Dataspaces: Concepts, Architectures and Initiatives

Maurizio Atzoria,1, Angelo Ciaramellaa,2, Claudia Diamantinia,3, Beniamino Di

Martinoa,4, Salvatore Distefanoa,5, Tullio Facchinettia,6, Fabrizio Montecchiania,7,
Antonino Noceraa,6, Giancarlo Ruffoa,8, Roberto Trasartia,9

a
Consorzio CINI - Laboratorio Data Science
1
Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Via Ospedale 72, 09214 Cagliari, Italia
2
Università degli Studi di Napoli “Parthenope”, DiST, Centro Direzionale di Napoli, Isola C4, 80143
Napoli, Italia
3
Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, Ancona, Italia
4
Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”
5
Università degli Studi di Messina, Piazza Pugliatti 1, 98100 Messina, Italia
6
Università degli Studi di Pavia, DIII, Via A. Ferrata 5, 27100 Pavia, Italia
7
Università degli Studi di Perugia, DI, Via G. Duranti 93, 06125, Perugia, Italia
8
Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro”, Via Duomo, 6 - 13100 Vercelli, Italia
9
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - ISTI - KDD Lab, 56124 Via G. Moruzzi 1, Pisa, Italia

Abstract
Despite not being a new concept, dataspaces have become a prominent topic due to
the increasing availability of data and the need for efficient management and utilization
of diverse data sources. In simple terms, a dataspace refers to an environment where
data from various sources, formats, and domains can be integrated, shared, and
analyzed. It aims to provide a unified view of heterogeneous data by bridging the gap
between different data silos, enabling interoperability. The concept of dataspaces
promotes the idea that data should be treated as a cohesive entity, rather than being
fragmented across different systems and applications.
Dataspaces often involve the integration of structured and unstructured data, including
databases, documents, sensor data, social media feeds, and more. The goal is to
enable organizations to harness the full potential of their data assets by facilitating
data discovery, access, and analysis. By bringing together diverse data sources,
dataspaces can offer new insights, support decision-making processes, and drive
innovation.
In the context of European Commission-funded research projects, dataspaces are
often explored as part of initiatives focused on data management, data sharing, and
the development of data-driven technologies. These projects aim to address
challenges related to data integration, data privacy, data governance, and scalability.
The goal is to advance the state of the art in data management and enable
organizations to leverage data more effectively for societal, economic, and scientific
advancements.
It is important to notice that while dataspaces offer potential benefits, they also come
with challenges. These challenges include data quality assurance, data privacy and
security, semantic interoperability, scalability, and the need for appropriate data
governance frameworks.
Overall, dataspaces represent an approach to managing and utilizing data that
emphasizes integration, interoperability, and accessibility. The concept is being
explored and researched to develop innovative solutions that can unlock the value of
data in various domains and sectors.

Keywords
Dataspaces, Data Lakes, Data Integration, Data spaces 1

ITADATA 2023: The 2nd Italian Conference on Big Data and Data Science, September 11-13, 2023, Naples, Italy
[email protected] (M. Atzori); [email protected] (A. Ciaramella); [email protected] (C.
Diamantini); [email protected] (B. Di Martino); [email protected] (S. DiStefano);

CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
1. Introduction and Main Concepts
The term dataspace (DS) was originally coined by Franklyn and other authors [Franklin et. al.
2005, Halevy et al. 2006] as an evolution of traditional DBMS. Since the introduction of the
definition, several other references to this concept have been elaborated in the scientific
literature. The rather vague nature of the original definition led to slightly different semantics
and variations in the references appeared later.
In the original concept, a dataspace is defined as an “abstraction” for data management
focused on reducing the challenges behind the fruitful and efficient exploitation of large
amounts of interrelated, although disparately managed, data. Along with this definition, the
authors of the aforementioned manuscript came up with a second, and perhaps more
important, concept, namely the Dataspace Support Platform (DSSP, for short).
According to their vision, in a context in which an increasing number of loosely linked data
sources can be leveraged to feed novel and advanced application scenarios, the challenges
related to data management become pervasive as they have to be solved on every single
source, individually. For this reason, the classical concepts of databases and Database
Management Systems (DBMS, for short) should be replaced by more abstract definitions.
In this sense, a dataspace can be thought of as just an abstract database, whose data are
actually located in independent and heterogeneous data platforms, possibly sharing common
semantics. Semantic integration, typically required in classical DBMS, is also being released
and, according to [Franklin et. al. 2005, Halevy et al. 2006], dataspaces and DSSP should
provide more of a "data coexistence" strategy than full data integration. Roughly speaking,
dataspaces and DSSP should provide basic data access capabilities across different data
sources and, therefore, implicitly defer the definition of fine-tuned integration policies to the
application layer.
This initial definition has been extended over the years in several directions. The concept of
data space has seen renewed practical interest due to the EU initiative of European Common
Dataspaces2, aiming to enforce data sovereignty and establish a data economy. Recently,
[Curry, 2020] identified different features to complete the definition of a dataspace, which have
been extended here to the 13 ones reported below:
1. Storage Architecture: Refers to the underlying structure and organization of data
storage, distinguishing between centralized (data stored in a single location) and
distributed (data stored across multiple locations) architectures.
2. Control: Describes the level of centralization or distribution of control over data
management, ranging from centralized-complete (single entity controls all aspects) to
distributed-partial (multiple entities have autonomy over specific aspects).
3. Model: Represents the data model or database model used to structure and organize
data, such as relational, NoSQL, or hybrid models.
4. Formats: Refers to the types of data formats supported, including structured (data
organized in a predefined format), semi-structured (data with a loose structure like
JSON or XML), unstructured (data without a predefined structure, such as text
documents or multimedia).
5. Schema: Defines how data schema (structure and organization) is handled, including
schema-first (schema defined before data is stored), data-first (data stored without a
predefined schema, later defined), or no schema (data stored without any predefined
structure).

[email protected] (T. Facchinetti); [email protected] (F. Montecchiani);

[email protected] (A. Nocera); [email protected] (G. Ruffo); [email protected] (R.
Trasarti)
© 2023 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
CEUR
ht
tp:
//
ceur
-ws
.or
g
Works
hop I
SSN1613-
0073
Pr
oceedi
ngs

2
Communication: A European Strategy for Data, 2020,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0066
 6. Integration: Describes the approach to integrating data from different sources, ranging
from upfront-strong integration (data integration before storage), incremental-weak
integration (periodic or incremental integration), to on-demand-none integration (no
predefined integration process).
7. Leadership: Refers to the leadership approach in managing the data management
system, distinguishing between top-down (centralized decision-making) and bottom-
up (distributed decision-making) approaches.
8. Query: Defines the type of queries supported by the system, including exact queries
(precise retrieval of specific data) and approximate queries (approximate or
probabilistic retrieval).
9. Data Processing: Refers to the methods and capabilities for processing data, such as
real-time streaming (processing data as it arrives), batch processing (processing data
in large batches), or other data processing approaches.
10. Governance: Describes the data governance model applied to data management,
including centralized governance (centralized control and decision-making),
distributed governance (distributed control and decision-making), or a combination of
both.
11. Sovereignty: Represents the level of data ownership and control, ranging from none
(no individual control over data), weak (partial control) to full-strong sovereignty
(complete individual control over data).
12. Trustworthiness: Indicates the level of trust and reliability in the data management
system, ranging from none (lack of trustworthiness), weak, to strong trustworthiness
(highly reliable and trusted system).
13. Consistency and Durability: Describes the level of data consistency (ensuring data
correctness and integrity) and durability (ensuring data persistence and availability)
provided by the system, ranging from none (lack of consistency and durability), weak,
to strong (highly consistent and durable system).

1.1. Current Challenges

In the context of European Data Spaces, a number of issues have been identified by BDVA
that need to be addressed to make dataspaces effective [Scerri et al., 2022].
They can be clustered into 4 groups of challenges that consider different aspects of running a
dataspace: technical challenges, business and organizational challenges, legal compliance
challenges, national and regional challenges. Focusing on the technical challenges, the main
problems that need to be addressed are:
● Sharing by Design: a dataspace should have a data lifecycle management model that
includes sharing by design, that is conceived to facilitate the sharing of interoperable
data and provide mechanisms to integrate them
● Digital Sovereignty: new ownership models or appropriate tools for data rights
management need to be developed to enforce data usage rights within a mixed data
sharing space such as those made available by dataspaces.
● Decentralization: it is challenging to guarantee scalability of real-time data operations
in massively distributed data architectures whose distribution is not defined apriori.
● Veracity: dataspaces need tools for verification and provenance support given their
data sharing nature
● Security: secure data access and restrictions policies should take into account the
sharing goal of dataspaces, which make it challenging to ensure confidentiality and
digital rights management compared to other data management solutions. Also
communication among the nodes of the decentralized architecture would need a
secure network and appropriate protocols.
● Privacy protection: although privacy-preserving technologies in the context of
databases are available, they need to be adapted to address the challenges posed by
the way data are shared via dataspaces [Dutkiewicz et al., 2022].
Other important problems that remain open for further research are query performance, which
may suffer from missing centralized data indexes or optimized partitioning of data, as well as
the application of AI techniques and algorithms in order to automatically construct a mediated
schema from various sources [Nargesian et al., 2019; Jarke, et al., 2022], in order to reduce
the cost of data integration of the pay as you go paradigm.

1.2. Existing Data Management Solutions

To better understand DS, it could be useful to compare such technology against other relevant
data management solutions such as data lakes, data warehouses, and different flavors of
DBs:

● Data Lakes: Data Lakes are storage repositories that store large volumes of raw and
unprocessed data in its native format. They provide a centralized location for storing
diverse data sources, making it easier to analyze and derive insights. While data
lakes focus on storage and provide limited data organization and integration
capabilities, data spaces go beyond storage and provide an integrated environment
for organizing, exploring, and analyzing data from diverse sources. Data spaces offer
user-centric operations and support navigation, search, and exploration through
different interfaces.
● Data Warehouse: A data warehouse is a centralized repository that consolidates
data from various sources for reporting, analysis, and decision-making purposes. It
typically involves data integration, transformation, and aggregation processes. Data
spaces share some similarities with data warehouses in terms of integrating and
organizing data from multiple sources. However, data spaces focus on providing a
user-centric environment for exploring and analyzing data, while data warehouses
primarily focus on supporting business intelligence and reporting.
● Databases (DB): Databases are structured collections of data organized for efficient
storage, retrieval, and management. Data spaces can incorporate databases as one
of the data sources within their environment. However, data spaces typically go
beyond individual databases and provide a unified view that integrates data from
multiple sources, including databases, into a cohesive environment.
● Distributed Database (DDB): A distributed database is a database that is spread
across multiple nodes or locations, providing improved scalability and fault tolerance.
Data spaces can integrate data from distributed databases as part of their data
sources. However, data spaces go beyond distributed databases by providing a
unified and virtualized environment that integrates data from various sources,
regardless of their distribution or location.
● Federated Database (FDB): A federated database is a collection of autonomous
databases that are interconnected and present a unified view to users. Federated
databases allow querying and accessing data from multiple databases through a
single interface. Data spaces, similar to federated databases, integrate data from
multiple sources. However, data spaces offer additional capabilities such as
exploration, navigation, and user-centric operations that enhance the user's
experience with the integrated data.
● Multi-Database (Multi-DB): A multi-database system consists of multiple independent
databases that operate concurrently but are not necessarily interconnected. Each
database maintains its own data and schema. In contrast, data spaces provide an
integrated environment that bridges the gap between multiple databases, allowing
users to work with data from different sources seamlessly.

Restricting the scope to the two first dimensions (storage architecture and control), a
taxonomy able to give a preliminary categorization and positioning of the above discussed
systems in the data management technology landscape is proposed below.
 Architecture/CTRL Centralized Distributed

Centralized Data Lake Data Warehouse

Distributed Distributed DB, Dataspace/

Distributed/Cloud FS Federated-MultiDB

Table 1 summarizes the full comparison among the aforementioned data management
solutions based on all the features above identified. In particular, there is an even
distribution among centralized and distributed solutions. Moreover, database solutions are
based on SQL/NoSQL approaches, leading to structured schemes, which are not required or
addressed in dataspaces, data lakes or data warehouses. The level of trustworthiness,
consistency and durability spans from weak to strong, where several solutions can be
configured to obtain the desired level of each feature. Dataspaces set apart from all the
other solutions regarding the type of query, which is exact for all the solutions but can be
approximated for dataspaces, and for the leadership, which is top-down for all the solutions.

