I would like to reveal to you the note of gratitude for the honor that was made by the kind of meditation and his excellency Abdullah bin Ba'a, president of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies and our most gracious government of the UAE, represented by the Minister of Tolerance, who is here and of course is high in his shape, Abdullah bin Ba'a, to speak on the role of religious in promoting tolerance from possibility to necessity. I also must say that the government of the UAE deserves a commendation for designating 1319, the Year of Tolerance, and this forum for taking up the challenge of attempting to forge a consensual ethic for promoting tolerance. The defining pride of our world today is that, thanks to technology and globalization, we have never been more connected than today, yet at the same time, we are probably never been more divided than we are today. This is the handing work of agents of intolerance who weaponize our fear of the government. In recent years, we have witnessed a rise of religious extremism, right wing populism, and ultra-nationalism. We have seen extremists hijack the symbols and letters of the faiths and use them to prosecute devalued campaigns that violate the sanctity of human life on the global scale. I say this is what people around us accept. There is hardly any return of war, but I won't be inspired by a period of terrorism. And yet, such is the diversity of the composition of our societies that for us to allow the promotion of Israel and strife between our communities is to permit the destruction and the fragmentation of our communities and nations. Therefore, if we are to prevent an endless cycle of strife and conflict, tolerance is a necessity. But whose duty is it on who does the responsibility lie to bear the touch of horror and to illuminate the new pathways to the shared future? It is my respectful submission that the world will respond on leaders and the strife between leaders and political leaders and others that we may describe as the elite in our nation and in our communities. It is our role, not only to articulate as we are doing in this ascended debate, the theoretical and doctrinal foundations for a more tolerant world, but more importantly to make the personal sacrifices that will compare our societies and to commit ourselves to life-threatening goals. This, if I may say, is the difficult part. This is the difficult part, making the sacrifice. Well, let us quickly deal with the articulation of the principles that are the foundation of the idea of tolerance. The first principle is to recognize that there is no merit in the notion that the contemporary or this current plague of terrorism and extrinsic, which are inevitable fulfillment of the thesis of the idea, the so-called flash of civilizations, and merely agree with my view upon the cognitive vision of the world's major fundamentalities locked in perpetual conflict. The great conflict of our time is not between Islam and austerity, in Islam and other religions, but between extrinsic and human solidarity, between the forces of hate and intolerance, and those of empathy and peace. What is the great conflict today? Second is to emphasize the central place that is the principle of empathy. This is a threat which runs through all of our moral and religious traditions. And sometimes it goes through the words of Jesus Christ, where he said, do unto others, I shall have them do unto you. But it goes for them. It goes for Jesus Christ who followed the Bible to say that we must love our enemies. We must even pray for our enemies. This is the notion of self-evident. In other words, all of this is found in the general principle that we must be ready to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated. Obviously, I'm embedded in all of the Abrahamic traditions and all of the nature of religions. It's an expansion of this consciousness that enables us to humanize others, regardless of the distinctions that are rooted in craft, in ethnicity, in gender, in race or military. It's all going to transcend ourselves. The injunctions of our religion that emphasize compassion, mercy and kindness as central tenets of religious medium are rooted in humanity. Also, the core principle, the core values of the major religions, validate the notion that tolerance is fundamental to all communal and interpersonal relationships. One of those core principles is the recognition of our shared humanity, despite our diversity. In Acts 17-26, the Holy Spirit says, and He has made that He has made from one block every nation of man to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times of the boundaries of their dwellings. The Quran also said in Proverbs, human beings, who created you all from a male and a female. These words not only give us to see our diversity as a blessing of divine progress, but also to impose a responsibility on us to continue to learn as much as we can about each other and to use such knowledge to answer and silence the couriers of prejudice and bigotry. These attributes practice the generalization of difference that we most prefer the idealization of diversity as a providential gift. This recognition of our shared humanity is also the basis of the universal human rights. Indeed, as argued by Michael Ignatius, for whose thoughts human rights as politics and adultery are delivered in this presentation. And he says, it is the religious conception of human beings as God's creation that sustains the notion that people should have environmental human rights. Human rights are a permission of the sanctity of life. It is precisely because all human beings are sacred in our world that they deserve, that they themselves deserve all of what they deserve and everything that the rights of universal human rights provides for them. And this also means that all human beings should be treated as a foundation of our promotion and our promotion and defense of human rights. It must also be noted in empathy. We draw human actions by the simple test of whether we would like to be on the receiving end because we see a claim that can recognize the claim of honesty and therefore believe that all human beings should be protected from truth. In other words, the very religious bloodshed of compassion is the primary inspiration for attaining human rights. We also recognize that respect for human rights is impossible when there is institutionalizing prejudice and poverty. And this prevents people from seeing others as fully human. Under these circumstances, children's peaceful coexistence and human dignity cannot be read merely as helpful moral suggestions. Consequently, empathy inspires us to seek justice and to enshrine human rights in constitutional and legal orders so as to protect all of us from arbitrary power. This is what the Prince's work will be initiated, such as the Marrakech Declaration on the Rights of Minorities in Movement Majority States. So the path to a more tolerant and peaceful world will be traveled along parallel tracks through the spreading of national and international legal instruments of projected human rights as well as through the well-completed peacemakers in civil society committed to plunging the weapons of pigotry and hatred. They would have, in any way, bear in mind the importance of individual justice. On this arrangement of the second issue, the central role of leaders in promoting and establishing tolerance in our societies, earlier this year, I was privileged to receive Imam Abu Bakr Abdullah, an 83-year-old Muslim cleric who had come to international performance as a result of an extraordinary event. In June 2018, Christians in the village of Ushar Yelou in central Nigeria were attacked by persons who were identified to be Muslims, who had attacked other villages and killed several local farmers who were mainly Christians. As Imam Abdullah was finishing his midday prayers, he and his congregation heard non-shuts on the right outside to see the members of the village's Christian community were running away from their lives. Instituted, the Imam ushered 262 Christians into the mosque and saw him into his home next to the mosque. The Imam then went outside to conform the ground. He refused to allow them to enter the mosque, pleading them to spare the Christians inside the mosque and in the mosque.  And he had given refuge in the mosque and in the mosque. They eventually left without killing any of the Christians in the mosque or in the mosque. Imam Abdullah's selflessness and sacrifice saved the lives of hundreds of people of the faith just for his own. He not only refused to give up the Christians at their given refuge, he even offered his life in exchange for theirs. His moral, his moral courage is rooted in a deeply profound recognition of our common humanity. His compassion, his equity and selflessness are example to us as people of faith. Also consider the story of two remarkable religious leaders, Pastor James Muir and Imam Mohamed Ashaf. These two are Nigerians, one a Christian as we know from the other in the mosque. As young men in the 1990s, both of them had led rival gangs engaged in violent clashes in the city of Hakuna in northern Nigeria. At the time, they were mortal enemies on opposite sides of the deadly sectarian conflict in which Imam Ashaf lost two brothers and his teacher and Pastor Muir lost his right hand to the machete attack in 1992. Both men paid a heavy price for their mutual enmity and their thirst to exact vengeance on the job. However, in the years that followed, a curious thing happened through the intervention of mutual friends and a series of separate personal epiphanies and meetings. These two men came to increasingly respect each other and eventually they decided to work together. In 1995, Ashaf and Muir co-founded the Interfaith Mediation Center, a religious grassroots organization that had successfully mediated between Christians and Muslims throughout their organization, which now has over 10,000 members drawn from across the country, over 10,000 members, engaged with religious, trans-young people, as well as women, religious figures and tribal leaders to become civic peace activists. Under their leadership, young Muslims and Christians joined together to build the mosques and churches that were most destroyed in various parts, especially in the various parts of the country. These churches have been destroyed and must be destroyed by sectarian values. For 15 years, these two religious leaders, who are once Muslim Christians, have now gone practically all over the world to different parts of the world and have traveled here and there to create a message of peaceful coexistence. This work has not been easy, but I've had to confirm pessimism about the endeavors within their own communities and deep doubts about the possibility of peaceful coexistence. But there is no doubt that their efforts are yielding fruit and also that they are contributing to a gradual coming together, a gradual coming together and a psychological disarmament among communities that either to have long seen themselves as enemies. Now, this is the very nature of self-sacrifice and written about peace. And I tell you just one more story. A few months ago, a leader of a major Christian, in Northern Africa, in the north-eastern Nigeria, sought audience with him. He comes from one of the states that Boko Haram, that Boko Haram's servants, have attacked the people. He said that he would like the Grodnar of his state, a Muslim, to be given a national honor. And I ask why? He said that Grodnar rebuilt over 90 churches that were burnt down by Boko Haram, like Boko Haram's servants. In Muslim, the building churches burned down by the servants is the clearest and most unequivocal way of saying that Islam does not support the destruction of physical worship of other things. The government's actions were louder and more persuasive than the citation of many structures. The stories of Imam Abdulazim, and of Pastor William, and Imam Ashrafah, and the governor of Boko Haram are significant because in each case, the leaders had to make almost incisional sacrifices. They had to take on popular steps. They had to confront people of their own faith to see the value and worth of people of other faiths. Unbelievable. They put their credibility and even their lives on the line. There are these types of sacrifices that can root out intolerance and liberty. No amount of words or platitudes can change the human predisposition to prejudice and copyright. Only acts of deep humility and personal sacrifice can. There is no question at all that this is the responsibility that leadership places upon those of us who are religious leaders, those of us who are political leaders in our countries. The responsibility of leadership is not just words. It's not just text. It is not just laws. The responsibility of leadership is such sacrifice. It's putting our petition on the line. It's putting our words into action. Thank you very much.


Hi, I'm Eric Riley. I'm a public librarian at the Washington DC Public Library. What do you hope to gain from the conference today? Well, I was really intrigued by the concept of the digital public library of America. I read about it on Boing Boing and I saw the announcement for this open session to hear about all these different presentations about inter-library cooperation and things like that and I'm very intrigued to see what the future of electronic resources is for libraries. Personally, I feel like public libraries are kind of beholden to publishers and companies for eBooks right now and I would love to see a library-based alternative to the current end-user license agreements that are happening and publisher domination of controlling the resource. I want to see something towards that and to try to change the way that we think about eBooks.


Empowerment, as covered in this lesson, is based on public ownership of both our economy and our government. We orient it to human performance with discovery of where we find agreement, and it is such an agreement that we become a corporate body of volunteers that can direct our public management of our economy for our own We the People purposes. The keys for this are inherent in our performance vision of costs and benefits, so that we can find where people will choose to initiate such change actions, as will be to our benefit. We start with the performance tool we know, the black box. By our founding documents, the United States was created by and for We the People of the United States. We are both creators and customers for that national government created through our agreement. By the nature of ownership, we are the ones who give purpose to our government. The only purpose it has is our purpose. More specifically, it has the purpose that we put upon it. It is also fact that this government, through the people who exercise authority on our behalf, has consistently worked to avoid this simple performance understanding. Instead of embracing our heritage, our leaders have consistently worked to establish personal privilege in leaders in the older mold. This has included a consistent and intensive effort to prepare the people to accept the government as a sovereign authority that would train and educate people to accept the authority of leadership. By performance orientation, we see that establishing government sovereignty required disempowering the people, and that has been a self-defeating direction when it comes to performance. The purpose of this course is opening the way to personal empowerment by establishing our national performance vision. We start with the simplest analysis. There is a single purpose, and it is our purpose. There is a single customer, and it is the citizen, or it is citizenry, when gathered as a public. There are no corporate customers. There are no businesses or special interest gatherings as customers. The political parties are not customers. There is just us. None of these corporate bodies are entitled to any voice in our government, to any representation, or to any benefit that our government might deliver. Our black box model has the government, us, and our symbiotic relationship with each other. Those many corporate entities, even those created by active government, are all inside the box where they will no longer be distractions. The economy, the environment, the world governments, none of these has any part to play in the performance of our national government. The appropriate rule is before us. The input that government operates upon is what it gets from us. The output from government is what comes to us that we receive in value. This is one of the reasons that we have spent so much time and effort in studying how this potent black box tool is applied. This is one of the points where it becomes a citizen's weapon against all those who would deny our ownership or symbiotic customer relationship with our government. We are truly the only party in interest. You are truly the only party in interest. The appropriate performance rule is if the output from our government is not delivered to us and for us to value, it has no value. We as customers are the only ones who get to value what our government generates. There is no true value in what our government does, only in what it delivers to us. Our natural purchase decisions address what it costs us, costs in terms of our commitment to operation of our government, to gain what our government delivers to us. That is the performance cycle that defines operation of our government. With taxation, the flags go up immediately. The rule is already well established. If you have to be ordered to provide, then your contribution is no longer your choice.  What it collects includes a significant amount of waste. It will be expended on delivering things to those who are not customers and it will be at your expense as a citizen and part of the public. Actual performance will require a stark reversal of common attitude and approach. We are urged to satisfy the needs of government for operating resources. In the strictest sense, the government has no needs of its own. The only needs it has are those we gave to it. If it is not our needs, then it is not our government's needs. And this is just like what we have with our economy. The economy only does what people do. It has no operating resources except what come from us and no output from it has real value except what comes to us as owner customers of our economy. We the people also own this nation and we ultimately own everything in it. There is no other party in interest if the economy is functioning to any other purpose. It is creating waste. The function of our government concerning the economy is our purpose. It is to manage our economy on our behalf. It is to so manage it that it provides value through serving economic purposes. Our economic purposes. It is to so direct our commitments that government performs that management effort on our behalf. As a fairly new understanding for most, we are the only party in interest that everything that the government consumes in its operation comes out of our pockets. Building business is just a way to hide what is being seized from us. If it comes from our economy, it comes from us as owners and customers of our economy. The power of this new vision isn't seeing the waste so clearly that we can come to agreement on actions that eliminate it. We the people are the United States. With the introduction of performance orientation, we have two diametrically opposed visions for the operation of the nation. The one now urged on us, the one that now governs operations and activities in our government, is that of a government sovereignty. The alternative is that we the people are the nation and the government is the way we exercise our ownership of our nation. The first is that effective foundation for our current society and government. It is presented to us as common knowledge. With this our government speaks for the nation and for us and we are called into service to the nation. The second is urged by our historical beginning and the service our nation can provide to us. With this our government represents us and serves our need for central management over the elements of our nation. With the first orientation, we have a crime defined as an offense against a state. Anything that the leadership finds offensive can be defined as a crime. This supports a government such as we have, one that can seize private property for almost any purpose, that taxes people and businesses to do whatever leaders see to be wrong, one that prosecutes those who get out of line. With the second orientation, we have the documented constitutional agreement as definition of an inherited government. The crime is what is offensive or disruptive to people. This supports crime as an interference with the rights and protected privileges of citizens. We see a hint of the second in the historical founding of our nation, but it is a light too soon smothered at what leaders have set to be their goals and objectives. What we have is regulatory law. We have government issuing orders and directives to its rightful owners. We have financial regulations to promote highly regulated businesses to support government seizing of tax dollars. We have investment laws that support privileged leaders at the expense of common citizens. We have corporate business laws that protect the privileged leaders of corporate entities so that they can support the political leadership in their exercise of privilege. I know that it works. Like all feudal systems founded upon a class of privileged leaders, it is able to function and keep the general support of the peasants. It is able to get some things done when it has to, even if it causes massive damages to peasants or citizens. The proposed alternative based on a return to personal freedom, prosperity, and support for the trust-based relations approaches government as a source of supporting services. In this approach, government does not have purpose of its own, but works to satisfy the needs and wants of we the people. In specific, it includes delivery of justice and welfare services. Our working example is the citizen who needs to move to a new place and has a house to sell. He deals with private claim of ownership, which is somewhat offensive to private privilege and government over the nation. Government typically seizes rent, we call it taxes, from those who claim to actually have