Skip to main content

Exploring Metadata Providers Reliability and Update Behavior

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (TPDL 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 9819))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Metadata harvesting is used very often, to incorporate the resources of small providers to big collections. But how solid is this procedure? Are the metadata providers reliable? How often are the published metadata updated? Are the updates mostly for maintenance (corrections) or for improving the metadata? Such questions can be used to better predict the quality of the harvesting. The huge amount of harvested information and the many sources and metadata specialists involved makes prompt for answers by examining the actual metadata, rather than asking about opinions and practices. We examine such questions by processing appropriately collected information directly from the metadata providers. We harvested records from 2138 sources in 17 rounds over a 3-year period, and study them to explore the behaviour of the providers. We found that some providers are often not available. The number of metadata providers failing to respond is constantly increasing by the time. Additionally, the record length is slightly decreasing, indicating that the records are updated mostly for maintenance/corrections.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.opendoar.org.

  2. 2.

    http://www.oclc.org/oaister.en.html.

  3. 3.

    https://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites.

  4. 4.

    https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyoai.

References

  1. Bui, Y., Park, J.: An assessment of metadata quality: a case study of the national science digital library metadata repository. In: Moukdad, H. (ed.) CAIS/ACSI 2006 Information Science Revisited: Approaches to Innovation. Proceedings of 2005 Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science Held with the Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities of Canada at York University, Toronto, Ontario (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fuhr, N., Tsakonas, G., Aalberg, T., Agosti, M., Hansen, P., Kapidakis, S., Klas, P., Kovács, L., Landoni, M., Micsik, A., Papatheodorou, C., Peters, C., Sølvberg, I.: Evaluation of digital libraries. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 8(1), 21–38 (2007). Springer

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hughes, B.: Metadata quality evaluation: experience from the open language archives community. In: Chen, Z., Chen, H., Miao, Q., Fu, Y., Fox, E., Lim, E.-p. (eds.) ICADL 2004. LNCS, vol. 3334, pp. 320–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/b104284

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Kapidakis, S.: Comparing metadata quality in the Europeana context. In: Proceedings of 5th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA 2012), Heraklion, Greece, 6–8 June 2012. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 661 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kapidakis, S.: Rating quality in metadata harvesting. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA 2015), Corfu, Greece, 1–3 July 2015. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (2015). ISBN 978-1-4503-3452-5

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lagoze, C., Krafft, D., Cornwell, T., Dushay, N., Eckstrom, D., Saylor, J.: Metadata aggregation and “automated digital libraries”: a retrospective on the NSDL experience. In: Proceedings of 6th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2006), pp. 230–239 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Moreira, B.L., Goncalves, M.A., Laender, A.H.F., Fox, E.A.: Automatic evaluation of digital libraries with 5SQual. J. Inform. 3(2), 102–123 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ochoa, X., Duval, E.: Automatic evaluation of metadata quality in digital repositories. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 10(2/3), 67–91 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ward., J.: A quantitative analysis of unqualified dublin core metadata element set usage within data providers registered with the open archives initiative. In: Proceedings of 3rd ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2003), pp. 315–317 (2003). ISBN 0-7695-1939-3

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang, Y.: Developing a holistic model for digital library evaluation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(1), 88–110 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarantos Kapidakis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kapidakis, S. (2016). Exploring Metadata Providers Reliability and Update Behavior. In: Fuhr, N., Kovács, L., Risse, T., Nejdl, W. (eds) Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. TPDL 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9819. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43997-6_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43997-6_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43996-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43997-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics