The document discusses the CitySDK project, which aims to create an open toolkit for developing digital services in European cities. The toolkit will include open interfaces, processes, guidelines and standards to enable transferring smart city applications between cities. It will focus on three pilot domains: smart participation, mobility, and tourism. The goal is to make it easier for developers to create apps that can be used across multiple cities, and to create new business opportunities for cities. The project has funding of 6.8 million euros and involves 23 partners from 9 countries.

1. City Service Development Kit Smart
Open interfaces
Open public data City
City as a platform
“Write app for Helsinki, run it in Amsterdam”
Whatever makes developer life easier

2. CitySDK
Transfer of Smart City applications from one city to another is challenging due to lack
of:
– Unified backend technologies;
– Innovative end-user services; and
– Unified markets beyond single cities
To tackle this problem CitySDK aims to create toolkit for developing digital services in
the European cities.
Toolkit includes open and interoperable digital service interfaces, processes, guidelines
and usability standards
The toolkit enables more efficient utilization of the developer community and creates
new business opportunities in the cities
Focus on three domains; participation, mobility and tourism

3. CitySDK
January 2012 – June
2014
3 Pilot domains
-Smart Participation
-Smart Mobility
-Smart Tourism

4. CitySDK Factsheet
unding: CIP ICT-PSP
otal budget: 6,8 MEUR
U-contribution: 3,4 MEUR
uration: 1.1.2012-30.6.2014 (30 months)
oordinator:
artners: 23 organizations from 9 countries
orum Virium Helsinki
Marja Mattila,
marja.mattila@forumvirium.fi
tel. +358 40 7440067

5. CitySDK
The consortium consists of 23 partners in 9 European states. In
addition to experienced SMEs, large ICT and media companies and
research partners the consortium includes eight cities, five being the
Capital cities/regions.
HELSINKI
MANCHESTER
AMSTERDAM
ISTANBUL
ROME
BARCELONA
LISSABON
LAMIA

6. Roadmap
201
2 201
• 4
Preparing Lead Pilot
• Dissemination of the pilot
– Pre pilot results
– Interface specification • Packaging CitySDK and
– Kick off for developer engagement marketing it
• Piloting • Reporting
20
13
• Piloting continues
• Developer engagement continues
• Apps challenge
• Supporting the replication pilots
• Working on Helsinki replication pilots in
the domains of
– Tourism
– Mobility

7. Smart Mobility -Amsterdam
ReittiGPS

8. Smart
Tourism
- Lissabon
Kuva: Susanna Ollila

9. Smart Participation - Helsinki

10. FixMyStreet - UK

11. Citizens Connect - Boston

12. Washington DC 311

13. Street Bump - Boston

14. SeeClickFix - USA

15. Smart Participation – Lead Pilot in Helsinki
Piloted in the
CitySDK project. Interfaces and processes developed during the
project.
FVH coordinates
Oma kaupunki Palauteydin, ASPA feedback
service feedback core handling system
Sanoma Oyj Helsinki, Titek Helsinki, HKR
Citizen
www.hel.fi Technology, City
software Department B
platforms
Fillarikanava
Processes City
Department C
Facebook
Best practises
Media XY City
Department D

16. Public works department
annual feedback
Calls 63920
Offered calls 86038
Answered calls 63920
Customer visits 22 980
Emails 25412
Together 112 312

17. Motivation for Open311
• It is the only standard in this area.
• It is used in several cities in USA.
• It has quite an active community behind.
⇒It’s good enough and has potential to become
globally used standard.
http://www.open311.org/

18. Supported use cases
• Use case 1: Submitting a service request
• Use case 2: Quering individual service request
• Use case 3: Quering service requests
• Use case 4: Listing service request types
• Use case 5: Mobility of user

19. Use case 1: Submitting a service request
• Service request can be submitted with following info:
– Description and title
– Location (not obligatory)
• lat/long (WGS-84), address, City specific data identiying service request object , e.g.
Helsinki Service Map
– Service request type
– Contact information
• Name, e-mail address, phonenumber, Account_id
– Device_id
– Media attachment
• Photo and possibly other document formats
– Web link to external service where service request originates (e.g. Omakaupunki)
– PROPOSED: Priority of the service request, Geometry (e.g. lines, polygons)
• Response includes
– Service request id
– Web link to city’s own web page where service request is published
– PROPOSED: related_service_request_id
Parameters we want but not in Open311 spec.
Parameters proposed but our support still open.

