Records Management Journal

Open data?: Data, information, document or record?

Erik Borglund Tove Engvall
Article information:
To cite this document:
Erik Borglund Tove Engvall , (2014)," Open data? Data, information, document or record? ", Records
Management Journal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 163 - 180
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0012
Downloaded on: 07 March 2017, At: 05:52 (PT)
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3268 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Meeting Big Data challenges with visual analytics: The role of records management", Records
Management Journal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 122-141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0009
(2014),"Whither the retention schedule in the era of big data and open data?", Records Management
Journal, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 99-121 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0010

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:262510 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

Open data? Open data

Data, information, document or record?

Erik Borglund and Tove Engvall
Department of Archives and Computer Science, Mid Sweden University,
Härnösand, Sweden 163

Received 21 January 2014

Abstract Accepted 3 June 2014
Purpose – The aim of the article is to investigate what characterizes the information constructs that
the archival discourse and the open data discourse communicate in text, and what their similarities and
differences are. This article proposes that it is possible to see the open data initiative and modern
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

archival practice as two discourses that have used different terminology to express and communicate
their messages in the literature. In this article, we have applied a hypothesis-like assumption that the
information constructs used in open data are actually nothing other than records, as they are in the
archival discourse.
Design/methodology/approach – This article is based on a mixed method approach. A quantitative
text analysis (word count) was carried out in a large set of documents representing the open data
discourse and in the archival discourse. This was followed by a qualitative text analysis.
Findings – It was found that both discourses did focus on records. However, the opendata discourse
very seldom used the term record, but used information and data much more frequently. The archival
discourse used the term information almost as often as record. A possible adaption of communication
strategies can be identified, targeting a much wider audience through a user-centered approach. This
could be an indication of a change in the archival discourse, which seems to be moving from a discourse
that is very much regulated by law toward a discourse that is more focused on benefit and usability.
Originality/value – This research indicates that it is possible to interpret both the open data and the
archival discourse as one united discourse, an effect derived from working with e-government. There is
an ongoing harmonization of the words used, and in the studied archival discourse, a more user- and
business-oriented focus can be seen.
Keywords Information, Open data, Discourse, Data, Document, Records
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
This article departs from focusing broadly on the current e-government development
and instead selects two related initiatives that we claim to be at least partially
overlapping. The first of these initiatives is the work with open data; the second is
modern archival management.
The concept of open data can be argued to be derived from the European Inspire
Initiative (Blakemore and Craglia, 2006). As more and more information is produced
digitally, the possibility of reusing the information increases, and this is often
manifested under the umbrella of “open data”. In the open-data context, access to
information is discussed in terms of:
Records Management Journal
• innovation, Vol. 24 No. 2, 2014
pp. 163-180
• open government; and © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0956-5698
• better public finances. DOI 10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0012
 RMJ The concept of open data is that public information should be available for others to use.
However, the term “open data” has not been fully scrutinized, and we argue that it is very
24,2 difficult to treat the three rather different contexts (a-c) similarly without carefully
defining what open data is. However, we do not aim to contribute a definition of open
data. Instead, we are interested in the “data”, i.e. the information that is dealt with by the
whole movement. Furthermore, we see open data as synonymous to the goal behind the
164 Public Sector Information (PSI) initiative (OECD, 2008), i.e. that it should be possible to
reuse public information.
Modern archival management has changed dramatically over the past 15 years,
mainly influenced by e-government. The situation in Sweden is that modern archival
management and archival development cannot be separated from e-government
development. The Swedish “E-delegation” is responsible for developing Swedish
e-government (E-delegationen, 2009, 2010a, 2010b). The e-delegation has identified that
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

one of the most important conditions needed for efficient e-services is a working
e-archive solution. Therefore, the e-delegation has initiated a project to investigate how
a national model for a governmental e-archive can be structured and designed. This
project has been named e-ARD: the e-Archive and e-Diarium Project. Thanks to the
e-delegation, archives and records management issues are very hyped and many
government authorities are dependent on the results of the eARD project. The National
Archives in Sweden is responsible for the eARD project, and therefore the project also
has a regulatory role affecting all national government authorities.
Access to public information is part of the reason for the overlap between open data
and modern archival management. Sweden has a long history of openness of
government authorities dating back to 1766 when Sweden adopted the Constitution.
The Swedish Freedom of the Press Act (Tryckfrihetsförordning [1949, p. 105], chapter
2), which guarantees citizens the right to access public records, is one of four
fundamental Acts that form the Constitution. The Swedish Constitution together with
the Archives Act (Arkivlag (1990⬎, p. 782, 3§) forms the legislation guaranteeing that
public records should be kept for administrative, legal and research purposes. Public
records are also important for the protection of cultural heritage and allow the general
public the right to access public records. In the Constitution (The Swedish Freedom of
the Press Act [Tryckfrihetsförordning]), a public record is defined and thus, regulation
about the management of public records is connected to the definition of a record. A
record, according to the Swedish Constitution, is very similar to the International
Council on Archives (ICA) definition: i.e. it is recorded information that is produced by
public business (International Council on Archives, 2000) and ISO 15489 (International
Standards Organization, 2001).
Nevertheless, the picture we aim to present is that both the open data and archival
management initiatives are derived from the work with e-government and both affect
public authorities as well as the general public. We are fully aware of the fact that the
boundary between open data and archival management is not absolutely clear and the
two initiatives tend to overlap each other. In this article, we focus on the Swedish
context, but similar initiatives can be found in many other countries. From an archival
theoretical perspective, both these initiatives deal with public records, but in practice,
the information construct used and articulated in open data and in archival management
differs. From our perspective, public information is public records, as opposed to the
definition of records from, e.g., ICA “Recorded information in any form or medium,
 created or received and maintained, by an organization or person in the transaction of Open data
business or the conduct of affairs” (International Council on Archives, 2000). However,
after a brief analysis of the official Swedish texts on open data, it is clear that it is data
and information that are communicated and not public records.
Further, we propose that these two different initiatives, with different ways of talking
about public information, can be seen as two different discourses. A discourse in this
article is understood as the social practice to signify and represent the world. It 165
contributes to the constitution of social structures, norms, values, relations, conventions
and identities and also constructs and reconstructs the meaning of the world
(Fairclough, 1992, p. 64). Henceforth, we refer to these discourses as the archival
discourse and the open data discourse. We propose, somewhat provocatively, that the
information construct used in both these discourses (archival and open data) is actually
records, albeit communicated in different ways, and we wanted to investigate whether
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

this assumption is true. Hence, this research has similarities to hypothesis testing, but
not in the strict meaning of a hypothesis-driven research. There are many ways to
investigate a discourse, but we have chosen to focus on how the two discourses
communicate in text. Therefore, this article aims to investigate the following:
(1) What characterizes the information constructs that the archival discourse and
the open data discourse communicate in text?
(2) What are the similarities and differences?

The long-term purpose of this article is to increase the knowledge about similarities and
differences between open data and records management and archival management,
which we believe will lead to synergies.

Theoretical starting point

Open data
There are many versions of “open data”. For example: open data, open government data,
linked open data and public sector information. In an Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Paper, Ubaldi frames different
concepts, and “open data” is defined as:
[…] data that can be freely used, re-used and distributed by anyone, only subject to (at most)
the requirement that users attribute the data and that they make their work available to be
shared as well (Ubaldi, 2013, p. 6).
This definition is similar to that commonly used by the Open Knowledge Foundation
(http://opendefinition.org/). “Government data” is explained as “any data and
information produced or commissioned by public bodies” (Ubaldi, 2013, p. 6). “Open
Government Data” is government data that is openly available. It has been defined by
eight principles, which outline that to be assessed as open, the data should be complete,
primary, timely, accessible, machine-processable, non-discriminatory, non-proprietary
and license-free. The Sunlight Foundation has identified an additional criteria of
permanence (Ubaldi, 2013, p. 8). The main objective of open data is not just to make it
accessible for everyone but also reusable. The degree of reusability of data can be
assessed by the Five Star Scheme developed by Tim Berners-Lee, where the best method
is to link the data to other data to provide context. (Ubaldi, 2013, p. 26). Benefits of linked
open data are that it supports interoperability of heterogeneous information resources
 RMJ (Haslhofer and Isaac, 2011; Lezcano et al., 2013; Pattuelli and Rubinow, 2012), gives a
more effective searchable Web (Burrows, 2012) and contributes to more responsible
24,2 publishing by using URIs for each item, thus making it possible to capture provenance
information (Sheridan and Tennison, 2010). Linked open data is used for government
data in the USA (Ding et al., 2010) and the United Kingdom (Sheridan and Tennison,
2010) and also in the research sector and cultural heritage sector (Burrows, 2012), as
166 used in the Europeana portal, for example (Haslhofer and Isaac, 2011).
PSI is defined as “information, including information products and services,
generated, created, collected, processed, preserved, maintained, disseminated, or funded
by or for a government or public institution” (OECD, 2008, p. 4). Janssen (2011) identifies
two streams aiming at proactively making public-sector information more accessible.
The government-led initiatives led by the EU PSI-Directive are mainly based on a
market perspective, while the open government data (OGD) movement, that includes
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

both government and private initiatives, argue for transparency and accountability as
well as the economic benefits. Ubaldi (2013) also highlights the societal “right to
information” movement with a human rights perspective.
Open data can be seen as part of the open government development, which
implies seamless information flow, collaborative decision making and principles of
transparency, participation and collaboration and where sharing of public-sector
information is central (Chun et al., 2010). It is also an important aspect of the
development of a European Information Society, with the EU goal of becoming the
leading knowledge-based economy in the world (Blakemore and Craglia, 2006). An
important aim of open data is to satisfy the needs of the consumer rather than the
needs of the information creator (Hongyan and Mingdi, 2012). With the development
of Government 2.0, private stakeholders are given a greater role in managing
information. According to Robinson et al. (2009), the government ought to take a
minor role in publishing of information, and instead they should provide data for
private operators to present to the general public in meaningful ways. Ubaldi (2013)
also indicates that the different roles are becoming less distinct and McLeod (2012)
asks what the records managers’ role will be in this new context. There is also a
distinction between freedom of information and open data. The former is about
meeting citizens’ requests for specific records, while OGD implies a more proactive
dissemination of public-sector information (Buckley et al., 2013). McLeod notes that
open data and the open-access agenda “takes information access beyond
transparency and accountability into the realm of innovation, enterprise, economic
growth and return on investment” (McLeod, 2012, p. 96).

Data and information

Open data cannot be understood in this article without a discussion about the difference
between data and information. As records are defined as “Information created, received,
and maintained as evidence and information by an organization or person, in pursuance
of legal obligations or in transaction of business.”(International Standards
Organization, 2001, p. 3), it is important to know whether data and information are the
same and in the longer perspective, if open data can be records, as we claim in the
introduction.
Today, data and information are often used as synonymous terms, and there is no
distinct border between the concepts in many areas, a situation Sundgren and Steneskog
 (2003) criticize and name “terminological inflation” (Sundgren and Steneskog, 2003, Open data
p. 12). Information is a concept and is most often described as an interpretation of data – a
human interpretation (Sundgren and Steneskog, 2003). Information can also be
described as being different to data in the sense that information has functionality and
is useful, which data cannot be (Ackoff, 1996). According to Buckland (1991a)
“information” as a term or concept is quite unclear, and furthermore, he is critical of the
imprecise use of the term information as a concept. For example, an information 167
retrieval system is designed to retrieve information, but is it in fact information that is
retrieved or is it documents or data? Information as such is one of Buckland’s (1991a,
1991b) categorizations of information: data, text and documents and objects are all
terms in the classification of information that Buckland (1991a, 1991b) presents. He calls
them information resources, and he derives these concepts from the assumption that
information is about being informed. Information can also be described as “reduction of
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

uncertainty” (Langefors, 1995, p. 107), and this is achieved when someone is informed,
i.e. getting knowledge. Not all knowledge is information, but information is knowledge
in a communicable form. Data can be described as the unit used to represent
information. Perhaps Börje Langefors’s most famous contribution is the infological
equation I ⫽ i (D, S, t) “I is the information (or knowledge) produced from the data D and
the pre-knowledge S, by the interpretation process i, during the time t” (Langefors, 1995,
p. 144). The infological equation is about the dependency between a person’s
pre-understanding and the information that person gets from the data. The idea is that
the interpretation process is closely connected to the individual and therefore to a
person’s ability to interpret and understand the data.