property rights in there. You can note that the expenditure of the rent is largely used for non-property purposes like public education. In order to sell the property, you have to transfer a deed, gaining official documents where government recognizes your private contract. Leaders want to know who is going to be responsible to pay the rent. You have to hire professional lawyers and real estate experts to perfect the transfer and hire the title insurance to secure the transfer effect. This is necessary due to the challenging mesh of regulations that deal with such transfers. The performance alternative points out the waste. Performance is government serving its citizens instead of regulating them. It is not governance acting to stay an effective ownership over what citizens think they own. For a performance alternative, the buyer and seller show up at the office of the Deeding Authority and they sign the transfer. The authority checks records to assure compliance with requirements and issues the new deed. It is the authority who is regulated, not the citizens who shift ownership. There is no employment of others to complete a simple sales transaction. The government provides a transfer service instead of trying to put endless requirements on citizens. And when it comes to quieting title, that becomes a function of the state, a part of the service it renders. I would suggest that any adverse claims be accepted only on required repayment of previous taxes to those who had paid them. This would, in fairly short number of years, effectively remove any need to take on additional title insurance. When it comes to giving, there is the witness and teachings of Jesus praising the effort of a widow, a typically impoverished person, in giving what she had to serve others. With performance orientation, we approach charity as an investment. Giving charity is a witness to personal prosperity. It is a personal choice that the object of charity is of greater immediate value than other available opportunities for what is given. Prosperity is having the choices and accepting the value of the consequences. In the poor widow's story, the value she has in this money is less than what she values as the result of giving it away. In this section, we are addressing governance or economics. We are addressing the potential for leaders giving charity with other people's funds. The American Common Law has already addressed this effectively. It is the law of agency. It includes how one person can represent another. It is a body of law that approaches representation in a way that supports the teamed efforts of a person and the one who represents that person. It is a set of legal understandings addressing the basic duty and responsibility of one person who does represent another. The legal agent is authorized under authority of a signed agreement to take action that would otherwise be done by the one who is represented. The legality of what the agent does is limited to what the person represented could legally do. I understand how strange such a statement must be, but we need the positive to also address a negative. If the person represented would not be authorized to do something, then the agent is not authorized to do it either. In a like way, the agent is also limited to the actions authorized in the signed document that establishes the agency. We again find ourselves with the current privileged leader approach to governance that they are authorized by their office rather than by any responsibility to common citizens. It is that privileged leaders are not subject to the limits of legal agency, but have sovereignty and government as their source of authority. Common citizens, by electing them into office, are approached as giving them permission to exercise our nation's sovereign authorities. In performance orientation, they are just agents of the public, with the written constitution as a signed authority to act in accord with the limitations of their agency. In today's sovereignty-based government, leaders feel free to give away public money whenever and wherever they feel it to be right, expecting common citizens to support their public largesse. The performance option is very different in orientation. What they collect from the public is public money. It was collected for known purposes for operating the government. Giving the people's money away as charity is a breach of trust, giving it to where citizens would not give it on their own is seen as criminal behavior. Sovereign representation is seen as a denial of agency, a denial of having to actually represent those peasant citizens whose money has been taken for the rightful operation of the sovereign government. Again, we are the owners in fact. We are the owners in terms of establishment of this government. We do not have to put up with misrepresentation, theft, or embezzlement. This is the money that should be running our government for us. All it takes is coming together with others and setting that liability upon our leaders. They will answer to us as the owners should we have sufficient agreement on what we would require of them. There is a legal approach to this situation, and that is the legal liability of agents who go beyond the authority granted by the ones they represent. If they take such actions, they could be held personally liable for the consequences. If an agent gives away a client's funds outside of the agency, they are liable for the results unless it is separately approved by the ones they represent. It is just that simple a concept. If the agent gives a thousand dollars to a needy person using the client's funds and the client takes offense, that agent is on the hook to return the thousand dollars on paying a prosecution for embezzlement. We do not have a well-established legal basis for public representatives, but the law of agency is pretty clear on this. We also have looked at a possibility or an alternative that of having public management services applied to support private giving. Then, leader liability is no longer a threat. Leaders are not going to make such a change. They will not give up privilege unless the people require it of them. This is a potential direction for citizen-initiated and directed change. I have stated time and again that modern leaders are able to do things, but are very poor at getting things done. It is time to give this greater definition of what is possibly the greatest source of waste we have. We call it political leadership. We start with Congress with more than 500 dedicated representatives. We multiply these by 10 to add essential congressional staffers and support people. This is an annual expense of 5,000 man years of committed leadership effort. The performance question is, what do 5,000 dedicated political leaders accomplish? And that is just a lead-in question. We have the bendy people and who are the only party in interest with performance orientation. We know that the only values that these dedicated public employees generate by their efforts is inherent in the value we receive from their efforts. To be fair, much of what they do addresses the operation of the nation and our economy. Our leaders spend a great deal of time and energy in assuring their effective operation. After all, they are intent on running things. But then again, there is great potential value in bringing the resources of government to coordinated efforts based on delivery of value to us. That is the performance of governance. Running things properly is not performance. We have recently been privy to senior executive branch employees who won't even talk to our congressmen. There have been findings of contempt of Congress for public employees who represent no citizens. And so we turn to the definition of performance that is appropriate to managing an organization. How much does it cost to gain performance through those who do performance? Guess what? Performance of government is defined by a value cycle with we the people. A simple starting point. The business of government is effectively defined as what we receive in comparison with what we have to commit to receive it. We measure management in terms of how much it costs to gain performance through those who are completing that value cycle with us. Is it any wonder that modern leaders insist that there is no way to measure their performance? And then we have the endless conflicts in Congress, trying to figure out who is most in need of their actions and who is needs to be regulated or taxed for the benefit of others. How many citizens really feel they should be benefited by our leaders raiding the wealth of other citizens? How can representatives in Congress find themselves in total disagreement with the President who represents the same people? It is then that you realize just how incredibly wasteful government is in its operation. But it just gets worse. Political leadership is sharply focused on taking sides on issues, on things where people are not in agreement. Representing some of the people and overcoming the rest is the worst sort of waste with congressmen leaving both sides on the issue. They are creating waste instead of performance. And there is still more. There is the political promise to go to Washington to fight for you. Just who are we fighting against in Congress? You find that you are urged to fight against other Americans and their representatives. It is hard to even speculate on a more wasteful operation. The pernicious nature of what we have only