A Survey of Open Government Data in Russian Federation

Dmitrij Koznov

, Olga Andreeva

, Uolevi Nikula

, Andrey Maglyas

, Dmitry Muromtsev

and Irina Radchenko

Software Engineering Department, Saint Petersburg State University, Bibliotechnaya sq., 2, Saint Petersburg, Russia

Department of Innovation and Software, Lappeenranta University of Technology,

Skinnarilankatu, 34, Lappeenranta, Finland

Department of Information Systems, ITMO University, Kronverkskiy pr., 49, Saint Petersburg, Russia

Keywords: E-Government, Open Government Data, Public Sector, Open Government Data Ecosystem.

Abstract: Open data can increase transparency and accountability of a country government, leading to free

information sharing and stimulation of new innovations. This paper analyses government open data policy

as well as open data initiatives and trends in Russian Federation. The OECD analytical framework for

national open government data portals and supporting initiatives is used as the bases for the study. The key

issues of Russian open government data movement are summarized and aggregated. The paper argues the

necessity of systematic development of the open data ecosystem, the leading role of the government in data

release, a deeper business involvement, and a reduction of bureaucratic barriers.

1 INTRODUCTION

Open Government (OG) is a movement to make

government activities more open and transparent,

with open government data (OGD) as its essential

part (Gigler, et al., 2011). There are many internatio-

nal initiatives around OGD at the moment, such as

Open Government Partnership, Open Knowledge

Foundation, and Open Data Institute. Many coun-

tries have introduced open data portals. A number of

new information technologies have appeared to

support the development of open data, portals, and

applications, e.g. CKAN (http://ckan.org/) and

Socrata (http://www.socrata.com/). All this has

brought up new research topics and questions like

access to data, accountability, coordination

mechanisms for open data activities, data sharing,

information and knowledge sharing (Zuiderwijk, et

al., 2014).

Open data ratings like the Open Global Data

Index (OGDI, 2015) and the Open Data Barometer

(ODB, 2015) have been developed to provide a

quick overview on open data across the globe. There

are many research papers about national open data:

the U.S. (Hendler, et al., 2012), the U.K. (Hall, et al.,

2012), Canada (Roy, 2014), Brazil (Albano and

Reinhard, 2014), Mexico (González, et el., 2014),

India (Agrawal, et al., 2013), Greece (Alexopoulos,

et al., 2013), Latvia (Bojars and Liepins, 2014),

Kenya (Mutuku and Colaco, 2012), etc. Such studies

analyze different OGD trends, present innovations

and successful experiences, and thereby provide a

basis for knowledge and information sharing in the

OGD community around the world.

OGD movement in Russian Federation (R.F.)

started in 2012, when the first national OGD concept

was developed. In 2013, the R.F. with other

members of the G8 group approved Open Data

Charter (G8, 2013) to facilitate progress in OGD and

international collaboration. In 2006-2015 a number

of laws and regulations were issued in the R.F. to

support government information sharing. In 2014,

the R.F. OGD Portal (http://data.gov.ru/) was

launched, and at the moment more than 7500

datasets have been published there.

There are several documents and reports about

open data in the R.F. (HSE, 2012), (Zhulin, et al.,

2013), (Castro and Korte, 2015), (OGD

Recommendations, 2014), (Russian OGD Plan,

2014), (Begtin, et al., 2015). Even though some of

them have been translated into English, most of

them are in Russian. Other limitations with the

available information is that they focus on particular

aspects of OGD in the R.F., often lack analytical

Koznov, D., Andreeva, O., Nikula, U., Maglyas, A., Muromtsev, D. and Radchenko, I.

A Survey of Open Government Data in Russian Federation.

DOI: 10.5220/0006049201730180

In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineer ing and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2016) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 173-180

ISBN: 978-989-758-203-5

173

basis, are incomplete, and more generally we failed

to find research publications about OGD in Russia.

