This guide brings together online resources that contain U.S. government documents. Some are freely available to anyone with Internet access. Others include subscription databases accessible with a DHS device.

The open data portal catalogue is a downloadable dataset containing some key metadata for the general datasets available on the Government of Canada's Open Data portal. Resource 1 is generated using the ckanapi tool (external link) Resources 2 - 8 are generated using the Flatterer (external link) utility. ###Description of resources: 1. Dataset is a JSON Lines (external link) file where the metadata of each Dataset/Open Information Record is one line of JSON. The file is compressed with GZip. The file is heavily nested and recommended for users familiar with working with nested JSON. 2. Catalogue is a XLSX workbook where the nested metadata of each Dataset/Open Information Record is flattened into worksheets for each type of metadata. 3. datasets metadata contains metadata at the dataset level. This is also referred to as the package in some CKAN documentation. This is the main table/worksheet in the SQLite database and XLSX output. 4. Resources Metadata contains the metadata for the resources contained within each dataset. 5. resource views metadata contains the metadata for the views applied to each resource, if a resource has a view configured. 6. datastore fields metadata contains the DataStore information for CSV datasets that have been loaded into the DataStore. This information is displayed in the Data Dictionary for DataStore enabled CSVs. 7. Data Package Fields contains a description of the fields available in each of the tables within the Catalogue, as well as the count of the number of records each table contains. 8. data package entity relation diagram Displays the title and format for column, in each table in the Data Package in the form of a ERD Diagram. The Data Package resource offers a text based version. 9. SQLite Database is a .db database, similar in structure to Catalogue. This can be queried with database or analytical software tools for doing analysis.

Completed data entry forms on SADME databases for directory being compiled by the BMR. Completed data entry forms on SADME databases for directory being compiled by the BMR.

Global Encryption Software Market Size, Share, Outlook & Encryption Software Market Analysis 2024 By Application, By Deployment, By Industry Type, Competition Forecast & Opportunities

The global database encryption market size was valued USD 14.81 billion in 2023 and is expected to rise to USD 58.92 billion by 2032 at a CAGR of 16.58%.

The dataset contains information about the contents of 100 Terms of Service (ToS) of online platforms. The documents were analyzed and evaluated from the point of view of the European Union consumer law. The main results have been presented in the table titled "Terms of Service Analysis and Evaluation_RESULTS." This table is accompanied by the instruction followed by the annotators, titled "Variables Definitions," allowing for the interpretation of the assigned values. In addition, we provide the raw data (analyzed ToS, in the folder "Clear ToS") and the annotated documents (in the folder "Annotated ToS," further subdivided).

SAMPLE: The sample contains 100 contracts of digital platforms operating in sixteen market sectors: Cloud storage, Communication, Dating, Finance, Food, Gaming, Health, Music, Shopping, Social, Sports, Transportation, Travel, Video, Work, and Various. The selected companies' main headquarters span four legal surroundings: the US, the EU, Poland specifically, and Other jurisdictions. The chosen platforms are both privately held and publicly listed and offer both fee-based and free services. Although the sample cannot be treated as representative of all online platforms, it nevertheless accounts for the most popular consumer services in the analyzed sectors and contains a diverse and heterogeneous set.

CONTENT: Each ToS has been assigned the following information: 1. Metadata: 1.1. the name of the service; 1.2. the URL; 1.3. the effective date; 1.4. the language of ToS; 1.5. the sector; 1.6. the number of words in ToS; 1.7–1.8. the jurisdiction of the main headquarters; 1.9. if the company is public or private; 1.10. if the service is paid or free. 2. Evaluative Variables: remedy clauses (2.1– 2.5); dispute resolution clauses (2.6–2.10); unilateral alteration clauses (2.11–2.15); rights to police the behavior of users (2.16–2.17); regulatory requirements (2.18–2.20); and various (2.21–2.25). 3. Count Variables: the number of clauses seen as unclear (3.1) and the number of other documents referred to by the ToS (3.2). 4. Pull-out Text Variables: rights and obligations of the parties (4.1) and descriptions of the service (4.2)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The research leading to these results has received funding from the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014-2021, project no. 2020/37/K/HS5/02769, titled “Private Law of Data: Concepts, Practices, Principles & Politics.”

Iowa Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) electronic research and retrieval database system. This system provides access to full-text documents including: Contracts, Contracts Archive, PERB and Court Decisions, and Neutral Decisions.

Contracts – Contracts published and included in this database are only those forwarded to PERB by the parties. Contracts Archive – Contracts that were forwarded to PERB and have expired, beginning with those that expired in 2008, are included in this database.

PERB and Court Decisions – In this database, the PERB decisions do not include routine or preliminary rulings and orders issued by PERB, but include only substantive final agency decisions and non-final rulings and orders deemed informative. Court decisions are those on judicial review of PERB decisions.

Neutral Decisions – The neutral decisions database includes recent and a number of prior years’ fact-finding and interest arbitration decisions. Additionally, it includes only those grievance arbitration decisions forwarded to PERB for publication by the arbitrator with consent of the parties involved. Click on the Contents tab of the database to view all documents contained in the database.

PERB decisions do not include routine or preliminary rulings and orders issued by PERB, but include only substantive final agency decisions and non-final rulings and orders deemed informative. Court decisions are those on judicial review of PERB decisions.

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Harness AI-Driven Precision for Global Company Insights Leverage cutting-edge AI agents to fetch and validate company registry data in real-time, bypassing obsolete databases. Unlike traditional providers, our service dynamically retrieves data directly from government registries worldwide, ensuring up-to-the-minute accuracy and eliminating outdated records.

Key Features 1. AI-Powered Real-Time Access: Deploy autonomous AI agents to collect and structure data from any national registry, even those with dynamic layouts or authentication barriers.

1. Universal Registry Compatibility: Seamlessly extract data from 250+ countries, including hard-to-access regions, with automatic translation and normalization.

2. Document Processing: Parse financial filings, annual reports, and legal documents (PDF, DOCX) using NLP-driven analysis. Extract key attributes like ownership structures, director details, and compliance status.

3. Format Flexibility: Receive data via API, CSV, JSON, or custom formats (e.g., PostgreSQL DB, Google Sheets) with hourly/daily refresh options.

4. 99% Accuracy Guarantee: Multi-layer validation via AI cross-referencing and human audits ensures error-free datasets.

Data Sourcing & Coverage 1. Sources: Direct integration with 1,800+ government registries of your choice on demand, supplemented by AI-enhanced verification of public filings and regulatory submissions.

1. Attributes: Company name, registration number, directors, shareholders, financials, litigation history, and industry-specific certifications (e.g., ISO, NAICS).

2. Historical Data: 10+ years of archived records, updated in real-time.

Use Cases 1. Due Diligence: Verify company legitimacy for mergers, acquisitions, or partnerships.

1. Compliance: Streamline KYC/AML workflows with automated registry checks.

2. Market Research: Track competitor expansions, ownership changes, or industry trends.

3. Risk Management: Monitor regulatory violations or financial instability signals.

4. Credit Reporting: Automate end-to-end credit report creation process.

Technical Specifications 1. Delivery: API (REST/GraphQL), SFTP, cloud sync (AWS S3, Google Cloud).

1. Integration: Custom connectors for Salesforce, HubSpot, and BI tools (Tableau, Power BI).

2. Latency: Sub-5-second to 60 mins response time for on-demand queries based on the complexity and response time of registry.

Why Choose Us? 1. Pioneers in AI Agent Technology: Outperform static datasets with live registry scraping.

1. GDPR/CCPA Compliance: Data sourced ethically from public registries, with audit trails on output.

2. Free Sample: Test 100 records at zero cost.

Context:

This database of terrorism prosecutions and sentencing information was created using public records including three lists of prosecutions from the U.S. Department of Justice (from 2010, 2014, and 2015), court files available through the federal judiciary’s case management system, DOJ press releases, and inmate data from the Bureau of Prisons.

Content:

Trevor Aaronson created the first iteration of this database as part of a project funded by the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California, Berkeley. Mother Jones magazine published that data in 2011, along with accompanying articles, in a package that is still available online. Beginning in 2016, Aaronson and Margot Williams collaborated to update and expand the database, with a new emphasis to include Bureau of Prisons data because so many post-9/11 terrorism defendants had been released. The cases include any prosecutions after September 11, 2001, that the U.S. government labeled as related to international terrorism. The Intercept first published this database on April 20, 2017. For each defendant in the database, U.S. criminal code data related to charges has been categorized according to this legend

Acknowledgements:

This database is licensed under Creative Commons for noncommercial uses with appropriate attribution. If you publish this database, in part or whole, you must credit Trevor Aaronson and Margot Williams.

Inspiration:

• What are the most common charges?
• Are the sentence lengths similar?

This documentary archive was created as part of the Brexit priority grant, The Repatriation of Competences: Implications for devolution. It is currently being expanded as part of the ESRC large grant, Between Two Unions (ES/P009441/1). At the time of submission, it is complete up to July 2019. The archive is composed of documents including political speeches, government consultations and policy reports, parliamentary debates and reports, and court judgments. All documents are in the public domain, but the archive collated those most relevant to scholars of devolution, and compiled them in a searchable wiki. The wiki is

The devolution settlements in the United Kingdom have been embedded in UK membership of the European Union. Policy areas like agriculture, the environment, fisheries, regional development and justice and home affairs, are both matters for the devolved parliaments and also areas that fall under the authority of the EU. In these policy fields, the EU has provided a common framework that has limited the degree of difference that has emerged within and across the UK, and this has helped keep the nations of the UK together. Whichever model is reached after negotiations, the UK's withdrawal from the EU will affect the powers of the devolved nations in complex ways. It may lead to further decentralisation of power to the devolved institutions. Alternatively, it could lead to powers being recentralized within UK-wide institutions. A third possibility is that it could see the setting up of new forums and process to enable the UK Government and the devolved governments to cooperate more closely on policy areas where their powers overlap. The outcome of the negotiations, and the decisions taken by key actors, will have consequences for the powers and responsibilities of institutions in the devolved nations and their relationships with the rest of the UK. This project will carry out a study of these developments as the Brexit negotiations get underway, and we will examine how the outcomes will shape devolution and relations between the UK's four governments. We will study and support the role of parliaments in scrutinizing the Brexit negotiation processes and the outcomes. We will meet with civil servants to help them understand the effects of different Brexit options on devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Our project will focus on three particular areas of devolved policy - agriculture, the environment and justice and home affairs - to investigate the particular consequences of bringing powers back from the EU to the UK after Brexit. We will work with professionals and representatives from these sectors to help them prepare and plan for Brexit under different scenarios. We will also enhance broader understanding of the process, outcomes and their impact on devolution by producing easy to read and easy to access explanations, analyses and reports, and by taking up opportunities for commenting in the media.

Database Type: SQL, NoSQL (including Document, Key-Value, Wide-Column, and Graph Databases) Model: Service (Cloud-hosted, Managed, and Self-Managed), Deployment (Public Cloud, Private Cloud, Hybrid Cloud) Component: Software, Service, Infrastructure Organization Size: Large Enterprise, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) End-User: BFSI, Healthcare, Retail, Manufacturing, Government, Education, and Others