becomes clearer by reference to the well-written Constitution as it arranges a government structure where people are to work together to benefit we the people. This is what we have to work with at our start to the 21st century. The opportunity for improvement is incredible. Those who have been set into authority in government have so divided themselves as to be impotent with only their grasp on privilege to bring them together. Almost anything that can bring us together to put a harness on leadership for our public purpose will succeed because our leaders are unable to accomplish much of anything except waste and division. That has become the product for which they seem most proud and it is preventing one another from accomplishing much of anything. So where can we find agreement? Don't it possibly bring people to such a level of agreement that we can step in and direct corrective action? The preliminary answer is that we have been taught not to look. We have a culture that educates us to look away, to seek out and find issues and arguments instead of seeing the obvious. We are customers. We can agree that we are not just the beneficiaries of government. We are its owners. It is ours. We are its customers. Its purpose is serving we the people. What it produces is to have value to us and it is to be provided for a reasonable cost. We are naturally agreed on the value relationship when we accept ourselves as customers of our government. We can agree that we are to be represented by those we elect. The very idea that 500 representatives of others, others we did not elect, get to decide where our taxes are spent is ludicrous. We can agree that the one we elect to Congress is given the checkbook for our contributions and that he or she is personally answerable to us for where it is spent or not spent. It is called management, but it is management by we the people of those who are elected to represent us. It is setting financial agency upon our congressmen, telling them to do the job they are elected to do. It is also empowering our representatives to represent the people who elect him or her into office. And we only have to get agreement in just one congressional district to start this action. When our agreement is published, you can expect it to be picked up by citizens in every district. It is a win-win change. The tantrums in Congress will be terrible to witness, but are unlikely to be effective. The last thing any congressman wants to do is to tell constituents that he doesn't want to be responsible to them and would prefer someone else be their financial representative. Whenever and wherever we the people find our agreement, we are the only authority through our being the real owner of this nation. We have the lesson of congressional mismanagement to guide us. It doesn't take much of anything to rule over a people who are divided against themselves. Congress has been ruling over us with just that understanding. It is why they find importance in focusing on issues instead of delivering value to us. And even more, we the people can assume exception level management over our government whenever and wherever we can agree on the value of doing this. Basic management is not a mystery. Citizen management of leaders can be implemented as a combination of initiating an action to gain something we value, empowering those who will complete our action and receiving the result we value. Congress is supposed to be managing our government for us. That is why they have been given access to our funds in the U.S. Treasury. It is about time for us to insist that they actually start doing the management that we pay them to do. Again, there is nothing mysterious about what they should be doing and insisting that they do what we put them there to do is not really a matter of contention. What we can agree upon probably includes Congress taking fiscal responsibility for what they authorize other parts of government to do. For a first concept, this is a directed change, not what Congress chooses to do. It is citizens assuming exception management and directing a change to our financial and political agents. When we are gathered and agreed we do not need their permission nor do we answer to them as some higher authority. A good potential for direction is that no spending bill be passed without a valued result that is returned to Congress when the authorized action is accomplished. Now doesn't that sound like management? The agreement should include wide publication of the spending authorized and the results that are pending or achieved. That publication supports our higher level management over our government. Our management feedback includes the amount spent, the purpose for spending it, and the track of a success in delivering what is such value that Congress funds it. It will probably be shocking to see how much waste is simply eliminated by this. The idea of being accountable for delivering something of value changes the entire nature of government from some isolated group performing their function to a centrally managed government operation. That is what management does. It brings resources of the organization together to gain a valued result. When the valued result has not returned, the funding goes away. A few simple changes like this can have massive effect on the operation of our government. Each congressman will, to some extent, become directly accountable to we the people for spending of public money. And that is a massive change that would minimize influence trading among representatives. Each would be answerable to the people who elect them for any promise to spend on someone else's project, should they spend on his or hers. Spending the people's tax contributions to the benefit of others first is likely to cost the representative dearly at future elections. So why would congressmen put up with this sort of change? The answer is in the authority of we the people. If a representative refuses to represent the people, voters do not have to wait for the next election. The one who is hired as an agent can be terminated. The agency can be terminated at any time and for any reason sufficient to their purpose. If we the people are sufficiently disturbed by lack of representation, we can come to agreement on declaring the office vacant and initiate replacement. We can fire a representative who refuses to represent us and there is nothing that even a gathered congress can do about it. The initiation of financial management in our government would have a ripple effect throughout the entire system. The requirement to manage and to return value for the resources committed would impact every area of government. Consider as a stunning example that the 2016 cost of the internal revenue service was around $11 billion. That is $88 per taxpayer and I challenge anyone to describe what a taxpayer receives from this expenditure. It is the cost of an agency that does nothing for we the people. The waste is incredible, putting an expense upon the taxpaying public instead of delivering anything of value. The pressure to find a less expensive way to fund government would be intense. Consider the Department of Justice function. What is it delivering to us? Where is the value that we can receive? It has valid and valuable mission in assuring that the laws of our nation are enforced. It also has a number of functions like defending public officers who are challenged by citizens. That creates damages not services. Such functions would probably be hidden or simply be terminated when there is focus on what it delivers to Congress and to the people who pay the bill. Groups like the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency would have to find a public product to deliver that people would value. Without something to produce for the public, it is likely that their funding would be in threat. I would expect a significant and ongoing shrinking of government to result with a corresponding reduction in what costs are put on the public. How much does it cost for our government to manage our nation? In the ultimate understanding that we are the only customers, it is a question of how much it costs us and what we both receive and value. The average federal tax burden is somewhere around 13%. Then there are the state taxes. To these, we add indirect taxes, and fees charged to business that also come out of our pockets. This is what it costs us. Then we ask the customer question, what do we receive for what we pay? The financial aspect of modern government provides an environment that is filled with wasteful practices and unrepresentative spending of our national resources. We have many opportunities for major economic improvements from relatively minor efforts as in establishing financial management within Congress. Finance is not our only challenge that arises in modern privilege-based national leadership. We also have an amazing internal misrepresentation through refusing to even recognize certain large areas of government as effective parts of our government. We have empowered certain right people to operate outside normal management. Having a few special exceptions might be justified, but we are spending over $50 billion on operation of federal agencies that are unwilling to answer effectively to congressional management. What we are told is that our representatives with we the people as owners are somehow not authorized to know what they are doing. Secrecy from even our elected leaders is our next challenge.