Discourse
Discourse is a concept that has not been applied widely in archival science literature.
It is a concept that is used in the social theory to describe different cultural and social
forms of knowledge and practice (Fairclough, 1992, p. 3). Discourse can be used to
explain a particular set of social norms and values and how this influences practice
and the way of organizing social life. It can be used to reveal underlying power
relations and discourse, as a mode of political and ideological practice is central in
Fairclough’s (1992, p. 67) writings, for example. Discourse has a double meaning
because it reflects social structures, but at the same time, constitutes them and
influences social relations, identities and institutions. The use of language can be
viewed as a form of social practice, where discourse is a mode of action through
which people approach the world (Fairclough, 1992, pp. 63-64). In the process of
producing, disseminating and consuming texts, the discourse could be confirmed or
challenged, strengthened or changed. Discourses can be passed over into new areas,
yet also be affected by those discourses acting in the same area (Fairclough, 1992,
pp. 93, 96-98). Words have various meanings, and meanings are worded in different
ways, even though the meaning changes through different wording. The choice of
words being used, and how to interpret the words chosen, are parts of wider social
processes (Fairclough, 1992, p. 185). The use of words can be accepted or contested,
and as the discourse both shapes and is shaped by social structures, the use of words
is both affected by a discourse, but also influences and reshapes it.
 RMJ Method
In this article, we use what is best described as a mixed method (Johnson and
24,2 Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2009) in which a quantitative research
approach is combined with qualitative methods. This article is therefore divided into
two different phases. The first phase is a quantitative text analysis followed by a more
qualitative content analysis.
168
Organizations included in the study
The “archival discourse” will be represented by the national eARD project (e-Archive
and e-Diarium Project) led by the Swedish National Archives, which is also part of the
Swedish Government’s e-government initiative. The eARD project has been selected
because it is the largest development project by the National Archives focusing on
modern e-government issues; it represents the most up-to-date directives from the
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

National Archives, and because it also springs from the e-delegation’s work, as does
open data. Therefore, it can be described as an appropriate selection (Hartman, 1998).
Furthermore, it is a project that represents the current view of records and archival
management by Swedish authorities. The eARD project is also well-documented, and
that makes the project particularly useful for this research. The main specifications and
reports resulting from the eARD project downloadable from the National Archives Web
page have been used, except for one report which was written by one of the authors of
this article. The eARD project consists of eight sub-projects, which together will
establish a common set of requirements for public authorities to support the design and
establishment of a national e-archive.
The Swedish e-delegation, VINNOVA – Swedish Governmental Agency for
Innovation Systems Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR)
and the Stockholm County Association of Local Authorities (KSL) will be used to
represent the discourse on open data. These four public authorities have been very
actively producing regulatory documents about open data. This study uses documents
about open data produced in the past two years by these four organizations.

Research design
The research consists of two phases, yet they should be seen as coherent and aim to
support and fulfill the research aim. The first phase is a quantitative text analysis, and
the purpose of phase one is to understand what words were used in the two discourses
and implicitly how the two discourses communicated their stated work tasks. For the
word count, an online text analytical software package was used (http://
voyant-tools.org), which included a tool that could export the data into spreadsheets.
Each document was added to the software, resulting in a long list of the frequency of
words in each document. As the aim of this article was to investigate what characterized
the information construct communicated by the two discourses when the
hypothesis-like assumption was that the two discourses actually both are focusing on
records, a quantitative word count was suiteable. The purpose of the word count was to
identify what kinds of words are used in general and to identify the frequency of
different words that are synonyms for records and/or can be very closely related to
records. Even if we could find synonyms of records in dictionaries, we needed evidence
of what kinds of words the two studied discourses used. This selection formed the basis
for the subsequent more qualitative analysis.
 Words that had something to do with public records, information, archives and open Open data
data were identified from the list produced by the scan. Those that appeared most
frequently within the two discourses were then selected, counted and are presented in
Table I. The principal words found and selected were: record, information, document
and data, but other words closely related to records and archival management were also
included in the first selection. In the final selection for the second phase, only words that
were possible lexical synonyms for “record” were selected. In the first phase, the aim 169
was to:
• dentify words used in the documents selected to represent the two different
discourses; and
• identify the frequency of use of the synonyms for public records that appeared in
the list of selected synonyms.
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

No quantitative calculations were carried out on the data collected from the word count.
This phase was primarily used to identify and select the words for analysis in the second
phase.
The second phase was qualitative, in which our purpose was to identify and analyze
how the four words were used to make sense of what the words meant in the studied
texts. The way words are used implies the meaning of the words. The second phase is
very similar to hermeneutic research (Svensson and Starrin, 1994) where the aim is to
interpret word usage and to understand the meaning behind sentences and words.

Results
In this section, we present the word frequency counts from the two discourses followed
by a more qualitative analysis.

Phase one
The results of the selected documents are presented in Table I.

Word eARD (all documents) Open data

Total number of words 1,06,926 58,896

e-archive (e-arkiv) 794 0
e-register (e-diarium[3]/webbdiarium) 518 0
Record (handling) 543 182
Information (information) 492 540
Document (dokument) 195 82
Data (data) 108 807
Metadata (metadata) 425 50
Archival information (arkivinformation[4]) 13 1
Document management (dokumenthantering) 68 6
Information management (informationshantering,
informationsfÖrsÖrjning, informationsfÖrvaltning[5]) 72 0
Archive (arkiv) 151 0 Table I.
Archival records (arkivhandlingar) 7 6 Scanned words related to
e-records (e-handlingar) 15 0 archival and records
Preservation documents (bevarandehandlingar) 2 0 management
 RMJ A total of 1,06,926[1] words were scanned for the archival discourse, and 58,896[2] words
for the open data discourse. The original Swedish words are presented in parentheses.
24,2 In Table I, all words relating to the archival and records management context have
been included. We know, for example, that an e-archive is not a record, but for us, it has
been important to share the word frequency so that our selection of data, record,
information and document appears more understandable. The reason for the selection of
170 the words document and record are perhaps very obvious, as these two words are
presented as being closely related in literature (Hartland et al., 2005; McKemmish et al.,
2005). The words data and information have been chosen primarily because records are
information and “data” has been used so frequently in the open data discourse. In
Table I, the words shaded in grey have been defined as negligible for phase two. Either
they are not synonyms for records or their frequency is negligible.
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

Phase 2, interpretation of word usage

In this interpretative phase, the use of the words data, record, information and document
have been studied further in each discourse to see if they are synonyms for record
(according to the definition of record by ICA, as presented above) and if there are any
other factors characterizing the use of each word. When excerpts from the documents
are used, we have translated the text from Swedish to English throughout. In the
following section, we use only records, but it is public records that are meant, not records
from private organizations.

Results: archival discourse

The results from the word count indicate that the concept information is actually used
almost as frequently as the concept record. We have found that the use of the concept
information indicates that it is actually records that are being referred to as exemplified
by the following:
[…] citizens, corporations and other organizations need access to information about the
authorities’ case management (–), present and future generations need the information created
and preserved in the public sector in Sweden (–), the authorities need simple procedures and
tools to archive, preserve and reuse the information that has been produced in their own and in
other agencies’ activities (Riksarkivet, 2011a, p. 1)[6].
According to the ICA definition of a record, where “information” is used in this passage,
it is, by definition, records that are meant. However, the concept record is used when the
legal context is emphasized: for example, regarding public rights to access records
according to the Freedom of the Press Act, regulations concerning preservation or
discussions about transfer of records for long-term preservation (Riksarkivet, 2011a). It
appears that record is also used when it comes to the actual preservation and
maintenance of the records; meanwhile, information is used when use and retrieval is
stressed:
Preserving digital records has been a challenge since the first computers were introduced in the
middle of last century. (–) It should be emphasized that the e-archive is not only aimed at
securing long-term, passive storage. Business benefits must also be in focus. Information is a
resource that should be able to be retrieved, provided, managed and reused by different
stakeholders (Riksarkivet, 2011a, p. 10).
 Public information is seen as a valuable resource. The information needs of citizens, Open data
businesses and other organizations to exercise their democratic rights, knowledge
creation and access to the common cultural heritage is stressed as well as the authorities’
need for information to fulfill their tasks and deliver good services (Riksarkivet, 2011a).
The emphasis on reuse is shown in the new concept that was developed in the pre-study
for the e-ARD Project: system for long-term information supply. The idea behind the
development and use of this term was to stress the active reuse and benefits of the 171
archive for the different stakeholders instead of the more custodial view of the archive as
a final destination for preservation (Riksarkivet, 2011b, p. 38).
The result from the word count also indicates that the concepts document and data
are less frequently used. Document is mainly used when referring to specific documents,
e.g. other project documents (Riksarkivet, 2011a; eARD, 2013a, 2013b; Riksarkivet,
2011c). Data are used quite rarely, and it seems as if it is used in the classic meaning of
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

the term, as signs and symbols and actual parts of digital records:
[…] to be used for communication, interpretation and processing, information is represented
by data. Numbers in a table are one simple example of data. (–) When it comes to the e-archive,
the main focus is on data that can be processed by different kinds of software for computers.
The data is represented by a sequence of bits so that it can be interpreted by the software
(eARD, 2013c, p. 4).

Results: open data discourse

The word count indicates that in the open data discourse, data are most frequently used.
Information is also common, while record is rarely found, but there are some differences
among the documents representing the open data discourse. In Reuse of public sector
information. A guideline for authorities, by the Swedish e-delegation (E-delegationen,
2013), the word information is predominant, but is explicitly said to refer to records:
The concept information is used in the guideline as a synonym to the concept record. (p. 14).
These guidelines aim to support the authorities in making their information more
accessible for reuse (E-delegationen, 2013, p. 11) and also in implementing the
PSI-Directive. The use of information could therefore have been influenced by the
concept public sector information used in the PSI-Directive. There is an emphasis on
the benefits of reuse and the users, where public information is seen as a valuable
societal resource (E-delegationen, 2013, p. 10). Record is used mainly in reference to
laws, particularly the Freedom of the Press Act and citizens’ rights to access records:
The PSI-Directive does not govern the disclosure of records. The legal basis for such disclosure
may be the Authority’s obligations according to Chapter 2 of the Freedom of the Press Act
when a public record is requested. Making information accessible in electronic form, which is
of most practical importance in connection with the re-use, will instead often be as part of the
performance of tasks assigned by, for example, regulation or appropriation directions.
(E-delegationen, 2013, p. 22)
It is also noted that political ambitions regarding reuse of public records are greater than
the legal obligations (E-delegationen, 2013, p. 11). To use another concept than the
legally bound record could therefore be a way to go beyond requirements of the Freedom
of the Press Act. Document is used only once in the Guidelines, but refers to text-related
forms of information (E-delegationen, 2013, p. 42). Meanwhile, data, which is also rarely
 RMJ used in the Guidelines, seems to mean tabular data in databases (E-delegationen, 2013,
p. 49).
24,2 The documents from SALAR (SKL, 2013a) and KSL [Stockholm County Association
of Local Authorities] (KSL, 2013) are frameworks or guidelines for working with open
data in municipalities and regions. The SALAR document expands on the KSL
document, which is why they are treated together. In these documents, the concepts are
172 used more recklessly. Information, data, public information and public data are
frequently used. It seems as if they are used synonymously and in the actual meaning of
record, while record as such is used in a legal or records management context:
The Act (2010, p. 566) about re-use of records from the public administration regulates the
prices and other terms which municipalities, counties and authorities may apply to those who
want to re-use their data. (SKL, p. 8)
“By publishing archival description, records management plans and descriptions of how the
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

