3 thoughts on “Metadata quality”

  1. The conclusion is important:
    “A wide range of programmatic solutions could be undertaken to improve user interactions with the aggregated metadata, for instance, applying more sophisticated indexing tools; building more robust search features; and ranking of results based on frequency of keyword appearance in a resource or its metadata. The implementation, through automated means, of controlled vocabularies for certain fields, such as place names and personal names, would improve both recall and relevance of results. However, enforcing a controlled vocabulary for subject terms among such a diverse range of data providers is not likely to be feasible.”

  2. I hope they can come up with better ranking than ‘frequency of keyword appearance’. Some sort of ranking for the importance of the material itself is needed.

  3. Agreed. Generally what I inferred was that human mediation was not practical, and so automated means are suggested.

Comments are closed.