Number of and list of central government open websites – 474 as of 13 February 2013.
Information was reported as correct by central government departments at 13 February 2013.
The Cabinet Office committed to begin quarterly publication of the number of open websites starting in financial year 2011.
The definition used of a website is a user-centric one. Something is counted as a separate website if it is active and either has a separate domain name or, when as a subdomain, the user cannot move freely between the subsite and parent site and there is no family likeness in the design. In other words, if the user experiences it as a separate site in their normal uses of browsing, search and interaction, it is counted as one.
A website is considered closed when it ceases to be actively funded, run and managed by central government, either by packaging information and putting it in the right place for the intended audience on another website or digital channel, or by a third party taking and managing it and bearing the cost. Where appropriate, domains stay operational in order to redirect users to the http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/" class="govuk-link">UK Government Website Archive.
Since the previous quarterly report of 22 October 2012, there has been an extra 124 sites reported. This increase is due to a change in the scope of the audit as the Government Digital Service (GDS) felt that the previous method of using the The National Archives database to source this information was not sufficiently and accurately capturing the data that was required. The new process and scope has resulted in more websites being included e.g. Directgov URLs, dot independent sites and national parks. Also, the latest GOV.UK exemption process has brought to our attention many more sites than we were previously aware of.
The GOV.UK exemption process began with a web rationalisation of the government’s Internet estate to reduce the number of obsolete websites and to establish the scale of the websites that the government owns.
Not included in the number or list are websites of public corporations as listed on the Office for National Statistics website, partnerships more than half-funded by private sector, charities and national museums. Specialist closed audience functions, such as the BIS Research Councils, BIS Sector Skills Councils and Industrial Training Boards, and the Defra Levy Boards and their websites, are not included in this data. The Ministry of Defence conducted their own rationalisation of MOD and the armed forces sites as an integral part of the Website Review; military sites belonging to a particular service are excluded from this dataset. Finally, those public bodies set up by Parliament and reporting directly to the Speaker’s Committee and only reporting through a ministerial government department for the purposes of enaction of legislation are also excluded (for example, the Electoral Commission and IPSA).
Websites are listed under the department name for which the minister in HMG has responsibility, either directly through their departmental activities, or indirectly through being the minister reporting to Parliament for independent bodies set up by statute.
For re-usability, these are provided as Excel and CSV files.
Number and list of central government open websites – 455 as at 31 December 2013.
The Cabinet Office committed to begin quarterly publication of the number of open websites starting in the financial year 2011.
The definition used is a user-centric one. Something is counted as a separate website if it is active and either has a separate domain name or, when as a subdomain, the user cannot move freely between the subsite and parent site and there is no family likeness in the design. In other words, if the user experiences it as a separate site in their normal uses of browsing, search and interaction, it is counted as one.
A website is considered closed when it ceases to be actively funded, run and managed by central government, either by packaging information and putting it in the right place for the intended audience on another website or digital channel, or by a third party taking and managing it and bearing the cost. Where appropriate, domains stay operational in order to redirect users to the http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/" class="govuk-link">UK Government Website Archive.
The GOV.UK exemption process began with a web rationalisation of the government’s internet estate to reduce the number of obsolete websites and to establish the scale of the websites that the government owns.
Not included in the number or list are:
Finally, those public bodies set up by Parliament and reporting directly to the Speaker’s Committee are also excluded (for example, the Electoral Commission and IPSA).
As agreed in the quarterly report of February 2013, the following sites have been included in the list:
Websites are listed under the department name for which the government minister has responsibility, either directly through their departmental activities, or indirectly through being the minister reporting to Parliament for independent bodies set up by statute.
Government website domains have been procured from as early as the 1990s and at this time, there was no requirement upon government departments to retain a formal record of ownership. With staff changes and new departments formed, it became apparent that departments did not have a complete view of all sites in their estate.
Government Digital Service (GDS) has worked closely with these departments to identify legacy websites which we were not originally aware of, by going through the complete list of gov.uk domains managed by Cabinet Office, under the second level domain (SLD), gov.uk. A full list of gov.uk domains can be viewed here. As well as websites on the gov.uk SLD, we had found that there are a number of legacy websites owned by departments under a .org.uk or co.uk SLD. Because we do not own these SLDs, information on whether a department has ownership was not so easily accessible, but a strong working relationship with department leads has since helped to identify the majority of these sites.