To address these shortcomings, the current paper

studies OGD in the R.F. using an analytical

framework for national OGD portals and supporting

initiatives from (Ubaldi, 2013).

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Open Data Movements in Different

Countries

The number of national OGD initiatives has

increased steadily since 2009. Along with more

economically developed countries such as the U.S.,

the U.K., and France, OGD is rapidly evolving in

developing countries like Kenya and Ghana. One

report groups countries into three categories with

regard to open data development level (Capgemini,

2013): trendsetters (the U.S., the U.K., France,

Canada, Australia), followers (Denmark, New

Zealand, Singapore, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Moldova,

Ghana, Kenya, Chile, Norway, Hong Kong), and

beginners (Austria, Estonia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE,

Morocco). As of 2015, according to the OGDI

(OGDI, 2015), the top ten OGD countries are

Taiwan, the U.K., Australia, Denmark, Colombia,

Finland, Uruguay, the U.S., the Netherlands, and

France. The Open Data Barometer (ODB, 2015) lists

the following countries as leaders in 2015: the U.K.,

the U.S., Sweden, France, New Zealand, the

Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Denmark, and

Australia. The two sources thus agree that the U.S.

and the U.K. are leading OGD countries.

2.2 OGD Ecosystem

OGD ecosystem (further – ecosystem) is a

community of key actors of OGD initiatives on

national/subnational levels (Ubaldi, 2013).

Establishment of the right ecosystem means the

involvement of various categories of actors and the

provision of business support and stimulation of

OGD usage. Constructing an ecosystem is necessary

since otherwise OGD movement cannot be sustaina-

ble and socially beneficial (Janssen, et al., 2012).

3 RELATED WORKS

The Higher School of Economics (one of the leading

Russian universities) surveyed in 2012 the largest

Russian open data beneficiaries (business compa-

nies, mass media, non-government organizations

(NGOs), experts and bloggers), and tried to determi-

ne which government data should be opened first,

and how it can be used by businesses (HSE, 2012).

Another report describes the OGD situation in

the R.F. in 2013 (Zhulin, et al., 2013). This report

reviews the primary laws and regulations that apply

to open data, looks upon government bodies’ open

data portals, and outlines public initiatives.

A third report focuses on the progress of the G8

countries towards the principles of the Open Data

Charter (Castro and Korte, 2015). The progress was

scored based on how well each principle of the

Charter was met, the total maximum being 100

points. The R.F. took the last place (5 points). The

five points were granted for licensing on the Data

Portal of the R.F., which in fact is one of the

weakest aspects of the Russian open data. On the

other hand, the report points out that public access to

government information is not backed by appropria-

te and sufficient legislation. Still the Federal Law No

112-FZ (adopted in June 2013) addresses this issue

even though the terms of the law might be more

consistent with the open data definition given in

(Open Definition, 2016). Yet, the conclusions of the

report are of great importance for the future progress

of the open data movement in the R.F.

Finally, the Russian NGO Information Culture

published a report in 2015 on the results of the

government work towards opening key datasets in

the R.F. as well as discusses the major projects in

OGD (Begtin, et al., 2015). Also, it analyses the

legal background of OGD regulation in the R.F.

To summarize, the reports considered above

provide typically collections of facts than studies on

the given topics. The lack of methodological support

results in incomplete information and difficulties

with conclusions and recommendations. We failed to

find a paper that would treat the situation in the R.F.

systematically. Besides, most of the reports

discussed above are written in the Russian language.

