BSI PAS 182:2014
$41.10
Smart city concept model. Guide to establishing a model for data interoperability
Published By | Publication Date | Number of Pages |
BSI | 2014 | 64 |
This PAS describes, and gives guidance on, a smart city concept model (SCCM) that can provide the basis of interoperability between component systems of a smart city, by aligning the ontologies in use across different sectors. It includes:
-
concepts (e.g. ORGANIZATION, PLACE, COMMUNITY, ITEM, METRIC, SERVICE, RESOURCE); and
-
relationships between concepts (e.g. ORGANIZATION has RESOURCEs, EVENT at a PLACE).
The SCCM does not replace existing models where they exist, but, by mapping from a local model to a parent model, questions can be asked about data in a new and joined-up way.
This PAS is aimed at organizations that provide services to communities in cities, and manage the resulting data, as well as decision-makers and policy developers in cities.2)
The SCCM is relevant wherever many organizations provide services to many communities within a place.
This PAS does not cover the data standards that are relevant to each concept in the SCCM and does not attempt to list or recommend the sources of identifiers and categorizations that cities map to the SCCM.
The SCCM has been devised to communicate the meaning of data. It does not attempt to provide concepts to describe the metadata of a dataset, for example, validity and provenance of data.
This PAS covers semantic interoperability, that is, defining the meaning of data, particularly from many sources. This PAS does not cover other barriers to interoperability, some of which are described at 3.2.
PDF Catalog
PDF Pages | PDF Title |
---|---|
9 | Figure 1 Smart city levels of insight |
13 | Table 1 Relevance of PAS 181 guidance notes to PAS 182 |
14 | Table 2 Other barriers to interoperability |
15 | Figure 2 Example of a directed graph Figure 3 Example of a directed graph for a concept |
16 | Figure 4 Example of sub-concepts Figure 5 Example of a group concept |
17 | Figure 6 Example of a dataset listing reported faults to lamp posts |
19 | Table 3 Alphabetical list of prime concepts Table 4 Alphabetical list of group concepts |
21 | Figure 7 ITEMs view |
22 | Figure 8 COLLECTIONs view |
23 | Figure 9 EVENTs view |
24 | Figure 10 OBJECTIVEs view |
25 | Figure 11 Observing and responding view |
26 | Figure 12 SERVICEs view |
27 | Figure 13 CASEs view |
28 | Figure 14 PLANs view |
29 | Figure 15 RESOURCEs and DECISIONs view |
30 | Figure 16 ABSTRACT relationships |
31 | Figure 17 ACCOUNT relationships |
32 | Figure 18 AGENT relationships |
33 | Figure 19 AGREEMENT relationships |
34 | Figure 20 ASSUMPTION relationships |
35 | Figure 21 BUILDING relationships |
36 | Figure 22 CASE relationships |
37 | Figure 23 COLLECTION relationships |
38 | Figure 24 COMMUNITY relationships |
39 | Figure 25 DECISION relationships |
40 | Figure 26 EVENT relationships |
41 | Figure 27 FUNCTION relationships |
42 | Figure 28 ITEM relationships |
43 | Figure 29 METHOD relationships |
44 | Figure 30 METRIC relationships |
45 | Figure 31 OBJECT relationships |
46 | Figure 32 OBJECTIVE relationships |
47 | Figure 33 OBSERVATION relationships |
48 | Figure 34 ORGANIZATION relationships |
49 | Figure 35 PERSON relationships |
50 | Figure 36 PLACE relationships |
51 | Figure 37 PLAN relationships |
52 | Figure 38 RESOURCE relationships |
53 | Figure 39 RULE relationships |
54 | Figure 40 SERVICE relationships |
55 | Figure 41 STATE relationships |
56 | Figure 42 TARGET relationships |
57 | Figure A.1 UK rail stations data mapped to the SCCM |
58 | Figure A.2 Planning application data mapped to the SCCM |
59 | Table A.1 Mapping the health informatics concept model to the SCCM Table B.1 List of relationships in the SCCM |