the infinity project infrastructures for the future

This document is produced under the EC contract FP7 ICT-285192.

This document is property of the INFINITY consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the written approval of the INFINITY consortium

1

The Infinity Project Infrastructures for the Future Internet Community FI-PPP Contract Number 285192

M5.2: Report from the pilot survey and from the 1st full survey



2

Document Reference

Project Acronym INFINITY

ICT Project Number FP7-285192

Project URL www.fi-infinity.eu

EU Project Officer Mr.GiorgiosTselentis

Project Coordinator

Name Federico Alvarez Affiliation UPM

Email [email protected] Phone +34-91 336-

7344 Fax

+34-91 336-7350

Deliverable Name Report from the pilot survey and from the 1st full survey

Code name M5.2

Nature Report Distribution Type PP

Responsible Author(s)

Sarah Guigon InterInnov [email protected]

Erik Rodenbach InterInnov [email protected]

Chris Foley TSSG [email protected]

Jacques Magen InterInnov [email protected]

Abstract (for dissemination)

This document is a report from the pilot and first full surveys of infrastructures performed by the INFINITY project. It is released further to Milestone 5.2 “1

st full

survey of infrastructures”.

Keywords Full Survey, Infrastructures, FI-PPP

Contractual Date of Delivery

31 March 2012 (for M5.2)

Status Final

Quality assurance readers

Silvio Cretti Mike Surridge

Result OK OK

http://www.fi-infinity.eu/

mailto:[email protected]



3

Table of Contents

DOCUMENT REFERENCE ........................................................................................ 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. 3

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 5

2 ORIGIN OF THE INFRASTRUCTURES ................................................................ 6

2.1 Sources .................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Communication channels ............................................................................................................... 6

3 PRESENTATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................... 8

4 THE THREE STAGES OF THE FIRST FULL SURVEY .............................................. 8

5 ANALYSIS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURES REGISTERED IN THE SURVEY............... 11

5.1 Geographical Distribution ............................................................................................................ 11

5.2 Participation in the TridentCom INFINITY Workshop ...................................................... 12

5.3 Types of infrastructures (test bed, pilot trial, research project…) ............................... 12

5.4 Commercial status of the infrastructures ............................................................................... 12

6 ANALYSIS OF THE ANSWERS ........................................................................ 14

6.1 Table of answers .............................................................................................................................. 15

6.2 Proportion of Detailed information in the questionnaires .............................................. 28

7 FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMENTS ............................................................... 29

8 FEEDBACK ON THE REQUIREMENTS AND COMMENTS MADE BY THE FI-PPP PROJECTS (IN ANNEX 2)....................................................................................... 29

9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 31



4

10 ANNEXES ..................................................................................................... 32

10.1 Annex 1: Comments gathered during the pilot and first full surveys .......................... 32

10.2 Annex 2: Comments and requirements concerning FI-PPP projects............................ 38

10.2.1 General questionnaire ........................................................................................................................ 38

10.2.2 Sensor Network ..................................................................................................................................... 41

10.2.3 Customer device .................................................................................................................................... 44

10.2.4 Data and context management ....................................................................................................... 44

10.2.5 Application/service delivery system ........................................................................................... 47

10.2.6 3G/4G/Wimax Network ..................................................................................................................... 48

10.2.7 Cloud Computing ................................................................................................................................... 50



5

1 Introduction

Before entering into the first full survey of the registered infrastructures, it was decided to follow-up the “initial survey” (cf. M5.1) with a limited “pilot survey”. The aim of the pilot survey was to test the questionnaire that should be used for the 1st full survey. The partners involved in Task T5.1 were asked to choose the infrastructures they would interview for the pilot survey. Most partners selected the infrastructures already addressed during the initial survey. The questionnaire was made available under Excel format and also as an online tool. Due to practical reasons, all questionnaires were filled in using Excel files. In the end, 9 infrastructures participated to the pilot survey. They were the first ones to be registered online. This pilot survey started end of December 2011 and was concluded by end of January 2012.

The outcome of the pilot survey helped to refine the questionnaire, leading to the first full survey of the INFINITY project, which started mid-February 2012 and finished mid-April 2012. The first full survey was initiated from a list of around 300 infrastructures. Each infrastructure was affiliated to a partner and a priority number. The survey was conducted in 3 stages, starting with the highest priority infrastructures. Each infrastructure was first approached by the assigned partner by means of a “generic email” and followed up by a phone call a week later in order to make sure that they received the email and intend to participate in the survey. As a result of this approach a considerable number of infrastructure contacts filled out the questionnaire of the on line tool. The content of the questionnaires have been analyzed and the results are described in this report.

This report presents how the first full survey was performed and what kind of information can be extracted from its results. Tasks 5.2 and 5.3 will then perform a more in depth analysis of the data collected from the infrastructures.



6

2 Origin of the infrastructures

2.1 Sources

The infrastructures contacted came from many sources: communication channels, INFINITY partners, brochures and other documents…

28 infrastructures are linked to FIRE, either from FIRE STATION, OpenLab, CREW, OFELIA and BonFIRE. Among them, the response rate is relatively high: 14 infrastructures related to FIRE have responded to the questionnaire, which represents a response rate of 50%.

There were also 28 infrastructures which originated from the FI-PPP projects but there was a much lower response rate: only 18% of such infrastructures are registered. Indeed we got confirmation that some of these infrastructures do not wish to be publicly available for experimentations; in other cases the FI-PPP projects did not wish the infrastructures to be publicly available at this stage.

FI-PPP Projects Number of infrastructures

provided by FI-PPP projects for first full survey

Number of infrastructures provided by FI-PPP

projects that have posted online

FI CONTENT 7 1

OUTSMART 3 0

ENVIROFI 8 1

Instant Mobility 8 1

FINSENY 1 1

Smart Agrifood 1 1

Total 28 5

Table 1: FI-PPP projects in the survey

2.2 Communication channels

In parallel with the first full survey, the INFINITY partners were asked to contact communication channels. Communication channels were defined as relevant organisations and individuals that could help to find additional infrastructures. A communication channel would act as a major contact point and would have the opportunity to highlight infrastructures, test-beds or smart cities, which will be incorporated into the INFINITY online repository.

242 contacts from communication channels were assigned to different partners. These contacts came from many organizations, in all European countries and were originally affiliated to either EUREKA, Celtic-Plus, ITEA, FIF, Taftie, Eurogia+, FP7 or were added by the partners themselves.



7

Despite the efforts from the partners, the response rate was quite low: out of the 242 communication channels registered in the table, only 18 provided information. However this source proved quite important as was correctly anticipated by INFINITY partners. Indeed, thanks to the feedback from these 18 contacts from communication channels, 66 infrastructures were provided to the INFINITY project. 57 infrastructures were actually added into the table.

These 57 were contacted in the frame of the first full survey. Unfortunately only 10 of them submitted or drafted1 the INFINITY questionnaire. This means that 17.5% of the infrastructures provided directly by the communication channels were actually registered.

Diagram 1: Responses provided by the communication channels

1 In the online registration, the infrastructure owners would either submit or draft the questionnaire. A submission is final while a draft can still be edited.



8

3 Presentation of the questionnaire

During the pilot survey, the questionnaire was provided in the form of an Excel file with several spread sheets. The first sheet explained how to fill in the questionnaire. The second sheet included the mandatory core questions. The other sheets included questions that were to be answered whenever relevant according to the given infrastructure.

Nine infrastructures were selected by INFINITY partners to fill in the questionnaire at that stage.