4 METHODOLOGY

The study of OGD initiatives in different countries

runs into a number of difficulties because of

differences in government organization, legislation,

information culture, business involvement in OGD

consumption (Erickson, et al., 2013). One can see

that papers on various national OGD use informal

and narrative approaches (Hendler, et al., 2012),

(Hall, et al., 2012), (Roy, 2014), or some particular

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

174

criteria: the country’s geographic coverage by its

open data (Agrawal, et al., 2013), the technologies

used for portal development (Alexopoulos, et al.,

2013), (Mutuku and Colaco, 2012), the assessment

of metadata (Alexopoulos, et al., 2013), a number of

datasets in different data categories (Agrawal, et al.,

2013), (Bojars and Liepins, 2014), OGD formats

analysis (Agrawal, et al., 2013), (Alexopoulos, et al.,

2013). Actually, in every survey a special

methodology is created. But due to a wide range of

conditions and priorities in different countries these

methodologies are hard to reuse.

We have chosen an analytical framework for

national OGD portals and supporting initiatives

suggested in (Ubaldi, 2013). In contrast methods

mentioned above, it focuses on OGD in connection

with different aspects of the government/society

issues and creation value. Below each component of

the framework is briefly described below.

Overarching issues:

 Overall vision: overall strategy and the

priorities of national OGD initiatives.

 Governance/institutional framework:

institutional supporting data development;

accountability and responsibility frameworks.

Implementation:

 Legal framework and policy environment.

 Technical issues focus on technical matters:

data quality, interoperability, workflow for

data release and approval, dataset storage, data

cataloguing and metadata.

 Economic and financial: business case model,

financing mechanisms to sustain the OGD

portal, ensuring value creation for the whole

economy and society.

 Organizational issues focus on the measure

taken to enable and foster the changes

required in the public sector.

 Communication and interaction: establishment

of an OGD ecosystem, including measures to

increase public interest in OGD, to provide

feedback, etc.

Impact:

 Measures and mechanisms to appraise the

impact of OGD initiatives on economic,

political and social value creation.

Our study uses the following reports and

documents as information sources: the Bulletin of

the Information and Analytical Center of the Russian

Government (Open Data Bulletin, 2016), the

Annual report of the Russian NGO Information

Culture (Begtin, et al., 2015), government

documents around open data (methodological

recommendations for government bodies in data

publishing (OGD Recommendations, 2014), the Plan

of Open Data Russian Federation Development

2015-2016 (Russian OGD Plan, 2014), research

reports of the Higher School of Economics (HSE,

2012), (Zhulin, et al., 2013), information from the

Federal OGD Portal of the R.F., research reports of

the Infometr project, and reviews of Russian

Federation Open Data Council working sections.

5 RESULTS

A quick overview of the R.F. OGD ranking and

OGD portals is in place before analysing the Russian

OGD initiatives.

Table 1 shows how Open Global Data Index

(OGDI, 2016) and Open Data Barometer (ODB,

2016) ranked the OGD in the R.F.

Table 1: OGD of R.F. in Open Global Data Index and

Open Data Barometer.

Year Place Score

Open Global Data Index

2015 61 30%

2014 45 43%

2013 32 43%

Open Data Barometer

2015 26 48.25%

2013 20 44.79 %

In both R.F. place decreases from 2013 to 2015

that indicates higher OGD activity in the R.F. on

2013. In OGDI the score of the R.F. decreases from

2014 to 2015, but in ODB it slightly increases from

2013 to 2015. Difference results indicate various

viewpoints under estimation of OGD, which used by

OGDI and ODB. It should be noted that in 2014-

2015 the R.F. spent most efforts to improve OGD

quality and infrastructure rather than to increase

quantitative metrics, and this is one of the reason

decreasing Russian OGD indexes.

To consolidate OGD initiatives, the OGD portal

of the R.F. (http://www.data.gov.ru) was launched in

2014. The structure of the portal follows the G8

Open Data Charter (G8, 2013). In total the portal

contained about 7500 datasets in May 2016. On

average, there were 8000 visits to the portal per

month. Statistics of data publishing in 2014-2016 is

shown on fig. 1.

A Survey of Open Government Data in Russian Federation

175

Figure 1: Changes in the number of datasets on the OGD

portal of the R.F.

