This page serves to collect quality criteria for metadata records (and - by extension - profiles).

There has been a number of such lists proposed, we aim to gather them here in one place.

Related work

• CmdiBestPracticeGuide#Qualitycheck-list (criteria from there moved to this list)
• MDQAS older draft for specifying a MD quality assessment service (criteria from there moved to this list)
• Curation Module will operationalize the defined quality criteria and allow to check metadata records if they adhere to these criteria
• ​LREC2014 paper by Thorsten Trippel et al. Towards automatic quality assessment of component metadata
• Technical report by Marc Kemps-Snijders (2014): Metadata Quality Assurance

Criteria

(Aspects with questionmark are subject to discussion)

Schema level

• presence of "required" data categories
• ratio of elements with data categories
• size? (number of elements, components)
• ?

Instance level

• availability of the (reference to) schema (i.e. both there is a reference to schema and the schema can be retrieved)
• validity of the record wrt to the schema
• are the header fields complete?
  • is there a uniqe MdSelfLink??
  • is there an MdCollectionDisplayName??
• does it contain ResourceProxy? elements?
  • is there a link to a LandingPage? when available?
  • is there an indication of the mime type?
• URL-inspection are the links resolvable / dead-links? (both links/handles in ResourceProxy? and in the components/elements)
• filled-in ratio / sparseness ?
  • how many of the elements defined by schema are actually populated with information
  • what about files that hardly contain any information?
• values conform to a controlled vocabulary (where applicable)
• size? - e.g. overall size (measured in characters)
  • is the file too big to be useful?
    -> suggest higher granularity)
• what is the information entropy? (lots of very similar files might be an indication of a suboptimal modelling)