This activity was performed to make sure the project covers the most used and diverse authoring tools in public sector in EU. There are cultural and historical differences between member states, regions and types of agencies around what kind of authoring tools is being mostly used.
Some prefer licensed products, other open source, in some regions large ICT suppliers provide their own authoring tools, whereas in other regions there is a clear divide between the producer of a authoring tool and the partners or suppliers of website development. Moreover, in some markets there are basic templates for government websites, in others every government website is made from scratch.
The methodology and result of the market analysis is presented here.
|Id_country||ISO 3166 code for the country|
|URI||URL after redirection (in case server returns a 30x http code)|
|DOMAIN||Domain extracted to avoid duplicates in public body list|
|APIWAP||Wappalyzer result. This is a JSON document containing all the technologies detected, also the name and version of the CMS and the level of confidence, if detected|
|CMS1||CMS name recognised by the Wappalyzer tool|
|CMS2||CMS name recognised by the BuidWith tool|
The most probable CMS according to CMS1 and CMS2. The algorithm is as follows:
|CMS_NORMALISED||Names of the detected CMS normalised. This normaliztion is needed for a subsequent aggregation by name. It implies matching all the variations of nomenclature, mapping them in a common capitalized term (i.e., ”Joomla” and ”Joomla!” Are normalized as ”JOOMLA”)|