open government data infrastructures: research challenges, artefacts design and evaluation

Doctoral DissertationOPEN GOVERNMENT DATA INFRASTRUCTURES:

Research Challenges, Artefacts Design and Evaluation

CHARALAMPOS ALEXOPOULOSSamos, December 2016

University of the AegeanDepartment of Information and Communication Systems Engineering

Outline of the Presentation

Samos, 6/12/2016 CHARALAMPOS ALEXOPOULOS 2

Introduction

Overall Methodology

RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation

RQ5: Market Place for GR

Conclusions & Further

Research

CHARALAMPOS ALEXOPOULOS 3

Open Government Data (OGD)Introduction Overall

MethodologyRQ1: Research

AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:

EvaluationRQ5: Market Place for GR Conclusions

Open Government Data (OGD) is a subset of Public Sector Information (PSI), relating to information produced and collected by public bodies which is openly offered for re-use by administrations, enterprises, researchers or citizens. OGD:covers all aspects of life (e.g. meteorological, geospatial, health,

education, legal, traffic, financial) can be a collection of different types (e.g. document, file, catalogue,

dataset)may be offered in different digital forms (e.g. pdf, xls, xml, csv, rdf, gml)

Samos, 6/12/2016


The policy context: Digital Agenda 2020 and PSI Directive

Introduction Overall Methodology

RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation

RQ5: Market Place for GR Conclusions

EUR 28 Billion direct annual turnover in the PSI Sector

8% annual growth

PSI Sector one of the faster growing sectors of the EU economy

“fifth freedom”: the free movement of knowledge

How Europe can Gain from the Rising Tide of Data

Samos, 6/12/2016

The supply-driven approach is insufficient

Strong barriers regarding data relevance and quality

The use of Open Data “intermediaries” is more effective

Technical complexity (multilinguality, kind, format, metadata) & Organizational barriers

Europe should build its innovative advantage in key areas through reinforced e-Infrastructures


Objectives: The Research Questions


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

1. Which are the main research challenges and opportunities for OGD and how we can map them?

2. What is the current state-of-play in the OGD infrastructures development?

3. What are the requirements and features for a new more advanced generation of OGD platform?

4. Which are the existing evaluation models and how to evaluate an OGD Initiative?

5. How to maximise value for Collaborative and Individual use of OGD and how to apply it to the Greek context?


Structure and Contribution

Samos, 6/12/2016


RQ1: Research AreasWHICH ARE THE MAIN RESEARCH CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR OGD AND HOW WE CAN MAP THEM?

Samos, 6/12/2016


Method: Descriptive Theories


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

Step 1: Analysis of government policy

documents

Step 2: Analysis of papers proposing OGD

research categorizations

Step 3: Construction of OGDRAT first version

Step 4: EGRL literature search and review

Step 5: Construction of OGDRAT second version

Step 6: Workshop organization – feedback

collection

Step 7: Construction of OGDRAT final version


OGDRAT: 1st LevelIntroduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016


OGDRAT: 2nd LevelIntroduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016


Ranking of OGD research topics based on EGRL


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016


Answering RQ1: state-of-the-art in OGD research


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

The OGD research domain is still in its early stages, so it is important to identify the challenges and opportunities

Despite its significance and the political support at EU level, many challenges remain open for member states

Different disciplines have different uses for OGD

Current capacities to conduct research with OGD remain lacking

An infrastructure should integrate multiple and diverse tools and resources and will enhance thus the effectiveness and quality of e-government research

The study reveals the interesting thematic ‘richness’ of the OGD research domaino technological and non-technologicalo publishing of government datasets and also their usage

by various actorsLimitationso Projectso Librarieso Policy and legal Issues && Data Anonymisation Methods


RQ2: OGD Sources WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATE-OF-PLAY IN THE OGD INFRASTRUCTURES DEVELOPMENT?

Samos, 6/12/2016


OGD SourcesIntroduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016

Stage 1: Identification of

OGD Sources

Stage 2: Formulation of

Analysis Framework

Stage 3: Data Collection

Stage 4: Data Processing

1 Borough of Trafford (UK) Open Data Catalog

2 Central Bureau of Statistics 11 Global Health Data Exchange

3 Data Gov UK 12 Hellenic Statistical Authority

4 Data.gov 13 INSPIRE Geo-portal

5 Deutschland API 14 Israel Government Sharing Site

6 Diavgeia Gov (Cl@rity) 15 Israel Land Administration

7 EUR-Lex 16 United Nations Data

8 European Environment Agency Data Service 17 Warwickshire Open Data

9 General Secretariat of Information Systems 18 World Bank's Open Data initiative

10 Geospatial Governmental Data


Analysis FrameworkIntroduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016


OGD Sources


Analysis Framework



Datasets Discovery

Data Provision

Language

Visualizations

Feedback

Web Server

CMS/Platform

User Interface (UI)

Data Format

API

Functional PerspectiveTechnological Perspective




AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016


OGD Sources


Analysis Framework



5-stars Berners Lee’s Rating Scheme

* make your stuff available on the web ** make it available as structured data *** using non-proprietary format **** use URLs to identify things, so that people can point at your stuff***** link your data to other people’s data to provide context

RDF-compliance

5-stars Maturity Scheme of Metadata Management

* Metadata Ignorance** Scattered or Closed Metadata*** Open Metadata for Humans**** Open Reusable Metadata***** Linked Open Metadata

Data License

Semantic Perspective




AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016


OGD Sources


Analysis Framework



2 primary investigators 2 additional researchers when

a conflict on a value occurs

Percentages of uses and new technologies


Answering RQ2: Consolidated view of utilities / functions of OGD infrastructures


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

Type Function(s)

Data Provision

View data in HTMLExport data tables in embedded HTML codeView data in data tables with advanced filtering/pivoting capabilitiesMapChart

Visualization

View geospatial data on mapChoose underlying map layer (e.g.Google maps, Bing maps, ArcGIS)Spatial MashupsView google data mashups on mapDynamically create charts. Define columns, data sources, etcSupport for many chart types (pie, bar charts,etc)Save current viewData comparisons (time-line based comparisons, comparison on specific fields, etc.)

Feedback

Rate datasetsComment on DatasetsRequest Dataset forms

View popular demands / vote best data requests

Type Function(s)

Data acquisition

A “Submit Datasets” web form where users (authorized or not) can upload data to the portal

A Dataset Management System (DMS) to facilitate users to organize and maintain their dataset submissions via a web-based user interface

Datasets Catalog / Discover

Autocomplete free text search

Browse through CategoriesFaceted SearchSPARQL queryYahoo! Query Language (YQL) queriesAdvanced Query building (using all available data fields + conditional clauses)Browse through interactive mapBrowse data through chartsSimple Document listView popular / new searches

Data Provision

Download data as a file

Select Export file format (different from original format)


Answering RQ2: Consolidated view of technologies


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

Specification / Utility Technologies

Metadata standards

Dublin Core, CKAN, INSPIREESRI ArcGIS Metadata – MXD

OECD metadata, UN comtrade metadataHealth Data Exchange (GHDx)

Euro-SDMX, SDMX, CSMD

Linked Data

RDF Support, N-Triple stores, SPARQL SupportCustom tools by Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute (RPI) to transform CSV to RDF, Linked Data Mashups

Supported Data formats

Html, pdf, xls, doc, csv, xml, RDF, ppt, rtf , JSON object, kml, kmz, mxd, tiff, png,ods,zip, tsv,txt

CMS / PlatformDrupal, Socrata, MediaWiki, Wordpress, Plone,

Joomla, PostGIS, CKAN engine

Specification / Utility Technologies

User Interface / Web Technologies

Html, Adobe Flash, JQuery, JavaExts, Struts MVC framework / Java, PHP (Joomla), Python, MooTools, SOBI 2, ExtJS, JSP,

Prototype, script.aculo.us, Microsoft ASP.NET, Nginx, Varnish

Piwik, Adobe Flex

Mashups / Visualizations

Google Maps, Bing Maps, ArcGISOpenLayers , GeoEx, OpenStreetMap

MapFIsh and MapServer, Google Charts

API

RESTful Web ServicesCKAN API

API query builder (code generation tool)


RQ3: Requirements WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS AND FEATURES FOR A NEW MORE ADVANCED GENERATION OF OGD PLATFORM?

Samos, 6/12/2016


ScopeOn a very abstract level: define logical system boundaries (Black-Box-View)

Detect relevant roles of the systems and their communications

Detect all types of usage, all types of operated infrastructures, incoming data etc. Every type of use became a use case

Identify the beginning events or actions that start the use case

Define the conditions and constraints that will stop or end a use case

Design the Use Cases will be designed in UML and describe them textually


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016


Scenario-based designUse Case Description

Goal

Topic

Primary Actors and Roles

Secondary Actors and Roles


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

Data sets

Data Services

Data owners

Data Access Rights

Data Formats

Metadata formats

Nationalities and Languages involved

Trigger

Pre-condition list

Post-conditions list

Primary Flow

Error Flow

Additional Requirements list

Notes & Outstanding Issues

Use Case/ Flow Chart Diagrams (UML)


Scenarios at a glance…Introduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016

Nr Scenario Public Servant Researcher Citizen

Initial scenarios

SC-01Storing or linking (making accessible), Annotating and Visualising a PS data

set x

SC-02Getting the ENGAGE metadata specifications (for applying them in my own

systems) x

SC-03 Getting useful information (through browsing datasets or visualisations) x x

SC-04 Getting data for my research work xSC-05 Linking my system with ENGAGE, for uploading data xSC-06 Linking my system with ENGAGE, for downloading data x xSC-07 Storing data in draft form (to be further curated) x x

SC-08 Put data and annotate them according to ENGAGE standard and my needs x x

IFIP-eGov

SC-09 Put my needs for Public Sector data x x

SC-10 Get information and training on metadata, open data, ENGAGE platform x x x


SC-04: Getting data for my research work


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016


Open Data Workshop - DeliberationTwo questionnaires were distributed and answered by participants:

The first questionnaire targeted the rating of 8 (then) scenarios. From the results of the rating exercise, 2 more scenarios were added to the list (the training and insight scenario) and the 10 final scenarios were prioritized and extended

A second questionnaire discussed the important features of a service infrastructure for open data, indicating that the most important issues are:


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

1 for more important Rating

SC-03Getting useful information (through browsing datasets

or visualisations)1

SC-01Storing or linking (making accessible), Annotating and

Visualising a PS data set2

SC-04 Getting data for my research work 3

SC-02Getting the ENGAGE metadata specifications (for

applying them in my systems)4

SC-06 Linking my system with ENGAGE, for downloading data 5

Key Feature Planned coverage

Ensure quality and authenticity of data **Standardise Metadata ***

Convince Public Sector Officials **Provide Multi-country datasets / Language / Multiliguality ***

Provide linked data sets **


Final Requirements List: Classical Functionality


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

Functionality Stakeholder Description

1 Data Publication/upload Provider Support for publication/upload of datasets to the providers

2 Data Modeling Provider Capabilities of flat metadata descriptions (based on a specific metadata models)

3 Data Search User Simple search via keywords, resource format, publisher, topic categories and countries

4 Data Visualisation User Simple visualisation techniques on specific datasets (maps, charts)

5 Data Download User Data and metadata downloading capabilities – also provision of API for this purpose

Final Requirements List: Advanced Functionality (1/4)


Functionality Stakeholder Description1 Grouping and

InteractionProvider/ User Capabilities for

(a) searching for and finding other users/providers having similar interests with me in order to have information and knowledge exchange and cooperation, (b) forming groups with other users/providers having similar interests with me in order to have information and knowledge exchange and cooperation, (c) maintaining datasets/working on datasets within one group, (d) communicating with other users/ providers through messages in order to exchange information and knowledge and (e) getting immediately updated about the upload of new versions and enrichments of datasets maintained/worked on within the group, or new relevant items (e.g. publications, visualizations, etc.).


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation




Functionality Stakeholder Description2 Data Processing Provider/ User Capabilities for

(a) data enrichment - i.e. adding new elements - fields, (b) for metadata enrichment - i.e. fill in missing fields, (c) for data cleansing - e.g. detecting and correcting ubiquities in a dataset, matching text names to database IDs (keys) etc., (d) converting datasets to another format, (e) submitting various types of items - e.g. visualisations, publications - related to a dataset and (f) datasets combination and Mash-ups.

3 Data Enhanced Modeling

Provider/ User Capabilities for description of flat, contextual and detailed metadata of any metadata/vocabulary model.


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation




Functionality Stakeholder Description4 Feedback and

CollaborationProvider/ User Capabilities

(a) to communicate our own thoughts and ideas on the datasets to the other users and the providers of them through comments I enter on them, (b) to read interesting thoughts and ideas of other users on the datasets through comments they enter on them, (c) to express our own needs for additional datasets that would be interesting and useful to me, (d) to get informed about the needs of other users for additional datasets and (e) to get informed about datasets extensions and revisions.

5 Data Quality Rating User Capabilities to (a) communicate to the other users and the providers the level of quality of the datasets that I perceive, (b) get informed on the level of quality of the datasets perceived by other users through their ratings


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation




Functionality Stakeholder Description6 Data Linking Provider/ User Capabilities of data and metadata linking to other ontologies in the Linked Open Data Cloud.

Capabilities of querying data and metadata through Sparql Endpoints7 Data Versions

Publication/uploadProvider/ User Support for publication/upload of new versions of the existing datasets, and connection

with previous ones and initial datasets8 Advanced Data

VisualisationUser Advanced visualisation techniques on specific datasets and/or datasets mash-ups (maps,

charts, plots and other)9 Advanced Data

SearchUser Multilingual search based on thesauri and advanced metadata schema


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation



RQ4: Evaluation WHICH ARE THE EXISTING EVALUATION MODELS AND HOW TO EVALUATE AN OGD INITIATIVE?

Samos, 6/12/2016


IS Evaluation: Methodological Approach


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

Evaluation Model for UsersEase of Use Experience

Performance

Data Search & Download Capabilities

Data Provision Capabilities

Accompl.Users’

Objectives

Use

FutureBehaviour

Users’ Data Analysis Capabilities

Samos, 6/12/2016 34CHARALAMPOS ALEXOPOULOS


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Efficiency Level Effectiveness Level

Fut. Behavior Level

Evaluation Model for ProvidersEase of Use Experience

Performance

Providers’ Data Analysis Capabilities

Data Upload Capabilities

Accompl.Providers’Objectives

Use

FutureBehaviour



RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Efficiency Level Effectiveness Level

Fut. Behavior Level


Evaluation ProcedureIntroduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016

Achieving Sustainable

Interest

Accomplishing ENGAGE technical

Objectives

Overall Impact• Usability TestExternal• Qualitative discussionExternal• Experts QuestionnaireExternal• Experts QuestionnaireInternal

• Online MetricsExternal• Online User

QuestionnaireExternal• Internal Experts SWOT

AnalysisInternal


Overall ImpactIntroduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016

Accomplishing Technical Objectives Score

ENGAGE USPs – Experts’ Questionnaire 78,54 %Usability of the ENGAGE platform – Usability Test 76,51 %Platform Capabilities – Online Users’ Questionnaire 60,5 %

Total 71,85 %

Achieving Sustainable Interest Score

Users’ Interest – Web Analytics 90 %Users’ General Satisfaction – Online Users’ Questionnaire 61,4 %

Users’ Perceived Usefulness – Usability Test 78,19 %

Total 76,53 %

Version 1.0

Version 2.0


Value Generation AlgorithmIntroduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016

Value Dimension Alpha

Data Provision Capabilities (DPV) 0.834

Data Search and Download Capabilities (DSD) 0.805

User-level Feedback Capabilities (UFB) 0.770

Ease of Use (EOU) 0.716

Performance (PER) 0.719

Data Processing Capabilities (DPR) 0.811

Data Upload Capabilities (DUP) 0.858

Provider-level Feedback Capabilities (PFB) -

Support for Achieving User-level Objectives (SUO)

0.843

Support for Achieving Provider-level Objectives (SPO)

-

Future Behaviour (FBE) 0.876

Regression Models R2

SUO model (8 indep. variables) 0.776SPO model (8 indep. variables) 0.599FBE model (2 indep. variables) 0.412

FBE model (10 indep. variables) 0.647

Value Measures



RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


41 value measures (all layers) 35 for the 1st layer• 14 common value measures• 15 value measures for users• 06 value measures for providers

These value measures was then converted to a question to be included in questionnaires to be distributed to stakeholders

A five point Likert scale is used to measure agreement or disagreement

132 participants from all target groups

Value Model for Prosumers: 2nd Generation Infra


Data Provision Capabilities

3.03

Data Search & Download

Capabilities3.03

User-level Feedback Capabilities

2.97

Ease of Use3.35

Performance2.15

Data Processing Capabilities

3.27Data Upload Capabilities

2.93Provider-level

Feedback Capabilities

3.44

Support for Achieving

User Object.3.17

Support for Achieving

Provider Obj.3.12

Future Behaviour

3.19

0.624

0.489

0.639

0.760

0.651

0.307

0.680

0.730

0.479

0.379

0.135

0.632

0.735

Evaluation Results: Mapping for decision support



RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Lower Ratings Group

Higher Ratings Group

data provision capabilities

data search-download cap.

data upload capabilities

performance

provider-level feedback cap.

ease of use

data processing capabilities

user-level feedback capabil.

Lower Impact Group Higher Impact Group

data provision capabilities

user-level feedback capab.

performance

provider-level feedback cap.

data processing capabilities

ease of use

data search-download cap.

data upload capabilities

Evaluation Results: the important features of OGD infrastructures



RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


1. bring stakeholders together2. provide rich metadata3. enable data quality assessment4. ensure trust, security and critical mass5. have an appropriate revenue model6. provide use cases, training and support7. provide technical support: open data processing tools 8. provide a full API for machine-to-machine operation9. target multiple nationalities


RQ5: Marketplace HOW TO MAXIMISE VALUE FOR COLLABORATIVE AND INDIVIDUAL USE OF OGD AND HOW TO APPLY IT TO THE GREEK CONTEXT?

Samos, 6/12/2016


The Concept: 3rd Generation of OGD Infrastructures


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

University of the Aegean


Basic ModulesIntroduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016

Vision, Mission, Communication,

Use Cases

Administration/ Index of Users

(citizens & businesses)

Application Registry

Web Service Registry Subscribe an App Subscribe a Web

Service

Instructions for Application

Development – Design Studio

Semantic Assets (Codelists for

sectors, types of apps, platforms

etc.)

Open Data Sources Registry

Declare your need for web

service

Relative sites (open data, gov,

communities)

Declare your need for app

Web and mobile operation: compatibility with all platforms

Mobile friendliness for all operating systems and devices

The basic language is Greek / English version is under development

Social media-like user interface

Maintenance without further development

Three user roles: visitors, registered users, moderators

Rating and comments capabilities for applications, data and web services from registered users and visitors

Integration with Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn social media platforms (users can use their own accounts for publishing their comments)


Re-usable Assets MilestonesRegistration of open government applications developed by citizens and businesses

Gathering of available open data and web services (public sector)

Voluntary development of open, free applicationsPromotion of new technologies in open government

mobile devices (mobile platforms)open web servicesopen governmental data

Provision of training in the use of open data and services for applications development

