Advertisement

Hydrographic Datasets in Open Government Data Portals: Mitigation of Reusability Issues Through Provenance Documentation

  • Monica De MartinoEmail author
  • Sergio Rosim
  • Alfonso Quarati
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1057)

Abstract

The paper provides a quantitative and qualitative snapshot on hydrographic datasets currently published in Open Government Data (OGD) portals aiming at investigating their reusability according to W3C recommendations and FAIR principles. Highly reputed OGD portals have been considered and searched for hydrographic datasets and their metadata. The resulting datasets have been analysed according to their compliance with reusability principles. In particular, we considered three metrics: data format machine readability; licence availability and openness; metadata provenance provision. The analysis highlights that OGD portals still have to solve some issues, in particular, a lack of detailed provenance. To promote the provision of provenance metadata of hydrographic datasets, enabling their comprehension and reuse, we illustrated a practice to improve their reusability by supplying workflow provenance metadata according to W3C PROV recommendation. We provide an illustrative example by documenting and publishing the generation of flooding areas maps produced by the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE).

Keywords

Hydrography Open data Reusability Provenance 

References

  1. 1.
    Rosim, S., Namikawa, L.M., de Freitas Oliveira, J.R., De Martino, M., Quarati, A.: Workflow provenance metadata to enhance reuse of South America drainage datasets. In: International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment, pp. 16–23 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geiger, A.C.P., Von Lucke, J.: Open data could have helped us learn from another mining dam disaster. Sci. Data 6(56), 1–2 (2019)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geiger, A.C.P., Von Lucke, J.: Open government and(linked)(open)(government)(data). JeDEM-eJournal eDemocracy Open Gov. 4(2), 265–278 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eight principles of open government data. Open Government Working Group (2007). https://opengovdata.org/. Accesed 29 May 2019
  5. 5.
    Sadiq, S., Indulska, M.: Open Data: quality over quantity. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 37(3), 150–154 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Safarov, I., Meijer, A.J., Grimmelikhuijsen. J.: Utilization of open government data: a systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Inform. Polity 22, 1–24 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Máchova, R., Lnénicka, M.: Evaluating the quality of open data portals on the national level. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. 12(1), 21–41 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quarati, A., De Martino, M.: Open Government Data usage: a brief overview, IDEAS. In: 23rd International Database Engineering & Applications Symposium, pp. 229–236 (2019)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Umbrich, J., Neumaier, S., Polleres, A.: Quality assessment evolution of open data portals. In: Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Open and Big Data, pp. 1–8. IEEE, Rome (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Distribuited and parallel databases. Work. Patterns 14(1), 5–51 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miles, A., Bechhofer, S.: W3C Recommendation: Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference (2009). http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference
  12. 12.
    Albertoni, R., De Martino, M., Podestà, P., Abecker, A., Wössner, R., Schnitter, K.: LusTRE: a framework of linked environmental thesauri for metadata management. Earth Sci. Inform. J. 11(4), 525–544 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quarati, A., Albertoni, R., De Martino, M.: Overall quality assessment of SKOS thesauri: an AHP-based approach. J. Inf. Sci. 43(6), 816–834 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Albertoni, R., De Martino, M., Quarati, A.: Documenting context-based quality assessment of controlled vocabularies. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. 1 PrePrints, 1 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Albertoni, R., De Martino, M., Di Franco, S., De Santis, V., Plini, P.: EARTh: an environmental application reference thesaurus in the linked open data cloud. Semantic Web 5(2), 165–171 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marcelo, J.S.O., Rodrigues de Oliveira, H., Oliveira, L.A., Farias, L.: Open government data portals analysis: the Brazilian case. In: Kim, Y., Liu, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research 2016, pp. 415–424. ACM, NY (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2912160.2912163
  17. 17.
    Neumaier, S., Umbrich, J., Polleres, A.: Automated quality assessment of metadata across open data portals. J. Data Inf. Qual. (JDIQ) 8(2), 2–29 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sahoo, S., Lebo, T, McGuinness, D., PROV-O: the PROV Ontology, W3C Recommendation (2013). http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Applied Mathematics and Information Technology, CNRGenovaItaly
  2. 2.INPE - Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas EspaciaisSão José dos CamposBrazil

Personalised recommendations