Distributed Federated Multi-

Data Databases Databases Databases Databases
Feature Data Spaces Data Lakes Warehouses (DB) (DDB) (FDB) (Multi-DB)

Storage
Architecture Distributed Centralized Centralized Centralized Distributed Distributed Distributed

Control Distributed Centralized Centralized Centralized Centralized Distributed Distributed

SQL/
Model * * * NoSQL SQL/NoSQL SQL/NoSQL SQL/NoSQL

Formats * * * Structured Structured Structured Structured

Data-first/
Schema no schema * * Schema first Schema first Schema first Schema first

Weak or Upfront- Upfront- Upfront-

Integration incremental * strong strong Upfront-strong strong Upfront-strong

Leadership * Top-down Top-down Top-down Top-down Top-down Top-down

Exact,
Query Approx. Exact Exact Exact Exact Exact Exact

Data Batch, Near-

Processing * Batch real-time Batch * * *

Governance * Centralized Centralized Centralized Centralized Centralized Centralized

Sovereignty * Partial Partial/Full Full Partial/Full Partial/Full Partial/Full

Trustworthines
s Strong Weak-Strong Strong * * Weak-Strong *

Consistency
and Durability Weak Weak-Strong Strong Strong Weak-Strong Weak-Strong Weak-Strong
Table 1. Comparison of the relevant features among different data storage management
solutions.
2. Architectural Frameworks
Concerning dataspaces, in the European scenario, three main initiatives focus on
addressing the challenge of data publishing and sharing. Those initiatives are: EOSC, IDS,
DSBA and Gaia-X, all of them are incorporating FAIR principles (findable, accessible,
interoperable, and reusable) in both scientific and commercial areas. All those initiatives
define their architecture around some basic concepts (such as [IDS-RAM 2019]):
● trust
● security and data sovereignty
● ecosystem of data (no central data storage capabilities)
● standardized interoperability
● value adding apps
● data markets
● open development process
● re-use of existing technologies
● contribution to standardization

EGI foundation produced a paper comparing the approaches of EOSC and Gaia-X [EGI,
2021], in the following we will report a short comparison between the four initiatives.

EOSC is based on a four layer architecture (i) EOSC-Core defined by the internal services
allowing EOSC to operate as a federation. It includes a Core technical platform which
facilitates EOSC delivery upon which the researcher facing resources in the EOSC-Exchange
can rely and integrate with as appropriate. (ii) EOSC-Exchange provides services and other
resources registered into the EOSC to serve the needs of research communities. Generic
services and resources which target multiple scientific domains and research communities are
identified as Horizontal Services. Resources which target users from a specific scientific
domain, community and/or regional domain are identified as Thematic and/or Regional
Resources. The capability to compose resources across horizontal and thematic and/or
regional ones relies on the EOSC Interoperability Framework. (iii) EOSC Interoperability
Framework (EIF) is a framework of standards and guidelines to support the interoperability
and composability of resources in the EOSC-Core and EOSCExchange. It allows EOSC to
integrate services and research products (e.g. publications, datasets, software) across
resources and providers. Providers have the freedom to develop and operate provider specific
implementations while conforming to the EIF guidelines and standards. Data ecosystems
delivering thematic capabilities are independently operated outside EOSC for their reference
target groups. (iv) EOSC Support activities, alongside the EOSC-Core and EOSC-
Exchange, comprise the training, engagement, and other human-centric activities which make
EOSC more attractive and easier to use, and help users benefit from it more easily once
engaged. They include Training, support and the EOSC Digital Innovation Hub for
engagement with the commercial sector.
It is important to notice also the timeline and the relations between initiatives: the European
dataspaces were introduced as a parallel initiative to the EOSC by the European community,
in practice the output of the EOSC initiative will be used as a base for a fully connected
common platform including the dataspaces.
Figure 1: High level architecture of EOSC-Exchange [Licia et al., 2021]

The Gaia-X architecture is based on the concepts of Asset and the roles of Data Providers,
Federators and Consumers. The design of the system is defined as relations between these
concepts: (i) Asset: the resources which are shared among the network including meta-data
and other information needed for their usage. (ii) a Provider is who provides Assets in the
Gaia-X Ecosystem. It defines the service offering including terms and conditions as well as
technical policies. further, it provides the service instance that includes a Self-Description and
technical policies. Therefore, the Provider may possess different Assets. (iii) Federators are
in charge of organizing and managing vertical contexts (e.g. similar concept to dataspace)
and are autonomous in defining specific rules and policies for asset sharing. (iv) A Consumer
is a participant who searches and consumes the assets in the Gaia-X ecosystem. The
definition of gaia-X architecture is still not well defined in terms of technologies and is more
focused in the creation of a network of trust between industrial partners.