During the first full survey, the infrastructure owners were invited to fill in an online questionnaire, after registering with a login and a password. They could either save it as a draft and continue filling it in later; or submit it directly. The data collected during the pilot survey was entered using the online questionnaire by one of the INFINITY partner; the corresponding infrastructure owners were just requested to check the data.

The content of the questionnaire was roughly the same as in the pilot survey, although comments and feedback were taken into account, leading to some revisions. “Core questions” were general questions related to a global overview of the infrastructure; and optional questions dealt with features that could be filled in or not depending on whether they were relevant or not for each infrastructure.

4 The three stages of the first full survey

The first full survey was composed of three stages: stage 1 was for “priority one” infrastructures, stage 2 for “priority two” and stage 3 for “priority three” infrastructures. Stage 1 included for example all infrastructures related to Use Cases and FI-WARE, as well as a number of other infrastructures that looked like the ones to be contacted first; stage 2 included most other European infrastructures; and stage 3 included all other infrastructures at international level. After each stage, the tables were updated: the infrastructures clearly not interested in the survey were erased and new infrastructures were added thanks to the work with the communication channels. In summary:

At stage 1, 169 infrastructures were contacted. When stage 2 started, 34 of them had registered (submitted the questionnaire or saved it as a draft), which represented a response rate of 20%.

At stage 2, 119 new infrastructures were added to the survey. Out of the total of 288 infrastructures (stage 1 + stage 2), 55 had registered when stage 3 started, which represented a response rate of 19%.

At stage 3, 93 new infrastructures were added. A total of 403 infrastructures were then in the table (including the unsolicited infrastructures which



9

registered directly online, without having being contacted by INFINITY partners).

At the beginning of April, the INFINITY questionnaire had reached the objective of 100 infrastructures registered to respond to the questionnaire. At the end of the full survey on 16 April, 122 infrastructures were posted online. This represents a response rate of 30% against the number of infrastructures contacted.

The results per INFINITY partner can be seen in table 1. This table is for information only as infrastructure assignment was not decided by the partners but overall as part of Task 5.1. It is worth noting that 24 infrastructures were registered as “unsolicited”, i.e. we did not know their exact source or origin.



10

Partner Number of

infrastructures to contact for stages 1, 2 and 3

Number of infrastructures that have posted online

% of online posted questionnaires Number of infrastructures

that have submitted questionnaires online

Number of infrastructures that have

saved draft questionnaires

TOTAL (submitted questionnaires +

questionnaires saved as draft)

Create-Net 17 4 0 4 24%

DANTE 8 2 1 3 38%

Ericsson 12 0 0 0 0%

ERISA 62 12 10 22 35%

FhG 7 0 1 1 14%

InterInnov 83 17 5 22 27%

IT Innovation 56 6 3 9 16%

Martel 35 12 3 15 43%

PSNC 12 2 1 3 25%

Thales 19 2 0 2 11%

TID 8 3 2 5 63%

UPM 11 4 1 5 45%

WIT 52 4 4 8 15%

Unknown source or unsollicited 24

- 23

-

Total 406 68 31 122 30%

Table 2: Results of posted questionnaires by partners on 25 April 2012



11

5 Analysis of the infrastructures registered in the survey2

5.1 Geographical Distribution

Concerning the geographical distribution of the infrastructures surveyed, we can see that the infrastructures are mostly from Western Europe. 5 infrastructures are from outside Europe (Brazil, South Korea, Uruguay and US).

Diagram 2: Geographical distribution of the infrastructures

2 This only includes the infrastructures which have submitted a questionnaire or saved one as a draft



12

5.2 Participation in the TridentCom INFINITY Workshop

Since the end of March, a question was added to offer the oppportunity for the infrastructures to register and submit a paper in the INFINITY workshop hosted by TridentCom on 11 June 2012.

Since this question was added later, only 53 infrastructures had the possibility to answer it. A large majority (35) agreed to submit their infrastructure also to the Workshop, i.e. 66% of the respondents.

5.3 Types of infrastructures (test bed, pilot trial, research project…)

According to the responses from the questionnaires, a large majority of infrastructures are test beds (48 of them). The rest is more equally distributed among the different types of infrastructures.

Diagram 3: types of infrastructures participating in the survey

5.4 Commercial status of the infrastructures

According to the responses, most of the infrastructures registered are open for external use. Most of them are free to use (government funded).



13

Diagram 4: Commercial status of the infrastructures participating in the survey



14

6 Analysis of the answers

In general the content of the survey can be considered as rather complete: in all cases where the status of an infrastructure data entry is final, the first two sections Q1 and Q2 were properly filled in. The content of the other sections varied a lot, from detailed info to hardly any. In many cases there is no answer to the question asking to provide an additional document describing the infrastructure, or a link to such a description. In a few cases the infrastructures are listed as not being open for external use, which may mean that for now at least they may not be very relevant for Future Internet trials (though of course it is possible that Use Case projects could negotiate access, especially where they include partners with some connection to the infrastructure). At the end of the table of answers, the results of the entries that were not finally submitted (indicated as draft), but which were reasonably complete, are given.

A more in-depth analysis will be performed in Tasks 5.2 and 5.3.



15

The table below shows a preliminary analysis of the data.

6.1 Table of answers

No Status Infrastructure Country Web address Commercial status Survey Sections Completed

Remarks

57 Final TEFIS France www.tefisproject.eu Not available for external use

Q1, Q2 Only basic information

58 Draft Trentino Testbed Italy www.telecomunicazioni.provincia.tn.it

Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QF, QG Detailed info given

59 Final RedIRIS Spain www.rediris.es Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QG, Detailed info given

60 Final IBBT iLab.t Belgium ilabt.ibbt.be Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QA, QD, QF, QH, QI

Detailed info given, but not all questions answered

61 Draft FEDERICA Italy www.fp7-federica.eu Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QB, QG Detailed info given, but not all questions answered

62 Draft GEANT United Kingdom

www.geant.net Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QG Detailed info given

63 Draft Exemplar Network Testbed

Ireland www.dcenr.gov.ie/Communications/Communications+Policy/Exemplar+Network/

Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD, QE


65 Draft ImaginLab France www.imaginlab.fr Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QB, QE, QF, QG, QH, QI,




16


Remarks

66 Draft FOKUS Open SOA Telco Playground

Germany www.opensoaplayground.org Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2,QA, QB, QC, QD, QE, QF, QH, QI

Detailed info given

69 Final TWIST Germany www.twist.tu-berlin.de Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QA, QE Detailed info given, but not all questions answered

70 Final Patras IMS testbed Greece nam.ece.upatras.gr Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QH Detailed info given, but not all questions answered

71 Final Trondheim Pilot Norway www.vegvesen.no Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QA, QC, QE, QF, QG

Detailed info given, but many questions not answered

72 Final PlanetLab Europe France [email protected] Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QD, QG, QH

Only basic information

73 Final EmanicsLab Switserland www.emanicslab.org Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD, QE, QF, QG, QH, QI

Detailed info given

74 Draft Glasfasernetzverbund Lainsitztal - Open Access Network

Austria www.glasfaser-waldviertel.at Commercial Fee Based (For profit)


75 Final Satellite Network Emulation Platform

Italy www.tlcsat.uniroma2.it Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, Only basic information

76 Final Dark Fiber Experimental Facility

Czech Republic

www.ces.net Government Funded (With fees for use)




17


Remarks

78 Final

European Traffic Observatory Measurement Infrastructure

Hungary www.etomic.org Government Funded (Free to use)


79 Draft OFELIA Testbed i2CAT

Spain www.fp7-ofelia.eu/ Government Funded (Free to use)


80 Final CloudVille Greece nam.ece.upatras.gr Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QH, QI Detailed info given, but not all questions answered

81 Final OpenFlow Greece nam.ece.upatras.gr Government Funded (Free to use)


82 Draft SmartSantander Testbed

Spain www.smartsantander.eu Not available for external use

Q1, Q2, QA Detailed info given

83 Final

Opportunistic Networks and Cognitive Management Systems for Efficient Application Provision in the Future Internet - OneFIT

Greece http://www.ict-onefit.eu/ Not available for external use

Q1, Q2, QF Detailed info given

84 Final Fraunhofer FOKUS SmartTV Lab

Germany www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/en/fame/research_and_development/SmartTV_Lab/index.html


Q1, Q2, QB, QD Detailed info given, but not all questions answered



18


Remarks

85 Final High Performance Network Group, University Of Essex

United Kingdom

hpn.essex.ac.uk/ Charitable Foundation (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD, QG, QH


86 Draft LTE/LTE+ Testbed Germany www.vodafone-chair.com Not available for external use


87 Final NITOS Greece nitlab.inf.uth.gr/NITlab Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QF Detailed info given, but not all questions answered

88 Final Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Europe Ltd

United Kingdom

www.opengeospatial.org Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QA, QB, QC, QD, QE, QF, QI


90 Draft Acreo National Testbed

Sweden

www.acreo.se/en/Technology-Areas/Broadband-Technology/Projects/Current-Projects/Acreo-National-Testbed/

Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QA, QB, QC, QD, QE, QG, QH,

Detailed info given

91 Draft OFELIA TUB-Island Germany www.fp7-ofelia.eu/ Government Funded (Free to use)


92 Final

Gestión de Infraestructuras Públicas de Telecomunicaciones del Principado de Asturias S.A.

Spain www.gitpa.es Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QH Detailed info given



19


Remarks

93 Draft HeerlenLive Netherlands www.heerlenlive.nl Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QF, QG Detailed info given

96 Final FUNDACION CARTIF BUILDINGS

Spain www.cartif.es Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QA, QB, QC, QD, QE, QF, QG, QH

Only basic information

98 Final DOTSEL Switserland www.ict-openlab.eu/technologies/testbeds.html


Q1, Q2, QE, QF Detailed info given

99 Final ENEAGRID CRESCO Italy www.cresco.enea.it/ Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QB, QC, QF, QG, QH, QI


101 Final Satellite Wi Fi handover

Italy www.tlcsat.uniroma2.it Not available for external use


102 Final Emersat Italy www.tlcsat.uniroma2.it Government Funded (Free to use)


103 Final Intersection Italy www.tlcsat.uniroma2.it Not available for external use


104 Final Atlantic Labs Ireland www.atlanticlabs.ie Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QB, QC, QG, QI

Detailed info given

105 Final Grid'5000 France www.grid5000.fr Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QG, QI Detailed info given



20


Remarks

106 Draft

Connected Communities - Wireless broadband network

United Kingdom

www.connectedcommunities.co.uk


Q1, Q2, QB, QD, QF, QG


107 Final

Fibre rings in Vejen Municipality and Midtsoenderjylland, Denmark

Denmark www.vejenkom.dk Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD, QF, QG, QH, QI


108 Final

Trial Environment for Cognitive Radio and Networks 2011-2014

Finland www.tekes.fi/programmes/Trial Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QB, QD, QE, QF


109 Final Sustainable DTN testbed in Slovenia

Slovenia siol.meis.si/n4c-data2010/ Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)


110 Final Mira Telecom Research Centre

Romania www.miratelecom.ro Commercial Fee Based (For profit)


113 Final Polish Optical Internet PIONIER

Poland www.pionier.net.pl/online/en/ Government Funded (With fees for use)


114 Final POZMAN Poland www.man.poznan.pl Government Funded (With fees for use)


115 Draft INTRANET JUNTA DE EXTREMADURA

Spain www.gobex.es Not available for external use




21


Remarks

116 Final 6net / Kuuskaista Finland www.kuuskaista.com/in_english.html

Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QD, QE, QF, QG, QH, QI

Detailed info given

117 Final Landmand.dk Denmark www.landmand.dk Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QC Detailed info given

118 Final Stichting Wireless Leiden

Netherlands www.wirelessleiden.nl Charity Status (Need Donations)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD, QF, QG

Detailed info given

119 Final Mediatuin Belgium www.mediatuin.be Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QC Only basic information

121 Draft LeYLab Belgium www.LeYLab.be Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QB, QC, QF, QG


122 Draft Digital Region Ltd United Kingdom

www.digitalregion.co.uk Commercial Fee Based (For profit)

Q1, Q2, QG Detailed info given, but not all questions answered

124 Draft

National Public Demostrator Center in Audiovisual Technologies

Spain www.cdaudiovisual.es Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QB, QC, QD, QE, QF, QG, QH, QI


125 Final VTT Converging Networks Laboratory

Finland www.cnl.fi Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QB, QE, QF, QG,QH

Detailed info given

126 Final Microwaves and Fibre Optics Laboratory

Greece www.mfol.ece.ntua.gr/ Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)




22


Remarks

127 Final UMA Testing Facility Spain www.lcc.uma.es/~pedro/mobile Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QB, QC, QE

Detailed info given

128 Draft HPWNET Italy www.csp.it Not available for external use


129 Draft Metropolitan Planning Council

United States

www.metroplanning.org Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)


131 Final FIRST@PC Korea, Republic of

trac.nm.gist.ac.kr/firstpc Not available for external use

Q1, Q2, QD, QI Detailed info given

132 Final Mobile Innovation Centre Testbed

Hungary www.mik.bme.hu Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QE, QF, QG

Detailed info given

133 Final MyMobileWeb Spain mymobileweb.morfeo-project.org Charitable Foundation (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD Detailed info given

134 Final

Fundació i2CAT. Recerca i Innovació en l'Àmbit d'Internet

Spain www.i2cat.net Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)


136 Final Broadband Wireless Network in the Kozani Region

Greece www.peddm.gov.gr Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QF Detailed info given

138 Draft MONACO Spain www.cba.upc.edu Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QF, QH Detailed info given, but many questions not answered

139 Final RCIKT-NET Slovenia www.rcikt.com Commercial Fee Based (For profit)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD, QI

Detailed info given

http://www.peddm.gov.gr/



23


Remarks

140 Final Intellectia Bank S.A. Spain www.intellectiabank.com Not available for external use

Q1, Q2, QA Only basic information

141 Draft Malaga City Council Spain www.malaga.eu Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QC Detailed info given, but many questions not answered

142 Draft CRON United States

www.cron.loni.org Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QH, QI Detailed info given, but not all questions answered

143 Final Rural information Society - network

Italy www.rurisnet.org Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)


144 Final

Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe AISBL

Belgium www.prace-ri.eu Government Funded (Free to use)


145 Final Greek School Network

Greece www.sch.gr/en Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)


146 Final e-lab Norway www.bredbandsfylket.no Government Funded (Free to use)


147 Final IBBT iLab.t (see also #60)

Belgium www.ibbt.be/en/develop-test/ilab-t


Q1, Q2, QB, QF, QG, QH, QI

Detailed info given



24


Remarks

148 Final

CONSORZIO NAZIONALE INTERUNIVERSITARIO PER LE TELECOMUNICAZIONI (CNIT)

Italy www.cnit.it Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)


149 Final Turktelecom network

Turkey www.turktelekom.com.tr Commercial Infrastructure

Q1, Q2, QA, QB, QC, QD, QE, QF, QG, QH, QI


151 Final

Rede Comunitária de Banda Larga da Terra Quente Transmontana

Spain www.amtqt.pt Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD, QG, QI


152 Final Barcelona Smart Cities Pilot Network

Spain www.bcn.cat Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QA, QF Detailed info given

154 Final IHE-EUROPE AISBL Belgium www.ihe-europe.net Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)


155 Draft IBILNET Spain www.ibilnet.com Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QA, QB Detailed info given

156 Final Integrated Secury and Emeregency Center of Madrid

Spain www.madrid.es Not available for external use

Q1, Q2, QA, QB, QC, QE, QF, QG, QH




25


Remarks

157 Final Wireless Trondheim Living Lab

Norway research.idi.ntnu.no/trimaks Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QB, QF, QG

Detailed info given

158 Final SQS Mobile Excellence Center

Spain www.sqs.es Commercial Fee Based (For profit)


160 Final MTT CropInfra Finland www.cropinfra.com Government Funded (With fees for use)

Q1, Q2, QA, QB, QC, QF, QH

Detailed info given

163 Draft Arctur-1 Slovenia www.hpc.arctur.si Commercial Fee Based (For profit)

Q1, Q2, QI Detailed info given

164 Draft Croatian Academic and Research Network - CARNet

Croatia www.CARNet.hr Government Funded (Free to use)


168 Final eHealth&AAL platform

Austria www.diabmemory.at Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QB, QC, QE, QG

Detailed info given

169 Final CloudComputingUFC

Brazil cloud.lia.ufc.br Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QI Detailed info given

170 Draft Ify Italy www.terradue.com Commercial Fee Based (For profit)


171 Draft SmartBay Ireland Ireland www.marine.ie/home/services/operational/SmartBay/



172 Final

CROSS-TEC LABORATORY of ENEA TECHNOPOLE IN BOLOGNA

Italy www.cross-tec.enea.it Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD Only basic information



26


Remarks

173 Final CLARA Uruguay www.redclara.net Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)


174 Final Finnish Ontology Library Service ONKI

Finland onki.fi Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QC Detailed info given

175 Final

Centro Andaluz de innovacion y tecnologias de la informacion y las comunicaciones

Spain www.citic.es Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)


176 Final RECORD online Living Lab

Norway www.recordproject.org Government Funded (Free to use)


177 Final Grafenwörth bewegt

Austria www.kit-aktiv.at Not available for external use

Q1, Q2, QA, QC Detailed info given

178 Final EXPERIMENTA PLATFORM

Spain www.i2cat.net/ Commercial Fee Based (Not for profit)

Q1, Q2, QG, QH Detailed info given

181 Final EXPERIMEDIA Schladming Ski Resort

United Kingdom

www.experimedia.eu Not available for external use

Q1, Q2, QB, QC, QD, QE, QF, QH

Detailed info given

182 Final NiWi, Nicta Wireless Testbed

Australia omf.mytestbed.net/projects/omf/wiki/OMFatNICTA


Q1, Q2, QF, QH Detailed info given

183 Final EXPERIMEDIA Foundation for the Hellenic World

Greece www.experimedia.eu Not available for external use

Q1, Q2, QB, QC, QE, QF, QH




27


Remarks

184 Final EXPERIMEDIA CAR Spain www.experimedia.eu Not available for external use

Q1, Q2, QB, QC, QD, QE, QF, QG, QH


186 Final European Grid Infrastructure (EGI)

Netherlands www.egi.eu Government Funded (Free to use)

Q1, Q2, QC, QD, QG, QH, QI

Detailed info given

The infrastructures in this table are classified according to the chronological order of questionnaire registration.



28

6.2 Proportion of Detailed information in the questionnaires

Finally 122 questionnaires were submitted in this first full survey. Among them, most infrastructures seemed potentially interesting to the FI-PPP. Only a few did not contain any relevant information and only some had just a name and a link to a website. In total 75 questionnaires were submitted; in addition 29 were drafted with rather complete information. Out of these, 76 (i.e. 62%) entered detailed (including technical) information about the infrastructure, although in several cases not all questions were answered. The rest only entered basic information3 on the infrastructure.

3 i.e, general information on the infrastructure, as opposed to technical information.



29

7 Feedback from the comments

A list of all the comments as well as INFINITY responses to these comments can be found in annex.

Most comments come from the pilot survey. Indeed the main objective of the pilot survey was to verify that the questionnaire was relevant and included all required questions. The main objective of the full survey was to actually collect data; although a “comments” box was provided, only a handful of infrastructure owners actually filled it in.

As already mentioned, the content and the structure of the questionnaire were similar for both surveys.

122 questionnaires have been analysed at this stage:

- 87 comments were provided by infrastructure owners and by Infinity partners during the pilot survey. 8 out of the 9 infrastructures participating to the survey provided comments. In most questionnaires, there were between 1 and 5 comments. One questionnaire did not have any comment (Open SOA); iLabt had up to 18 comments.

- Only 5 infrastructure owners gave comments during the first full survey: ENEA infrastructure, Mira Telecom Research Center, Atlantic Labs, Wireless Trondheim Living Lab and CropInfra. Except for Atlantic Labs, the comments were only meant to provide further details on the infrastructure or some precision on the responses.

Only a very small amount of these comments can be considered as “important”. Most of them are intended to provide additional details on top of the responses or to ask for clarification. Only a very a few comments are intended to provide advice/suggestion to improve the questionnaire.

All of these comments as well as the response provided by the INFINITY project can be found in annex 1.

8 Feedback on the requirements and comments made by the FI-PPP projects (in annex 2)

The questionnaire was distributed to all FI-PPP projects requesting feedback on it. All projects responded and provided feedback in the form of; asking for clarification, stating that certain questions/options were missing, adding additional requirements related to their domain areas and some questions related to what process and timeline INFINITY would follow for the full survey.

All comments were analysed by the INFINITY team. One of the following actions was taken for each comment received:



30

A change made to the questionnaire (and possibly an impacted CDF) which addressed the comment,

Clarification communicated to the FI-PPP projects as to the process INFINITY would follow in carrying out the survey, complete with timelines

Stating that a requirement/comment had already been addressed by another question in the questionnaire,

Stating that a comment/requirement was out of scope for the questionnaire as it was too domain specific,

Stating that for version one of the repository the comment/requirement will not be considered but that it will be considered for the second iteration of the repository.

A document was created which specified the INFINITY responses to the comments/requirements received and distributed to the FI-PPP projects (see Annex 2 for the full table of comments/requirements and INFINITY responses).

The comments, which will be considered for the second iteration of the repository, will go through the Change Management Board (CMB). INFINITY has created the CMB to handle this process of receiving change requests on the information gathered.



31

9 Conclusion

At the end of the first full survey, the objective was to have 100 infrastructures registered to respond to the questionnaire, including at least 50 of them with relevant data.

With a total of 122 infrastructures which have posted online, we can say that the first objective has been reached. The second objective (50 infrastructures with relevant data) still needs to be checked, however, our preliminary analysis is showing that it may well be the case since a majority of the questionnaires provided detailed information.

After closing the survey on 16th April, the infrastructures are being transferred into the XiPi repository. New registrations will be possible directly via the XiPi portal, through which the INFINITY project intends to collect information from new infrastructures as well as more detailed information about existing ones.

The main objective in the short to medium term i.e. the next few months is to attract new entries and solicit more data from existing entries by opening the repository and promoting XiPi, rather than by engaging into a new full survey.



