GoF4R-ST4RT Combined Final Conference. Brussels, 26/10/2018

Transcription

1

2 GoF4R-ST4RT Combined Final Conference Brussels, 26/10/2018

3 GoF4R - Introduction by Technical Leader Riccardo Santoro - Trenitalia

4 S2R Open Call Coordinated by UNIFE CEF CNC RINA-C BE EPF Masaryk University OLTIS Group Politecnico di Milano RSSB TELESTE TRENITALIA UIC UITP University of Žilina Universidad Politécnica de Madrid University of Sheffield IT2Rail coordination Start November

5 Work Package Structure 5

6 How GoF4R is related to S2R IP4

7 Project Objective Define sustainable governance for the Interoperability Framework (IF) that will create the right conditions to introduce seamless mobility services and foster the development of multi-modal travel services.

8 Project Assumption The establishment of good governance, in and of itself, will not assure market uptake of the IF components that is left to market forces to decide. Good governance will, however, define the processes and environment to best promote the use of the IF components and secure the confidence for service providers to deploy them

9 Conventional approaches to meeting the interoperability challenge, conditioned by the available technology of the time, have led to the artificial alteration of the essential features of the problem statement: The adoption or regulation of common formats and protocols for inter-process communication aimed at removing heterogeneity; The local importation of pre-defined remote data sets aimed at removing the distributed nature and the variety of data resources; The centralized governance of the scope of multimodal mobility services and of data exchange processes, both aimed at controlling the extension and openness of the network.

10 Governance is specific to the mechanism The mechanism Adoption of common formats and protocols Local importation of predefined remote data sets The governance problem How do we accommodate variants while keeping them common? How do we ensure synchronized «adoption»? How do I know who gets my data sets, how they use them? How do I know where they come from? How do we ensure they are correct and up-to-date? How do we ensure everybody using the same data calculate the same results?

11 Governance is specific to the mechanism The mechanism Adoption of shared machineinterpretable sematics (ontology) that abstracts from formats The governance problem How do we evolve the ontology? How do we map across ontologies? Link data across the web How we discover and establish links across the web of data? How do we provide what tools and education?

12 The governance tool

13 Data management and quality assurance plan Analysis of the demand of traveler and travel companion Analysis of the demand of market actors for the IF Analysis of impact of governance solutions Regulatory environment interim report Initial semantic interoperability technology market watch Scouting of interoperability standards in the rail and transport sector (+ policies) Standard metadata descriptions Survey on semantic interoperability and results Analysis of skills offered by academic curricula Analysis of skills offered by Company training courses Analysis of skills required in the job market Synthesis of the semantic interoperability technology market Establishment and management of the Advisory Group Setup dissemination and exploitation plan Advisory Group input and advice (3 AG meetings) Outcomes 13 Deployment roadmap and recommendations

14 User Demand Delphine Grandsart - European Passengers Federation

15 Transport stakeholders Authority Improve liveability of the city and mobility offering to citizens and end users PTA/PTO Cost effective, reusable, scalable, modularized and sustainable IT architectures End User Seamless travel experience MaaS Eco- Driving Innovative Apps and services innovation Integrated ticketing Predictive maintenance Connected&Automated Mobility Supplier/ service providers: Better products, competitive advantages and #UITP2017 ICT INTEROPERABILITY ENABLING INNOVATION

16 DIGITAL ERA Interoperability of #UITP2017 2

17 USER DEMAND End-user demand for the Travel Companion Market actors demand for the IF Analysis of impacts on the governance solution

18 END-USER DEMAND FOR THE TC Travel Companion = the ultimate travel agent MOBILE DEVICE The TC is in charge of interacting and interfacing with users needs supporting their journey organization. CLOUD STORAGE The TC stores all users related personal information (travel entitlements, tokens, etc.) which concerns trips.