Figure 2: High level architecture of GaiaX initiative3

3
https://towardsdatascience.com/the-architecture-of-europes-gaia-x-850ba6f43519
The International Data Space Association (IDS) Reference Architecture Model (IDS-RAM)
[IDS-RAM, 2019] is made up of 5 layers and 3 perspectives. The 5 layers describe the
structure of Business, Functional, Information, Process, and System components. The 3
perspectives deal with functionalities that have to be implemented across the layers: security,
certification and governance.
(i) The Business layer provides an abstract description of roles in the International Data
Space. and their interactions. It can be considered a blueprint for the other, more technical
layers. Principal roles are categorized in Core Participants (e.g. data owner, data provider,
data consumer), Intermediary (e.g. broker service provider, clearing house, identity provider)
Software/Service Provider, Governance Body (e.g. certification body, IDSA). (ii) The
Functional layer describes the functional requirements of the IDS, like functionalities to
ensure trust (e.g. identity management), security and data sovereignty (e.g. authentication
and authorization), Ecosystems of Data (e.g. Data Source description, Brokering,
Vocabularies), Standardized Interoperability (e.g. operation, data exchange), Value Adding
Apps (e.g. data processing and transformation, data app implementation) Data Markets
(clearing and billing, usage restrictions and governance, legal aspects). (iii) The Process
layer describes, in BPMN notation, the interactions between the different components of the
IDS. Three major processes have been identified, together with their subprocesses:
Onboarding, Exchanging Data, and Publishing and using Data Apps. (iv) The Information
Layer describes the Information Model. It is defined as an RDFS/OWL-ontology covering the
types of Digital Resources that are exchanged by participants by means of the IDS
infrastructure components. It supports the description, publication and identification of Digital
Resources (both data and data processing software) as well as data exchange and
consumption via semantically annotated, easily discoverable services. The framework
explicitly assumes that specific domain ontologies and vocabularies can be integrated for
more detailed resource annotation. Besides the normative ontology (called the Declarative
Representation) the model is specified at two further levels. The former, more abstract, called
the Conceptual Representation is a textual document devoted to the general public,
complemented with graphical models (UML classes). The latter, more specific, called the
Programmatic Representation, provides a mapping of the IDS Ontology onto native structures
of a given programming language, targeting Software Providers needs. Finally, the (v) the
System Layer is the more technical layer, being devoted to map roles (specified on the
Business Layer) and requirements (specified on the Functional Layer) onto a concrete
architecture. Three major technical components are identified: the Connector, the Broker, and
the App Store. Other “external” components (i.e. not specified by IDS-RAM) support the three
components: the Identity Provider, The Vocabulary Hub, the Update Repository, and the Trust
Repository.
Figure 3: High level architecture of IDS-RAM connectors4

The DataSpaces Business Alliance - DSBA has proposed a Reference Technology

Framework, in their recently released Technical Convergence Discussion Document [DSBA,
2023]. This framework is based on the technical convergence of existing architectures and
models and leverages mutual infrastructure and implementation efforts. The goal is to achieve
interoperability and portability of solutions across data spaces by harmonizing technological
components. The Reference Framework illustrates the concepts of data space connector,
data spaces registry and federated services like marketplaces or metadata brokers and how
they can be materialized based on open industry standards. To better visualize and
understand the details of the descriptions in the paper, the DSBA defined a highly detailed
example use case with technical descriptions that can be generalized to other use cases. The
use case implements a scenario where a data service provider offers a service on a public
marketplace, so that service consuming parties can acquire access to this offering. An
overview of the Building Blocks and WOrkflows of the Reference Architecture is excerpted in
the following picture:

4
https://datos.gob.es/en/blog/ids-ram-reference-architecture-model-and-its-role-data-spaces
Figure 4: High level architecture of DSBA5

The ‘Technical Convergence Discussion Document’ is an agile paper that will continuously be
updated.

3. Main Initiatives and Projects

In this section, some of the main initiatives about dataspaces are discussed.

Funded by the European Commission under the Digital Europe Program, the mission of the
Data Spaces Support Centre (DSSC)6 is to coordinate all relevant data spaces initiatives in
Europe. Among other activities the DSSC defines common requirements and establishes best
practices. The DSSC project is part of the European Data Strategy, whose aim is to build a
data ecosystem in Europe through the development of common data spaces in strategic
economic sectors and domains. The International Data Spaces Association (IDSA)7 is one of
the participants of the DSSC. IDSA is a not-for-profit association representing several industry
sectors, with members based all over the world.

The Europeana Network Association (ENA)8 is a community of digital cultural heritage

experts with a common goal of enhancing access to Europe's digital cultural heritage through
the Europeana platform. The platform provides access to digitized cultural heritage assets,
such as artworks, books, manuscripts, and photographs. Users can explore and discover
diverse cultural treasures from different periods and regions, contributing to the collective
understanding and appreciation of Europe's cultural heritage. Europeana aims to play a pivotal
role in driving the digital transformation of the cultural heritage sector. Their focus is on
developing expertise, tools, and policies to embrace digital advancements and fostering
partnerships that encourage innovation. They strive to make cultural heritage more accessible
and usable for purposes such as education, research, creativity, and recreation. Europeana's
efforts contribute to creating an open, knowledgeable, and creative society. Europeana

5
https://datos.gob.es/en/blog/ids-ram-reference-architecture-model-and-its-role-data-spaces
6
https://dssc.eu/
7
https://internationaldataspaces.org/
8
https://pro.europeana.eu/
envisions a future where the cultural heritage sector harnesses the power of digital technology,
which in turn leads to a resilient economy, increased employment opportunities, improved
well-being, and a strengthened European identity. They actively participate in the common
European data space for cultural heritage, a flagship initiative of the European Union that
supports the digital transformation of the sector.

We now discuss the main projects related to dataspaces, in particular, the European Union
supported the creation and maintenance of dataspaces, as shown by the following projects.

The IDS (International Data Spaces) Radar9 refers to a tool or framework that provides
insights and information about the status, development, and trends within the International
Data Spaces ecosystem. It offers a comprehensive overview of the key components,
technologies, and activities related to IDS. The IDS Radar helps stakeholders in
understanding the landscape of IDS, including its architecture, standards, and use cases. It
showcases the various organizations, projects, and initiatives involved in implementing IDS
and promotes collaboration and knowledge exchange within the IDS community. By using the
IDS Radar, individuals and organizations can stay updated on the latest developments,
innovations, and advancements in the field of data spaces. It serves as a valuable resource
for decision-making, strategy formulation, and identifying potential partners or opportunities in
the IDS ecosystem.

The focus of the data space for security and law enforcement (DIGITAL-2022-DATA-SEC-
LAW-03) should be on facilitating innovation, not covering data sharing for investigative
purposes. The objective is to establish a federated data infrastructure and develop a data
governance model. Tasks include developing a reference architecture, defining data
standards, and establishing criteria for certifications and product quality. Data should be
generated, collected, annotated, and made interoperable for testing AI algorithms and security
research purposes. Monitoring processes should ensure data quality and validation of results,
with a focus on technical standards and unbiased content. Trust mechanisms and data
services must ensure security, privacy, and access rights. Efficiency and interoperability within
the domain should be considered for data collection alternatives. Fundamental rights
challenges should be addressed, including bias mitigation, non-discrimination mechanisms,
and enhanced data quality. Compliance with EU legal frameworks on data processing for
police purposes and GDPR is crucial. Coordination with relevant projects and adherence to
common standards, including the European Data Spaces Technical Framework, are required.