32

10 Annexes

10.1 Annex 1: Comments gathered during the pilot and first full surveys

Comments Source Question/Topic Importance

level

Done

already Response

This questionnaire is extremely long and requests serious amount of work to be filled. How can INFINITY ensure that contacted infrastructures with seriously complete these forms? Seeing this, we would assume that INFINITY already contacted all addressees and got a confirmation of interest and willingness to actively contribute to this survey. Is this the case? ENVIROFI General High

When asked why only the core questions were completed: “I did not answer to the other worksheets, because it seems to me that they are not relevant to TEFIS. TEFIS is not a testbed, nor a backbone but a portal to some testbeds (currently 5 of them)” Thales Gereral High

Could you please let us know if there is intention to deal with […] the physical infrastructures for the use case large trials? I believe a questionnaire targeted at this would look quite different. As our experimentation approach in FINEST relies heavily on the physical infrastructures we should deal with in our domain and less on the IT infrastructures they own. Finest General HIgh

Provide further explanation on the relevance of the

questionnaire in general and some questions in particular. Further explain the use of the

survey and the repository

Although the questionnaire is quite detailed in terms of describing the infrastructure, shouldn’t the owners also be asked whether they would be interested at all to provide the infrastructures (give access) to externals for making experimentations? Maybe more details could be clarified in this respect, e.g. under which conditions access would be granted, is it for free, are there confidentiality or privacy aspects regarding the data harvested from the infrastructure, any legislative requirements to be met by users etc. ENVIROFI General High

Provide further explanation on

the relevance of the questionnaire in general and some questions in particular. Further explain the use of the




33


level

Done

already Response

I could not find request for information about: computation capabilities, storage capabilities and bandwidth/latency capabilities available (in general communication QoS available) in the infrastructure. In my point of view it could be useful to add the request for information for this issue. SAFECITY General High

The questionnaire has potential to provide valuable information - but for what and how will it be used? Will the entity that is to provide answers be given an explanation beyond what is in the Introduction sheet? If so, please share, as this will also help us understand what this is going to be used for and why these questions have been selected and not others. Finest General High




At the moment MTT participates in one of the FI-PPP Use case projects, SmartAgriFood, and we use CropInfra infrastructure as a platform for implement one of the pilots (Smart Spraying). Parallel to it we aim to implement FI-WARE enablers to CropInfra.

MTT CropInfra On this

infrastructure Medium

Need to update more about the infrastructure and services that are provided. Atlantic Labs General Medium

Need to update Cloud Computing section. Atlantic Labs General Medium

FP7 Project TEFIS 1.1 Low Not only an infrastructure, it

can also be project

This is a network infrastructure. The question is not very relevant GEANT 1.5 Low Question not relevant for

network infrastructure

This is a network infrastructure. The question is not very relevant GEANT

1.8

Low Not only an infrastructure, it can also be project.

Question not relevant for network infrastructure

It is not an organization, but an European FP7 project Consortium TEFIS Low



34


level

Done

already Response

Why this is relevant? GEANT 1.10 Low




Environment monitoring and Traffic monitoring could be added. Trentino testbed

2.2

Low Done

No change The phrase 'May apply to …..' is confusing. Best describe might be better. GEANT Low

We think logistics, environment monitoring are missing. Also, the date the infrastructure was deployed and put in operation would be interesting.

OUTSMART Low

testbed and living lab. Testbed is technology oriented, living lab is user oriented. ImaginLab

2.3

Low

Decided to have a multiple choice question

Not sure whats best here either? Could be pilot trial Exemplar Low

The service is of type of “Testbed-As-A-Service”. It doesn not offer a large amount of computing capacity, bit it is compatible with “clouds” offering, extended to networking

FEDERICA Low

Another phrase that can be added is: "Local users". (Selected users) is not very meaningful

Trentino testbed

2.5

Low Done Change the question in this

way: "Please select all the business sector(s) that would or could use your infrastructure to

experiment, test or operate a service. (This is standard sector

breakdown based on NACE codes). If you infrastructure

makes no sectoral distinction then you should select all

sectors."

The question does not adequately deal with out user base GEANT Low

Not completely clear for me if user are users of user panels or user are customers ….. ImaginLab Low

End-users are experimenters across a broad range of disciplines from network protocols through applications, hardware and software, leading-edge research and pre-service trials.Both academic and industrial. A single phrase is not sufficient (we also have "Students/Researchers", "Range of Business Users"

iLabt Low

We suggest to add "Other" choice Trentino testbed 2.7 Low Done Add "other" choice rejected



35


level

Done

already Response

Unabled to answer because the question is too much generic: the answer depends on many parameters (how the infrastructure is used, etc). Either the question will be better detailed or we suggest to delete it

Trentino testbed 2.8 Low

Detail the question

We suggest to add "Other" choice Trentino testbed 2.10 Low Done Add "other" choice rejected

Defintion of experiment/trial GEANT 2.11

Low Provide clearer definition of technical words to avoid

confusion or misinterpretation ?? Exemplar Low

we intend this question as the list of infrastructures that interoperate/are connected to this one and not as the list of standards that allow this infrastructure to be interoperable. In the CDF we have another attribute for the list of standards for infrastructure interoperability. Do we all agree?

Trentino testbed A.5 Low Done

Change question to : “Please provide the list of the other

infrastructures interconnected with this one”

not sure what "data localization tagged" refers to (we do not have RFID tags); note that the w-iLab.t is a "generic" testbed: the sensor nodes can do whatever the experimenter programs them to do. E.g. although video surveillance would probably not be the best example of use of a sensor network, there are some webcams available which could be used by the experimenter for a sensor network experiment. Furthermore, an "environment emulator" is available that can be used to emulate sensor inputs of any kind

iLabt A.6 Low

Add GPS into value list to better clarify

gateway, can be interpreted in many ways. Again, w-iLab.t is a "generic" testbed. In principle, all sensor nodes can act as gateways.

iLabt A.8 Low

Done The question refers only to “types of interfaces of the

gateways available” not to the type of gateway. For this

reason our proposal is to do nothing here.

rewording: put "data" instead of "measures" in the question Trentino testbed A.12

Low

Done rephrase the question. Put

"data" word instead of "measures" word in the

question « Presence detection » could be added. OUTSMART Low



36


level

Done

already Response

the question is wrong and should be rephrased. We aren’t talking about customer devices that are connected to an infrastructure, but the infrastructure itself is made by “customer devices”. So examples of rephrasing is: “Please select all the operating systems of your customer devices.”

Trentino testbed B.3 Low

Done “Please select all the operating

systems of your customer devices.”

the question is wrong and should be rephrased. We aren’t talking about customer devices that are connected to an infrastructure, but the infrastructure itself is made by “customer devices”. So examples of rephrasing is: “Please estimate the number of your customer devices”


Done “Please estimate the number of

your customer devices”

the question is wrong and should be rephrased. We aren’t talking about customer devices that are connected to an infrastructure, but the infrastructure itself is made by “customer devices”. So examples of rephrasing is: “Please select all the manufacturers of your Customer Devices”

Trentino testbed

B.6

Low

Done

“Please select all the manufacturers of your

Customer Devices” We do not understand why it solely mobiles and game console. Weather stations, pollution stations could also be added (not a restricted list).

OUTSMART Low

the question is wrong and should be rephrased. We aren’t talking about customer devices that are connected to an infrastructure, but the infrastructure itself is made by “customer devices”. So examples of rephrasing is: “If You selected “other” in the question about manufacturers of customer devices. Could you briefly describe the manufacturers of your infrastructure not covered in the previous question?”


