opendataimpacts.net Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the opendataimpacts.net

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host opendataimpacts.net. Currently, hosted in - and its service provider is - .

the related websites

williamhill.com dancesportinfo.net theoriginaltour.com whitehouse.gov odds.bestbetting.com writingcommons.org eprints.rclis.org newburghschools.org skrill.com bowers-wilkins.com 

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache/2.2.22 (Debian) containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

open data impacts the research blog of @timdavies home about survey (2010) contact the limited promise of (open data) research automation by tim davies on january 23, 2015 [summary: adding to the network of discussion around open data measurement ] earlier this week the 2nd edition of the open data barometer launched : a project i’ve worked on over the last two years, helping design the original framework of indicators, setting up the data collection tools, and writing up the report (with a fun learning curve this year to try and make it an interactive web-first report as much as possible). putting together a study like the barometer is a long and, at times, torturous, process. so i was really interested to see that this week the open data institute also released a report on “ benchmarking open data automatically “. could there be ways around the costs and time commitments of survey based techniques to understand the open data landscape? unfortunately, at least so far as the report explores, it seems not. below i offer a critical reading and reflection, addressing both some substantive issues for consideration in taking forward efforts around automated open data measurement, and raising some general issues about the problems of approaching research with an automation lens. credit to the authors: they do not at any points overstate the claim for automation, and provide a fair overview of its potential. however, the methodology of the report in identifying suggested indicators and datasets §4 is unstated and unclear, and given it is framed as an output of the developing country focussed partnership for open data (pod), critical consideration of the global applicability of its suggested models appears absent. context and environment: qualitative concerns the report looks at the potential for automated assessment in four areas, building on the common assessment methods framework for open data which covers context/environment, data supply, use & impact. the suggested automation approaches for context/environment variables either involve the secondary use of global indicator data, or propose the use of text-mining approaches on legislative or communicative texts from government. both these are problematic. firstly, the report does not appear to consider that the secondary data it wants to draw upon is far from automated itself, but instead is the product of in-depth qualitative research processes, each with their own dynamics and biases. by framing use of this data as a strategy of automation, rather than a strategy of secondary data use, it glosses over the important critical attention that needs to be given when drawing on indicators from elsewhere, and over questions of whether these proposed indicators are adequate to capture the constructs being sought. in the open data barometer model, primary survey data is paired with secondary indicator data (a) to address the gaps in each; (b) to ensure each component of the ‘readiness’ barometer sub-index is based on a plurality of data sources, to limit the potential effects researcher bias. secondly, the idea that it will be possible to effectively infer meaningful information about open data policies from automated reading of legal texts is highly questionable. not only are legal texts often inaccessible online, but the range of languages, and legal cultures, any analysis would have to deal with begs the question of whether it would not be more efficient in any case to work with bi-lingual scholars than computational techniques. the report fails to cite any examples of studies that have proven the value of such automated text-mining approaches in an international comparative context. furthermore, automated techniques bring in a big risk of imposing normative assumptions (particularly in this case western, anglo-saxon legal tradition assumptions) about law, policy making, and what constitutes effective policy. when i carried out my initial policy analysis of open data in six countries though a qualitative reading of policies, it became clear that it was important to look at the function, not just the form of words in policy documents – and to understand the different ways policy operates in different countries. should one country be assessed as having a better environment for achieving the promised impacts of open data because it uses the words ‘open data’ in laws, than one which talks about ‘free and digitally available public sector information’? i would be extremely cautious about such possibilities. one of the weaknesses of the open data barometer as it currently stands is that it assesses only at the national level, whereas in many federal states particular policies or datasets that it is looking for from a national government are devolved to states and sub-national jurisdictions. working with the complexity of the real world generally requires greater resource for critical analysis and research, not more automation. data and use: the meta-data dilemma the report also disappoints when it comes to automated assessment of both data publication and dataset re-use. it concludes that whilst “automated metrics exist for metadata that stems from data portals such as ckan, socrata, opendatasoft or datapress” such approaches as “however, subject to the existence of high-quality metadata in a consistent, standardised and complete format.” what it doesn’t flesh out is the fact that this makes getting at research constructs that can represent the range of data published, or the broad usability of data, as opposed to constructs that in fact pick out primarily the quality of meta-data, is particularly challenging. it also perpetuates the idea that open data involves cataloguing data in data portals, rather than making data broadly accessible, published so that citizens can access it alongside government information, embedding a culture of data publication across government, rather then treating open data as some centralised responsibility. such meta-data centric metrics are also inherently open to gaming. if a metric, for example, is based on the percentage of datasets, discovered through a meta-data catalogue, that conform to some automated tests for quality (e.g. the uk governments ‘openness score’ ), then the easiest way to up your score is to drop from the catalogue datasets that don’t meet the quality bar. sensitivity to gaming has is vital to any analysis of metrics: particularly those seeking to create behaviour change. if its possible to change the metric scores by changing behaviours other than those the metric aims to target, then there need to be feedback loops to control for this. these often exist just as part of the processes of analysis in qualitative research, but need to be explicitly planned for in any automated methods. when it comes to data use assessment, much more promising (albeit resource intensive) i suspect are the bottom up methods for assessing the value of open datasets for particular use cases being explored by some of my web science dtc colleagues at the university of southampton . impact: researcher support the report notes that “measuring impact with an automated approach is inherently difficult”. the open data barometer uses, as a proxy for impact, the peer reviewed ‘perceptions of impact’ amongst informed researchers, based on being able to cite media or academic literature that connects open data and specific impacts. whilst the expert judgement can’t be automated – it would be useful to consider where automation could support the researcher in locating relevant sources. for example, right now researchers have to go out and track down news stories, and there are some inter-coder reliability issues that are likely to arise as a result of different search strategies and approaches. but the same technologies proposed for text-analysis of legal documents, rather than producing an output metric, could produce a corpus of sources for human analysis – helping dig deeper into sources o

