for Science)

8. Data Interoperability and City Indicators 10. Seven Questions 1. Is the scope of the proposed team sufficiently focused? 2. Are the topics that the team plans to address clear and relevant for the goals of the CPS and the objective of transformation? 3. Will the formation of the team foster work that would not be done otherwise within CPTF, in another organization, by industry, or over the natural course of events? 4. Do the team’s activities overlap inappropriately with those of another TAFT, the CPS portfolio of projects or to a team active in another organization?. 5. Are there sufficient interest and expertise in the team’s topic, with multiple cities and member organizations willing to expend the effort that is likely to produce significant results over time? 6. Does a base of interested cities, organizations and other stakeholders appear to exist for the planned work? 7. Does the CPTSC have a reasonable role to play in the determination of the technology? Depending on the nature and extent of the overlap, the proposed team may still be formed or the CPTSC may recommend that the proposing parties rather contribute by integrating into the existing TAFTs To help in this determination, a proposal to create a TAFT shall include a list of potential charter members. If other organizations are working in similar areas, the proposed team must outline how the members will coordinate with these other efforts.

9. Data Interoperability and City Indicators City Anatomy

10. Data Interoperability and City Indicators

11. City Evaluation Framework Indicators List * Identified more than 160 Indicators

12. Data Interoperability and City Indicators City Evaluation Framework The Dashboard of the Mayor

13. Data Interoperability and City Indicators City Evaluation Framework The Dashboard of the Mayor

14. Data Interoperability and City Indicators City Evaluation Framework The Dashboard of the Mayor

15. Data Interoperability and City Indicators City Evaluation Framework The Dashboard of the Mayor

16. Data Interoperability and City Indicators Data Availability Data Universal Formats Data Interoperability

17. Data Interoperability and City Indicators Data Report Data Management

18. Data Interoperability and City Indicators