Support the cooperation between citizens, government and businesses


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

Name, URL, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+ reservation

Basic functionality for all modules

Basic codelists for metadata fields descriptions

50 registered apps following the developed metadata prototype

15 registered web services following the developed metadata prototype

22 registered open data sources following the developed metadata prototype

50 registered usersCooperation with other initiatives


Conclusions & Further Research

Samos, 6/12/2016


An extended OGD Life-CycleIntroduction Overall


AreasRQ2: OGD

SourcesRQ3:

RequirementsRQ4:


Samos, 6/12/2016

Life Cycle Stage Tools Methods

Create / Gather Sensors, RFID, IS, Human, Connection with already gathered open data

Automated data creationManual data entryLinking with Open Data Portals

Pre-processDetailed Metadata Standards Evaluation Metrics and ModelsMaturity Matrices

Conceptualisation; StructuringAnonymisation; Evaluation

Curate LOD Refine External ToolIndividual / Native Tools

Metadata RefinementChange Data Format; Data Cleansing

Store / Obtain Repository and Data Centre Versioning, Data Linking

Publish Upload Capability LicensingIntellectual Property Rights

Retrieve / Acquire Multilingual Search techniques Download capabilities

Open Access3-layer Metadata Schema

Process External Data Processing toolLOD Refine External Tool

Data enrichment Create Linked Open DataDifferent Datasets combination

UseInternal & External Visualisation toolStatistical PackagesLinking with external artefacts

Statistical AnalysisMap, Chart, Plot Visualisation

CollaborateCollaboration Space and WorkflowWeb 2.0 Capabilities and ToolsDeclare Need

Exchange notes/emails/ideasData Quality Rating; Create Groups of common interests; Requests on Open Data


A maturity model for OGD e-Infrastructures


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

Traditional OGD Infrastructures Advanced OGD InfrastructuresTime Point Zero 1st Generation 2nd Generation 3rd GenerationInternet presence OGD existence in silos

accessed by application OGD web presence OGD web presence OGD web presence

Functionality N/A Basic Web 1.0 Advanced Web 2.0 Supporting value creation

Type N/A OGD direct provision portals OGD direct provision & OGD aggregators

OGD aggregators, Collaboration Spaces

Stakeholders Distinction between Data Providers and Data Users

Distinction between Data Providers and Data Users

Data Procumers

Data Procumers

License Custom or N/A Custom or N/A CC share-alike CC share-alikeFormat .xls, .pdf html, .xls, .pdf + .csv + URLs + Linked data

Metadata Metadata Ignorance orClosed Metadata

Metadata Ignorance orClosed Metadata

Open Metadata for Humans or Open Reusable Metadata Linked Open Metadata

Open Government level

Initial: Information broadcasting

DataTransparency: processes and performance

Open participation: Data quality, Public feedback, conversation,voting, Interactive communications, Crowd-sourcing

Open Collaboration: Interagency and with the public, Co-creating value-added services


Multi-disciplinary Research Based on OGD


RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation


Samos, 6/12/2016

Societal Challenge ICT-enabled Governance Research Topic

OGD Research Topic Neighbouring Scientific Domain

Language divideand lack of cross-communitiescommunication

Language and Cultural Interoperability

Metadata for OGD Multilinguality Controlled Vocabularies

and Codelists Preservation

Information Intelligence Computer Science

(Translation tools) Behavioural sciences

Anticipatingunexpected crises

Social – Economic Simulation Models

Policy Modelling Process Optimization for

OGD (Accurate provision)

Semantic Annotation Organisational

Interoperability Sensor-generated open

data

Social and economic sciences

Enhanced collective cognitive intelligence (human / ICT-enabled) for better Governance

Modelling and Simulation Policy Analysis Identity Management

OGD Mining Citizen-generated open

data Visualization Information Management

Economics Mathematics Sociology Computer Science

Further Developments – OGD Co-creation

The Collaborative Service Design Studio◦ (a) design and create their own applications and ◦ (b) to create mashup applications, combining already existing applications and web

services

The Public Value Services Marketplace◦ offers the created personalized services under commercial terms. It implements the

vision where governments, citizens, and businesses in Europe mutually benefit from services of public value



RQ1: Research Areas

RQ2: OGD Sources

RQ3: Requirements

RQ4: Evaluation



Author’s Publications: Journal papers

Samos, 6/12/2016

1. Alexopoulos, C., Loukis, E., & Charalabidis, Y. (2016). A methodology for determining the value generation mechanism and the improvement priorities of open government data systems. Journal of Computer Science and Information Systems, 13(1), 237-258.

