## 1 Introduction  
Open data initiatives are characterized, in several countries, by a great extension of the number of data sets made available for access by public administrations, constituencies, businesses and other actors, such as, journalists, international institutions and academics, to mention a few. However, most of the open data sets rely on selection criteria, based on a technology-driven perspective, rather than on a focus on the potential public or social value of the data to be published. Several experiences and reports confirm this issue, such as, those of the Open Data Census. However, there are also relevant best practices. The benefits of open data may range from the political and social ones, such as increased transparency, accountability, participation and self-empowerment of citizens, to economic growth and stimulation of competitiveness and innovation, among others [1]. However, several socio-technical barriers, when not \"myths\", as claimed by [PERSON] _et al._[1], prevent an appropriate selection of the data sets and a consequent effective exploitation of their benefits. Among the diverse \"myths\" that are worth mentioning are the ones concerning data disclosure and the simplistic, when not ideological, vision that even publishing public data can lead to an intensive use by constituencies and the realization of open government [1]. The aim of the research presented in this paper is to provide a classificatory framework, suitable for further support of the assessment of the social value of open government data initiatives. It is worth noting that, from a public value perspective prevailing in public administration, policy, as well as e-government studies, social value concerns the outcomes of public initiatives. However, we argue that it can be seen as an independent issue with regard to the planned goals of a public action. Apart from the diverse potential interpretation of what is \"value\" [2, 3, 4], considering the meaning of the term \"social\", it relates \"to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society\" [5]; whereas the term \"public\" is defined as \"of, relating to, or affecting all or most of the people of a country, state, _etc._; supported by money from the government and from private contributors, rather than by commercials; related to the impact on, motivating or calling for further government actions having a public value\" ([6]; see also the extensive discussion on the meaning of \"public\" in [4]). Thus, while some public values are socially oriented [3], not all socially-oriented values may have an actual value for the public, as implemented in the government initiatives. To summarize, our perspective in this paper considers public values as having a push perspective from public administration to society. Thus, this implies an active action, and interests, by the central or local government, as well as a focus on their behavior; whereas we consider social values as emergent from the welfare state, thus having a potential, but not necessarily actualized, pull perspective towards public administration action and policies; and as a consequence, agreeing with the authors who point out that public values are not \"an exclusive province of the government\" [2]. Consequently, when the latter refers to social outcomes, we prefer to refer to it as a social value instead of adopting the sole public value term according to the distinction outlined above. Taking these issues into account, it is our point that a classificatory framework, based on public or social value dimensions, is actually, neither provided in a systematic way, nor emphasized by open government data portals, which still mainly rely either on traditional e-government classification frameworks, such as the events of life or similar events, or by the target of administrative procedures and activities.