Done “If You selected “other” in the question about manufacturers of customer devices. Could you

briefly describe the manufacturers of your

infrastructure not covered in the previous question?

Data processing is missing OUTSMART C.5 Low Done Out of scope for this question

the question should be rephrased. For example: “Please select all the security services/features offered by your infrastructure?”

Trentino testbed C.7 Low Done “Please select all the security

services/features offered by your infrastructure?”



37


level

Done

already Response

Difficult to answer this question in a simple way GEANT G.3 Low

Change question to: “If applicable, please provide the

date of initial operation (or planned launch) of this

infrastructure”

This is not a userful question. Not all the protocols listed are access protocols GEANT G.10 Low

Change question to: “Please select the access technologies

with which it is possible to access your infrastructure”

This is not a userful question GEANT G.12 Low

Change question to: “Is it possible to prioritise network

traffic, either by QoS or by dedicated capacity, through

this infrastructure?”

In the first sheet “Introduction” we suggest to change phrase “Ability to connect to a range of Customer Devices” into “Customer Devices”, because the aim is to describe the type and the characteristics of these customer devices (they represent the infrastructure itself). The questionnaire structure (the division into different section: Core and Infrastructure questions) works well and it is useful to keep separate different part of the questionnaire. Create-Net Intro Low

Done change phrase “Ability to connect to a range of Customer

Devices” into “Customer Devices”, because the aim is to

describe the type and the characteristics of these customer devices (they

represent the infrastructure itself).

General question, like “Please provide the date of initial operation (or planned launch) of this infrastructure?” in many cases will likely be answered identical from A,B,…to I. Maybe we could move these questions to the “Core questions” OR we could ask as part of the “Core Questions” whether the “Sub-“testbeds (A,B,…I) should be seen as individual testbeds (then A,B..I would have to answer these general question individually) or as all part of the overall testbed (then it would be sufficient to answer these questions e.g. E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7 only once). FhG General Low



38

10.2 Annex 2: Comments and requirements concerning FI-PPP projects

The following tables represent a preliminary proposal for elements to be considered. It is based on the feedback provided by the FI-PPP projects. The first table deals with the general questionnaire while the other tables are related the smart cities questionnaire.

10.2.1 General questionnaire

FI PPP Project

Comment title Comment of the FI PPP project Survey questions

Proposal/Decision from INFINITY

ENVIROFI Topology of infrastructure We would like to see a topology of infrastructures, based on what areas percentage wise does our repository cover - this is more needed possibly at the end of the 1st survey

This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

ENVIROFI Percentage of surveyed infrastructures

We would also like to see what percentage of the surveyed infrastructures are public and what is private - also applicable for the end of first survey


ENVIROFI Filling in the questionnaire thoroughly

This questionnaire is extremely long and requests serious amount of work to be filled. How can INFINITY ensure that contacted infrastructures will seriously complete these forms? Seeing this, we would assume that INFINITY already contacted all addressees and got a confirmation of interest and willingness to actively contribute to this survey. Is this the case?

INFINITY can not ensure that the questionnaire will be filled in. In a lot of cases INFINITY has not contacted infrastructures prior to asking them to complete the questionnaire. INFINITY will make a consented effort to have as many questionnaires filled in as possible. It will provide support to any infrastructure in filling out the form if needed.

ENVIROFI Condition of access to infrastructures

Although the questionnaire is quite detailed in terms of describing the infrastructure, shouldn’t the owners also be asked whether they would be interested at all to provide the infrastructures (give access) to externals for making experimentations? Maybe more details could be clarified in this respect, e.g. under which conditions access would be granted, is it for free, are there confidentiality or privacy aspects regarding the data harvested from the infrastructure, any legislative requirements to be met by users etc.

Question 2.7 Question 2.7 refers to constraints on participation. We have other attributes that can be added like: legal constraints, privacy policy etc. Will add "Other" choice to the question 2.7

ENVIROFI The technical aspects of The technical aspects of connecting to the infrastructure could be This will be considered for Release 2 of the



39

FI PPP Project



connecting to the infrastructure

addressed, questions regarding data formats, availability etc. web repository which is planned end of May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

INSTANT MOBILITY

Including infrastructures in Phase II

Are infrastructures aware of FI-PPP programme and committed to contributing to it; if not then the possibility of including them in a Phase II proposal is a non runner

INFINITY provides a means in which infrastructures of different types can be found. If a group wish to include an infrastructure found in the INFINITY repository in a FI-PPP Phase II proposal, it is up to that group to interact with that infrastructure directly to see if it is of interest to them.

INSTANT MOBILITY

Transportation and storage “Transportation and storage” is not a clear sector. Suggestion: replace it by 2 sectors about transport: Human mobility and goods delivery.

Question 2.2 The question is changed to the following; ”Please select all the business sector(s) that would or could use your infrastructure to experiment, test or operate a service. (This is standard sector breakdown based on NACE codes). If you infrastructure makes no sectorial distinction then you should select ALL sectors.”

INSTANT MOBILITY

Questions D1-D4 Questions D.1-D.4 need to be formulated clearer. Questions D.1-D.4

A description is now provided with respect to what is meant by Application Service Delivery

INSTANT MOBILITY

Question E.3 Provide some example to understand the coverage of the question.

Question E.2 Examples are now provided in the questionnaire.

FI-WARE Interaction with FI-WARE Indirectly INFINITY’s interaction with FI-WARE is important as the Use Case projects are supposed to use FI-WARE’s generic enablers, which also must be deployed on some infrastructure at some stage.

INFINITY is now working closer with FI-WARE, via a small working group.

FInest Streaming and big capabilities in data

It lacks some questions towards more streaming and big capabilities in data today that infrastructures may need to support. I therefore suggest to add either Stream or Event Analysis and perhaps BigData (or some way to realize the extent of the amount\volume and velocity of data the infrastructure needs to support and deal with). would also try and ask some

section C - Data\Context




40

FI PPP Project



questions to realize the extent of the variety of the data - structured \ unstructured \ signal \ multimedia \ transactional ...

FInest Explanation of the questionnaire

Will the entity that is to provide answers be given an explanation beyond what is in the Introduction sheet? If so, please share, as this will also help us understand what this is going to be used for and why these questions have been selected and not others.

An introductory letter with more general information is also provided as part of the invitation to register and complete the questionnaire.

FInest Physical infrastructures for the use case large trials

Could you please let us know if there is intention to deal with the first part - the physical infrastructures for the use case large trials? I believe a questionnaire targeted at this would look quite different. As our experimentation approach in FINEST relies heavily on the physical infrastructures we should deal with in our domain and less on the IT infrastructures they own.

Response provided at the Use Case meeting on 25 January: the repository does not include physical infrastructures as requested by FInest but mostly ICT infrastructures that can be used to support FI experimentations –of course these may be related to the physical infrastructures.

FINSENY Several sections in the questionnaire

My only concerns are related to the split-up of infrastructure by features because FINSENY’s case this means that we must fulfil several worksheets.

To represent infrastructures in a repository that is easily searchable, the decision was made to split them up by feature.

FI-CONTENT Customer segments It would be helpful to have customer segments: young, single, family, elderly,

Question 2.5 We cannot make distinctions of 'ages of people' as that would have to be applied then to all the other sub-segments (young employees, old volunteers etc. It would not fit)

FI-CONTENT Specific services available It would be helpful to add specific services available: Search engine, Mail, IM, VoIP, SMS, MMS, + authentication

Question C.5, question E.8, question F.8

C.5: Out of scope for this question E.8: OK to all but Search Engine and authentication F.8: OK to all but Search Engine and authentication

SmartAgrifood

Current problems/limitations of the infrastructures

Ask more explicitly for current problems/limitations or lessons learned for each infrastructure.