administration organizes their public records on the web they become accessible to the public
thereby giving an overview of which data are available at the municipality/county” (SKL, p. 11).
Information and data are both used quite similarly in the KSL/SALAR documents.
There is a tendency to use the concept data more specifically when the form of the
information is of significance for reuse and processing. In the KSL/SALAR documents,
the benefit is also central when talking about public data and public information and the
PSI-Directive aim of developing an information market as well as when referring to
improvements in transparency and participation (SKL, p. 6; KSL, p. 5). Document is only
used a few times and in reference to specific documents (SKL, 2013, p. 11; KSL, 2013,
p. 10). VINNOVA is the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, so
naturally, their documents view open data from an innovation perspective. Open data is
seen as part of the program “open innovation”, which aims at opening up the innovation
process to external stakeholders (2012, 2013).
Access to open data is part of such a process – the supply of data that is accessible without any
fees or other barriers to re-use is a question of “raw material” (VINNOVA, 2013, p. 2).
VINNOVA’s documents call for open data projects, and are directed toward both public
and private participants. Thus, they do not address only public records. But it seems as
if public records have an important role because the aim is to stimulate and support the
publishing of open data from the public sector, among others (VINNOVA, 2013; 2012).
Therefore, we assume that the data from the public sector referred to consist of records.
The word record is used when there is a legal reference that includes the word record
(VINNOVA, 2012, p. 2). Otherwise, data and data sources are used. The terms are not
explained, but it appears that data are used as a concept for digital information. We also
drew the conclusion that it should be viewed in the context of being useful as open data.
Meanwhile, data sources seem to be a bit more specific, referring, for example, to
information of a certain kind (VINNOVA, 2013). Document is only used when referring
to a specific document (VINNOVA, 2013, p. 5). In Table II below, we illustrate the
characteristics of the use of the different words.

Commonalities and differences

The results from the qualitative part of this study indicate that, given the way
information and data are used, their underlying meaning is “records”. This holds for
 Actor/author Record Information Document Data
Open data
eARD Legal context. Emphasis Customer oriented; Barely used. Parts of digital
on the physical users, accessibility References to records, “ones
preservation and benefit project documents and zeros”
E-delegation Legal context Customer oriented; Barely used. Processable
Re-use of public Text-related form form of
information/PSI, of information information
173
accessibility and
benefit
KSL/SALAR Legal and records Customer oriented; Barely used. Customer
management contexts re-use, Reference to oriented; re-
accessibility, specific use,
benefit, users documents accessibility,
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

and
processable
information
VINNOVA Legal references Barely used Barely used. Processable
Reference to a tabular data. Table II.
specific document Data as “raw Characteristics concepts
material” in used in the documents in
services both discourses

both the archival and open data discourses. We have also seen that there are
commonalities as well as differences in the use of the words. We have seen that the
choice of word and the meaning of it to a high degree depend on the stakeholder behind
the documents. Within the archival discourse, there is only one author/stakeholder, but
we have seen clear tendencies in the way the words are used. Record is used when the
legal context or meaning is important. Meanwhile, information implies a customer
orientation, where the usage, accessibility to information and benefit are emphasized.
The stakeholders in the open data discourse have a somewhat different perspective that
can be observed in the use of words. The e-delegation uses information almost
exclusively. Their guidelines lean toward the implementation of the legal and political
aspects of increasing the reuse of public records, according to the PSI-Directive and
other political goals. As in the eARD documents, they stress the benefits of reuse and the
user perspective. We believe that the use of information is a way to stress the political
will to go further than the more legally bound concept, record and its provisions in the
Freedom of the Press Act. The KSL/SALAR documents are guidelines and frameworks
for the work on open data, which goes further than just reuse. Records could be
accessible for reuse, but still not open if there are viewing charges or other restrictions
involved (E-delegationen, p. 12; SKL, p. 6). The need for easily processable data could be
a reason for the frequent use of data. The concepts are otherwise used quite recklessly,
which could be an indication that they try to respond to the official
political/authoritative community on the one hand and the technicians and IT
businesses on the other hand. VINNOVA goes even further and uses data almost
exclusively. Their focus is on the innovation process, where data are seen as “raw
material”. The need for easily processable tabular data in the development of services
and the connection to the IT business could explain the use of data. The concept
 RMJ document is mainly used when referring to specific documents, yet in the e-delegation
guidelines, it is used for text-based forms of information, as opposed to database-related
24,2 data.
To sum up, it can be said that record is very much legally bound to the definition in
the Freedom of the Press Act, while information stresses a political will to address the
needs of the user. When data is used, the needs of the users are also important, but more
174 in the context of possibilities for innovations and development of services, which is why
the form of the information, i.e. easily processable tabular data, is important. The
different stakeholders have different perspectives and stress on different aspects, which
is why different words are being used.
What, then, can be deduced by the results presented in this study? Based on the
documents we have used and scanned, we can declare that both these discourses focus
on records and nothing other than records, even if they use different words. We have not
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

only observed usage but also found that the underlying meaning of the words used was
primarily similar to or identical to the meaning of records, as derived from the definition
of records from ICA.
In the selected documents, representing the archival discourse that were used in this
research, information was used with a remarkably high frequency, especially
considering that the National Archives of Sweden has produced all of the documents.
This suggests a trend shift that could also be considered as an indication of a change in
the archival discourse, according to Fairclough’s (1992) explanation. The introduction of
a new concept (information) seems to be used to steer the development in another
direction, especially because it seems to have political support regarding the goals of
user orientation in public administration. It would be interesting to further examine
whether this has implications for archival identity because according to Fairclough
(1992), the discourse contributes to the constitution of identity and social relations,
among other things.
In the open data discourse, information and data were the two dominant synonyms
for records. Although it was possible to find a clear declaration in the open data
documents that they meant records when they used information, it is still quite
remarkable to find such a limited use of the word records in the documents
communicating the essence of open data discourse.
A comparison of the two discourses shows that the open data discourse is much more
reckless in the use of data and information. The terms are sometimes used
interchangeably, and we see a similar trend to what Sundgren and Steneskog (2003) call
terminology inflation. However, the uncertainty in the usage of information and data in
the open data discourse suggests some uncertainty as to which term is best. The
problem would have been solved if the term records had been used instead.
The way the two discourses use the words data, information, document and record is
very similar, and we propose that this increased use of other words aims to reach a wider
audience, aiming at IT experts, the general public and private companies. Both the
discourses use language that relates less specifically to archival and records
management, even though it would be extremely relevant. Certainly, in Sweden, there is
a degree of prejudice about the use of archives and records. We suggest that these two
discourses may be trying to make the term record more acceptable by using synonyms
instead.
 In summary, we can see a process of harmonization of word usage, in which the Open data
domain-specific words are used less frequently. This is most obvious in the archival
discourse where domain-specific words are perhaps more common. It is possible to
interpret this as one of many ways to minimize the gap between the archives and the
users. Archives are not renowned for being user-focused, but rather as custodians and
preservers of trustworthy records. Open data on the other hand, has sprung from
innovation, which is by nature user-focused. Although the selection of documents in this 175
research is limited, we can see a very clear trend toward a focus on users in both the
archival and the open data discourses. It is possible to see a trend in the archival
discourse, moving from a very legally regulated discourse toward a more benefit- and
usability-focused discourse, with a similar orientation to that of the open data discourse.
One explanation could be that both the archival and the open data discourses are
intended to be understood as one coherent discourse, i.e. the discourse of modern
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

