Entry for Company Register - Colombia

In order to know if I am doing the report "Register of the company"correctly, i would like to know what kind of information must be included in the field of company address

I considered the characteristic “company address” to be present when enough details to locate an entity without further research were provided, so “number, street, postcode, city” should be included. When only an entity’s city or region were given, I’d mark the entry as not fulfilling all required characteristics.

Thank you @Evangelia . The dataset available at www.datos.gov.co already has the field
“address Company”

  1. https://www.datos.gov.co/Econom-a-y-Finanzas/Estados-de-Resultados-2015/4nua-mduk
  2. http://www.supersociedades.gov.co/asuntos-economicos-y-contables/estudios-y-supervision-por-riesgos/SIREM/Paginas/default.aspx “Estados financieros corte 31 diciembre 2015”

That is so interesting. It appears that between the date of the review and now, they have updated their files to include the Company Address. I just downloaded the .xls files again and indeed they now include “DIRECCION DE DOMICILIO” under column C. I had downloaded the dataset from both sources while reviewing the entry, but the only remotely relevant column I could find on the .xls files was “CIUDAD, i.e. City” under column C (I still have the .xls file from February saved on my computer - I am uploading a screenshot of it for you to see


that`s weird! :frowning:
@Evangelia tanks for your quick and clear response. I think what you can do is that file is in the cache of your browser and has not been updated. I suggest deleting it and entering again the links that relate to you is https://www.datos.gov.co/Econom-a-y-Finanzas/Estados-de-Resultados-2015/4nua-mduk

see my screenshot

Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear - please allow me to rephrase it: downloading the files today in their updated version, I could see they have added the Company Address column. I simply uploaded the screenshot of the older version saved on my computer because I wanted to show you what information was available at the time of the review (February) which did not include the Company Address, just the City. Hope that clears it up :slight_smile:

Thank you very much :slight_smile:

Hi! @Evangelia can you help me to let me know if we already accomplished all the requirement. Thanks!:slight_smile:

Dear @caritali, @Juan_Felipe_Devia_Ro,

thank you very much for your feedback. As part of the public dialogue we will follow up on your input, and will get back to you in the coming days.

All the best

1 Like

Hi @caritali, @Juan_Felipe_Devia_Ro,

I finally got time to review this. @Evangelia is right that it is not possible for us to accept further information for review. We appreciate and acknowledge the advancements that Colombia has made in this data category and see this as an important step towards more openness in this important data category.

Yet, we only accept corrections on our reviews if we can clearly identify that the data was already published during our review (final review date: March 15). The public consultation phase is intended to debate our methodology, learn from our results, get into dialogue about blockages, but also to spot possible mistakes our reviewers have made, or things they have missed (see this topic).

We cannot accept this data to adjust our score, but are happy to acknowledge in the results that this data has been added afterwards. I apologise if this nuance was not clearly communicated on our end.

All the best

Hi @dannylammerhirt and @Evangelia thanks for your reply.
We want to make it clear that the dataset updated was published on March 13th, as you can see in this screenshot.

I’m afraid this does not help because I cannot see which dataset this submission refers to. I will try and see if I can find the data in our history

@dannylammerhirt did you find the information in your data?

Dear @Juan_Felipe_Devia_Ro,

So I found the data in this submission again.

I retraced the update history of the data. It was uploaded on March 1 at the following URL: http://www.supersociedades.gov.co/asuntos-economicos-y-contables/estudios-y-supervision-por-riesgos/SIREM/Documents

The datafile is named “BalanceGeneral2015SIREMV2.xls” Theoretically this dataset is available online, was updated before our review ended and can be accepted.

BUT: I have all reason to believe that the data is currently impossible to find and access. I hope this information helps you to improve the findability.

Reason 1:

The data is named in a way that makes the search for it impossible. Neither “BalanceGeneral” nor “SIREMV2” can realistically be interpreted as a “company register”. Also the SIREM interface does not contain any tags, text or link names which would make clear that user can find company-related data here. Also the top-level page does not make it clear that users can find company register information (see image)



Thus, the data cannot be found via Google. User need to know the exact file name which is (given the cryptical naming) not realistic.

Reason 2:

Users also cannot click through from the top-level page (SIREM start page) to the documents page interface. I cannot find a link from the SIREM page to the documents page. See here:

You can see that the SIREM page directly links to files hosted on the documents page. But I cannot access the page itself, and neither can I access the relevant “BalanceGeneral2015SIREMV2.xls” file.

This however should be possible, as your URL “http://www.supersociedades.gov.co/asuntos-economicos-y-contables/estudios-y-supervision-por-riesgos/SIREM/Documents” suggests.

This gives me all reason to believe that the data are practically not findable and accessible.

Hi! @dannylammerhirt thank you very much for your feedback, this will be of great help to us. However, the dataset that we are reporting is posted at our Colombian state portal, specifically to make easier for users to access. In the following URLs you can find detail of our datasets reported:


Therefore, we expect these URLs to be taken into account for this review.

Hi @Juan_Felipe_Devia_Ro,

Government data is so complex - so many different URLs that we could use as a reference point.

I hope that you see my comments as a constructive remark from a user perspective. Regarding your links, it is likely that these have been added after our review timeframe (otherwise they would have been indicated earlier?). I can accept the submission since the data was available online anyway on SIREM (I don’t base this on these URLs that have been submitted later) We do not score findability, so this is fine. Yet, I wanted to flag the findability issue, because it is a major impediment to open data. I’ll amend the score accordingly.

Hi @dannylammerhirt we agree with you, we are working continuously to improve usage and impact for Open Data to empower citizens, this includes without a doubt findability. We will take into account all these recommendations to achieve a national standard.

Hi @dannylammerhirt,

Can you tell us your feedback, and If are you going to review this dataset again?