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
>
|