e-government. It is important to understand that we do not claim the existence of one

single e-government discourse wherein the archival and open data are subsumed.
However, the data we have analyzed and our findings show that the archival discourse
seems to be becoming more oriented to benefits and a focus on users. Increased user
orientation may be motivated by the need to find new arguments to justify the cost of
e-archives.
The practical implications of this research are that the two discourses have the
concept record in common, although they do not use that word in their communication.
This means that the two discourses representing modern archives management and
open data could benefit from a greater degree of cooperation.

Notes
1. A complete list of the documents analyzed from the e-ARD project appears in the Appendix
under the heading e-ARD.
2. A complete list of selected documents appears in the Appendix under the heading Open data.
3. In Swedish, the register is usually called “diarium”, which can be translated as “diary” or
“journal”.
4. Often used as a Swedish equivalent to “record”, although the term “record” has no exact
Swedish translation.
5. In Swedish “management” can be expressed by several words, including these.
6. In the excerpts the chosen concepts have been italicized for ease of identification.

References
Ackoff, R.L. (1996), “On learning and the systems that facilitate it”, Center for Quality of
Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 27-35.
Blakemore, M. and Craglia, M. (2006), “Access to public-sector information in Europe: policy,
rights, and obligations”, The Information Society, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 13-24.
Buckland, M.K. (1991a), Information and Information Systems. Greenwood, New York, NY.
Buckland, M.K. (1991b), “Information as thing”, Journal of The American Society for Information
Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 351-360.
Buckley, O.B., Cooke, L. and Matthews, G. (2013), “The development of UK government policy on
citizens’ access to public sector information”, Information Polity, Vol. 18, pp. 5-19.
 RMJ Burrows, T. (2012), “A machine for browsing: beyond the “single search box”, OCLC Systems &
Services: international digital library perspective”, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 56-58.
24,2 Chun, S.A., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R. and Hovy, E. (2010), “Government 2.0: making connections
between citizens, data and government”, Information Polity Vol. 15, pp. 1-9.
Ding, L., Difranzo, D., Graves, A., Michaelis, J.R., Li, X., McGuinness, D.L. and Hendler, J. (2010),
“Data-govWiki: towards linking government data”, American Association for Artificial
176 Intelligence, AAAI, pp. 38-43.
eARD (e-Archive and e-Diarium Project) (2013a), FGS Paketstruktur. Förvaltningsgemensam
Specifikation (FGS) för paketstruktur för e-arkiv. [FGS Packet Structure. Common
Specifications for Government Agencies for e-Archive Packet Structure], Riksarkivet,
Stockholm.
eARD (e-Archive and e-Diarium Project) (2013b), “Delrapport DP3. Metadata och e-tjänster för
e-arkiv – Förvaltningsgemensamma Specifikationer (eARD – FGS) FGS för paketstruktur
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

för e-arkiv. [Report on sub-project 3. Metadata and e-services for e-archives. Common
Specifications for government agencies (eARD-FGS) FGS packet structure for e-archives]”,
Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
eARD (e-Archive and e-Diarium Project) (2013c), “Delrapport DP3. FGS för paketstruktur för
e-arkiv. Bilaga 3 De förvaltningsgemensamma specifikationernas ABC. [Report on
Sub-Project 3. FGS packet structure for e-archives. Appendix 3 the common specifications’
ABC]”, Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
E-delegationen (2009), Statens offentliga utredningar. Strategi för myndigheternas arbete med
e-förvaltning: betänkande [Public Investigation. Strategy for Government Agencies’ Work in
e-Government: Report], Fritze, Stockholm, pp. 286, 284s.
E-delegationen (2010a), Så enkelt som möjligt för så många som möjligt: från strategi till handling
för e-förvaltning: betänkande. [As simple as possible for as many as possible: from strategy
to action for e-government: report], Fritze, Stockholm.
E-delegationen (2010b), Så enkelt som möjligt för så många som möjligt: under
konstruktion-framtidens e-förvaltning: betänkande. [As simple as possible for as many as
possible: under construction – e-government of the future: report], Fritze, Stockholm.
E-delegationen (2013), “Vidareutnyttjande av offentlig information. En vägledning för
myndigheter. [Re-use of public information. A guide for public agencies]”, E-delegationen,
available at: www.edelegationen.se/
Fairclough, N. (1992), Discourse and Social Change, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Hartland, R., McKemmish, S. and Upward, F. (2005), “Documents”, in McKemmish, S., Piggott, M.,
Reed, B. and Upward, F. (Eds), Archives: Recordkeeping in Society, Charles Sturt University,
Centre for Information Studies, Wagga Wagga, p. 348.
Hartman, J. (1998), Vetenskapligt tänkande: från kunskapsteori till metodteori. [Scientific
Thinking: From Epistemology to Methodology], Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Haslhofer, B. and Isaac, A. (2011), “data.europeana. eu. The Europeana linked open data pilot”,
International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, The Hague.
Hongyan, Y. and Mingdi, C. (2012), “Reuse of public sectors information in US: challenges and
strategies to information resource management”, Canadian Social Science, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 83-90.
International Council on Archives (2000), ISAD(G): General International Standard Archival
Description: Adopted by the Committee on Descriptive Standards, Stockholm, 19-22
September 1999, 2 ed., Subdirección General de Archivos Estatales, Madrid.
 International Standards Organization (2001), ISO 15489-1. Information and Documentation and Open data
Records Management Part 1: General, International Standards Organization, Geneva.
Janssen, K. (2011), “The role of public sector information in the European market for online
content: a never-ending story or a new beginning?”, Info, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 20-29.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed methods research: a research paradigm
whose time has come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14-26.
Kommunförbundet Stockholms Län (KSL) (2013), Vägledande principer för Öppna data. [Guiding 177
Principles for Open Data], Kommunförbundet Stockholms Län, Stockholm.
Langefors, B. (1995), Essays on infology: Summing up and planning for the future. In (Dahlbom, B.
(Ed), Studentlitteratur, Lund, p. 180.
Leech, N. and Onwuegbuzie, A. (2009), “A typology of mixed methods research designs”, Quality
& Quantity, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 265-275.
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

Lezcano, L., Sa=nchez-Alonso, S. and Roa-Valverde, A.J. (2013), “A survey on the exchange of
linguistic resources. Publishing linguistic linked open data on the Web”, Program:
Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 263-281.
McKemmish, S., Piggott, M., Reed, B. and Upward, F. (Eds) (2005), Archives: Recordkeeping in
Society, Charles Sturt University, Centre for Information Studies, Wagga Wagga.
McLeod, J. (2012), “Thoughts on the opportunities for records professionals of the open access,
open data agenda”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 92-97.
OECD (2008), “Recommendation of the council for enhanced access and more effective use of
public sector information”, available at: www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/40826024.pdf
Open Knowledge Foundation (2014), “Open Definition”, Retrieved 18 April 2014, from http://
opendefinition.org
Pattuelli, C. and Rubinow, S. (2012), “The knowledge organization of DBpedia: a case study”,
Journal of Documentation, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 762-772.
Riksarkivet (2011a), “Förstudie om e-arkiv och e-diarium, Rapport. [Pre-study for an e-archive and
e-registration system, Report]”, Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
Riksarkivet (2011b), Förstudie om e-arkiv och e-diarium, Bilagor. [Pre-Study for an e-Archive and
e-Registration System, Appendices], Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
Riksarkivet (2011c), “E-Arkiv och E-Diarium – Förvaltningsgemensamma specifikationer (e-ARD –
FGS), Projektdirektiv. [E-Archive and e-Registration-Common Specifications for Government
Agencies (e-ARD – FGS), Project directive]”, Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
Robinson, D., Yu, H., Zeller, W.P. and Felten, E.W. (2009), “Government data and the invisible
hand”, Yale Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 11 No. 1.
Sheridan, J. and Tennison, J. (2010), “Linking UK government data”, LDOW, 27 April, 2010,
Raleigh, NC.
Sundgren, B. and Steneskog, G. (2003), “Information systems for concerted action” in
Sundgren, B., Mårtensson, P., Mähring, M. and Nilsson, K. (Eds), Exploring Patterns In
Information Management: Concepts and Perspectives for Understanding IT-Related
Change, Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm,
pp. 11-38.
Svensson, P.-G. and Starrin, B. (Eds) (1994), Kvalitativ metod och vetenskapsteori. [Qualitative
Method and Scientific Theory], Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013a), “Vägledande principer för öppna data.
Nationellt ramverk för öppna data. [Guiding principles for open data, National framework
for open data]. SKL”, available at: www.skl.se
 RMJ Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949), 105 C.F.R.
Ubaldi, B. (2013), “Open government data: towards empirical analysis of open government
24,2 data initiatives”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 22, OECD
Publishing, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-en
VINNOVA (2012), “Utlysning Öppna datakällor 2012. En utlysning inom programmet Öppen
innovation. [Call for applications on open data sources 2012. A call within the open
178 innovation program] VINNOVA”, available at: www.vinnova.se
VINNOVA (2013), “Utlysning Öppna datakällor 3. En utlysning inom programmet Öppen
innovation. [Call for applications on open data sources 3. A call within the open innovation
program] VINNOVA”, available at: www.vinnova.se

Further reading
Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates, J. (1994), “Genre Repertoire: The Structuring of Communicative
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

Practices in Organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 541-574.

