Metadata Quality Assessment
Metadata quality assessment is the systematic measurement of how good a collection's descriptive metadata is for its intended purposes. Thomas Bruce and Diane Hillmann's influential framework defined quality along a continuum of dimensions — completeness, accuracy, conformance to expectations, logical consistency and coherence, timeliness, accessibility, and provenance — and argued that quality must be defined relative to use, then expressed and exploited. Jung-ran Park and Yuji Tosaka surveyed how digital repositories operationalize the three most widely accepted criteria — accuracy, completeness, and consistency — into concrete control mechanisms. Assessment turns these dimensions into measurable indicators, scores records and collections against them, and produces diagnostics that pinpoint where metadata falls short, so that interoperability, discovery, and trust can be improved.
Dossier source
Citations copiées telles quelles du dossier source de la méthode. Aucune vérification au niveau de la revendication n'en est déduite.
- Bruce, T. R., & Hillmann, D. I. (2004). The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining, Expressing, Exploiting. In D. I. Hillmann & E. L. Westbrooks (Eds.), Metadata in Practice (pp. 238-256). Chicago: ALA. · URL
- Park, J., & Tosaka, Y. (2010). Metadata Quality Control in Digital Repositories and Collections: Criteria, Semantics, and Mechanisms. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48(8), 696-715. · DOI 10.1080/01639374.2010.508711
Revendications organisées
Revendications enregistrées dans le registre de preuves, chacune avec sa propre évaluation.
Cette vue n'invente pas d'évaluation de revendication lorsque le registre n'en contient aucune.
Méthodes apparentées
Généré à partir du graphe de méthodes et présenté comme des relations suggérées par la machine — aucune revendication de preuve n'est déduite.