 |
 |
i felt i was missing something, since i could not find some general, "most used approach", and perhaps some code on github that implements these quality measures... 2015-05-06 15:08 GMT+03:00 James Morley <[log in to unmask]>: > I think a key thing is to determine to what extent any definition of > 'completeness' is actually a representation of 'quality'. As Peter says, > making sure not just that metadata is present but then checking it conforms > with rules is a big step towards this. I would also extend this to > assessing at what level of accuracy things have been set, for example dates > (a rough range vs a precise day) and geotags (coordinates presenting the > centre of Paris vs the exact position that a photograph was taken from). > These sorts of things can make a big difference to both the discoverability > and practical reusability of records by end users. > > Best, James > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Esmé > Cowles [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 06 May 2015 13:51 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] How to measure quality of a record > > Sergio- > > Mark Phillips has a related blog post that I think is an excellent place > to start, which outlines a system for scoring how complete a record is: > > http://vphill.com/journal/post/4075 > > There was some discussion on twitter recently about this, which you can > look up on the #metadataquality hashtag: > https://twitter.com/hashtag/metadataquality > > I think there was a move to setup a mailing list for this topic or > something like that, but I'm not sure where that stands now. > > -Esme > > > On 05/06/15, at 7:21 AM, Sergio Letuche <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > Hello community, > > > > is there a way, any statistical approach, that you are aware of that > let's > > say, allows one to have an idea of how "complete" a record is, or what > are > > the actions you take in order to have an idea of the quality of a record, > > and eventually a database? > > > > Thank you in advance >