2. Charalabidis, Y., Alexopoulos, C., & Loukis, E. (2016). A Taxonomy of Open Government Data Research Areas and Topics. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1-2), 41-63.

3. Alexopoulos, C., Loukis, E., Mouzakitis, S., Petychakis, M., & Charalabidis, Y. (2015). Analysing the Characteristics of Open Government Data Sources in Greece. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-33.

4. Alexopoulos, C., Loukis, E., & Charalabidis, Y. (2014). A Platform for Closing the Open Data Feedback Loop based on Web2. 0 functionality. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 6(1), 62-68.

Impact Factor Publisher

0.640 ComSIS

0.596 Taylor & Francis

0.423 Springer US

Open Access DU Krems


Author’s Publications: Conference papers

Samos, 6/12/2016

1. Charalabidis, Y., Alexopoulos, C., Diamantopoulou, V., & Androutsopoulou, A. (2016, January). An open data and open services repository for supporting citizen-driven application development for governance. In Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 2596-2604)

2. Zuiderwijk, A., Loukis, E., Alexopoulos, C., Janssen, M., & Jeffery, K. (2014, May). Elements for the development of an open data marketplace. In Proceedings of the Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (p. 309)

3. Charalabidis, Y., Loukis, E., & Alexopoulos, C. (2014, January). Evaluating second generation open government data infrastructures using value models. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 2114-2126)

4. Alexopoulos, C., Spiliotopoulou, L., & Charalabidis, Y. (2013, September). Open data movement in Greece: A case study on open government data sources. In Proceedings of the 17th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (pp. 279-286).

5. Alexopoulos, C., Loukis, E., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2013, June). An Evaluation Framework for Traditional and Advanced Open Public Data e-Infrastructures. In Edited by W. Castelnovo and E. Ferrari. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Egovernment (pp. 102-111).

6. Alexopoulos, C., Loukis, E., Charalabidis, Y., & Tagkopoulos, I. (2012, October). A Methodology for Evaluating PSI E-infrastructures Based on Multiple Value Models. In Proceedings of the 16th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (pp. 37-43).

HICSS IEEE SJR: 0,221

CeDEM IEEE Open Access

HICSS IEEE SJR: 0,221

PCI ACM SJR: 0,151

ECEG academic-conferences SJR: 0,113

PCI IEEE SJR: 0,151


Author’s Publications: other

Samos, 6/12/2016

Workshop papers

Alexopoulos, C., Zuiderwijk, A., Charalabidis, Y., & Loukis, E., (2014). Closing the open public data feedback loop: the ENGAGE platform. SHARE-PSI Workshop (Lisbon).

Alexopoulos, C., & Charalabidis, Y., (2015). Realising an Open Data Marketplace in Greece. SHARE-PSI Workshop (Timisoara).

Chapters in Books

Alexopoulos, C., Zuiderwijk, A., Charalabidis, Y., Loukis, E., & Janssen, M. (2014). Designing a second generation of open data platforms: integrating open data and social media. In Electronic Government (pp. 230-241). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Charalabidis, Y., Lampathaki, F., Alexopoulos, C., Kokkinakos, P., & Koussouris, S. (2012). A Classification of Future Internet Enterprise Systems Projects. In Enterprise Interoperability V (pp. 249-258). Springer London.

Book Authorships

Charalabidis Y., Zuiderwijk A., Alexopoulos C., Janssen M., (Aug. 2017). The world of Open Data. Palgrave Macmillan. (forthcoming)

open government data infrastructures: research challenges, artefacts design and evaluation

Education