Previously, the Ministry of Defence conducted their own rationalisation of MOD and the armed forces sites. At the beginning of this report, we agreed to include these sites to ensure a consistent approach.
Since the last report of Oct 2013, 19 websites have closed and 18 have migrated to the governments website, GOV.UK. As government websites migrate to GOV.UK, the responsibility for reporting a department’s content will become an overall GOV.UK reporting
List of State of Oklahoma city government websites.
According to a survey conducted in South Korea in 2022, about ** percent of respondents said they had used the National Health Insurance Service's website nhis.or.kr. Around ** percent looked up oil prices on opinet.co.kr. South Korea has seen a rapid increase in the use of e-government services in recent years. In 2022, the usage rate exceeded ** percent.
U.S. Government Workshttps://www.usa.gov/government-works
License information was derived automatically
This dataset lists suggestions received through the CT Open Data Dataset Suggestion survey here: https://data.ct.gov/stories/s/eivh-c3ze.
Open Government Licence - Canada 2.0https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada
License information was derived automatically
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.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
The data were collected during the user-centered analysis of usability of 41 open government data portals including EU27, applying a common methodology to them, considering aspects such as specification of open data set, feedback and requests, further broken down into 14 sub-criteria. Each aspect was assessed using a three-level Likert scale (fulfilled - 3, partially fulfilled - 2, and unfulfilled – 1), that belongs to the acceptability tasks. This dataset summarises a total of 1640 protocols obtained during the analysis of the selected portals carried out by 40 participants, who were selected on a voluntary basis. This is complemented with 4 summaries of these protocols, which include calculated average scores by category, aspect and country. These data allow comparative analysis of the national open data portals, help to find the key challenges that can negatively impact users’ experience, and identifies portals that can be considered as an example for the less successful open data portals.
https://data.gov.tw/licensehttps://data.gov.tw/license
This dataset integrates the English application services of government agencies (including local governments) through the "My E-Government" portal, with the hope of facilitating data users to access government service information through a single portal, and to analyze and utilize it.
Open Government Licence - Canada 2.0https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada
License information was derived automatically
Compilation of statistical information about access to information and privacy submitted by government institutions subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
U.S. Government Workshttps://www.usa.gov/government-works
License information was derived automatically
The specifications and guidelines in this Data Management Plan will improve data consistency and availability of information. It will ensure that all levels of government and the public have access to the most up-to-date information; reduce or eliminate overlapping data requests and redundant data maintenance; ensure metadata is consistently created; and ensure that data services can be displayed by the consumer with the output of its choice.
The Water Quality Portal (WQP) is a cooperative service sponsored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC). It serves data collected by over 400 state, federal, tribal, and local agencies. Water quality data can be downloaded in Excel, CSV, TSV, and KML formats. Fourteen site types are found in the WQP: aggregate groundwater use, aggregate surface water use, atmosphere, estuary, facility, glacier, lake, land, ocean, spring, stream, subsurface, well, and wetland. Water quality characteristic groups include physical conditions, chemical and bacteriological water analyses, chemical analyses of fish tissue, taxon abundance data, toxicity data, habitat assessment scores, and biological index scores, among others. Within these groups, thousands of water quality variables registered in the EPA Substance Registry Service (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/substreg/home/overview/home.do) and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (https://www.itis.gov/) are represented. Across all site types, physical characteristics (e.g., temperature and water level) are the most common water quality result type in the system. The Water Quality Exchange data model (WQX; http://www.exchangenetwork.net/data-exchange/wqx/), initially developed by the Environmental Information Exchange Network, was adapted by EPA to support submission of water quality records to the EPA STORET Data Warehouse [USEPA, 2016], and has subsequently become the standard data model for the WQP. Contributing organizations: ACWI The Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) represents the interests of water information users and professionals in advising the federal government on federal water information programs and their effectiveness in meeting the nation's water information needs. ARS The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief in-house scientific research agency, whose job is finding solutions to agricultural problems that affect Americans every day, from field to table. ARS conducts research to develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high national priority and provide information access and dissemination to, among other topics, enhance the natural resource base and the environment. Water quality data from STEWARDS, the primary database for the USDA/ARS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) are ingested into WQP via a web service. EPA The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gathers and distributes water quality monitoring data collected by states, tribes, watershed groups, other federal agencies, volunteer groups, and universities through the Water Quality Exchange framework in the STORET Warehouse. NWQMC The National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC) provides a national forum for coordination of comparable and scientifically defensible methods and strategies to improve water quality monitoring, assessment, and reporting. It also promotes partnerships to foster collaboration, advance the science, and improve management within all elements of the water quality monitoring community. USGS The United States Geological Survey (USGS) investigates the occurrence, quantity, quality, distribution, and movement of surface waters and ground waters and disseminates the data to the public, state, and local governments, public and private utilities, and other federal agencies involved with managing the United States' water resources. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Website Pointer for Water Quality Portal. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.waterqualitydata.us/ The Water Quality Portal (WQP) is a cooperative service sponsored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC). It serves data collected by over 400 state, federal, tribal, and local agencies. Links to Download Data, User Guide, Contributing Organizations, National coverage by state.
Public Domain Mark 1.0https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
FSM States Inform data portal training presentations
Open Government Licence - Canada 2.0https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada
License information was derived automatically
This report provides common criteria to help identify high value datasets and provide examples of common types of high value datasets. It was based on jurisdictional scans of high value dataset criteria, recent surveys, and international standards
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset contains a machine readable version of the A-Z list of government sites from Australia.gov.au. The list contains websites from across all Australian jurisdictions.
The dataset is updated on a monthly basis.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset contains data collected during a study "Smarter open government data for Society 5.0: are your open data smart enough" (Sensors. 2021; 21(15):5204) conducted by Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Latvia). It being made public both to act as supplementary data for "Smarter open government data for Society 5.0: are your open data smart enough" paper and in order for other researchers to use these data in their own work.
The data in this dataset were collected in the result of the inspection of 60 countries and their OGD portals (total of 51 OGD portal in May 2021) to find out whether they meet the trends of Society 5.0 and Industry 4.0 obtained by conducting an analysis of relevant OGD portals.
Each portal has been studied starting with a search for a data set of interest, i.e. “real-time”, “sensor” and “covid-19”, follwing by asking a list of additional questions. These questions were formulated on the basis of combination of (1) crucial open (government) data-related aspects, including open data principles, success factors, recent studies on the topic, PSI Directive etc., (2) trends and features of Society 5.0 and Industry 4.0, (3) elements of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use Model (UTAUT).
The method used belongs to typical / daily tasks of open data portals sometimes called “usability test” – keywords related to a research question are used to filter data sets, i.e. “real-time”, “real time” and “real time”, “sensor”, covid”, “covid-19”, “corona”, “coronavirus”, “virus”. In most cases, “real-time”, “sensor” and “covid” keywords were sufficient.
The examination of the respective aspects for less user-friendly portals was adapted to particular case based on the portal or data set specifics, by checking:
1. are the open data related to the topic under question ({sensor; real-time; Covid-19}) published, i.e. available?
2. are these data available in a machine-readable format?
3. are these data current, i.e. regularly updated? Where the criteria on the currency depends on the nature of data, i.e. Covid-19 data on the number of cases per day is expected to be updated daily, which won’t be sufficient for real-time data as the title supposes etc.
4. is API ensured for these data? having most importance for real-time and sensor data;
5. have they been published in a timely manner? which was verified mainly for Covid-19 related data. The timeliness is assessed by comparing the dates of the first case identified in a given country and the first release of open data on this topic.
6. what is the total number of available data sets?
7. does the open government data portal provides use-cases / showcases?
8. does the open government portal provide an opportunity to gain insight into the popularity of the data, i.e. does the portal provide statistics of this nature, such as the number of views, downloads, reuses, rating etc.?
9. is there an opportunity to provide a feedback, comment, suggestion or complaint?
10. (9a) is the artifact, i.e. feedback, comment, suggestion or complaint, visible to other users?
Format of the file .xls, .ods, .csv (for the first spreadsheet only)
Licenses or restrictions CC-BY
For more info, see README.txt
Progress report on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) recommendations, which were published in the PAC’s 16th report of session 2007 to 2008: ‘Government on the Internet: progress in delivering information and services online’ (March 2008).
The Central Office of Information (COI) delivered the standards and guidance requested and the report should be read in conjunction with them:
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This is a study to assess the application of process mining techniques on data from the Brazilian public services, made available on open data portals, aiming to identify bottlenecks and improvement opportunities in government processes. The datasets were obtained from the Brazilian Federal Government's Open Data Portal: dados.govCategorization:(1) event log(2) there is a complete date(3) list of data or information table(4) documents(5) no file founded(6) link to another portalLink of brasilian portal: https://dados.gov.br/homeList of content made available:open-data-sample.zip: all the files obtained from the representative sample of the studyopen-data-sample.xls: table categorizing the datasets obtained and classifying them as relevant for testing in the process mining toolsdataset137.csv: dataset with undergraduate degree records tested in the Disco, Celonis and ProM toolsdataset258.csv: dataset with software registration requests tested in the Disco, Celonis and ProM toolsdataset356.csv: dataset with public tender inspector registrations tested in the Disco, Celonis and ProM tools
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
The files contain the statistical information of the Transparency and Government web portal open since March 7, 2016. The information is updated quarterly. Specifically, the data per month and totals of the following parameters are offered:
Open Government Licence 3.0http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
License information was derived automatically
The National Archives is preserving digital government information by regularly archiving UK central government websites. There are now over 1 billion online documents accessible through our UK Government Web Archive.
https://data.gov.tw/licensehttps://data.gov.tw/license
Number of and list of central government open websites – 474 as of 13 February 2013.
Information was reported as correct by central government departments at 13 February 2013.
The Cabinet Office committed to begin quarterly publication of the number of open websites starting in financial year 2011.
The definition used of a website is a user-centric one. Something is counted as a separate website if it is active and either has a separate domain name or, when as a subdomain, the user cannot move freely between the subsite and parent site and there is no family likeness in the design. In other words, if the user experiences it as a separate site in their normal uses of browsing, search and interaction, it is counted as one.
A website is considered closed when it ceases to be actively funded, run and managed by central government, either by packaging information and putting it in the right place for the intended audience on another website or digital channel, or by a third party taking and managing it and bearing the cost. Where appropriate, domains stay operational in order to redirect users to the http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/" class="govuk-link">UK Government Website Archive.
Since the previous quarterly report of 22 October 2012, there has been an extra 124 sites reported. This increase is due to a change in the scope of the audit as the Government Digital Service (GDS) felt that the previous method of using the The National Archives database to source this information was not sufficiently and accurately capturing the data that was required. The new process and scope has resulted in more websites being included e.g. Directgov URLs, dot independent sites and national parks. Also, the latest GOV.UK exemption process has brought to our attention many more sites than we were previously aware of.
The GOV.UK exemption process began with a web rationalisation of the government’s Internet estate to reduce the number of obsolete websites and to establish the scale of the websites that the government owns.
Not included in the number or list are websites of public corporations as listed on the Office for National Statistics website, partnerships more than half-funded by private sector, charities and national museums. Specialist closed audience functions, such as the BIS Research Councils, BIS Sector Skills Councils and Industrial Training Boards, and the Defra Levy Boards and their websites, are not included in this data. The Ministry of Defence conducted their own rationalisation of MOD and the armed forces sites as an integral part of the Website Review; military sites belonging to a particular service are excluded from this dataset. Finally, those public bodies set up by Parliament and reporting directly to the Speaker’s Committee and only reporting through a ministerial government department for the purposes of enaction of legislation are also excluded (for example, the Electoral Commission and IPSA).
Websites are listed under the department name for which the minister in HMG has responsibility, either directly through their departmental activities, or indirectly through being the minister reporting to Parliament for independent bodies set up by statute.
For re-usability, these are provided as Excel and CSV files.