The overarching goal of Gaia-X is to create a federated and secure data infrastructure for Europe and beyond that allows companies and citizens to share data without giving up control over it. Every ecosystem participant decides what happens to their data, where it is stored and thus always retains absolute data sovereignty. To achieve this, the Gaia-X architecture follows the principle of decentralization, with a multitude of individual platforms all following a common standard based on openness, transparency and trust.

The Gaia-X Federation Services, at the center of the visualization, are the implementation toolbox and minimum technical requirements and services that enable Gaia-X Federations to become operational and work together. Federations are individual participants that team up to create value for all participants and to open up new market potentials.

• The Identity & Trust service closes the trust gap by enabling federations to authenticate and authorize participants. This is achieved by utilizing Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI), specifically Decentralized Digital Identifiers (DIDs), Verifiable Credentials (VCs) and Verifiable Presentations (VPs), which ensure that every participant is in full control of their identity at all times.
• The Federated Catalogue service allows federations to set up a repository, in which participants can search for and discover information and services of other participants based on their aforementioned credentials.
• The Sovereign Data Exchange service helps participants in keeping sovereignty over their data by providing functionalities for specifying and tracking how their data is used.
• The Compliance service ensures that every participant and service is complying with the Gaia-X principles. Together with a number of decentralized services that are part of the Gaia-X policy, it provides decentralized, sovereign and immutable governance and control mechanisms that enable trustworthy transactions between participants.
• Lastly, the Gaia-X Portal provides user friendly access to the Federation Services and supports the onboarding and accreditation of participants as well as the discovery of services.

The Gaia-X Federation Services are co-developed by the GXFS-DE project, funded by the German Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) and coordinated by eco – Association of the Internet Industry.

The Automotive & Mobility domain harbors three Gaia-X lighthouse projects, the Mobility Data Space, Catena-X and EONA-X. The Mobility Data Space is funded by the Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport (BMDV) and deals with the creation of a data marketplace that allows for the sovereign exchange of mobility data in Europe, Catena-X is funded by the BMWK and is tasked with establishing a trustworthy, collaborative, open and secure data ecosystem for the automotive industry. The objective of EONA-X is to establish a dedicated European data space for mobility, transport and tourism, developed on the path of the Gaia-X initiative. Funding is mostly provided by the private sector.

Datarella, as previously announced, is working on the moveID project, which, together with four related ventures, is part of the Gaia-X 4 Future Mobility project family. The goal of moveID is to develop a digital identity infrastructure and trustworthy data exchange process for the mobility of the future. Feasibility will be shown on the basis of two use cases, V2X services in heterogenous, decentralized mobility infrastructures and vehicle data sharing. moveID is funded by the BMWK and the interdisciplinary consortium of mobility enterprises, Web3 companies and research facilities is lead by BOSCH.

The Industry 4.0 sector features a German-Austrian joint Gaia-X lighthouse project, EuProGigant. It’s intention is to establish an ecosystem that enables the smart and sovereign use of data for production. Funding is provided by the BMWK and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (BMK).

With KOSMoS, Datarella has already successfully finished a research project in the Industry 4.0 space by realizing a collaborative smart contracting platform for digital value networks. Now, based on these results, Datarella is also involved in the two followup Gaia-X projects Cosmic-X and ESCOM. Cosmic-X is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and deals with advanced smart services in the context of spare part supply chain automation and optimization. The specific use cases that will be explored are digital twins, trusted supply chains and platform-based maintenance. ESCOM is funded by the BMWK and seeks to make a demonstrable contribution to a responsible manufacturing industry regarding resource consumption and sustainable resource use. The project will demonstrate that the use and balancing of edge and cloud data spaces allows for the flexible, load- and energy demand-dependent use of services as a know-how offering of component manufacturers with high utility value for the end application. Both projects are carried out in collaboration with leading industry partners and research facilities.

We are incredibly proud to be contributing to the development of the Gaia-X ecosystem in two critical domains and hope that our illustration sheds some light on the work that has already been done and will continue to be done towards an open, transparent and secure data infrastructure for everyone.

The post The Gaia-X Project Landscape appeared first on DATARELLA.

If you want to read the full article, you can read about it here! 

Within three years, the KOSMoS project intends to create blockchain-based frameworks for machine manufacturers to offer services for transparent maintenance and dynamic leasing contracts for their machines. Since these use cases are crucial to the stakeholders, it is important to choose the right type of blockchain to satisfy their needs.

Our methodology for choosing the correct type of blockchain followed three steps:

1. Study existing types of blockchain and select a subset
2. Define criteria for evaluating the most suitable blockchain system
3. Compare the different blockchains to our predefined requirements

After comparing all possible types of blockchains, we eventually decided to implement the KOSMoS system on Hyperledger Fabric. One of the reasons for Hyperledger Fabric was the possibility to use channels between each machine manufacturer and its clients to keep sensitive information confidential while maintaining a shared blockchain infrastructure.

If you have any questions about the project, our methodology, or criticism, feel free to contact me via E-mail.

The post A Critical Choice: Which Consortium Blockchain? appeared first on DATARELLA.

We won’t jump into technical details. Instead, let’s look at how a private permissioned blockchain network comes into existence: Someone gets the brilliant idea to create a shared network for a specific case in which data must be effectively shared between multiple parties. She might go to other parties and ask them to join her case and present them a beautiful Big Picture. Most likely, the others will react tentatively – they might have to turn larger wheels within their environment in order to join. So, our lone blockchain pioneer might collect loose commitments from those parties and have them intend to join (after the system has been created and proven, of course) and start out on her own.

Hence, the first step is taken to create a private permissioned blockchain network. And, as all first steps, it costs some effort and is in the beginning just – a step. A blockchain network with perhaps 2-3 nodes for a start. Very small, controlled by one entity and – admittedly – vulnerable. “Less safe”. In terms of security, there is no great difference here compared to a traditional centralized network with “a server”. 

But, dear reader, we are forgetting something cruical: The Big Picture.

A seed does not make a forest, but it can start one. Our pioneer now will go to the parties she has collected commitments from. One or two will agree in testing. In an ideal case, they will see the benefit (usually it’s largely increased efficiency and/or cost savings) and better understand the Big Picture. With this lever, they will be able to turn the wheels in their environment – and add their own nodes to the network. With more parties joining the network over time, we have a consortium of real world entities which controls the network. They will create a governance model in order to set down the rules for the network. And of course, with the added nodes the network becomes safer. 

So, on top of the technology (consensus algorithms, encryption, blocks, keys, distribution, zero knowledge proofs, channels… you name it) exists a real world layer to the network which is typically ignored by people who are fresh to the idea of private permissioned blockchains. This real world layer ideally contains

• a consortium (often found in form of a foundation), 
• a governance model (set of rules agreed upon by the consortium)
• arbitration (to some extent automated within the network)
• auditing (possibly even through nodes of a neutral audit company for real-time auditing)

Can a large private permissioned blockchain network still be captured by a malicious party? Yes. BUT: This party will knowingly risk its reputation within the consortium, since it is transparent who holds which nodes. Imagine a humanitarian supply blockchain in which a number of humanitarian organizations make up the consortium. Would it make sense for one of these to risk their reputation? Imagine a money-transfer blockchain network held by a consortium of banks – would a bank want to risk its reputation? Or, think universities issuing degrees on a blockchain?

Are private permissioned blockchain systems less safe? It depends. Next time you encounter one, take a step back and challenge yourself: What could the big picture look like?

The post Are Private Permissioned Blockchain Systems Less Safe? appeared first on DATARELLA.