Open Data Portal Quality Comparison using AHP

During recent years, more and more Open Data becomes available and used as part of the Open Data movement. However, there are reported issues with the quality of the metadata in data portals and the data itself. This is a serious risk that could disrupt the Open Data project, as well as e-government initiatives since the data quality needs to be managed to guarantee the reliability of e-government to the public. First quality assessment frameworks emerge to evaluate the quality for a given dataset or portal along various dimensions (e.g., information completeness). Nonetheless, a common problem with such frameworks is to provide meaningful ranking mechanisms that are able to integrate several quality dimensions and user preferences (e.g., a portal provider is likely to have different quality preferences than a portal consumer). To address this multi-criteria decision making problem, our research work applies AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), which compares 146 active Open Data portals across 44 countries, powered by the CKAN software.

[1]  Alexeis Garcia-Perez,et al.  Technology knowledge and governance: Empowering citizen engagement and participation , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[2]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  The negative effects of open government data - investigating the dark side of open data , 2014, DG.O.

[3]  Carlo Batini,et al.  Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement , 2009, CSUR.

[4]  Fadi Salem,et al.  Benchmarking the E-Government Bulldozer: Beyond Measuring the Tread Marks , 2007 .

[5]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[6]  Arthur L. Blumenthal,et al.  The process of cognition , 1977 .

[7]  Jürgen Umbrich,et al.  Quality assessment & evolution of Open Data portals , 2015 .

[8]  Martin Necaský,et al.  Open Government Data Catalogs: Current Approaches and Quality Perspective , 2013, EGOVIS/EDEM.

[9]  T. L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making with dependence and feedback , 2001 .

[10]  Sylvain Kubler,et al.  Universal Messaging Standards for the IoT From a Lifecycle Management Perspective , 2014, IEEE Internet of Things Journal.

[11]  Jürgen Umbrich,et al.  Quality Assessment and Evolution of Open Data Portals , 2015, 2015 3rd International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud.

[12]  Sören Auer,et al.  A systematic review of open government data initiatives , 2015, Gov. Inf. Q..

[13]  Michael Gurstein,et al.  Open data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone? , 2011, First Monday.

[14]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Open data for competitive advantage: insights from open data use by companies , 2015, DG.O.

[15]  Sunil Choenni,et al.  On the barriers for local government releasing open data , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[16]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making with dependence and feedback : the analytic network process : the organization and prioritization of complexity , 1996 .

[17]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[18]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Expert Judgment and Expert Systems , 1987, NATO ASI Series.

[19]  Mohsen Kahani,et al.  A Metrics-Driven Approach for Quality Assessment of Linked Open Data , 2014, J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res..

[20]  Sylvain Kubler,et al.  Group fuzzy AHP approach to embed relevant data on "communicating material" , 2014, Comput. Ind..

[21]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications - Two decades review from 1994 to 2014 , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[22]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  e-government theories and challenges: findings from a plenary expert panel , 2015, DG.O.