There are a number other open data portals in the

R.F. Examples of these are the Federation Spending

Portal (http://zakupki.gov.ru/, launched in 2011) and

the Federation Budget Portal (http://budget.gov.ru/,

launched in 2013). These portals contain data in

machine-readable formats with tools for data

visualization and browsing. In 2014, Russian OGD

on Government Spending ranked third in the world

(OGDI, 2015). The R.F. is divided into 85 regions,

and every region has an administration (regional

government). Every regional government has its

own web-resources, including OGD: 13 regional

governments have ODG portals, and 29 ones have

pages with OGD. The leaders are the Tula Region,

Moscow, St Petersburg and the Ulyanovsk Region.

Federal bodies and municipalities have the most

OGD pages. Synchronization of federal and other

OGDs is carried out automatically: all data from the

regional portals and OGD pages of the various

government bodies are copied/updated to the OGD

Portal of the R.F. on the regular bases.

Corresponding service was launched in the

beginning of 2016, which led to a dramatic increase

of the datasets as shown on fig. 1.

5.1 Overall Vision of OGD in the R. F.

E-government and Open Government in the R.F.

started with the administrative government reform in

2005. A number of government information systems

to facilitate the information exchange for different

government bodies and a network of e-government

services portals were created in 2009 (Barabashev

and Straussman, 2007), (Koznov, et al., 2011). In

late 2011, the Open Government project was

launched in the R.F. Among various activities it

should be mentioned the launching portal of the R.F.

(http://government.ru). The portal includes informa-

tion about the federal government, all of the

ministries, and regional governments. As a result,

according to the United Nation E-Government

Survey 2012 (UN Report, 2014), the R.F. was one of

the emerging leaders in e-government development

in the world (7th place), advancing 32 positions

from 2010 to 2012 in the world ranking of the

United Nations (27th place in the general world

ranking).

In the R.F. the OGD is a tool to implement the

Open Government. This started in 2012 when the

first official OGD concept was developed, and in

2013-2015 a number of laws and regulations were

approved in the R.F. in order to support the OGD

implementation. OGD development is also one of

the main focus of ICT development in the R.F.

according to the national ICT road map (ICT Road-

Map, 2013).

The coordination of OGD initiatives between

central and local level is implemented as three level

schema: central level, regional level, and region

authority level. On central level laws, regulations,

frameworks, programs, and recommendations are

developed. Building on this base regional

governments create local legislation and programs.

Various regional and municipal authorities follow

these programs (regional authority level).

5.2 Governance/Institutional

Framework

In 2014, a program for the openness of the

government bodies was prepared by the Russian

government. It is aimed not only at making the

information about government bodies public and

accessible, but also at raising the efficiency of

communication between the government and the

citizens in order to improve the quality of

administration, as well as to create tools to measure

the openness of government bodies.

In 2014, Russian Open Data Council developed

the open data plan for the years 2015-2016 (Russian

OGD Plan, 2014). The plan contains the list of

expected actions with result assessment methods.

In 2014-2015, the «Methodological recommend-

dations for publishing open data for government

bodies» were developed to provide guidelines for

government bodies in OGD activities (OGD

Recommendations, 2014).

The following organizations are working to

coordinate and develop OGD at the federal level: the

Russian Open Data Council, the Ministry of

Economic Development, Ministry of Telecommuni-

cation, and the Government Analytical Center of the

Russian Federation. The Open Data Council

coordinates the development of OGD through

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

176

preparing government programs, proposals and

recommendations, collecting and applying the best

practices. The Ministry of Economic Development is

responsible for developing the federal portal,

providing operational and procedural support and

synchronization of federal and regional initiatives.

The Ministry of Telecommunications is responsible

for coordination of OGD-development by

government bodies including corresponding

information systems, as well as the advancement for

social e-services based on OGD. The Government

Analytical Center of the Russian Federation

monitors the OGD in the R.F (Open Data Bulletin,

2016).

5.3 Legal Framework and Policy

Environment

The Federal Law 149 “On information, information

technologies and information protection” (2006) and

Federal Law 8 “On providing access to the

information on the activities of governmental and

municipal authorities” (2009) define the rights for

information search, access, and transfer as well as

the citizens’ rights to access government

information. The Russian Government Order No 953

adopted in 2009 determines and classifies the

information that government bodies are to publish

on the Internet, and prescribes update procedures for

each information category. Presidential decree No

601 “On the general policy for improving

government administration” issued on May 7, 2012

involves the figures for public enquiries handling

and a roadmap for opening government information.

The term “open data” was officially defined in

Federal Law 112 (2013), which formed the legal

basis for the government’s work with open data. The

Russian Government Resolution No 1187-r (July

2013) obliges Russian government authorities in

federal, regional, and municipal levels to publish

their data on the Internet and designates the types of

information to be published in accordance with the

Open Data Charter (G8, 2013). (Russian OGD Plan,

2014) states that by 2015 there will be a legal

framework for open data, which, however, needs

some revision and adaptation.

In 2014, some amendments to existing

legislation were introduced (Federal law 35). They

concern the use of open licenses in the R.F. which

are similar to Creative Commons and GNU FDL.

Licensing is a highly contentious issue for the

country’s OGD. In 2014, the OGDI indicated the

lowest score in licensing for all OGD categories in

the R.F. (OGDI, 2015). As of today, each dataset of

the portal is supplied with a brief permission note

granting the right to use it freely in any “appropriate,

lawful purpose.” The recommendations (OGD

Recommendations, 2014) require that all data be

published with a license based on free license. The

text prescribes the content of the license, which

conforms to (Open Definition, 2016). It is also said

that the Creative Commons/Open Data Commons

license could be used as a major guideline for

licensing government data.

5.4 Technical Issues

The technical issues of data opening in the R.F.

follow (OGD Recommendations, 2014). Implemen-

tation oversight is carried out by the Open Data

Council.

The quality of the data is monitored primarily in

terms of the published data updates. Hence,

according to the Russian Centre for Information and

Analysis, only 30.7% of OGD was up to date as of

mid-2015, while the leaders in data publishing on

average had less than a half of their data updated.

Based on (Open Data Bulletin, 2016), only 26% of

the datasets on the OGD Portal of the R.F. were up-

to-date as of late 2015.

(OGD Recommendations, 2014) state, that the

OGD published by the Russian government bodies

are to have one of the following formats: CSV,

XML, JSON, or RDF. Data on OGD Portal of the

Russian Federation is presented on the following

formats: CSV (63%); XML (36%); ZIP/GZ, JSON,

XLSX/XLS and RDF (1%). The linking of data is

very poor so far: the RDF-formal is used properly

only by the Tula Region and the Ministry of

Education portals.

Most of the Russian OGD-portals provide API

(Application Programming Interface) for external

programming data access. However, not all the data

sets are accessible via APIs: according (Open Data

Bulletin, 2016) only 62% of data sets on federal

OGD portal are available this way).

Most of Russian portals have built-in search

engines that use key words, topics, data formats,

organization names, and types. Some portals provide

dataset visualization tools, but those are mostly

limited to charts and tables.

As for the workflow for data release and

approval, there is no common procedure, and each

government body follows its own workflow. Open

Data Council regular updates of mandatory

publication list and carries out the management of

publishing most demanded data.

A Survey of Open Government Data in Russian Federation

177

5.5 Economic and Financial Issues

Open data development in the R.F. is financed by

the government only. The Federal Portal is funded

by the Ministry of Economic Development, while

federal bodies, regional governments, and munici-

pallities fund development of their OGD themselves.

Business companies are not engaged in OGD

funding.

5.6 Organizational Issues

Let us now consider the measures undertaken in the

R.F. to make changes in the public sector in relation

with OGD.

Increasing the openness and accountability of

government bodies is highly topical issue in the R.F.

Thus, the Russian government openness program

has been active since 2014. The program involves

monitoring the openness of the government bodies

by the non-government project Infometr based on a

web-resource analyses. In December 2015, the

Infometr project monitored the open data of the

federal government bodies, checking them for

compliance with the official requirements and plans.

All the 77 federal government organizations were

verified with a 55.1% average conformance with

(OGD Recommendations, 2014).

Of the measures to shift the culture of the public

sector towards OGD, the more noteworthy is the

government program to promote open data

awareness and popularity with officials (launched in

2015). The program intended to develop a number of

education courses for civil servants. The Analytical

Centre for the Government of the Russian

Federation conducts educational webinars in OGD

for the government staff. The Infometr project

provides consulting in OGD to government

organizations and staff. A number of educational

events on OGD are conducted by the NGO

Committee for Civil Initiative.

It is of great importance for the public sector that

their services for citizens can be improved with

OGD through constructing new e-services. OGD

portal of the R.F. presents 210 open data based

software applications on different sectors:

Tourism (47), Government (46), Transport (30),

Entertainment (24), Culture (13), etc.

5.7 Communication and Interaction

To increase the public interest in OGD, a variety of

measures are undertaken as shown in Table 2. It can

be clearly seen that the NGOs are very active in that.

Regional governments, such as St. Petersburg,

Ulyanovsk and some others, also conduct open data

Hackathons/Competitions. Non-government initiate-

ves play an important role in Russia by facilitating

and encouraging the public interest in OGD

movement. The report (Begtin, et al., 2015)

describes other non-government OGD activities

Russian open data portals have started to collect

user feedback on OGD published. In 2016,

Information and Analytical Centre of Russian

Government used user feedback as one of the metric

to estimate quality of the OGD of various

government organizations. The practice of opening

datasets on user demand is also in use. The OGD

portal of the R.F. had 236 user requests in 2015,

70% were moderated, 24.6% were fulfilled (fully or

in part). It must be said, though, that this is only the

beginning.

Table 2: Open data events in Russia in 2011-2015.

Type

Hackathons/

Competitions

Conferences/

Seminars

NGO 10 11

Federal gov. 6 4

Reg. & municipal gov. 11

Business 2 4

Universities 6

Mass Media 1

5.8 Impact

Some members of the Open Data Council argue that

the OGD initiative has already proved economically

beneficial, although no precise figures have been

presented so far. This part of the framework in the

R.F. also calls for intensive development.

5.9 Challenges of OGD in the Russian

Federation

The ODG movement as a cross-country initiative is

facing challenges due to the large size of the Russian

Federation (both territory and population). In

addition, the OGD movement in the R.F. is quite

recent: legislation concerning free access to

government information was developed only in

2006-2015 (in Western countries similar acts and

regulations started to be issued in the 1970s or even

earlier); the federal OGD portal was launched in

2014 (both U.S. and U.K. – in 2010). It should also

be noted that Russian civil society as such is truly

young. Let us discuss the challenges in more detail

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

178

following the components of the OECD framework

(Ubaldi, 2013).

Overall vision. One of the main OGD national

priorities is the usage of OGD in new e-services

development. But it requires more systematic

support in the current situation, when new e-services

are being developed either by government

organizations themselves, or by big software

companies like Yandex (www.yandex.ru). On the

other hand, many Hackathons

have been conducted,

yet they produce only prototypes rather than mature

e-services. There is not enough support of small

innovation software companies focusing on e-

services based on OGD.

Government/institutional framework. OGD

concepts, planning and guidelines need to be more

detailed. In particular, different kinds of

organizations should be identified from the OGD

point of view. In particular, municipal and federal

organizations have various "weight" and audiences,

therefore, their data have different life cycles.

Legal framework and policy environment. Along

with considerable progress in this area, licensing

remains a problem as is highlighted in (Begtin, et al.,

2015). The existing permission notes (such as those

on the OGD portal of the R.F.) do not qualify as

licenses.

Technical issues. There are many problems with

the quality and relevance of the published data. This

is understood by the government and efforts are

made to organize OGD monitoring (here we must

note the Analytical Center of the Russian

Government and the Infometr project). To overcome

the existing problems, infrastructure measures are

needed, which means, in particular, a closer collabo-

ration with the bodies that perform the monitoring

and the bodies that determine OGD polices.

Business and economic. It is necessary to

provide detailed business, economic and financial

models for OGD initiatives, and to stimulate

business participation in the OGD movement. It will

take the financial burden off the government in

terms of developing OGD with the corresponding

organizational and ICT infrastructure. The relations

between the OGD movement and business in the

R.F. are currently too weak to meet the needs of

enterprises in real estate and insurance business,

banking.

Organizational issues. Further efforts are

required to shift the culture of the public sector

towards OGD. Special measures are necessary to

help public servants to find new opportunities in

OGD. At the moment, they see OGD as a mandatory

part of their work rather than a real working tool.

Communication and interaction. The most

important issue is to implement the wide use of

OGD. As (Hellberg and Hedström, 2015) shows,

people generally seem to like the idea of open public

data, but are not necessarily active in the data reuse

process. This is equally true for the Russians, who

need encouragement to use OGD.

Impact. Monitoring the activities around Russian

OGD should be expanded from the data themselves

to estimating the perspectives and assessing the

results of OGD for the economy and society of the

country.

6 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we tried to close the gap in systematic

research of the OGD in the R.F. by conducting a

study based on the OECD framework (Ubaldi,

2013). The OGD movement in the R.F. has made

considerable progress: a number of OGD portals

have been implemented, the federal OGD portal as a

data aggregator has been developed, and underlying

government ICT and organisational infrastructure

has been created and is constantly improving. The

volume of OGD is increasingly growing, while

measures to improve its quality and relevance are

being undertaken. A number of new e-services based

on OGD are being developed. The challenges

Russia faces today can be overcome in the future if

the OGD movement is implemented more

systematically and becomes more integrated into the

society. Moreover, the efficiency of OGD movement

in the R.F. is tightly connected with the country’s

general progress, including economy, open

government initiatives, and civil society.

REFERENCES

Agrawal, S., Deshmukh, J., Srinivasa, S., et al. 2013. A

survey of Indian open data. In Proceedings of the 5th

IBM Collaborative Academia Research Exchange

Workshop Article No. 2.

Albano, C., Reinhard, N., 2014. Open Government Data:

Facilitating and Motivating Factors for Coping with

Potential Barriers in the Brazilian Context. In EGOV.

Alexopoulos, C., Spiliotopoulou, L., Charalabidis, Y.,

2013. Open data movement in Greece: a case study on

open government data sources. Panhellenic

Conference on Informatics.

Barabashev, A., Straussman, J., 2007. Public Service

Reform in Russia, 1991–2006. In Public

Administration Review. 67 (3).

Begtin, I., Vovk, K., Sakoyan, A., 2015. Open data:

A Survey of Open Government Data in Russian Federation

179

annual report. Information Culture (in Russian),

available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.47500

(accessed May 10, 2016).

Bojars, U., Liepins, R., 2014. The State of Open Data in

Latvia: 2014. In CoRR.

Capgemini, 2013. The Open Data Economy. Unlocking

the Economic Value by Opening Government and

Public Data. Capgemini Consulting, 2013, available at

https://www.capgemini-consulting.com/resource-file-

access/resource/pdf/opendata_pov_6feb.pdf (accessed

May 5, 2016).

Castro, D., Korte T., 2015. Open Data in the G8: A

Review of Progress on the Open Data Charter. Center

for data innovations. US, available at http://www2.

datainnovation.org/2015-open-data-g8.pdf (accessed

May 01, 2016).