Please give them a warm welcome onto the stage. Thank you Thanks very much to give us this opportunity to talk about the project that we are working at the moment My name is Zore as you heard about that and I'm a template for the smart city project in DCU and For last three and a half years. We have been working for this smart city project So yeah, my name is Marcus Helford So my background is kind of in the intersection between computing and business So architecture fits very well into that and that's where I coordinate a reasonably sized research group now at Dublin City University And also I'm teaching in that area So I hope we didn't raise too much expectation when I just look at the title of the presentation reference methodology but what we want to share is actually our experience and Lessons learned around working in the space of enterprise architecture and applying enterprise architecture concept to the smart city space where we both lead Reasonable sized research project. So the research project is linked in a research center in Ireland Liro the software the IV software research center and I have to say this is funded by Science Foundation Ireland So I have my done my acknowledgement at that stage So now we can get to the real topic. So what we will do for the presentation We will both present so sorry probably presents most of it because it's her work and her dream But I add to it Hopefully with some valuable Comments addition around that. So but maybe sorry if you start with it. Yes. Thank you We are going to start with this slide about smart city in smart cities, we are talking about different Smart things like smart buildings smart economy smart health healthcare and many other different things small grease and When again when we are talking about smart cities We are talking about connected systems because we need to provide new services to the citizens by connecting the data coming from different systems and also to make this Possible and to realize this we need to share the databases between all of these Different domain and services and as you can see we have the databases at the moment on cloud we have many open databases available for the cities and By putting all this information and data together we can provide different services to the cities and All of this will happen all creating all this data are Created by IOT devices and sensors installed in different spaces and Maybe Marcus can explain more about this Yeah, so basically so why is it actually so challenging because basically so IOT devices are now Around for a while software systems anyway and smart smart buildings. They exist as well So why is it actually difficult? Why does the smart cities actually have a challenge to bring all of this? Different things together. So to me is basically that a layer in the middle somewhere where we want to connect the different Domains so basically so traffic energy also mobility Public services so basically in a smart city what we're trying to do is actually using the data what we have and Combining and sharing that across the domains and that becomes really complex on the end So basically that diagram tries to show the interconnection between the different domains and the complexity of actually even just Understanding that not not even to manage that so basically without actually and for understanding a deep understanding of the connections of the Architecture behind that it's not possible to actually combine all of these different Devices different domains Together so for us on the beginning it was actually fundamental that we actually architect that kind of scenario Around that because of the increased complexity the different connection between the different domains the different use cases Yes, and here in the left side You can see some different services which can be provided by putting the data together from different domains For example for a smart building we can have some new services in terms of energy efficiency and also we can use building information together with live data to promote energy saving behaviors and Also, we can do something for security management we can have building information and put together with live data for example about the Sensors installed on the doors windows to let security people know that for example some areas are not safe and We have other examples here for example for smart energy as you can see and also Smart mobility all of these services can come by putting all these different data from different domains together Yeah, and now one big difference as well from a technical oriented smart city is actually also that that we actually fundamentally trying to improve lives and trying to be Improved the quality of life economic situation Innovation in cities so everything what we do is somewhere linked to that overall goal to improve quality of life Economic situation environment, so it's basically driven by that So it's not just because we have the devices to actually Combine the data. It's actually with the goal of that Improving life aim for smart cities. Yes, and here we have some more detailed use cases one of the use cases is about Dublin Dockland smart district and here you can see The district that they are trying to make this area as the smart area in Dublin And they are doing many different infrastructure to enable smartness in this area and also something related to Energy and Energy aspects in in total and also there will be a Hackathon event that they are trying to see how we can use data from Different domains put together and to come up with some new services The hackathon with will be between 11 to 12 May and we are part of this hackathon as well Yeah, and again this use case on the Dublin docklands shows again the kind of the combination Between different domains so what they're trying to do is actually using data from a smart building to maybe do something on the traffic Management do something maybe on actually the economic situation on innovation around it So basically using data which they have from IOT devices in there in other domains and combining that and Managing that yes, and we have some other use cases here. You can see Because part of my research although also is about information management for building how we can use this information to Provide new services in the area of energy management security management For last six months. I Was involved in this project. I got some fund from science foundation Ireland to think that how we can extract this information from the new emergent beam technology and Put together with for example with the data from IOT devices to come up with this new services for smart buildings and And the challenge there is not to get the data directly out of the building information system What they have to have security data It's also not necessarily just the understanding of the schemas of that building information Management system. It's actually when we talk with facility management. For example in Dublin City University It's actually bringing that security data energy usage data of the building to gather Maybe with some data they have about the student behavior student Learning in there and then basically providing some useful Insights into actually the life and learning in students in that particular area of the university So in that regard the university and that smart buildings in Iowa So I just mentioned is kind of we call that the mini city type of Environment where we have a big compass. We have buildings in there. Some are have more sensors some have less some have So we can combine that so but fundamentally what we want to do is improve the learning experience from the students So and basically what we did there we started with what do we need to know to improve the learning experience from the students And then connect that so that's one of the kind of scenarios use cases and connect that with the possibilities of Sensual information information what we have in in the buildings and just even that example shows then that Architecture is actually fundamental to that. So it's not just creating an API. It's not just Understanding one database. It's actually understanding the technology layer Combining that with application so the information layer and thinking about the services what we actually can use and now you're all in that kind of Talk of enterprise architecture space and I'm pretty sure that's found sounds very familiar to talk of the three layers And that's where we came from with these kind of use cases then Yes, and we have some other use cases for example here how we can use Information and data from different domains together to come up with new services to the city This is an example for example to prevent flood in the city We can just get some information from weather prediction Databases and also we can put get some data from buildings about the underground capacities to store water For example rainwater or all the water for the buildings and then by putting together these things we can See that if there is any possibility to have a flood in the area Also, it can be used for urban planning for infrastructure planning because based on the The capacity for underground water we can just know that what are the required Structure for this urban area and we can use it for designing the city Infrastructure, yes, and I think that's all the use cases. That's the three use cases what you have what we have here so but I also one more okay, then I keep that sentence for the next one so yeah, and Here it's about the football counter. We have been working with the limerick city council for Project for a smart city project and also at the moment we are involving in a bigger European project the Marcus will talk about that later probably and for this one also we are using this information about the Steps in an area in the city for example to plan for Further bus services for that specific area We can use the collected data, but by the football counter service for many different reasons So and now these four use cases they seem to be very similar in other cities Maybe they call it differently. So like innovation innovation space a new nice kind of smart area Somewhere quality of like student life or quality of life a footfall counter flood management mobility So many cities have embarked on similar projects where they use smart like IOT devices Information around that and now when we look at these four use cases actually the combination of all of this That's the interesting one. So how you can actually combine footfall counters flood management Also innovation center. So really bringing back to that first kind of slide what you had They actually have different domains and the connection around that and that's really difficult That's challenging to understand even the data flows between all of these devices and and between the different applications and even when we think about for example GDPR data flows become really important And if you have like actually the combination of all of these four or five or many use cases I'm pretty sure without architecting without describing that it's challenging probably impossible to actually maintain and manage all of this So and this is fundamentally the driver where we started to work with limerick city and county council together Well, you mentioned the footfall counter example where we started to Zoom into one use case once service But not forgetting the rest actually the rest of the city and that's where we architect that around and Here you can see that we started to talk about the challenges for Smart city architecture and the first and important the most important thing is incorporation of the Strategies for the city into the architect the overall architecture for the city and the question was that what can be this us architecture like and and Here Marcus will talk about the data So just just if you go back just to that slide so basically so for us It's really important to connect all these different layers and not forgetting the vision or the strategy of the city so actually the Division the aim and the Strategy of the city is actually the driver why we actually architected in a certain way and that seems to be Often forgotten when we talk about smart cities. It's often technical driven even in the city where we are I would categorize that more like a kind of an east initially it was more in a in a in a technical way It changed over time, but I think cities realize that actually that full picture is really important So it's actually understanding the services what we provide to the citizens and to the business And how can we provide these services with application and technology to fulfill the strategic order the strategy Goal around that so that diagram is really fundamental kind of our way how we look at it And it's very similar probably to or it is similar to that kind of talk of enterprise architecture community a layered approach with different views and Combining that and keeping that coherent and that's what to me what enterprise architecture management is to manage these Kind of layers the different views and keeping it coherent to actually provide on the end the services the city needs so and then we basically like a couple of years ago we started then to look at Enterprise architecture how that actually can help and to me and you are all familiar with the Architecture development method diagram at least So it fits very well into the tour graph and the architectural development methodology way of thinking of basically having an vision and that comes from the strategy so We have kind of a why or an aim to do that that comes from the use cases So it's very clear to us that basically we can't just architect the whole city and architect the whole Information landscape information systems. No, it needs to be use case driven. It needs to be clear benefits It needs to be clear benefits to the to the citizens or the Industry the companies within that then also to me because we're not talking just about Small number of databases small number of applications actually Architecting data flows procedures data management Standards mapping between that interfaces becomes a central part what architecture actually describes So that's actually the why that the what so how to describe the complexity around that so these are architectural models and then and I think this is really important also in talk of is actually immigration path and the implementation part in into that so basically if you have a to be architecture Somewhere designed. We need to think about Adoption and behavioral change so and that's important particular when we're talking about social technical systems or tick systems with Citizens involved if humans involved so we need to think about how actually behavior can change how people use information how people Use or live in and and work in that nice smart way So how do they actually adopt? Technology so and change management migration is important and it's not just technical migration It's actually migrating of the the social technical systems are we talking about physical Cyber physical social systems so the social architecture the how people work and live together and how they actually For example commute in the city some mobility without behavior change This can't be actually all this kind of the smart way around that. Yes. Thank you And how we did develop such a methodology to do all of these things to do the transformation to do the implementation and so far This is the story for our research We started with this idea that we need to design Services with regard to other services in the city Which is coming we need some data from portfolio management in a city Which is talking about different projects and services and also we need some inputs from strategies from the city councils in smart cities and by this we are going to design Services to think about some context Requirements which are coming from the city context and also we need to design all the aspects to design a service and Afterward we are going to have an architecture. The next step would be the transformation or implementation of the new services in the city and Here you can see this is the overall idea how we are going to do this type of Transformation as you can see we have the green engine on top of this Cities in the portfolio and we were thinking that what we should do is we are moving to Change all of the services and make them up to date because based on the all these Contextings because based on the all the requirements for service design and also providing the Alignment between the indeed the services and information layer. This is the overall idea for the disarchitecture Yes, and that's inspired by for example the talk of architectural development method the circular diagram Basically, where we basically like adding services to the service portfolio over time and adjusting and enriching and Expanding the architecture and so basically I have to be honest now in the beginning when we wrote the research proposal to get the funding and all that We talked about the reference architecture Which somewhere was then relatively clear that actually a reference architecture in the smart city space is either too high level Not as useful as it could be or it's too detailed and too far specifically Use case in a specific city, which is also not so useful as a reference architecture So that was then also the shift around that actually kind of a methodology to manage and adding services to that architecture in a specific case. Yes, and Here we have the initial version of the framework that we have designed as you can see we have the same layered structure for this framework the new layers that we have added to the Architecture our context layer and service layer in the context layer. We are going to talk about stakeholders and mainly citizens in smart city and also their concerns because the the most goal The most important goal for smart cities is improving quality of life for citizens and also we are talking about local goals for the cities and Different standards and principles which should be considered to develop services Yes, and basically like there's a small thing on that diagram that little circle on the right Corner that's actually really important. That shows that kind of continuation that adding services to it So it's not a model which we develop in one big go. It's actually adding over time So that's really important. So we wanted to make it bigger, but that would have kind of Didn't fit into the diagram But this is kind of I just wanted to say it actually this this little this little error is important and then I want to mention Three projects where PhD students currently work on and I think this is really important to enrich and develop that a bit Further one is basically Expanding and looking at the meta model. That's our he made Modeling language probably most many of you are familiar with that. So basically adding the certain components certain concepts on it Where we basically adding a models to it So where we basically and sorry we'll explain it in a second So basically keeping the layers coherent to other projects one look specifically on data life cycles So basically like to me this an architecture is at that stage still very static But actually the interesting one is actually how data is Moving and how the data life cycle particular when we think about now GDPR data life cycles becomes really important So this is an essential component in there Which we don't see in the diagram really data life cycles and the third one is around risk. So What is actually the risk about an architecture if I basically what what can we assess that? So that's an interesting one actually. So can we assess risk of an architecture? can we look at an architecture analyze that and Looking at the potential implications in if you implement that in terms of risk So this is kind of three. I think exciting PhD projects where the students of us Working on so yes, and as you can see here, we have three main focus area it's the constakes layer service layer and the relationship and Why this relationship and alignment is new because we have already created a new layer The name is service layer because in the smart cities We don't have that business layer really and we have services and we are we have also different businesses who are coming to get together to create a new service for example in mobility area and I will explain a little more about the research Done during for this all these three areas and here you can see as Marcus mentioned We have done metamodelling for the created architecture We have had some use cases for example the footfall counter is one of the use cases that we have had for the Limerick City Council and we are trying to do simulation to show them the results how Effective can be used use of this architecture and I will explain about the simulation a little later and Here I start with the context layer which has been My specific topic. I've been working on as you can see we have developed a taxonomy of different components and this taxonomy has been established on the three main things which is about stakeholders quality factors in the smart city and also Service design and based on these three main topic. We have just explored and extracted Different things that which which can be related to this area for example stakeholders Can be divided to three different groups? citizens Authorities and also service developers each of these groups have their own concerns for example for citizens Lower cost is for the services is essential for the authorities Realization of smartness is important and for service developer having more benefits and more market share is important and also We have also considered Standards principles and different things that need to be considered to design the services as an example Data principles open data is an essential principle for smart cities And we have tried by this taxonomy We try to connect and relate all of these things to different stage of the design a design of services Yes, and although this looks like a little bit academic and it is academic So we published this but it also shown that actually when we talk to cities it helps to start that conversation What are the specifics about that city? What are the services? What are the stakeholders? They are most worried about or concerned about so what are and it helps us to design and understand Services, so that's kind of where it goes. So asking the right questions basically And I just want to refer to the city visions as an example the city vision for Barcelona is talking about Some steps to come up there for the services We should be designed and for this what they are saying is the main thing is talking about the vision for the city What would be the vision and based on this vision? They are going to Plan some strategy goals and also they are going to just go Deep into more details and referring to the goals for the local Local goals for the cities and based on that they are going to define some programs For example for worse Barcelona based on the vision that they have defined They already have 22 programs to realize the smart city and totally I want to say this context layer is completely related to the Vision for the cities and these are the components We have another ongoing research and ongoing paper to write it down that this Context layer is completely coming from the city vision and we want to buy this We want to provide a link between Service development process and also with the city vision because the city visions are normally in very abstract level We are trying to provide some type of link and bridge between city vision and also service development industry and Here you can see we have defined some activities and process for Development of the context layer. This is the process and