URL analysis for opendataimpacts.net

http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2013/09/reflections-on-developing-a-global-sectoral-open-data-initiative-agriculture-and-nutrition/#respond
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2013/12/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2012/12/of-nonsensical-numbers-openness-score/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/category/open-data/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2013/08/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/category/ikm-emergent/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2011/06/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/category/uk-national-goverment/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2010/06/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2012/04/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2014/04/call-for-papers-jedem-special-issue-on-open-government-data-and-open-policies/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2012/11/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/2014/04/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/
http://www.opendataimpacts.net/category/linked-data/
timdavies.org.uk
data.gov.uk
oii.ox.ac.uk
data.london.gov.uk
eprints.soton.ac.uk
gov.uk
stx.ox.ac.uk
practicalparticipation.co.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain Name: OPENDATAIMPACTS.NET
Registry Domain ID: 1590977395_DOMAIN_NET-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.123-reg.co.uk
Registrar URL: http://www.meshdigital.com
Updated Date: 2016-03-24T04:52:19Z
Creation Date: 2010-03-31T17:22:11Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2018-03-31T17:22:11Z
Registrar: 123-Reg Limited
Registrar IANA ID: 1515
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Name Server: NS.123-REG.CO.UK
Name Server: NS2.123-REG.CO.UK
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/
>>> Last update of whois database: 2017-09-07T04:46:34Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for
information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right
to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure
operational stability. VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the
Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

  REGISTRAR 123-Reg Limited

SERVERS

  SERVER net.whois-servers.net

  ARGS domain =opendataimpacts.net

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

  NAME opendataimpacts.net

  CHANGED 2016-03-24

  CREATED 2010-03-31

STATUS
clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited

NSERVER

  NS.123-REG.CO.UK 212.67.202.2

  NS2.123-REG.CO.UK 62.138.132.21

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .