Show simple item record  

dc.contributor.authorNichols, David M.
dc.contributor.authorPaynter, Gordon W.
dc.contributor.authorChan, Chu-Hsiang
dc.contributor.authorBainbridge, David
dc.contributor.authorMcKay, Dana
dc.contributor.authorTwidale, Michael B.
dc.contributor.authorBlandford, Ann
dc.date.accessioned2009-04-22T21:09:06Z
dc.date.available2009-04-22T21:09:06Z
dc.date.issued2009-04
dc.identifier.citationNichols, D.M., Paynter, G.W., Chan, C., Bainbridge, D., McKay, D., Twidale, M.B. & Blandford, A. (2009). Experiences in deploying metadata analysis tools for institutional repositories. Cataloguing & Classification Quarterly, 47(3&4), 229-248.en
dc.identifier.issn1544-4554
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10289/2107
dc.description.abstractCurrent institutional repository software provides few tools to help metadata librarians understand and analyze their collections. In this article, we compare and contrast metadata analysis tools that were developed simultaneously, but independently, at two New Zealand institutions during a period of national investment in research repositories: the Metadata Analysis Tool (MAT) at The University of Waikato, and the Kiwi Research Information Service (KRIS) at the National Library of New Zealand. The tools have many similarities: they are convenient, online, on-demand services that harvest metadata using OAI-PMH; they were developed in response to feedback from repository administrators; and they both help pinpoint specific metadata errors as well as generating summary statistics. They also have significant differences: one is a dedicated tool wheres the other is part of a wider access tool; one gives a holistic view of the metadata whereas the other looks for specific problems; one seeks patterns in the data values whereas the other checks that those values conform to metadata standards. Both tools work in a complementary manner to existing Web-based administration tools. We have observed that discovery and correction of metadata errors can be quickly achieved by switching Web browser views from the analysis tool to the repository interface, and back. We summarize the findings from both tools' deployment into a checklist of requirements for metadata analysis tools.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherRoutledgeen_NZ
dc.rightsThis is the author’s accepted manuscript version of an article published in the journal: Cataloguing & Classification Quarterly.en
dc.subjectcomputer scienceen
dc.subjectmetadata qualityen
dc.subjectinstitutional repositoriesen
dc.subjectevaluationen
dc.titleExperiences in deploying metadata analysis tools for institutional repositoriesen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01639370902737281en
dc.relation.isPartOfCataloging & Classification Quarterlyen_NZ
pubs.begin-page229en_NZ
pubs.elements-id33798
pubs.end-page248en_NZ
pubs.issue3 & 4en_NZ
pubs.volume47en_NZ


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record