Erickson, J., Viswanathan, A., Shinavier, J., Shi, Y.,

Hendler, J., 2013. Open Government Data: A Data

Analytics Approach. In IEEE Intelligent Systems. 28

(5).

Gigler, S., Custer, S., Rahmetulla, H., 2011. Realizing the

Vision of Open Government Data- Opportunities,

Challenges and Pitfalls, Open Development

Technology Alliance, The World Bank.

González, J., Garcia, J., Cortés, F., Carpy, D., 2014.

Government 2.0: a conceptual framework and a case

study using Mexican data for assessing the evolution

towards open governments. In Proceedings of the 15th

Annual International Conference on Digital

Government Research.

G8, 2013. G8 Open Data Charter and Technical Annex,

available at https://www.gov.uk/ government/publi

cations/open-data-charter/g8-open-data-charter-and-

technical-annex (accessed May 01, 2016).

Hellberg, A., Hedström, K., 2015. The story of the sixth

myth of open data and open government. In

Transforming Government: People, Process and

Policy, 9 (1).

Hendler, J., Holm, J., Musialek, C., Thomas, G., 2012. US

Government Linked Open Data: Semantic.data.gov. In

IEEE Intelligent Systems (EXPERT). 27 (3).

HSE, 2012. A survey on the open data priorities conducted

by Higher School of Economics as part of the

development of the concept of open government data

for the Ministry of Economic Development of Russian

Federation. National Research University (in Russian).

ICT Road-Map, 2013. Russian Government Edict 30

December 2013 № 2602-p. Russian ICT Road Map on

2014-2025.

Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., Zuiderwijk, A., 2012.

Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and

open government. In Information Systems

Management. 29 (4).

Koznov, D., Chevzova, J., Samochadin, A., Azarskov, A.,

2011. Towards E-government services in Russia.

Proceedings of the International Conference on

Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

(KMIS 2011).

Mutuku, L., Colaco, J., 2012. Increasing Kenyan open

data consumption: a design thinking approach. In

ICEGOV.

ODB, 2015. Open Data Barometer, Global Report, WWW

Foundation, ODI.

OGDI, 2015. The Open Global Data Index, available at

http://www.index.okfn.org (accessed 03 May 2016).

OGD Recommendations, 2014. Methodological

recommendation. Version 3. (in Russian).

Open Data Bulletin, 2016. Information and Analytical

Center of Russian Government. (in Russian), available

at http://ac.gov.ru/publications/ 6137/ (accessed May

08, 2016).

Open Definition, 2016, available at http://open

definition.org/od/ (accessed May 03, 2016).

Russian OGD Plan, 2014. Plan of Open Data Russian

Federation Development 2015-2016 (in Russian).

Roy, J., 2014. Open Data and Open Governance in

Canada: A Critical Examination of New Opportunities

and Old Tensions. In Future Internet. 6 (3).

Hall, W., Schraefel, M., Gibbins, N., Berners-Lee, T.,

Glaser, H., Shadbolt, N., O'Hara, K., 2012. Linked

open government data: Lessons from data. gov.uk. In

IEEE Intelligent Systems. 27 (3).

Ubaldi, B., 2013. Open government data: Towards

empirical analysis of open government data initiatives.

OECD Working Papers on Public Governance: No.

22. Paris, France: OECD.

UN Report, 2014. United Nation E-government survey,

available at http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/ (accessed

May 5, 2016).

Zhulin, A., Artamonov, R., Plaksin, S., Styrin, E.,

Chaplinsky, A., Schigolev, B., 2013. Implementing

Russian Open Data Conception: Public and Local

Government Bodies Progress Report. National

Research University, available at

https://www.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/146810989

(accessed May 1, 2016).

Zuiderwijk, A., Helbig, N., Gil-García, J., Janssen, M.,

2014. Special Issue on Innovation through Open Data

– A Review of the State-of-the-Art and an Emerging

Research Agenda: Guest Editors' Introduction. In

Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic

Commerce Research archive, 9 (2).

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

180