you can see all these components stakeholders concerns and goals and based on that defining Related standards and principles should be considered to develop a service The next one is related to The service layer and in service layer. We are going to define different things related to a service for example function of the service the medium that we are trying to provide this to the citizens and also the actors for the service and The other resources that we need to provide this service and the thing is that for this stage we just dip into the Service design science to come up with all these components for the service layer And this is the process that we have defined for a service architecture as and as you can see here the Context statement is an input to define and describe a service based on the strategies and the outcome would be service description By which we are going to see what are the services we need to have in the city and also here we have the Relationship process the relationship is new because we have the new service layer and We need to define the links between service layer and information layer For example, we need to see what are the city services that we need to put together to come up with a new Service for the city based on the defined strategies and in this reason It's important to define these relationships and this is the process that we have defined already and Then we are going to The step for assessing the created architecture as I explained we have been in contact with limerick city council all these structured architectural things are a little Academic and theoretical for them, but we need to convince them that this architecture is working for them and by this we have used software to do the simulation and an initial version of the simulation that we have done is Here about the footfall counter. We just put all the components in the technology layer information that layer in And service layer also context layer all of these data are real data coming from the Dlimerick city and by this we needed to know how it works for them and for this purpose we did some type of simulation and as you can see just we did a simple type of simulation by considering that for example, if we have one data source what's happening with Waiting in the queue to get access to the resource data sources And what if we have number of data sources and as you can see that for example a top Right one you can see that for example the delay would be zero when we have number of resources and We have some delays when then we have access to one of the data sources. We are doing more advanced Simulation we are working on this and very close to the city exchange project that I just explained people we are trying to make it more practical from city order at this point of view and Yeah, that's the summary. These are the lesson learned Maybe Marcus would like to say something Generally about what we got and what how we did yeah in particular if you have still three minutes, I think so So basically what you saw on the simulation and I think this is really interesting when we're actually not looking at just the static architecture we're looking at the behavior of an architecture and I refer to I mentioned that The data life cycles so basically when we think about that basically like the different connections What we mentioned on the beginning of the the presentation we can configure that in various ways So we can basically configure different data life cycles. What is the impact? So you had one slide on with waiting time What is the impact on waiting time or what is the impact of that actually information is not accessible at that time? So what is actually behavioral aspects around that? So how is it impacting for example information sharing offer the food for a counter one? One question was how many sensors should they have how Accurate should the sensors be what is the frequency of updates? Don't know and it depends on the architecture all of these questions are actually Architectural questions on the end so how I connect all of this Is it better to store on the edge in the device some data? Pre-process it or is it better actually put it somewhere in a server and do something there? So that all depends it depends on the aim what they want to have also on the budget probably but also on the aim So and combining that into architecture so and that's I think is to me that one of the best arguments Why we need architecture because on the end I can tailor actually a solution to a city with the context And I can basically design an architecture which is suitable for that particular city And that's why we got away from that reference architecture. So basically having a blueprint This is kind of maybe we have components which work, but we need to contextualize it So we need to really understand the cities We need to understand what they what they want and a final note is also We don't want to compete and that will be far too much compete with talk of we using to graph We basically so in that process what you're out like we refer to talk of we basically just at some specifics What we believe is important in a smart city context. That's what we're trying to do So understanding if you use to graph that was our thing on the beginning using to graph in smart cities Does it work or not and what over these that that project we learned what things what we believe should be added or referred to And of course talk of is there's there's a lot like what we refer to to talk of like we don't want to Replicate compete or anything. It's really we using talk of that's like and I think that's the final statement in zero minutes So I stop here. Yeah, thanks very much just for your information This is the website that we have created and all the information about research can be find in the link over there. Thank you Thank you Please take a please take a seat you've generated I think possibly a record number of questions Which may be good or may not we may not get to all of them But but I'll dive straight in your point about your point about togeth and it's exactly what we What we encourage is you adapt it for the way in which it's useful for you, and that's exactly what we What what we hear time and time again, and that's the best way to use it so moving right in In terms of data management for smart cities, how do you handle? interoperability and integration challenges from different information sources Okay, I can take the first part on that so maybe I refer to that the newest project It's a it's European Lighthouse project a city exchange project So where limerick is one of the lighthouse cities and exactly that question comes up kind of there are Technology providers they have different systems different devices and basically one of the technical challenges is actually to integrate them So basically looking at standards APIs around that but even that is not so easy because certain APIs are already existing Certain APIs are proprietary. So it's a really difficult area But what we want to do there is at least Understanding APIs understand the metadata so building a kind of a repository around that where we basically have then kind of Data spaces where we basically know where we can locate data how to access data and the metadata around that access is very important So I keep it a little bit short otherwise, and probably for a long time That's good. Thank you a question on sustainability Do you measure the full energy and carbon footprint? environmental impact of smart cities including IOT devices and infrastructure manufacturing Maybe I can answer this Question because we have been three groups involved in this big smart city project This part for sustainability has been part of the University of Galway Over there. They have been working for this and also we have minute University The people over there are working on the business model side of this project and for us It has been for architecture side Yes, so in manuf they have developed a dashboard on sustainability Environmental impact and also referring to the city exchange a lighthouse project So one of the aims there is actually no or low energy districts actually positive energy Districts so they generate energy and of course one of the big thing is actually measuring energy consumption sustainability on that Okay What are the cyber security challenges of integrating data from all the domains such as health care and building? physical security, I Don't think I can't give an answer to that. That's a lot A lot of different sources coming in exactly but also for us. It's basically not like that. There are groups who look at Encryption security challenges around that and I mentioned one of the PhD students She looks into a risk of architecture and when we started with this there was also a discussion around should we look at security risk? We specifically excluded that for that part because there are research groups who look into that So because it's such a wide and specified area on Security, I It's very important, but it's not the main focus of our work. Right. Okay Let's see You mentioned The enterprise continuum in the methodology approach. Have you applied any reference model or reference architecture for smart cities or Is that what you're essentially trying to create? Indeed, this is what we are thinking that we cannot Restructure everything from scratch. We need to Bring existing Platform existing framework and everything Into this domain and we need to and that's the reason that we have started to see for example We have existing services We need to bring them into this framework for a smart city and also from the other side We are looking after the new services which are supposed to be created but we need to Put them this working and that's the main thing about the architecture continuum Yes, and we don't start from zero basically of course for example might know the espresso project which is a European or was a European project on reference architecture and there's great work work in that so Again, we don't want to replicate or compete with of course We're using certain blueprints and and recommend that as well And that's also one of the things why we actually use archimage as the modeling language It's not only because it fits very well into the enterprise architecture Way of thinking but it also gives us a way to actually compare and looking at blueprints and integrating blueprints into an overall architecture over that enterprise continuum great to hear good. Thank you There's a question here. Did you consider using the open group SOA governance framework for the service layer? Indeed we have had a look on all of different Existing knowledge and we are trying to use them but at the same time we have had a more focus and started with the Context layer we need to provide This details to the service providers. It's not like that. We are not I mean starting from Service development. We are not talking about starting from the service oriented architecture We are starting from one step back. This is from the city context This is the effort that we have doing We have the Performing have been performing so far to say that Strategies for the cities is important and just one I want to mention something Based on we can see in the city vision that Technology is not first now This is the strategies which are coming first and then they are going to for example To design to design new services new infrastructure and all of these We are trying to take the concentration from Service and technology side to the Strategy and vision side for the cities There were about ten more questions that we did we we won't have time for so I'll I'll just pick one and and please You might expect some questions over over lunch or whatever. I think Yes, I'll pick one that that came in early And and that is Something we let's see Yeah, how do you what is your approach to? Devising your use cases. How do you decide which