Paper 1

Criteria

Excellent

Outstanding

Acceptable

Needs Improvement

Needs Significant Improvement

Missing or Unacceptable

Introduction or Overview for OPEN Data

20 points

Provided an excellent overview of OPEN Data which provided definitions and addressed the laws, regulations, and policies which require federal agencies to identify and publish datasets and information collections. Discussed the role of the executive branch’s Open Data / Open Government policies in making data available via Data.Gov. The overview appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding overview of OPEN Data which provided definitions and addressed the legal and policy requirements for Open Data participation by federal agencies. Discussed the role of the executive branch’s Open Data / Open Government policies in making data sets and information collections available via Data.Gov. The overview appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided an overview of OPEN Data. Discussed the role of the executive branch’s Open Data / Open Government policies in making data available via Data.Gov. The overview appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an overview but the section lacked important details about Open Data initiatives and policies. Information from authoritative sources was cited and used in the overview.

10 points

Attempted to provide an introduction to the paper but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources. 

0 points

The introduction and/or overview sections of the paper were off topic. 

Benefits & Value of Open Data for Businesses and the General Public

20 points

Provided an excellent discussion of the value (benefits) of Open Data. Provided five or more specific examples of how government provided Open Data is being used by businesses or the general public. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding discussion of the value (benefits) of Open Data. Provided three or more specific examples of how government provided Open Data is being used by businesses or the general public. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided a discussion of the value (benefits) of Open Data. Provided at least one example of how government provided Open Data is being used by businesses or the general public. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided a discussion of the value (benefits) of Open Data. Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

10 points

Provided a discussion of Open Data in the context of the federal government. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

This section was missing, off topic, or failed to provide information about Open Data initiatives of the federal government.

Security Issues for Open Data

15 points

Provided an excellent discussion which addressed security issues (e.g. confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation ) which could impact the usefulness of Open Data. Provided 5 or more specific examples of how these issues are currently addressed by federal policies and plans for Open Data. Mentioned the role that NIST plays in providing guidance for security for Open Data portals and information. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an outstanding discussion which addressed security issues (e.g. confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation ) which could impact the usefulness of Open Data. Provided 3 or more specific examples of how these issues are currently addressed by federal policies and plans for Open Data. Mentioned the role that NIST plays in providing guidance for security for Open Data portals and information. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

13 points

Provided a discussion of security issues (confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation ) which could impact the usefulness of Open Data. Provided at least one example of how these issues are currently addressed by federal policies and plans. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

11 points

Discussion provided some information about security issues (confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation ) which could impact the usefulness of Open Data. Mentioned information obtained from authoritative sources.

4 points

Discussion provided some information about security issues (confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation ) which could impact the usefulness of Open Data, but the lacked detail and/or was not supported by information from authoritative sources.

0 points

Did not address security issues (confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation ) which could impact the usefulness of Open Data.

Best Practice Recommendations for Open Data Security

15 points

Provided an excellent discussion of best practice recommendations for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation of Open Data. Included 5 or more specific recommendations. Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an outstanding discussion of best practice recommendations for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation of Open Data. Included 4 or more specific recommendations. Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

13 points

Provided a discussion of best practice recommendations for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and non-repudiation of Open Data. Included 3 or more specific recommendations. Appropriately used information from 1 or more authoritative sources.

11 points

Discussion provided some information about best practices for ensuring security for Open Data. Mentioned information obtained from authoritative sources.

4 points

Discussion provided some information about best practices for ensuring security for Open Data, but the lacked detail and/or was not supported by information from authoritative sources.

0 points

Did not address best practices for security for Open Data.

Addressed security issues using standard cybersecurity terminology

5 points

Demonstrated excellence in the integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

4 points

Provided an outstanding integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

3 points

Integrated standard cybersecurity terminology into the into the case study

2 points

Used standard cybersecurity terminology but this usage was not well integrated with the discussion.

1 point

Misused standard cybersecurity terminology.

0 points

Did not integrate standard cybersecurity terminology into the discussion.

APA Formatting for Citations and Reference List

5 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Reference list entries and in-text citations are correctly formatted using the appropriate APA style for each type of resource.

4 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. One or two minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

3 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. No more than 3 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

2 points

Work has no more than three paragraphs with omissions of citations crediting sources for facts and information. Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited resources. Work contains no more than 5 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

1 point

Work attempts to credit sources but demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand and apply the APA formatting standard as defined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).

0 points

Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper.

Professionalism Part I: Organization & Appearance

5 points

Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.

4 points

Submitted work has minor style or formatting flaws but still presents a professional appearance. Submitted work is well organized and appropriately uses color, fonts, and section headings (per the assignment’s directions).

3 points

Organization and/or appearance of submitted work could be improved through better use of fonts, color, titles, headings, etc. OR Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Professional appearance could be improved.

2 points

Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Organization and professional appearance need substantial improvement.

1 point

Submitted work meets minimum requirements but has major style and formatting errors. Work is disorganized and needs to be rewritten for readability and professional appearance.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly organized and formatted. Writing and presentation are lacking in professional style and appearance. Work does not reflect college level writing skills.

Professionalism Part II: Execution

15 points

No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.

14 points

Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.

13 points

Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which detract from professional appearance of the submitted work.

11 points

Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Work is unprofessional in appearance.

4 points

Submitted work is difficult to read / understand and has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly executed OR does not reflect college level work.

Overall Score

Excellent

90 or more

Outstanding

80 or more

Acceptable

70 or more

Needs Improvement

56 or more

Needs Significant Improvement

36 or more

Missing or Unacceptable

0 or more