Metadata for Big Data: A preliminary investigation of metadata quality issues in research data repositories

Rousidis, Dimitris; Garoufallou, Emmanouel; Balatsoukas, Panos; Sicilia, Miguel–Ángel

doi:10.3233/isu-140746

Cited by 23 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There has been considerable discussion about including enriched metadata to make data more discoverable in the context of a data publication to provide detailed metadata and description of individual datasets [ 35 , 36 ]. Some research has begun to examine the quality of metadata used in scientific data repositories [ 37 ], but more research is needed to determine what metadata would enable efficient discovery of various types of data. Analysis of current use patterns of existing repositories that accommodate disparate datasets may shed light on what types of data and descriptive metadata are most useful.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sizing the Problem of Improving Discovery and Access to NIH-Funded Data: A Preliminary Study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study informs efforts to improve the discoverability of and access to biomedical datasets by providing a preliminary estimate of the number and type of datasets generated annually by research funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). It focuses on those datasets that are “invisible” or not deposited in a known repository.MethodsWe analyzed NIH-funded journal articles that were published in 2011, cited in PubMed and deposited in PubMed Central (PMC) to identify those that indicate data were submitted to a known repository. After excluding those articles, we analyzed a random sample of the remaining articles to estimate how many and what types of invisible datasets were used in each article.ResultsAbout 12% of the articles explicitly mention deposition of datasets in recognized repositories, leaving 88% that are invisible datasets. Among articles with invisible datasets, we found an average of 2.9 to 3.4 datasets, suggesting there were approximately 200,000 to 235,000 invisible datasets generated from NIH-funded research published in 2011. Approximately 87% of the invisible datasets consist of data newly collected for the research reported; 13% reflect reuse of existing data. More than 50% of the datasets were derived from live human or non-human animal subjects.ConclusionIn addition to providing a rough estimate of the total number of datasets produced per year by NIH-funded researchers, this study identifies additional issues that must be addressed to improve the discoverability of and access to biomedical research data: the definition of a “dataset,” determination of which (if any) data are valuable for archiving and preservation, and better methods for estimating the number of datasets of interest. Lack of consensus amongst annotators about the number of datasets in a given article reinforces the need for a principled way of thinking about how to identify and characterize biomedical datasets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sizing the Problem of Improving Discovery and Access to NIH-Funded Data: A Preliminary Study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To address these problems, the authors recommend unique creator IDs, standardized formatting, and predetermined lists during metadata entry. 12 Another study evaluates the quality of metadata in HealthData.gov, an open government data repository in the United States. HealthData.gov's metadata requirements include the unique ID, title, description, and URL of each dataset, as well as the author-namely, the federal agency that submitted the data.…”

Section: ) Metadata Quality In Data Repositoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposing Standardization and Consistency Issues in Repository Metadata Requirements for Data Deposition

Kim

Yakel

Faniel

2019

C&RL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine common and unique metadata requirements and their levels of description, determined by the data deposit forms of 20 repositories in three disciplinesarchaeology, quantitative social science, and zoology. The results reveal that requirements relating to Creator, Description, Contributor, Date, Relation, and Location are common, whereas those regarding Publisher and Language are rarely listed across the disciplines. Data-level descriptions are more common than study-and file-level descriptions. The results suggest that repositories should require detailed studylevel descriptions and information about data usage licenses and access rights. Moreover, repositories should determine metadata requirements in a standardized and consistent manner.

show abstract

“…Many researches explore and analyze the quality of metadata stored in repositories under different perspectives (Bui and Park, 2006;Díaz et al, 2012;Rousidis et al, 2014;Balatsoukas et al, 2018). In some of them (Bui and Park, 2006;Rousidis et al, 2014;Balatsoukas et al, 2018), the harvesting of the repository metadata is done using the OAI-PMH protocol (Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) for the following analysis. The OAI-PMH Validator & Data extractor is able to download all records from digital libraries, parallelly or individually, and analyze compliance of metadata with OAI-PMH, Dublin Core (DC) and other standards (Banos, 2011).…”

Section: Related Work On Metadata Quality and Metadata Standards 21 Metadata Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Inde Metadata Conformity Indicator

Gottardo

Barbosa

2019

Bol. Ciênc. Geod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metadata represents a set of descriptive information about the data, which aims at facilitating the search, access and use of data. The metadata standards specify the minimum set of elements to be informed and the file structure to ensure interoperability among catalogs. The present work aims at analyzing the adherence of the metadata published in the Brazilian Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) repository to the MGB Profile (in Portuguese, Perfil de Metadados Geoespaciais do Brasil) through a conformity indicator. Conformity was evaluated for over 30,000 metadata inserted in the INDE catalog (in Portuguese, Infraestrutura Nacional de Dados Espaciais), in June 2018, considering the set of mandatory and conditional elements of the summarized MGB Profile. These elements were collected from a harvester elaborated by the authors capable of scanning all the metadata of the repository and returning the fields organized into a CSV file. After analysis, it was found that only 28% of metadata conforms to the summarized MGB Profile. The low conformity rate suggests the limited understanding of the standards recommended, regarding both the minimum elements to be informed about each product and the structuration of the information in XML.

show abstract

Metadata for Big Data: A preliminary investigation of metadata quality issues in research data repositories

Cited by 23 publications

References 14 publications

Sizing the Problem of Improving Discovery and Access to NIH-Funded Data: A Preliminary Study

Sizing the Problem of Improving Discovery and Access to NIH-Funded Data: A Preliminary Study

Exposing Standardization and Consistency Issues in Repository Metadata Requirements for Data Deposition

Inde Metadata Conformity Indicator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About