Is 'Quality' Metadata 'Shareable' Metadata? The Implications of Local Metadata Practice on Federated Collections

Introduction The federation of digital resources has become increasingly important in realizing the full potential of digital libraries. Federation is often achieved through the aggregation of descriptive metadata, therefore the decisions resource developers make for the creation, maintenance, and quality assurance of their metadata can have significant impacts on aggregators and service providers. Metadata may be of high quality within a local database or web site, but when it is taken out of this context, information may be lost or its integrity may be compromised. Maintaining consistency and fitness for purpose are also complicated when metadata are combined in a federated environment. A fuller understanding of the criteria for high quality, “shareable” metadata is crucial to the next step in the development of federated digital libraries. This study of metadata quality was conducted by the IMLS Digital Collections and Content (DCC) project team (http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/) using quantitative and qualitative analysis of metadata authoring practices of several projects funded through the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) National Leadership Grant (NLG) program. We present a number of statistical characterizations of metadata samples drawn from a large corpus harvested through the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (PMH) and interpret these findings in relation to general quality dimensions and metadata practices that occur at the local level. We discuss the impact of these kinds of quality on aggregation and suggest quality control and normalization processes that may improve search and discovery services at the aggregated level.

[1]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Data quality in context , 1997, CACM.

[2]  Timothy W. Cole,et al.  Harvesting cultural heritage metadata using the OAI protocol , 2003 .

[3]  Ilya B. Gertsbakh,et al.  Models of Preventive Maintenance , 1977 .

[4]  Elaine Svenonius.  The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization , 2000 .

[5]  Jewel Ward.  A quantitative analysis of unqualified Dublin Core Metadata Element Set usage within data providers registered with the Open Archives Initiative , 2003, 2003 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 2003. Proceedings..

[6]  Jane Greenberg.  A quantitative categorical analysis of metadata elements in image-applicable metadata schemas , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Richard Y. Wang,et al.  Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations , 1996, CACM.

[8]  E. L. Harder,et al.  The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. , 2019, 2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C).

[9]  Jane Greenberg,et al.  A quantitative categorical analysis of metadata elements in image-applicable metadata schemas , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[10]  Kat Hagedorn.  OAIster: a “no dead ends” OAI service provider , 2003 .

[11]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Metadata practices and implications for federated collections , 2005, ASIST.

[12]  Richard Y. Wang,et al.  Data quality assessment , 2002, CACM.

[13]  Diane Hillmann,et al.  Analyzing Metadata for Effective Use and Re-Use , 2003, Dublin Core Conference.

[14]  Sarah Currier,et al.  Building Quality Assurance into Metadata Creation: An Analysis based on the Learning Objects and e-Prints Communities of Practice , 2003, Dublin Core Conference.

[15]  Diane I. Hillmann,et al.  The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining, Expressing, Exploiting , 2004 .

[16]  Herbert Van de Sompel,et al.  The open archives initiative: building a low-barrier interoperability framework , 2001, JCDL '01.

[17]  Les Gasser,et al.  Metadata Quality For Federated Collections , 2004, ICIQ.