Appendix: Selected documents used in this article

eARD documents
eARD (Projekt e-arkiv och e-diarium) (2013a). FGS Paketstruktur. Förvaltningsgemensam
Specifikation (FGS) för paketstruktur för e-arkiv. [FGS Packet Structure. Common
Specifications for Government Agencies for e-archives packet structure]. Riksarkivet,
Stockholm.
eARD (Projekt e-arkiv och e-diarium) (2013b). Delrapport DP3. Metadata och e-tjänster för e-arkiv –
Förvaltningsgemensamma Specifikationer (eARD – FGS) FGS för paketstruktur för e-arkiv.
[Report on Sub-Project 3. Metadata and e-services for e-archives. Common Specifications for
Government Agencies (eARD-FGS) FGS packet structure for e-archives]. Riksarkivet,
Stockholm.
eARD (Projekt e-arkiv och e-diarium) (2013c). Delrapport DP3. FGS för paketstruktur för e-arkiv.
Bilaga 3 De förvaltningsgemensamma specifikationernas ABC. [Report on Sub-Project 3.
FGS packet structure for e-archives. Appendix 3 The Common Specifications’ ABC].
Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
eARD (Projekt e-arkiv och e-diarium) (2013d). FGS Personal. Förvaltningsgemensam specifikation
(FGS) för leveranstypen Personal. FGS Personnel. Common Specification for Government
Agencies (FGS) for deliveries of personnel records]. Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
eARD (Projekt e-arkiv och e-diarium) (2013e). Delrapport DP3. Metadata och e-tjänster för e-arkiv –
Förvaltningsgemensamma Specifikationer (eARD – FGS) FGS för leveranstypen Personal.
[Report on Sub-Project 3. Metadata and e-services for e-archives. Common Specifications for
Government Agencies (eARD-FGS). FGS for deliveries of personnel records]. Riksarkivet,
Stockholm.
eARD (Projekt e-arkiv och e-diarium) (2013f). FGS Ärendehantering. Förvaltningsgemensam
specifikation (FGS) för leveranstypen Ärendehantering. [FGS for case management records.
Common Specification for Government Agencies (FGS) for deliveries of case management
records]. Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
eARD (Projekt e-arkiv och e-diarium) (2013g). Delrapport DP3. Metadata och e-tjänster för e-arkiv –
Förvaltningsgemensamma Specifikationer (eARD – FGS). FGS för leveranstypen
Ärendehantering. [Report on Sub-Project 3. Metadata and e-services for e-archives.
Common Specifications for Government Agencies (eARD-FGS). FGS for deliveries of case
management records] Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
 eARD (Projekt e-arkiv och e-diarium) (2013h). E-arkiv och e-diarium (eARD) översiktlig Open data
beskrivning. [e-Archive and e-Diarium Project (eARD) overview. Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
eARD (Projekt e-arkiv och e-diarium) (2012). Slutrapport DP 5. Metadata och e-tjänster för
e-diarium – Förvaltningsgemensamma specifikationer (eARD – FGS). [Final report of
Sub-Project 5. Metadata and e-services for e-archives. Common Specifications for
Government Agencies (e-ARD – FGS)]. Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
Riksarkivet (2011a). Förstudie om e-arkiv och e-diarium, Rapport. [Pre-study for an e-archive and 179
e-registration system, Report]. Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
Riksarkivet (2011b). Förstudie om e-arkiv och e-diarium, Bilagor. [Pre-study for an e-archive and
e-registration system, Appendices]. Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
Riksarkivet (2011c). E-Arkiv och E-Diarium – Förvaltningsgemensamma specifikationer (e-AD –
FGS), Projektdirektiv. [E-archive and e-registration-Common Specifications for Government
Agencies (e-ARD – FGS), Project directive]. Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

All documentation from the projekt eARD is accessible at the national archives web;
www.riksarkivet.se/e-arkiv

Open data documents

E-delegationen (2013). Vidareutnyttjande av offentlig information. En vägledning för
myndigheter. [Re-use of public information. A guide for public agencies]. E-delegationen,
www.edelegationen.se/
Kommunförbundet Stockholms Län (KSL) (2013). Vägledande principer för Öppna data. [Guiding
Principles for Open Data]. Kommunförbundet Stockholms Län, Stockholm.
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013a). Vägledande principer för öppna data.
Nationellt ramverk för öppna data. [Guiding Principles for Open Data. National Framework
for Open Data]. SKL, www.skl.se
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013b). Råd gällande ansvar, roller, avgifter
med mera för arbetet med öppna data. Nationellt ramverk för öppna data. [Advice regarding
responsibilities, roles, contributions, etc. for working with open data. National Framework
for Open Data]. SKL, www.skl.se
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013c). Råd för inventering av
informationsresurser. Nationellt ramverk för öppna data. [Advice on making inventories of
information resources. National Framework for Open Data]. SKL, www.skl.se
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013d). Råd för att bedöma nyttor och
kostnader för publicering av datamängder. Nationellt ramverk för öppna data. [Advice on
assessing the benefits and costs of publication of datasets. National Framework for Open
Data]. SKL, www.skl.se
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013e). Verktyg för att bedöma nyttor och
kostnader för publicering av datamängder. [Tools for assessing the benefits and costs of
publication of datasets]. SKL, www.skl.se
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013f). Råd för beskrivning av datamängder.
Nationellt ramverk för öppna data. [Advice on description of datasets. National Framework
for Open Data]. SKL, www.skl.se
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013g). Råd för kravställande vid upphandling.
Nationellt ramverk för öppna data. [Advice on setting requirements for procurement.
National Framework for Open Data]. SKL, www.skl.se
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013h). Vägledande Råd gällande beständiga
länkar. Nationellt ramverk för öppna data. [Guiding advice regarding persistent links
National Framework for Open Data]. SKL, www.skl.se
 RMJ Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013i). Råd gällande vokabulärer för
kommuners och landstings arbete med länkade öppna data. Nationellt ramverk för öppna
24,2 data. [Advice regarding vocabularies for municipalities’ and county councils’ work with
linked open data. National Framework for Open Data]. SKL, www.skl.se
Sveriges kommuner och landsting (SKL/SALAR) (2013j). Råd för framställande av maskinläsbara
organisationsbeskrivningar. Nationellt ramverk för öppna data. [Advice for the production
of machine-readable descriptions of organizations. National Framework for Open Data].
180 SKL, www.skl.se
VINNOVA (2012), Utlysning Öppna datakällor 2012. En utlysning inom programmet Öppen
innovation. [Call for applications on Open Data Sources 2012. A call within the Open
Innovation program] VINNOVA, www.vinnova.se
VINNOVA (2013), Utlysning Öppna datakällor 3. En utlysning inom programmet Öppen
innovation. [Call for applications on Open Data Sources 3. A call within the Open Innovation
program]. VINNOVA, www.vinnova.se
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)

About the authors

Erik Borglund has a PhD degree in Computer and System science. He Associate Professor and
Senior Lecturer and Researcher at the Archival and Information Management School of Mid
Sweden University, and his main research interests are digital recordkeeping, document
management, information systems in crisis management, information systems design and
computer supported cooperative work. Erik Borglund has been sworn police officer for 20 years,
before he became 100 per cent academic. Erik Borglund is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: erik.borglund@miun.se
Tove Engvall is a master’s student in Archives and Information Management at Mid Sweden
University and is enrolled in the Master by Research programme. Tove is a former archivist who
has worked in public authorities, but also as a hired expert in the National Archives project.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Yoonsun Jin, Ohbyung Kwon. 2016. Developing Data Openness Evaluation Index for Intelligent IT
Service. Journal of the Korea society of IT services 15:3, 97-114. [CrossRef]
2. Mohammad Alamgir Hossain, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Nripendra P. Rana. 2016. State-of-the-art in open data
research: Insights from existing literature and a research agenda. Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce 26:1-2, 14-40. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by MITTUNIVERSITETET At 05:52 07 March 2017 (PT)