problems to tackle? Indeed For example for Limerick City Council. We have been in contact. We are just going Straightly to their problem. What is their problem in this case? It would be interesting if we have some result in this reason We are just pointing to their problems and trying to shape up a use case based on their main concerns and also Because as we told in the context layer, we have stakeholders and their concerns and We have already defined smart service is a service which can respond to some of the needs for the stakeholders Therefore we are defining the use cases based on this Yes, and I would say that was an interesting question So basically it fits because we are from the university So we are of course interested in the academic side of research But also our research methodology design science is very suitable for exactly that So basically working with in that case cities together Identify their concrete problems and helping them with it So I would say the use cases what we're working on are actually from the practice practice Driven so from the city's driven and we Accommodate that with our research side around that. Okay, and I will just sneak one more in because I'd be interested. Are you interested in following up with the open group on this adaption of what you're doing? Yes, definitely like there's also a reason why we are here. So basically I think also Open group and and talk up and that environment is a really kind of it We are not there on the end yet Basically, we can be the discussion and that collaboration is fundamental to advance the enterprise architecture Worker around that and one of the challenges what we have is really initially to explain why architecture enterprise Architecture is so fundamental particular either to the more technical people So basically like they would like to go straight away into developing APIs and systems or on the other side the more managerial City manager to actually they would see it as kind of there's another layer in the middle So why do we need that? So we need to constantly articulate where enterprise architecture is important And I think that would be something where we collect use cases For example talk of enterprise architecture in cities where it's really proven to work and where we can clearly Really show the benefits and I know the members of our open platform 3.04 and where we have done our smart cities Where it would be very interested in how you progress with that and so Marcus sorry. Thank you very much. Thanks very much


What's good y'all Chris from chassis case breaks calm doing our first of two R&Bs for 2022 national treasures world cup Soccer one box PYT number 13 this R&B group England Spain USA Netherlands and Germany Here are our players for it Travis Matthew David Andy and Andrew with that last one. I'll just take to get y'all and our numbers Let's get to it first dice roll for both four two and six No giveaways just the six times This next R&B group will be a different video Brazil Korea and Norway, but right now six times for both good luck one two three four five and last one six David down to Matthew and six times for the numbers good luck one two three four five and last one six times six down to five So for this first R&B group We have David with six Andy at eight Travis with four David spot zero any redemptions if I know even if I numbered one to one Will be to David Matthew share with two David with seven and three Matthew share with nine Andrew with that last spot much a good spots one any Live an active one of ones will go to Andrew and Matthew share it with spot five All right, that was the R&B for the England Spain USA Netherlands Germany group after this We'll do the R&B for this bigger one Brazil Korea Norway Poland Croatia Sweden Austria the Czech Republic Senegal Serbia Switzerland and Ecuador. Thanks again y'all. You're back. Just as good case breaks.com


Hello everyone, welcome to lecture on VHDL module for decoder and encoder. At the end of this session, students will be able to analyze design and implement encoders and decoders. Now, before starting with the actual session, let us pause the video and think about what is the process. Now the process is nothing but is a sequential section of VHDL code, which is located in the statement part of the architecture. And in the process, only the sequential statements are allowed, sequential statements are nothing but the if statements, loop statements, case statements, only those statements are used inside the process. Now let us start with the encoder, start with the attest to three encoder. Now, now this is the attest to three encoder, which is having eight input, which is encoded in the form of three-bit output, right. So, here i is the eight-bit input, i0 to i7 and z is the three-bit output, z0 to z2. This is the truth table for this attest to three encoder. These are the inputs, all eight bits, these are the output, all three bits. Now depending on the which input line is bit is one, according that you are having output line. So, if the i0 is one, in that case your output bits are 0, 0, 0. If the i1 is one, in that case your output is bit having value 0, 0, 1. So according that the last combination is if the i7, i7 bit is one, in that case you are having all the output bits are one. Now let us go for the VHDL module for this attest to three encoder. Now, while writing the VHDL module, first there are three parts. First part is a library declaration. So, you have to include the library and packages whatever you are using. So, library IEEE, then from that we are using STD logic 1164 package. So, that is why use IEEE dot STD logic 1164 dot all. Once you done with the library declaration, second important part of the VHDL module is entity. So entity which describe the input and output ports of your system or design for which you are writing the VHDL module. So now here we are writing for the attest to three encoder. So entity encoder 83 that is the entity name is now port in that you are having you have to declare the inputs and outputs. Now input is i's input which is of 8 bits. So that is why it is written as a STD logic vector 7 down to 0, Z is output which is again 3 bits. So, it is that is why it is written as a STD logic vector 2 down to 0.  So end entity, entity name same name supposed to be there. After that comes the third important part of the VHDL module that is architecture. So architecture name of entity name is architecture begin process, inside the process you have to write the sensitivity list which is nothing but the inputs. So in this case the input is only one that is i. So that is why i is there that is a sensitivity list then process begin. Now because of the 8 bit input you have different combinations of that. So we have to use the case statement. So case i is when it is 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 in that case output Z equals to 0 0 0 same V i just did in a truth table. So complete the remaining combinations and according that you have to end the case if the inputs are not among these other than these possible combination in that case you have to write when it is others your output is having Z Z Z that is high impedance on the output. Then end case then end process and the last you have to end the architecture. So this is the structure or flow to write the VHDL module. Now this can be verified with the help of simulation. So this is the output forms of the 8S to 3 encoder you can verify that for example if I show you if it is not from the possible combination input is not possible it is undefined. So that is why the output is having high impedance. Second combination if you saw over here the all the input bits are 0 which is not from the truth table not from the possible combination still that output is high impedance. Now here it is become last bit is 1 means it is a from the combinations those are available for the input. So that is why you are having the values according that similarly second bit is 1 you are having 0 0 1 see. So this is how you can verify this your VHDL module with the help of simulation. Now let us go for the decoder let us try 3S to 8 decoder which is a reverse version of your 8S to 3 encoder. In that case encoder you are having 8 inputs and 3 outputs here in the decoder you are having 3 inputs and which is decoded in a 8 output. So this is the 3S to 8 decoder 3 inputs 8 outputs this is the table truth table for similar to the encoder only the condition is what here the inputs are 3 bit and output are 8 bit. So depending on the input combinations yeah according that the output 1 bit from the output is 1 other bits are 0 see. Now you know the working of your decoder using this truth table. Let us go for the VHDL module for that. As we know first part is a library declaration we have to write the which library we are using so library IEEE and from that library which package we are using so that package also included so use IEEE dot std logic 1164 this one is a package. Now from that package which components you are using or what are the part you are using we are using all whether they from that package we are using constants or packages or functions mentioned in that we are using all that one. So after library declaration second part is a entity part which describes or which gives the brief introduction about the inputs and outputs of your system design. So entity entity name is port now in this case I is the input which is a type of bit vector so std logic vector 2 down to 0 3 bit the z z is the output again type of vector so 7 down to 0 right then end entity name that is entity part is done. Now you have to write the third important part of your VHDL module that is architecture. So architecture, architecture name of entity name is now architecture begin process after that process inside the process you have to write the sensitivity these are nothing but the inputs now in this case the input is only I so that is I is there if it clock is also included over here you have to write the clock also right. So I after that process begin now because of input having 3 bit so 8 combinations are there so we have to use case statement so case I is when it is 0 0 0 in that case the output z equals to this value when the I is 0 0 1 in that case z is having this value. According that from the truth table we can complete all the possible combinations and the this if the input is not from these possible combination in that case you have to write the state last line that is when it is others output is having high impedance on this so that is why we written z over here all 8 z right. After that end case once you done with that end process and end architecture so this is the syntax you have to follow to while writing the VHDL module library declaration entity declaration and architecture declaration. Once you done with the VHDL module writing you can verify that with the help of simulation so here this is the simulation output of 3s to 8 decoder now here if you saw see that this one is a undefined input 3 in 3 bit input is undefined so this is not from the possible combinations of the case statement whatever we written in the previous slide so because of that it executes others condition last line of the case statement when others the output z equals to all 8 bits are z having high impedance so that is why sorry so that is why it is having all 8 bits are z. If I change the input from undefined to all input 3 bits are 0 0 0 in that case this one is the possible combination from the case statement which is a first line of the case statement so in that case the z is equals to 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 right similarly you can verify the remaining possible combination like 0 1 0 right over here then 1 1 0 the all 1 over here in that case the last bit is 1 right so using this type of simulation you can verify the VHDL module whatever you generated right these are the references thank you.