The objective of the data space for digital communities (DIGITAL-2022-CLOUD-AI-03) is

to pilot and apply the principles of the data space for smart communities on a large scale,
connecting data from various domains. The data space will be controlled by public data
holders, using open standard tools and supported by a common middleware platform. Funding
will support a consortium of stakeholders to foster innovation among EU cities and
communities, complying with sector legislation. Pilots will generate a common understanding
of progress towards the Green transition and ensure compatibility with the principles of the
New European Bauhaus. Cascading grants will support pilots that combine data from areas
such as traffic management, climate change adaptation, energy management, and pollution
reduction. Pilots should leverage existing infrastructure and make AI services available
through trusted application catalogs and marketplaces. Ethical AI solutions, AI algorithm
registries, and compliance rules should be established at the local level. Links will be
established with Horizon Europe missions working with communities and cities for testing and
upscaling the data space. Partnership with the Data Spaces Support Centre will ensure
alignment with the Smart Middleware Platform and data space ecosystem. The collaboration

9
https://internationaldataspaces.org/adopt/data-space-radar/
will focus on reference architecture, standards, interoperability, data governance models, and
business strategies.

Data space for mobility (DIGITAL-2022-CLOUD-AI-03) aims to contribute to the

development of the common European mobility data space in compliance with EU legislation,
creating a technical infrastructure and governance mechanisms for cross-border access to
key mobility data resources. The project will align with existing and upcoming mobility and
transport initiatives to become part of the European data and cloud services infrastructure.
Data related to sustainable urban mobility indicators and traffic/travel information will be made
available in a machine-readable format for innovative services and policymaking. The project
will support sustainable urban mobility planning by providing data on indicators such as
greenhouse gas emissions, congestion, and travel times. It will also provide traffic and travel
information at the urban level, following ITS Directive regulations on real-time traffic and
multimodal travel information. Projects should have a clear European dimension and involve
cities or regions from at least three eligible countries sharing common objectives. Compliance
with the European Data Spaces Technical Framework is required, and coordination with other
projects and the Data Spaces Support Centre is necessary for interoperability and integration
of standards. The smart middleware platform and tools can be utilized, and data accessibility
through National Access Points under the ITS Directive is encouraged. The project will ensure
interoperability, portability, and integration across infrastructure, applications, and data.

PrepDSpace4Mobility10 is a 12-month project focused on establishing a secure and

controlled method of pooling and sharing mobility data across Europe. It aims to contribute to
the development of a common European mobility data space by analyzing existing data
ecosystems, identifying gaps and overlaps, and proposing common building blocks and
governance frameworks. The project team consists of experts from both private and public
mobility sectors, with expertise in mobility, economics, and digital technologies. They aim to
facilitate a new era of mobility data sharing in Europe, based on trust, interoperability, and
data sovereignty. PrepDSpace4Mobility is a crucial component for the future implementation
of a unified market for mobility data. The key objectives of the project include identifying
European data ecosystems in the mobility and logistics sector and creating a comprehensive
catalog that summarizes relevant data ecosystems and provides information about the type
and quality of data.

ENERSHARE11 develops a Data-Driven Reference Architecture for the energy sector, aligning
with FIWARE, IDSA, and GAIA-X standards. It establishes a marketplace using Blockchain
and Smart Contracts to enhance trust among ecosystem participants and ensure data
security. Additionally, it enables a compensation system, allowing the exchange of energy-
related assets and resources (such as datasets, algorithms, and models) for energy assets
and services (including heating system maintenance and surplus energy transfer).
Engineering leads the project consortium of 30 partners and plays a crucial role in the
development of the Energy Data Space that emerges from the project.

D4Science12 [Assante, 2019] promotes Open Science through implementing innovative Data
Infrastructure services which are used by several communities in a common and integrated
environment. It faces the open challenges described in section 1.2 and is a pilot for the EOSC
initiative in order to publish and share the services of its communities. The platform itself is
based on the gCube framework which is specifically conceived to deal with data-intensive
science (see also e-Science). In such a domain space, (potentially large-scale) datasets come
in all forms and shapes from huge international experiments to cross-laboratory, single
laboratory, or even from a multitude of individual observations. D4Science is a candidate

10
https://mobilitydataspace-csa.eu/
11
https://www.eng.it/en/case-studies/enershare-il-dataspace-europeo-sull-energia
12
https://www.d4science.org/
technology to create a standard for European dataspaces and to create a bridge between
them and the EOSC. Example of project/communities following this strategy are: Blue-Cloud13
and SoBigData14.

At a non-EU international level, the data space ecosystem is apparently underdeveloped. For
example, the Administrative Data Research in UK developed the Local Data Spaces project15
to help local authorities tackle the Covid-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, their dataspace model
does not fit exactly the constraints and technological features described in previous sections
of this paper.

Acknowledgements
The work of M. Atzori has been partially supported by MIUR under the PRIN 2017 project
"HOPE" project HOPE "High quality Open data Publishing and Enrichment" (prot.
2017MMJJRE) and project SERICS (PE00000014) under the NRRP MUR program funded by
the EU - NGEU (NextGenerationEU).
The work of R. Trasarti has been partially supported by MIUR under the “SoBigData.it –
Strengthening the Italian RI for Social Mining and Big Data Analytics” project receiving funding
from European Union – NextGenerationEU – National Recovery and Resilience Plan – Prot.
IR0000013 – Avviso n. 3264 del 28/12/2021.”
We wish to heartfully thank Angeles Tejado, Senior Program Manager at FIWARE, for her
precious indications, especially for the DSBA Reference Framework, and for her review and
suggestions towards the improvement of the Camera ready version.

References
[Assante, 2019] M. Assante et al. (2019) Enacting open science by D4Science. Future Gener.
Comput. Syst. 101: 555-563 10.1016/j.future.2019.05.063

[Curry, 2020] Dataspaces: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. In: Real-time Linked
Dataspaces. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29665-0_3

[Dutkiewicz et al., 2022] Lidia Dutkiewicz, Yuliya Miadzvetskaya, Hosea Ofe, Alan Barnett,
Lukas Helminger, Stefanie Lindstaedt et al.: Privacy-Preserving Techniques for Trustworthy
Data Sharing: Opportunities and Challenges for Future Research. Pages 319-335 (2022)

[DSBA, 2023] Data Spaces Business Alliance, “Technical Convergence Discussion

Document”, Version 2.0, 2023. https://data-spaces-business-alliance.eu/wp-
content/uploads/dlm_uploads/Data-Spaces-Business-Alliance-Technical-Convergence-
V2.pdf

[EGI, 2021] Dietrich, Mark, & Ferrari, Tiziana. (2021). Governance, Architectures and
Business Models for Data and Cloud Federations: the EOSC and GAIA-X Case Studies (1.0).
Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5081865

[Franklin et. al., 2005] Michael J. Franklin, Alon Y. Halevy, David Maier: From databases to
dataspaces: a new abstraction for information management. SIGMOD Rec. 34(4): 27-33
(2005) https://doi.org/10.1145/1107499.1107502

13
https://blue-cloud.org/
14
www.sobigdata.eu
15
https://www.adruk.org/our-work/browse-all-projects/local-data-spaces-helping-local-authorities-
tackle-the-covid-19-pandemic-362/
[Halevy et al., 2006] Alon Halevy, Michael Franklin, David Maier: Principles of dataspace
systems. Proceedings of the twenty-fifth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on
Principles of database systems (PODS '06) (2006) https://doi.org/10.1145/1142351.1142352

[IDS-RAM 2019] International Data Space Association, Reference Architecture Model, v.3.0,
April 2019. Available at:https://internationaldataspaces.org/wp-content/uploads/IDS-
Reference-Architec ture-Model-3.0-2019.pdf

[Jarke, et al., 2022] Matthias Jarke, Christoph Quix: Federated Data Integration in Data
Spaces. Designing Data Spaces 2022: 181-194

[Nargesian et al., 2019] Fatemeh Nargesian, Erkang Zhu, Renée J. Miller, Ken Q. Pu, Patricia
C. Arocena: Data Lake Management: Challenges and Opportunities. Proc. VLDB Endow.
12(12): 1986-1989 (2019)

[Scerri et al., 2022] Simon Scerri, Tuomo Tuikka, Irene Lopez de Vallejo, Edward Curry:
Common European Data Spaces: Challenges and Opportunities. Pages 337-357 (2022)

[Licia et al., 2021] EOSC Architecture and Interoperability Framework, Licia Florio, Mark Van
de Sanden, Diego Scardaci, Michelle Williams, Owen Appleton, Paolo Manghi, Keith Jeffery.
Public Report