SAFECITY Types of gateways’ interfaces I would add request for information about the types of interfaces of the gateways available (WI FI, 2G,3G,4G, ZigBee, xDSL, etc.)

Question 2.8 This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of



41

FI PPP Project


Proposal/Decision from INFINITY May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

SAFECITY Computation capabilities, storage capabilities and bandwidth/latency capabilities available

I could not find request for information about: computation capabilities, storage capabilities and bandwidth/latency capabilities available (in general communication QoS available) in the infrastructure. In my point of view it could be useful to add the request for information for this issue.


OUTSMART Question 2.2 Logistics, environment monitoring are missing. Question 2.2 The question is changed to the following; ”Please select all the business sector(s) that would or could use your infrastructure to experiment, test or operate a service. (This is standard sector breakdown based on NACE codes). If you infrastructure makes no sectorial distinction then you should select ALL sectors.”

OUTSMART Date of deployment The date the infrastructure was deployed and put in operation would be interesting.

This is addressed per feature, e.g. question A.3

OUTSMART Question A.12 « Presence detection » could be added. Question A.13 « Presence detection » has been added OUTSMART Question B.6 We do not understand why it solely mobiles and game console.

Weather stations, pollution stations could also be added (not a restricted list)

Question B.7 The question has been rephrased as “Please select all the manufacturers of your Customer Devices”

OUTSMART Question C.5 Data processing is missing Question C.45 This is now included as an option. All projects Timeline of repository The importance of the timeline of our repository with populated

data was reiterated INFINITY is well aware of the time

constraints. Delivery dates with respect to the repository will be provided to the projects.

10.2.2 Sensor Network

FI PPP Project

Requirement title Requirement of the FI PPP project Survey Questions

Proposal/Comment from INFINITY

SAFECITY Optimizing video storage Encoding video. - Video compression algorithms (MJPEG,MPEG-2,MPEG-4, H.264)




42

FI PPP Project



SAFECITY Identification of abnormal behaviours

"Potential technologies; • counting of people • human avalanche’s detection • audio detection • motions detection • real time tracking • body gestures detection • human facial expressions detection • face recognition • presence detection • biometric identification"


SAFECITY Targets Ability to detect Fires, smoke or health risks in public areas • (critical infrastructures, parks, traffic tunnels, • etc.) • Low-consuming fire detectors Smoke detectors Infrared cameras Gas leaks, high contamination levels in public • areas • Environmental impairments in traffic roads. Gas detectors CO, NO and opacity sensors Snow and ice detectors • Floods detectors

A.13 “Smoke”, “Fire” and “Gas” have been added as a possible response to question A.13

SAFECITY Open and flexible solutions enabling scalability of surveillance systems

Handling thousands of cameras, environmental low-consuming sensors, other sensors

A.10, A.11, A.15 Already covered by questions A.10, A.11, A.15

SAFECITY Visualization of public places recordings only allowed by selected authorities

Visualization restricted to authorities (generally, police officers) A.15 Partly covered by A.15 with ‘access control’

SAFECITY High degree of reliability in “intelligent” detection of alarms

False alarms may cause the unnecessary costs and work. Guidance: less than 20% false alarms in traffic incident detection tools are accepted (Ref 4)


SAFECITY Provide full flexibility to model events to be alerted of

Proper user interfaces to re-defined alarms. Especially important when frequent malfunctioning detected

The requirement is too domain specific to consider it for inclusion.

SAFECITY Full flexibility for alarm triggering configuration. Enable a wide range of different procedures: from automatic functionalities to human intervention.

E.g. minimum human intervention for incidents detection E.g. human visualization for verification of abnormal behaviour in citizens/objects/traffic surveillance

The requirement is too domain specific to consider it for inclusion

SAFECITY Integration of private CCTV Video signal generated by Private operated cameras (private This will be considered for Release 2 of the



43

FI PPP Project



systems for public safety and security purposes.

buildings, critical infrastructures, etc.) and police operated cameras of public spaces (streets, market squares) should be merged together to maximize surveillance capacities.

web repository which is planned end of May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

SAFECITY Enable automated trustworthy surveillance information from citizens (fixed and mobile)

E.g. Video streams from incident place sent directly to systems operated by authorities over mobile networks and public Internet. E.g. Image of disturbing objects in a road.

The requirement is too domain specific to consider it for inclusion

SAFECITY Detect trafic congestion, traffic incidents, road conditions, geo positioning of police, irregular vehicle behaviour

GPS tracking, GIS applications, detection traffic flow variations. Use of the following data types; Video images • Camera location (GPS coordinates) • Road identification: type of road, sector.

A.5 Already covered by question A.5

SAFECITY Enable remote configuration of sensor devices.

Remote management of high resolution IP cameras of any vendor and model: • Optical Cameras: Pan Tilt Zoom (PTZ) , domo, 360o view of sight • Infrared cameras. • Wireless cameras, fixed


SAFECITY Optimizing video storage Encoding video. - Video compression algorithms (MJPEG,MPEG-2,MPEG-4, H.264)


SAFECITY Flexible control of devices: centralized or distributed as required by the user.

E.g. Pyramidal structure of M30 management architecture where Command Centre is at the top. Allow local logic at each control level.

The requirement is too domain/application specific to consider it for inclusion

SAFECITY Real time tracking of suspicious target from one surveillance camera to another.

Triggered when positive suspicious detection. Stream synchronization mechanisms. Required


SAFECITY Enable 3D visualization in the real time tracking of targets

Potential applications that ease the user development of 3D models of places with video surveillance cameras.


SAFECITY Ensure connectivity of remote wireless sensors with processing centers.

Deployment of wireless nodes to enable internet access to devices with proper interfaces.


SAFECITY Proper integration of video signal from fixed

Integration of different output formats depending on the • Type of camera: optical, infrared.

This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of



44

FI PPP Project



and mobile cameras. • Camera brand (Sony, Panasonic, Axis, etc.) May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC) SAFECITY Integration of other CCTV

systems handling by other PS organisms

E.g. In Madrid, CISEM receives M30 tunnel video signals The requirement is too domain/application specific to consider it for inclusion

OUTSMART Geo location of an event In the event of potential pollution of an area, the system provides information that can be used to minimize the consequences in a timely manner, e.g., turn of house hold equipment or valves into neighbouring areas


OUTSMART Plug and play sensors Plug and play mechanism for new sensors to move sensor configuration from waste basket maintenance to IT


OUTSMART Always on services Devices/sensors and communication network must work during all night


OUTSMART Management of devices within the infrastructure

IoT network management platform is required aiming at monitoring the status of the deployment devices


10.2.3 Customer device

FI PPP Project



SAFECITY Enable automated identification of fixed and mobile terminals’ location

Allow targeting alerts to citizens located in affected area This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

10.2.4 Data and context management

FI PPP Project



OUTSMART Security of data Data cannot be intercepted. Guaranteed privacy This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of



45

FI PPP Project



May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

OUTSMART Alarm handling or services In order to identify failures (or events like crashes or thefts) the system can detect alarms sent by devices


OUTSMART Services on historical data There is a need for statistical evaluation of history data from different sources to provide new optimization of waste baskets

C.4 This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

OUTSMART Alarm reaction time Alarms are received at the utility control center 5 seconds after detection at sensor


SAFECITY Physical system protection of sensitive data

Location limited to secure places (as police centres) C.6 Already covered by question C.6

SAFECITY Sensitive databases cannot be directly connected to public network

Accessible by internal and secure requests. C.6 Already covered by question C.6, authentication and identity management.