20. Use case 2: Quering individual service
request
• Individual service request can be queried using service
request identification ID. Response includes:
– Description and title
– Location
• lat/long (WGS-84), address, City specific data identiying service request object , e.g.
Helsinki Service Map
– State (open, closed)
• PROPOSED: Option to have more status values
– Response text
– Submission date and time
– Update date and time
– Expected date and time when fixed
– Government agency responsible for the service request
• PROPOSED: Option to have multiple agencies
– Service request type
– URL address of attachment
– PROPOSED: Priority of the service request, Geometry (e.g. lines, polygons)
Parameters we want but not in Open311 spec.
Parameters proposed but our support still open.

21. Use case 3: Quering service requests
• Service requests can be queried
– Submission date and time (start and endtime)
– Location (bounding box and/or lat/long+radius)
– Status (all, closed or open)
– Service request type(s)
– Service request id(s)
• Response includes:
– Description and title
– Location
• lat/long (WGS-84), address, City specific data identiying service request object , e.g.
Helsinki Service Map
– State (open, closed)
• PROPOSED: Option to have more status values
– Response text
– Submission date and time
– Update date and time
– Expected date and time when fixed
– Government agency responsible for the service request
• PROPOSED: Option to have multiple agencies
– Service request type
– URL address of attachments
– PROPOSED: Priority of the service request, Geometry (e.g. lines, polygons)
Parameters we want but not in Open311 spec.
Parameters proposed but our support still open.

22. Use case 4: Listing service request types
• Clients can query list of service request types which are supported by the
city.
– Name of service request type
– Description of service request type
– Group of service request type

23. Use case 5: Mobility of service user
• Users may move between cities (Helsinki, Espoo or Barcelona)
and use application to submit service requests.
• Service requests are routed to the correct city endpoint
without the help of the user.
– No solution yet.
– We try to have solution which is compliant with Open311 standard
– Solution may no have any impact on service request interface

24. Use cases under consideration
• Commenting on service requests
• Editing and removing service requests
• Account handling for users
• Voting for service requests

25. We need your help
• We need your help to make citizen
participation
– easier
– better and more accurate
– activate and excite more citizens
– FUN!

26. We need developer feedback (1/2)
• Media upload
– Support for photos and what else?
– Synchronous Multipart/Form upload
• Types and groups of service requests
– Different types like potholes, traffic signs, trash bins, parks, roads, parking, …
– How to decide types and groups in the best way?
• Status values for service requests
– Open, closed
– New values needed?
• New location parameters
– How to use Service Map unit ids as location parameter?
– service_request_object_type=http://www.hel.fi/palvelukarttaws/rest/ver2.html
– service_request_object_id=12345
– Any use for more complex geomerty like lines and polygons?

27. We need developer feedback (2/2)
• Mobility between cities
– How to detect where the user is and where to send service request?
– Helsinki vs. Espoo vs. Vantaa
• Accurate address parameter
– Manually typed addresses are not accurate
– Lat,lon mapped to accurate address or some other mean to verify the address
• Push notifications on changes
– Currently only pull model supported, enough?
– Pull vs. Push model and how to do push notifications (e.g. Pubsubhubbub)
• How to use user identification parameters?
– Current plan is not to have user accounts on city’s service
– How to use device_id and author_id parameters?

28. Developer testing and usage
• Test interface comes available later this year
– Enable debugging sent data and responses
• API key will be required for posting service
requests
– Some sort of validation needed for API key
– This will be available next year
• Anyone interested to join effort to setup open
source Open311 server for testing?
– Server could be available almost immediately

29. Next steps
• We want to build community around CitySDK
topics => Join us on Facebook, events and
elsewhere!
• The interface specification frozen in June =>
Please give feedback before.
• CitySDK schedule
– Sanoma pilot beta ready in the end of this year
– Test interface ready Q4

30. Contact info
• Jaakko.Rajaniemi@hel.fi ja
Hanna.Niemi-Hugaerts@forumvirium.fi
• Puh: +358 40 516 5931
• Twitter: @jaakko
• Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/CitySDKHelsinki