19 On-going communication TC interaction points A B Consumer interaction points User identity Preferences Planning Buying Receiving entitlement IT2RAIL concepts User identity / E-passport / Wallet Preferences Location resolver / meta-network construction / multimodal shopping / booking and ticketing Wallet Booking and ticketing/ Wallet / E-passport Information Trip-tracking / interchange navigation / business analytics Disruption After trip Disruptive ticketing and validation Business analytics

20 User identity & Preferences I'll use my Travel Companion I should login only once. I prefer economy tickets and I like aisle seats. Do I need to indicate my preferences each time? Create an account Log in on any device with TC installed Add preferences

21 User identity & Preferences Main findings May form a barrier (time-consuming, concerns with regard to security and privacy) Should have a clear purpose / added value Should not be obligatory for basic functions Multiple profiles, multiple preferences Smart learning as an option

22 Planning My mum s address is Rua da Cruz 15, Lisbon. How can I reach her? One-stop-shop Less time, less risks Multimodal (comodal) Personalised results

23 Planning Main findings Complexity = greatest barrier -> smart and intuitive interface Transparency on options (based on preferences) Less is more + additional information (based on preferences) Reliability of information -> consumer trust

24 Buying Thanks to the TC I can pay the entire travel in one shot! I have all the steps of my trip stored in my TC: one place to find everything! One-stop-shop Protection against partial booking Multimodal (comodal!)

25 Buying Main findings Flexibility (to cancel or change tickets) Cyber security transaction security Preferred payment methods (> country) Pre-paid or post-paid? Possibility to buy tickets for other people

26 Receiving entitlement I have my passport, luggage and TC But what if my phone battery goes down? TC Wallet Challenges: security, ethics, privacy aspects NFC e.ticket Back-up: e.passport

27 Receiving entitlement Main findings Generally: NFC ticket = good idea BUT a back-up is needed (QR-code, paper ticket, ) UK: not in favour of e.passport alternative; better options: contactless card/chip, biometric identification

28 Information Travel related: Facilities at transfer hubs Delays Indoor navigation Non-travel related info: Weather info Shops / sales Tourist info Events, happenings Where can I take the metro from here?! Where is the tourist office? What s the weather like at my destination?

29 Information Main findings Real-time but also available offline Non-transport related info = not the main focus of the TC (other sources) Context-dependent?

30 Disruption Traffic irregularities (delay, cancellation, disruption, ) My flight is delayed, I won't be able to make it for my next train, what are my alternatives to go to Lisbon? User notification: Information Warning Altert Alternatives: Available options Possibility to rebook Trip-tracking activated User notifications in case of disruption Alternatives (rerouting)

31 Disruption Main findings Essential to know the impact on the trip Accurate (real-time, up to date) information! Possibility to rebook Travel insurance Extra info: meals, hotels + complaints / rights

32 After trip I forgot my luggage on the train. Where can I find it? Give feedback Additional information if something went wrong, e.g. lost luggage, complaints, passenger rights

33 After trip Main findings Users feedback = important for users and providers Giving feedback should be simple: smiley, thumb up/down, Gamification / rewards Real-time feedback? Other info: useful esp. if something went wrong

34 On-going communication Can I chat to someone? Or can I call a hotline? Assistance before, during, after the trip Feedback: idem Communication with other passengers Optional For specific target groups

35 Incentives to use the TC Incentives Usefulness of the TC All information in one place, first and last mile solutions, Better protection Ticketing, reimbursement Accurate and reliable information Overview of the best options, real-time and in line with personal preferences Interaction point Tool/app Disruption After trip Profile Planning

36 Main barriers to use the TC Barriers Accuracy of information Real-time, up to date, fit to needs Reliability Prices, all modes integrated, Time-consuming Complexity Cyber security Bad support Habits Privacy Interaction point Information Information Profile Preferences Tool/app Payment Disruption After trip Tool/app Profile Preferences

37 MARKET ACTORS INTEREST IN THE IF How digitalization can influence the IF market Current market volume and demand for the IF in Europe Potential use cases and categories of IF market actors Stakeholders needs and expectations regarding multimodal pan-european interoperability

38 The volume of European passenger collective transport is around 66 billion passengers annually. Open and interoperable transit data would enable Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to support a modal shift from private transport towards shared mobility solutions that are consumed as a service.

39 Stakeholder survey

40 Stakeholder survey Did you ever use or develop a Travel Companion?

41 Stakeholder survey

42 Stakeholder survey What are the possible business opportunities through the exploitation of such technology, which enables data and services accessibility?

43 Stakeholder survey What are the market constraints and barriers that could hamper the adoption of such solutions? OTHER ISSUES Data sharing, reliability, security Awareness: training and education Stakeholders management Regulation on EU level on data accessibility is recommended

44 Stakeholder workshop Most trips are not cross-border -> IF is then less relevant. Scope could be widened to MaaS to create more interest Data ownership is still seen as a competitive advantage by (public and private) operators For PTAs, customer satisfaction is the priority, as well as livability of cities, accessibility, quality of life Lack of cooperation among stakeholders (authorities, operators, industries) Engagement of local stakeholders first is essential before the pan-european approach (bottom up approach)

45 Use cases

46 Use cases Use case Country Short description 9292 Netherlands Provider of real-time door-to-door PT travel information for all kinds of passengers in the Netherlands Rejseplanen A/S Denmark The most used search engine for PT in Denmark. Offers itineraries for all railways and busses as well as certain ferries to islands, based on data from individual transport companies. UK Railway UK Transport for London approach, Bus network, MyBus application, multimodal ticketing in the UK Railway Slovakia Poseidon Ferrovie dello Stato (FS) Slovakia Czech Republic Italy The passenger railway operators in Slovakia (both state and private) each have their own closed system that does not communicate with any other existing application. The official mobile app of IDS JMK, the coordinator of the Integrated PT system of the South Moravian region. Provides information as well as ticket sale. One of the largest industrial groups in Italy. They aim to become a player of intermodal mobility at international level.

47 Additional use cases Use case Country Needs, expectations and vision Rail: Prague- Ostrava route Czech Republic Main expectations of Czech Railways regarding the IF are to decrease tariff disintegration & to speed up the information exchange. Coach: FlixBus Germany Sees opportunities in the IF to integrate long-distance coach transport with urban PT and synchronise schedules. Air Urban Mobility Intermodal interoperability: different options to reach the airport Interoperability between air navigation services providers Interoperability between airlines Aggregation of real-time information; single point of contact for travellers and full service providers; tailored solutions; potential new revenues for all partners in the ecosystem

48 Business model

49 Business model VALUE PROPOSITION The value proposition is similar across modes: Provide users a multimodal and integrated experience within a network of different travel alternatives, relying on integrated ticketing and tariff services = Positive systemic / network effect

50 Business model COST STRUCTURE Acquiring the necessary skills; training of personnel Platform development and maintenance Slightly adapting legacy systems REVENUE STREAMS Fee applied to booking costs for an integrated service Advertising Partnership with other service providers More customers -> more revenue

51 Barriers Lack of business cases Lack of knowledge and skills Adaptation cost Existing regulatory framework (e.g. privacy) Data sharing issues Stakeholder engagement & collaboration Finding the right balance of transport modes in cities

52 Recommendations Critical mass of IF participants needed to achieve positive systemic effect The IF governance should be market driven, open and inclusive Regulation on EU level on data accessibility is also recommended In addition: market regulations on the complementarity / hierarchy of travel services and modes at various territorial levels Stakeholders management Raise awareness & provide in-depth training on semantic ontology New business models can be developed to incentivise TSPs to share data and provide good data sets.

53 Regulatory Environment for Interoperability Framework components Kinderis Vytautas - UIC

54 Outline Major Regulatory environment initiatives impacting IF framework Recommendations and next steps for IF adoption and deployment

55 Regulatory environment definition From Specification to Regulation SPECIFICATION* Document that prescribes technical requirements to be fulfilled by a product, process or service STANDARD* Document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context IF INITIATIVES REGULATION* Regulation is a document providing binding legislative rules that is adopted by an authority. *EN Definition

56 Analysis of the state-of-the-art of the regulatory environment initiatives impacting IF framework Wide analysis of the most relevant Regulatory Interoperability initiatives has been done on Specifications, Standards and Regulations to identify the contribution the IF technology can bring to their successful implementation and vice versa.

57 Mapping the most relevant initiatives Cross-scope International initiatives European Digital Single Market ICT Standardization Priorities for the DSM European Standardization Policy National Initiatives National IF Observatory (NIFO) National ICT IF Transport - all modalities MaaS One Belt one Road (OBOR) MODSafe Use cases of Interoperable fare management systems (IFMS) SmartRail World: New Frontiers in Transport Ticketing Shift2Rail IP4 Ecosystem STRIA NETEX CEN Rail imove Maas4EU MyCorridor Fourth Railway Package Single European Railway Area (SERA) FSM RTM OTA UIC 918 TAP/TAF TSI Transport for the North Transport Systems Catapult of the University of Sheffield Integrated Sustainability Appraisal Position Statement Strategic Transport Plan Evidence Base- Integrated Business Plan Global Mass Transit Report; ETicketing in Germany ITSO Smart Ticketing Non - transport Antilope IoT4Health ISA INTER-IoT

58 IF and GOF4R Impact on Interoperability initiatives Many Interoperability Initiatives exist mixing specifications, standards, regulations and policies In some cases, we can draw examples, best practices from other cases (e.g. egov.) IF provides technology and tooling to support those Initiatives, modifying the nature of the problem they are addressing The idea is NOT to add another Initiative or to replace them BUT to guarantee the usability of IF tools, which shall be fit to purpose

59 General Recommendations

60 Recommendations Objective Guide the development and implementation of the IF technology, through an adequate Governance Address the Research and Innovation (R&I) activities and other policy support measures Support the stakeholders confidence in the market uptake of the IF and the maintenance (updating, enrichment) of the tooling.

61 Approach We consider IF Tools as a set of technologies that needs to be managed considering the role of a facilitator able to support the optimal management and maintenance of such tools, providing: Utilities Training Guidelines Working Groups Recommendations The recommendations have been developed following primarily the two dimensions of the analysis of the Governance and the IF Assets identified by GoF4R.

62 Recommendation 1 Setting up elements for common procedure to extend, enrich and update the IF Tools, with particular regard to the Ontology and the Web service registry Define procedures, roles and need for instruments to manage changes that ensure the orderly evolution of IF Tools. E.g.: incorporating a geographic semantic graph, or the adoption of blockchain technology for tokens, or the extension of the offered services, requires: a specific procedure; a lifecycle for the updates; the definition of the actors of the process, e.g.: a Technical Board, validators and utilities.

63 Recommendation 2 Characteristics of elements needed to manage and maintain the IF Tools and to define an organization of IF Tools Governance a. Define the characteristics for roles and activities and structural characteristics of management and maintenance of the IF Tooling that a management organization should perform in the Interoperability Framework for the evaluation of the proposal of extension of the IF Tooling. It is necessary to take into consideration that each subject proposing an extension of the State of the Art of the IF Tooling should underpin an evaluation process lead by a group of experts. The considered control group should evaluate: Applicability of the proposed update of the IF Tooling Technical analysis of the structure and time schedule of the proposed update

64 Recommendation 3 Training and facilitation activities for the IF Tools stakeholders IF Tools management organization will support the definition and implementation of activity of training to support the correct usage of the IF Tools. The organization should provide IF Tools users guidelines for interpretation and understanding of the IF Tools, also taking into account the promotion of training activities for the development of WG and communities able to support the R&I and application of IF Tools usage.

65 Recommendation 4 Leverage Project Outcomes IF Tools management organizations should support the exploitation of the EU projects results on the IF tools development considering a progressive scalability of the IF tools application in the European contest. It would be possible to take into consideration two stages of extension/leverage of these outcomes in a wider framework of initiatives at the European level. 1 st Stage IF Tooling projects result would influence, with the activity of IF Tools management organization, development actions underpinned by H2020 IF initiatives such as MASAI, ITxPT etc.) to host the initial part but also the definition of abstract model of common public transport as TRANSMODEL 2 nd Stage IF Tooling management organization should support the extension of the result of the IF Tools through EU projects in the policy making related to the activities of Shift2Rail and European Commission