SAFECITY Sensitive data should be securely encrypted for transmission over public network

E.g. License Plate Recognition (LPR) system of Madrid City Police: LPs are sent from vehicle cameras through public networks to control centres where identification of suspected LPs is performed checking internal databases.

C.6 Already covered by question C6

The LPR system cited in the requirement is not explicitly cited In the questionnaire as its very domain/application specific

SAFECITY Enable different security levels for database access and storage

Sensitive data requires the highest security level (password-protection and other mechanisms that guarantee the security requirements)

C.6 Already covered by question C.6

SAFECITY Full security management of sensitive & non-sensitive databases

Full management queries, storage, and transmission of sensitive information.

C.6 Already covered by question C.6

SAFECITY Full management of servers (application services, databases) and

User management of network resources (BW, computing, storage) while using an application.




46

FI PPP Project



communication networks.

SAFECITY Dynamic management of user groups accessing to web-based applications

Dynamic creation of private domains accessible through virtual private and secure connections by subscribed users


SAFECITY Sensitive data handling should cope with Ethical constraints

Personal data: criminal records, license plates, recorded images. This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

SAFECITY Automated cross- references before alarm triggering

Historical data or 3rd party data sources The requirement is too domain/application specific to consider it for inclusion

SAFECITY Storage Scalability, Simple storage administration, Efficient data handling of large volumes of data

E.g. Data centre M30 C2 Centre employs Storage Area Network (SAN) solution for disk storage, a sharing storage philosophy that optimize the transmission of high volumes of data between servers and storage devices.


SAFECITY Ensure high data rate communications (video stream and sensor data) between C2 centres and deployed units.

Wireless communication nodes (Wifi, Wimax protocols based) can likely provide broadband services in the field with integration with 4G /LTE public mobile networks or prioritized services over 3G networks.


SAFECITY Ensure high data rate communications between video cameras and processing centers

As high-resolution IP cameras may require additional communication infrastructure (wired or wireless).


SAFECITY Strictest storage requirements

Continuous 8Mbps video stream without compression for 7 days storage → 670GB per camera stream

The requirement is too domain/application specific to consider it for inclusion.

Instant Mobility

API for Management of Virtual Data Centres

Possibility to offer drivers a recommended speed to avoid stopping, and adapting the traffic signals to the real demand, in

This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of



47

FI PPP Project



real time. This Instant Mobility service will be built combining data hosted in VDCs (Virtual Data Centres). Instant Mobility Service Providers to forecast better speed for each vehicle, communicate with traffic signalling system, coordinate with special cases (i.e. be able to give priority to public transport, emergency, etc.).

May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

Instant Mobility

Data Collection

Information to gather first and offer afterwards: traffic volume, car speed, traffic flows, parking space, and public transport timetable. Necessary technologies: inductive loops, DSRC, CCTV, ANPR, communications vehicle-infrastructure (3G, Bluetooth), social networks, ... Collaborators able to offer this information: travellers, transport managers, Consumers of the information: mainly Service Providers Possible EPICS inside: DataCollection, DataOffering


Instant Mobility

Availability of high quality traffic forecasts

Possibilities to process all the information gathered (traffic load, disruption of service, weather forecast, pricing) in real time and provide the end user (traveller, driver or float manager) with the best route.


Instant Mobility

Route and loading optimization

Possibility to know where the parcels are in the city in order to transfer them in another trucks to optimize route & loading based on traffic constraints


10.2.5 Application/service delivery system

FI PPP Project



SAFECITY Send automatically generated instantaneous messages (SMS alerting) to targeted citizens mobile phones

E.g. bomb attacks, fires, evacuations, adverse weather conditions, etc. are critical incidents where these tools are critical.

This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC) SAFECITY Enable automatically sending alerting E.g. bomb attacks, fires, evacuations, adverse weather



48

FI PPP Project



voice messages to targeted fixed terminals

conditions, etc. are critical incidents where these tools are critical.

SAFECITY Enable Internet-based alerting through E-mail/social network

On-line message warnings for subscribed citizens

SAFECITY Ease the integration of alarm messages into relevant web sites (Governmental sites, big enterprises sites).

On-line message warnings for every user.

SAFECITY Require interoperability with private networks (PMR, TETRA and TETRAPOL) offering mobile connectivity to PS members in the field

Enable sending low data rate messages (voice commands and short instantaneous messages) form C2 centres to targeted PS members in the field (FRs attending an incident, surveillance agents, patrol units)


SAFECITY Require interoperability with public networks (wireless hotspots networks, GSM/GPRS/UMTS/4G) offering mobile connectivity to PS members in the field.

Enable remote access to surveillance video through internet browser (password protected). E.g. Swedish fire-brigades access video surveillance data of the incident area through mobile devices. Remote access to Common Operational Pictures in mobile terminals of first responders in an emergency


SAFECITY Ensure interoperability with legacy terminals

Different FR would use their own terminal, ensure the communications among them.


OUTSMART Systems interoperability It should be possible to connect to different existing enterprise resource planning systems such as SAP


10.2.6 3G/4G/Wimax Network

FI PPP Project


Proposal/Comment

SAFECITY Flexibility for configuration of visual /audio notifications

E.g. In M30 surveillance system • • • 960 cameras monitored by 4 operators small squares for each camera border in red colour when positive detection. Operator enlarges the image by clicking on it




49

FI PPP Project


Proposal/Comment

SAFECITY Dynamic configuration of different traffic flows

Virtual private communication links to separate traffic from different sub-systems or applications


SAFECITY Bandwidth at least enough to cope with existing necessities

Video Surveillance 8 MB per stream per fixed cameras, 512 kbps per stream for mobile cameras Optical Character Recognition (OCR) data (license plates, GPS coordinates): 100kbps Signalling; 25kbps


SAFECITY Frame rate for video images reading tools

8-25 frames per second The requirement is too domain/application specific to consider it for inclusion

SAFECITY Network transmission cope with real time services

Minimum latency of Video images display E.10 This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

SAFECITY Connectivity with fixed and mobile devices

City wide connection with fixed devices (cameras, sensors) and mobile devices (as smart phones, in-vehicle computers)

A.9, F.10

SAFECITY High network availability even for mobile devices

Currently, video signal from mobile devices to the C2 centres suffer from poor availability of public networks


SAFECITY Enable awareness of Software/hardware failure

Anomalous functionality of algorithms Anomalous functionality of equipment


OUTSMART Trust User information should have different trust level This will be considered for Release 2 of the web repository which is planned end of May 2012, or for later releases (still TBC)

OUTSMART Robustness, reliability and QoS/QoD Robustness, reliability and QoS/QoD attributes are a must for the Santander cluster


OUTSMART Asynchronous message transfer All waste basket send asynchronously their status E.9, F.9, G.9 Asynchronous interaction is covered by the supported protocols even if it is not explicitly stated



50

10.2.7 Cloud Computing

FI PPP Project


Proposal/Comment

Instant Mobility

Computing as a service

The system has available Information about traffic volume, car speed, traffic flows, parking space, public transport timetable (no matter the source - e.g. cars, drivers, infrastructure, etc. - or the used technology), there is a need of computing based on huge amount of data (dynamic and static) and algorithms for forecast of traffic demand. The algorithms for computing the target flows will need high computing capacity and the data input such as position of the vehicles should be very precise.


the infinity project infrastructures for the future

Documents