Have a personal or library account? Click to login
High-Value, High-Quality? A Cross-National Comparison of Open Government Data Between Switzerland and Five EU Countries Cover

High-Value, High-Quality? A Cross-National Comparison of Open Government Data Between Switzerland and Five EU Countries

Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Verwaltungswissenschaften
Volume 16 (2025): Issue 1
By: Leonardo Mori and  Tobias Mettler  
Open Access
|Dec 2025

References

  1. 1Alexopoulos, C., Saxena, S., Janssen, M., & Rizun, N. (2023). Whither the need and motivation for open government data (OGD) promotional strategies? Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 25(2), 153–168. 10.1108/DPRG-07-2022-0078
    Back to article
  2. 2Attard, J., Orlandi, F., & Auer, S. (2016). Data driven governments: Creating value through open government data. In A. Hameurlain, et al. (Ed.), Transactions on Large-Scale Data-and Knowledge-Centered Systems XXVII: Special Issue on Big Data for Complex Urban Systems (pp. 84–110). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-662-53416-8_6
    Back to article
  3. 3Attard, J., Orlandi, S., Scerri, S., & Auer, S. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399–418. 10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006
    Back to article
  4. 4Barry, E., & Bannister, F. (2014). Barriers to open data release: A view from the top. Information Polity, 19(1–2), 129–152. 10.3233/IP-140327
    Back to article
  5. 5Bizer, C., & Cyganiak, R. (2009). Quality-driven information filtering using the WIQA policy framework. Journal of Web Semantics, 7(1), 1–10. 10.1016/j.websem.2008.02.005
    Back to article
  6. 6Dawes, S. S., & Helbig, N. (2010, August). Information Strategies for Open Government: Challenges and Prospects for Deriving Public Value from Government Transparency EGOV 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Lausanne, Switzerland. 10.1007/978-3-642-14799-9_5
    Back to article
  7. 7Debattista, J., Lange, C., & Auer, S. (2014, September). Representing dataset quality metadata using multi-dimensional views. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Semantic Systems, Leipzig, Germany. 10.1145/2660517.2660525
    Back to article
  8. 8de Juana-Espinosa, S., & Luján-Mora, S. (2019). Open government data portals in the European Union: Considerations, development, and expectations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 149, 119769. 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119769
    Back to article
  9. 9European Commission. (2020). Re-using Open Data. Retrieved July 24 from https://data.europa.eu/sites/default/files/re-using_open_data.pdf
    Back to article
  10. 10European Commission. (2023). High-value datasets: Questions and Answers. Retrieved July 24 from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/high-value-datasets-questions-and-answers
    Back to article
  11. 11European Commission. (2025). European legislation on open data. Retrieved July 24 from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/legislation-open-data
    Back to article
  12. 12Federal Chancellery. (2025). Open government data (OGD). Retrieved July 24 from https://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/en/home/digitale-transformation-ikt-lenkung/ikt-vorgaben/strategien-teilstrategien/sn004-open_government_data_strategie_schweiz.html
    Back to article
  13. 13Federal Statistical Office. (2020). Lignes directrices pour la publication de données en libre accès (lignes directrices OGD). Retrieved July 24 from https://handbook.opendata.swiss/fr/content/glossar/bibliothek/ogd-richtlinien.html
    Back to article
  14. 14Federal Statistical Office. (2023). Evaluation de la stratégie en matière de libre accès aux données publiques en Suisse 2019–2023. Retrieved July 24 from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases.assetdetail.28425807.html
    Back to article
  15. 15Gascó-Hernández, M., Martin, E. G., Reggi, L., Pyo, S., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2018). Promoting the use of open government data: Cases of training and engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 233–242. 10.1016/j.giq.2018.01.003
    Back to article
  16. 16Gomes, A., & Soares, D. (2014, October). Open government data initiatives in Europe: northern versus southern countries analysis. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Guimaraes, Portugal. 10.1145/2691195.2691246
    Back to article
  17. 17Government of Ireland. (2025). Open Data Directive. Retrieved July 24 from https://data.gov.ie/pages/open-data-directive
    Back to article
  18. 18Haini, S. I., Rahim, N. Z. A., Zainuddin, N. M. M., & Ibrahim, R. (2020). Factors influencing the adoption of open government data in the public sector: A systematic literature review. International Journal on Advanced Science Engineering and Information Technology, 10, 611–617. 10.18517/ijaseit.10.2.9488
    Back to article
  19. 19Hein, A., Engert, M., Ryu, S., Schaffer, N., Hermes, S., & Krcmar, H. (2023). Building open government data platform ecosystems: A dynamic development approach that engages users from the start. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101878. 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101878
    Back to article
  20. 20Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information systems management, 29(4), 258–268. 10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
    Back to article
  21. 21Kim, K.-S., & Sin, S.-C. J. (2011). Selecting quality sources: Bridging the gap between the perception and use of information sources. Journal of Information Science, 37(2), 178–188. 10.1177/0165551511400958
    Back to article
  22. 22Law, F. (2014). Stratégie en matière de libre accès aux données publiques en Suisse pour les années 2014 à 2018. Retrieved from https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2014/747/fr
    Back to article
  23. 23Lnenicka, M., Nikiforova, A., Luterek, M., Milic, P., Rudmark, D., Neumaier, S., Santoro, C., Flores, C. C., Janssen, M., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2024). Identifying patterns and recommendations of and for sustainable open data initiatives: A benchmarking-driven analysis of open government data initiatives among European countries. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 101898. 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101898
    Back to article
  24. 24Máchová, R., & Lnenicka, M. (2017). Evaluating the quality of open data portals on the national level. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 12(1), 21–41. 10.4067/S0718-18762017000100003
    Back to article
  25. 25Marmier, A., & Mettler, T. (2020). Developing an index for measuring OGD publisher compliance to good practice standards: Insights from opendata. Swiss. Information Polity, 25(1), 91–110. 10.3233/IP-180120
    Back to article
  26. 26Martin, C. (2014). Barriers to the open government data agenda: Taking a multi-level perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(3), 217–240. 10.1002/1944-2866.POI367
    Back to article
  27. 27Mettler, T., & Miscione, G. (2023). Is altruism dead? A critical case study on the paradigm shift in Open Government Data. Information Polity, 28(2), 199–218. 10.3233/IP-220048
    Back to article
  28. 28Neumaier, S., Umbrich, J., & Polleres, A. (2016). Automated quality assessment of metadata across open data portals. Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ), 8(1), 1–29. 10.1145/2964909
    Back to article
  29. 29Nikiforova, A., Rizun, N., Ciesielska, M., Alexopoulos, C., & Miletić, A. (2023, September). Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review. International Conference on Electronic Government, Budapest, Hungary. 10.1007/978-3-031-41138-0_14
    Back to article
  30. 30Open Knowledge Fundation. (2018). Comprehensive knowledge archive network. Retrieved July 24 from https://github.com/ckan/ckan
    Back to article
  31. 31Quarati, A. (2023). Open Government Data: Usage trends and metadata quality. Journal of Information Science, 49(4), 887–910. 10.1177/01655515211027775
    Back to article
  32. 32Quarati, A., & De Martino, M. (2019, June). Open government data usage: a brief overview. Proceedings of the 23rd International Database Applications & Engineering Symposium, Athens, Greece. 10.1145/3331076.3331115
    Back to article
  33. 33Reiche, K. J., & Höfig, E. (2013, July). Implementation of metadata quality metrics and application on public government data. 2013 IEEE 37th Annual Computer Software And Applications Conference Workshops, Japan. 10.1109/COMPSACW.2013.32
    Back to article
  34. 34Ruijer, E., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2017). Open data for democracy: Developing a theoretical framework for open data use. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 45–52. 10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.001
    Back to article
  35. 35Santos-Hermosa, G., Quarati, A., Loría-Soriano, E., & Raffaghelli, J. E. (2023). Why does open data get underused? A focus on the role of (open) data literacy. In J. E. Raffaghelli, & A. Sangrà (Eds.), Data cultures in higher education: Emergent practices and the challenge ahead (pp. 145–177). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-031-24193-2_6
    Back to article
  36. 36Saxena, S. (2018). Drivers and barriers to re-use Open Government Data (OGD): a case study of open data initiative in Philippines. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 20(4), 358–368. 10.1108/DPRG-08-2017-0045
    Back to article
  37. 37Schofield, J. W. (2009). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method (pp. 69–97). SAGE Publications Ltd. 10.4135/9780857024367.d8
    Back to article
  38. 38Šlibar, B., & Mu, E. (2022). OGD metadata country portal publishing guidelines compliance: A multi-case study search for completeness and consistency. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101756. 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101756
    Back to article
  39. 39Stuermer, M., & Dapp, M. (2016, May). Measuring the promise of open data: development of the impact monitoring framework. Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM), Krems, Austria. 10.1109/CeDEM.2016.31
    Back to article
  40. 40Tseng, H.-L., & Nikiforova, A. (2024, June). Unlocking the potential of open government data: Exploring the strategic, technical, and application perspectives of high-value datasets opening in Taiwan. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Taipei, Taiwan. 10.1145/3657054.3657089
    Back to article
  41. 41Vetrò, A., Canova, L., Torchiano, M., Minotas, C. O., Iemma, R., & Morando, F. (2016). Open data quality measurement framework: Definition and application to Open Government Data. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 325–337. 10.1016/j.giq.2016.02.001
    Back to article
  42. 42Wand, Y., & Wang, R. Y. (1996). Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 86–95. 10.1145/240455.240479
    Back to article
  43. 43Wang, X., Dong, C., Zeng, W., Xu, Z., & Zhang, J. (2019, September). Survey of Data Value Evaluation Methods Based on Open Source Scientific and Technological Information. International Conference of Pioneering Computer Scientists, Engineers and Educators, Guilin, China. 10.1007/978-981-15-0118-0_14
    Back to article
  44. 44Wen, Y.-F., & Hwang, Y.-T. (2019). The associativity evaluation between open data and country characteristics. The Electronic Library, 37(2), 337–364. 10.1108/EL-04-2018-0081
    Back to article
  45. 45Zaveri, A., Rula, A., Maurino, A., Pietrobon, R., Lehmann, J., & Auer, S. (2015). Quality assessment for Linked Data: A Survey: A systematic literature review and conceptual framework. Semantic web, 7(1), 63–93. 10.3233/SW-150175
    Back to article
  46. 46Zencey, N. (2017). Who’s at the popular table? Our analysis found which open data the public likes. Sunlight Foundation. Retrieved July 24 from https://sunlight-foundation.com/2017/09/11/whos-at-the-popular-table-our-analysis-found-which-open-data-the-public-likes/
    Back to article
  47. 47Zhu, X., & Freeman, M. A. (2019). An evaluation of US municipal open data portals: A user interaction framework. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(1), 27–37. 10.1002/asi.24081
    Back to article
  48. 48Zuiderwijk, A., Jeffery, K., & Janssen, M. (2012). The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 4(2), 222–244. 10.29379/jedem.v4i2.138
    Back to article
  49. 49Zuiderwijk, A., & Reuver, M. D. (2021). Why open government data initiatives fail to achieve their objectives: Categorizing and prioritizing barriers through a global survey. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(4), 377–395. 10.1108/TG-09-2020-0271
    Back to article
  50. 50Zuiderwijk, A., Shinde, R., & Janssen, M. (2018). Investigating the attainment of open government data objectives: is there a mismatch between objectives and results? International review of administrative sciences, 85(4), 645–672. 10.1177/0020852317739115
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ssas.233 | Journal eISSN: 2632-9255
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Aug 8, 2025
Accepted on: Dec 2, 2025
Published on: Dec 10, 2025
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Open Government Data,
High Value Datasets,
Data Quality,
Data Governance

© 2025 Leonardo Mori, Tobias Mettler, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 16 (2025): Issue 1