LocalView is a database co-created by Soubhik Barari and Tyler Simko to advance the study of local government in the United States. It is the largest existing dataset of local government public meetings— the central policy-making process in American local government — as they are captured on video. To get started, select the file(s) that you'd like for your use case based on the year that the meeting took place. Note: we are no longer supporting file formats other than .parquet for space considerations. For potential use cases or further guidance on downloading the data in bulk, visit the companion website: localview.net. Change Log Scraping, parsing, identifying, and merging together meetings involves a large number of non-trivial decisions, many of which need to be adjusted over time particularly as the YouTube API changes. As such, when such decisions notably deviate from process or the outputs documented in the first version of this database, it will be logged here. Version 2.0 (2023-10) Data updated up until September 2023. ~10,000 new videos added, all belonging to existing channels in database. Change in data format: channelType column changed to channel_type. ST_FIPS correctly padded to be 7 characters (2 digit state code + 5 digit place FIPS code). videos with no caption available from YouTube are explicitly marked as “” in caption_text. caption_text_cleaned is actually consistently cleaned (previously stray timestamps/pause markers in some entries). acs_2018_* columns now prefixed as acs_18. additional ACS variables now available for each place: acs_18_median_gross_rent: Median gross rent in FIPS place. acs_18_median_hh_inc: Median household income in FIPS place. acs_18_median_age: Median age in FIPS place. acs_18_amind: American Indian population in FIPS place. acs_18_asian: Asian population in FIPS place. acs_18_nhapi: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander population in FIPS place. census_2015_* columns removed for redundancy. to avoid confusion and possible conflicts, .json and .csv file formats eliminated in favor of .parquet format. municipal voteshare (_dem2pv) variables have been removed from the public use files for a number of reasons: (1) high degree of missingness, (2) no columns estimates available, (3) potential sensitivity The matching process of videos to ST-FIPS and government types is as follows: videos are matched to channels’ previous ST-FIPS codes and/or government types if there is an umambiguous match, otherwise a (1) series of regex matches with video title/description are used to attempt to match video to the government and (2) state/place names are extracted from each video’s title/description/caption and used to match to an ST-FIPS entity if an unambiguous match; only identified videos are then uploaded to the database. to identify the date of the meeting that the video captures, we first try to extract the date from the title, otherwise we try to extract the date from the description, otherwise it is discarded. Version 1.0 (2023-02) See publication for full details on methodology choices for the Version 1.0 database.

This dataset contains aggregated data for fiscal years 2006-2020 from the Institute of Museum and Library Services' annual public library survey. This transformed version of the data contains aggregated data by material type for all public libraries in the nation, as well as an additional subset of the data for aggregated data by material type for Oklahoma's public libraries. Column headers include: Year, Print Materials, Electronic Materials, Other Materials, and Total. Material categories represent: material expenditures for physical materials (books, current serial subscriptions, government documents, and any other print acquisitions), electronic materials (ebooks, e-serials, government documents, databases, electronic files, reference tools, scores, maps, or pictures, including materials digitized by the library), and other materials (microform, audio, video, DVD, and new formats). These values were directly pulled from corresponding datasets for each public library from the PRMATEXP, ELMATEXP, and OTHMATEX columns, representing physical, electronic, and other material expenditures, respectively. Negative and zero values (-3, -1, 0) were excluded from categorical tallies, with -3 values representing closed or temporarily closed administrative entities. No explanation for -1 or 0 values was present in IMLS documentation. Valued were tallied by column after negative and zero values were excluded, with final tallies for each data column included in the attached dataset. Lastly, annually tallied were summed by each year in both National and State datasets. Two sets of the data are available: One set with two tabs (one each for National and State spending) in an Excel format, and two separate files (one each for National and State spending) in a CSV format.

Link to dataset in Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5ANJTD

Document Archive of Land Government Plans (PGT WEB) represents, in the Platform for Territorial Planning MULTIPLAN, the regional archive in digital format of the municipal planning tools (Government Plans of the Territory and their variants) that the municipalities send to the Regional Executive pursuant to LR 12 of 2005. The system allows the consultation via the internet of municipal planning tools approved in Lombardy, as required by the Code of the Digital Administration (DLGS No. 82 of 2005). The informative contents of the document archive are: the processes constituting approved PGTs and their variants in digital format;· data relating to the administrative process of the PGTs and their variants. The guidelines and tools for the realisation of the digital documents accompanying the Government Plans of the Territory (and which allow the population and updating of geographical databases of territorial planning in Lombardy) are published on the page “Integrated SIT for municipal planning”.