Metadata evaluation criteria in respect to archival maps description

Abstract

Purposes This paper aims to present an objective summary of the current state of research concerning the evaluation criteria of map metadata. The undertaken research identifies which authors and to what extent the discussed issues related to the metadata of objects collected in digital libraries, with particular emphasis on cartographic materials. Design/methodology/approach Independent reviewers analysed the basic articles data. Selected papers were subject to quality assessment, based on the full text and 12 questions. Finally, iterative backward reference search was conducted. Findings The results demonstrate that there are no universal criteria for metadata evaluation. There are no works that would assess the metadata of cartographic studies, although numerous publications point to the need for this type of work. Practical implications Metadata evaluation allows users to obtain knowledge whether objects found in the library are relevant for their needs. Originality/value The criteria and methods most often used for assessing metadata quality which can be adopted to map metadata evaluation have been identified. The authors identified the existing research gaps and proved that there is a need for research contributions in the field of evaluating map metadata.

Evaluation of Metadata Describing Topographic Maps in a National Library

“…What scope of metadata can provide a proper description of topographic maps? It turns out that there is no pro le that uniquely and fully de nes the metadata for topographic maps [11]. The proposed pro le distinguishes 13 metadata elements that are relevant to the evaluation of topographic maps metadata.…”

“…In the presented research project, the rst part of the procedure was based on the original methodology, which has been speci ed here in details and expanded on the basis of current trends in assessing the correctness of metadata resulting from the analysis of subject literature [11]. Moreover, present research focused on the evaluation of topographic maps from one digital library, unlike previous studies that compared data from several libraries.…”

“…The results are presented in Table 7. It turns out that the E ck for individual elements is close to 100% for metadata, which is typical for all objects in digital libraries (metadata elements 1-6) and for the characteristic for maps (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13), and the worst described items are sources that were the basis for preparing maps. The overall completeness of the metadata pro le E c is 10.43, while the maximum can be 13.…”

“…The evaluation of map metadata is an important issue in particular for large collections. Consistent application of coherent map description principles serves the purpose of their exchange and integration [11].…”

“…In metadata evaluation, different criteria can be taken into account. The most important of them are: completeness, accessibility, accuracy, and conformance [11][12][13][14]. Completeness means the degree to which an object has been presented using all available metadata [15].…”