66 Recommendation 5 Support the sharing of knowledge and tools The sharing of knowledge and tools related to the IF, as well as their management and maintenance and usability, should be adequately supported and guaranteed through: Platform for knowledge sharing Platform for dissemination of the tool Joint working group e.g. with CEN

67 Semantic Interoperability Technology Market Marco Comerio - CEFRIEL

68 Objective Systems are semantically interoperable when they are able to understand the meaning of the information they exchange. Semantic Web technologies are a possible technical solution to Semantic Interoperability. Can we adopt Semantic Web technologies to achieve semantic interoperability in the transportation domain? 68

69 Semantic interoperability technology market analysis Tools Best Practices Skills State of the art in transportation domain; Best practices and lessons learned from other domains; Availability and adequacy of solutions on the market; Semantic Interoperability Technology Market Analysis Availability of skilled people and adequate professional services. 69

70 State of the art in the transportation domain Semantic interoperability is perceived as a useful technology to enhance the attractiveness and the competitiveness of the European railway system and to foster multimodal transportation. However, the current adoption of semantic interoperability solutions is limited. Do you perceive semantic interoperability solutions as beneficial for your business? Does your organization adopt any semantic interoperability solution? 70

71 State of the art in the transportation domain The GoF4R project focused on the identification of interoperability solutions in the transportation domain which are based, at least to some extent, on semantic technologies. The semantic interoperability solutions are a limited number, not completely developed and mainly focused on one transport sector. multiple transport ontologies have been defined. A more structured and coordinated approach to domain ontology engineering is required: "confined" ontologies should be merged/linked and agreed among the major transport sector stakeholders. the presence of heterogeneous data formats requires the adoption/development of transformation and mapping techniques. Unfortunately, there is a lack of skills and tools supporting the translation/mapping to the most relevant standards (e.g., NeTEx, SIRI). the usage of semantic web technologies to enhance data sharing platforms is limited. 71

72 Best practices and lessons learned Analysis of domains (i.e., healthcare, PA, IoT and Smart Buildings) that are more mature in the definition of semantic interoperability solutions. Best practices and lessons learned: Basic core vocabularies represents a potential first step towards a reference ontology for the transportation domain. The availability of a reference ontology strongly simplifies the translation/mapping between different standards within the domain. Base registries and dataset application profiles represent best practices to improve and enhance data sharing. National Access Points to multimodal transportation data requested by the EU Delegated Regulation 2017/1926 should be made aware of these best practices. 72

73 Semantic Interoperability Solutions Supply Market The analysis of the solutions supply market: 1. Analysis of 3 case studies related to data interoperability in the transportation domain. 2. Definition of potential semantic interoperability solutions and extraction of requirements. 3. Evaluation of the coverage of the identified requirements by the functionalities offered by tools available on the market. Results: No tool covers the entire set of requirements. A combination of tools or the development of new complete solutions is required to provide reliable access to transport data and foster the provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information services. 73

74 Semantic interoperability skills Job Market Goal: assessment of the readiness and interest of the job market in skills related to semantic interoperability. Number of LinkedIn members (individuals, companies, universities) declaring to own the skill. Results: the majority of semantic interoperability skills are own by members (cf. Java is own by 5 millions members). the skill semantic interoperability is declared by less than 1000 members. 74

75 Semantic interoperability skills Academic Curricula Goal: assess the academic offer of semantic interoperability courses. analysis of the top major European universities in Computer Science according to the QS World University Ranking. Results: only 50% of the selected universities offer at least one course related to Semantic Interoperability mainly focused on theoretical aspects. almost all the courses belong to master programs: semantic skills are not considered core competences. Difficulties may arise in recruiting skilled personnel: not all computer scientists have the necessary expertise in the semantic technology domain. Potential solution: Promote and provide training courses on semantic technologies to transportation stakeholders to help them in acquiring the basic skills needed to understand the potentialities of the Interoperability Framework. 75

76 Governance and management structure for Interoperability Framework Guido Di Pasquale - UITP

77 Need of governance of the IF in transport sector Subjects to be governed Mandatory processes in the IF IF Assets IF actors IF roles identified Governance structure proposed Who should be involved Recommendations and IF deployment

78 We need governance of the interoperability framework in transport sector because The IF is tooling that helps all transport-related companies to unite into web-of-transportation to provide their customers seamless door-to-door journey experience. IF governance aims to ensure the viability of the system. A governance management structure assigns governance activities, rights and obligations to governance roles that interact with the actors in the supply chain in the execution of the governance processes.

79 We propose to govern 1. The lifecycle of IF assets (e.g. processes of reviewing, versioning and publishing of the assets) 2. Relationships with transport-related actors to ensure market uptake

80 Activities and operations within the IF 1. Publishing a new asset 2. Publishing a new version of an existing asset 3. Changing an existing asset 4. Removing an existing asset The ontology is a specific case of asset involving many stakeholders

81 IF assets are External specifications

82 IF actors are Customers/Travelers Transport Authorities Key actors influencing the Web of Transportation Transport Service Operator (or Transport Operation Carrier) Travel service provider Retailer, Travel Agency, Distributor MaaS Providers IT supplier and software developer Payment service Providers International associations Community groups or Social networks Standardisation bodies

83 IF roles identified IF ontology data source provider IF other assets data source provider IF other assets consumer IF ontology consumer IF Asset manager IF governance body

84 Governance structure proposed based on AG inputs Strategic decision-making governance: overall objectives and vision, involvement of strategic partners, dissemination of the initiative, consensus among multiple players, business KPIs, and long-term evolution. Technical management: overall IF technical architecture, compliance with EU regulations, technical and process requirements, technical KPIs, technical evolution.

85 Strategic governance Strategic Board: decision-making on topics, such as: IF tools governance, goals and targets, common procedures, plan of the long-term strategic evolution of the IF, approving and publishing the semantics (i.e., the reference ontology), validate the technical evolutions proposed by the Technical Management Board Executive Board: management of the communication and relationship with the IF participants, and dissemination actions aimed at spreading the usage of the framework and the market uptake

86 Technical governance Technical Board gathering the WG chairmen and possibly other experts agreed at Strategic level manages the technical and procedural aspects of the IF through Working Groups: to maintain and evolve technical and process guidelines (that can be disseminated through Executive Board), to provide technical and procedural support to the interoperability framework actors, to manage the Semantic Assets Manager, and to identify the evolving technical needs of the framework. Quality Assurance Board is a part of the Technical Board: evaluating the quality of the published assets according to predefined metrics to be agreed. Working groups: e.g. evaluation of applicability of the proposed update of the IF Tooling, technical analysis of the structure and time schedule of the proposed update.

87 Who should be involved We propose to create a community of key stakeholders engaging with existing initiatives: ITxPT, MASAI, STA, Calypso, etc. Ready to be pioneers in this informal at the beginning organisation of companies interested in the IF. Established spirit of openness. Developments of «giants» (e.g. Google) should be taken into account. Invite contributions from different entities in terms of asset developments (e.g. Transmodel ontology and semantics)

88 Next Steps Proposed actions to start: 1. To find interested organisations that are ready to participate in the following up on the voluntary basis 2. To use one of the initiatives (ITxPT, MASAI, etc.) to host the initial part 3. To set up elements for common procedure to extend, enrich and update the IF Tools, with particular regard to the Ontology and the Web service registry 4. Define the characteristics for roles and activities and structural characteristics of management and maintenance of the IF Tooling that a IF governance should perform in the IF for the evaluation of the proposal of extension of the IF Tooling. 5. To ensure the stakeholders' understanding of the technology by providing trainings and facilitating promotion activities

89 Panel discussion Governance, design and adoption of Interoperability Framework and links with other initiatives

90 Panel discussion Moderated by: Yves Perreal - S2R IP4 Coordinator Governance, design and adoption of Interoperability Framework and links with other initiatives Speakers: Carlo De Grandis (EC - DG MOVE) Stefan Jugelt (ERA) Giorgio Travaini (Shift2Rail) Jorge Vieira da Silva (MASAI) Emmanuel de Verdalle (ITxPT) Guido Di Pasquale (UITP) Riccardo Santoro (Trenitalia)