| Abstract: | Open Government Data (OGD) taxonomies are critical classification artifacts that structure knowledge to facilitate the understanding, analysis, and comparison of complex data and their impacts, yet their evaluation often lacks a consistent methodological foundation. This paper addresses this gap in two ways. First, it introduces a comprehensive framework for evaluating OGD taxonomies, synthesized from foundational and state-of-the-art literature in Design Science Research (DSR) and Information Systems (IS). This framework provides a structured lens to assess design process rigor, intrinsic artifact quality, and utility. Second, the paper applies this framework in a detailed, systematic evaluation of three prominent and diverse OGD taxonomies. The results of this analysis reveal a clear trend towards more rigorous development methods over time. However, they also expose a common, critical limitation rooted in the classical definition of a taxonomy: their reliance on crisp, mutually exclusive categories struggles to represent the nuanced, overlapping, and ambiguous nature of real-world OGD phenomena. This "problem of crispness" hinders their practical utility and explanatory power. As a solution, we argue for a fundamental shift in perspective. Specifically, we propose adopting fuzzy logic principles, including linguistic variables and fuzzy modifiers, to introduce flexibility and cognitive plausibility into taxonomy design. Finally, we provide a detailed blueprint outlining how such fuzzy-enhanced taxonomies can be methodically designed, implemented, and applied, thereby advancing both theoretical foundations and practical applications in the OGD field.
To our knowledge, this is among the first systematic evaluations of OGD taxonomies employing a rigorously derived evaluation framework. |