Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008640608 = product of:
  0.017281216 = sum of:
    0.017281216 = product of:
      0.03456243 = sum of:
        0.03456243 = weight(_text_:data in 2982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456243 = score(doc=2982,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2982, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2982)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study presents the current state of research and practice on metadata quality through focus on the functional perspective on metadata quality, measurement and evaluation criteria coupled with mechanisms for improving metadata quality. Quality metadata reflect the degree to which the metadata in question perform the core bibliographic functions of discovery, use, provenance, currency, authentication and administration. The functional perspective is closely tied to the criteria and measurements used for assessing metadata quality. Accuracy, completeness and consistency are the most common criteria used in measuring metadata quality in literature. Guidelines embedded within a web form or template perform a valuable function in improving the quality of the metadata. Results of the study indicate a pressing need for the building of a common data model that is interoperable across digital repositories.

0.008640608 = product of:
  0.017281216 = sum of:
    0.017281216 = product of:
      0.03456243 = sum of:
        0.03456243 = weight(_text_:data in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456243 = score(doc=3543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3543, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using the data collected from a nationwide study drawn from the community of cataloging and metadata professionals, this study aims to assess the current state of locally added metadata elements used across digital repositories. Addition of locally created metadata elements is a fairly common practice adopted by over one-third of the survey participants. Homegrown elements for descriptive metadata comprising local notes and description, local personal and place names, and local subjects are added most frequently, followed by administrative, technical, and preservation metadata. The major reason for extending metadata is to accommodate the perceived needs of local collections and their users. Yet, there are currently few open mechanisms for finding and sharing documented information about such localized metadata practices.