International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology

Research Institute for Knowledge Content Development & Technology (건국대학교 지식콘텐츠연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Registry Metadata Quality Assessment by the Example of re3data.org Schema

  • Received : 2016.09.29
  • Accepted : 2017.05.04
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Nowadays, research data repositories (RDR) have become progressively widespread all over the world. To expand repository services and build up inbound linking strategy, organizations list their repositories with so called Global Registries. Accordingly, such registries should be carefully described by the related data. In this study, I explore the metadata schema of re3data.org. I collect and analyze descriptions from the listed repositories, and come up with some suggestions concerning possible improvements to the metadata schema. To accomplish this, I develop a crawler program, which collects necessary data from the re3data.org. Based on the analysis results, I have identified two issues that required elements is missing, one issue that required element value is missing when the corresponding property is applied, five inconsistency issues with re3data controlled vocabulary, six issues with undescribed optional elements, and two inconsistency issues between the elements and their attributes which do not pair with. I believe this discussion can facilitate improvements to the existing re3data.org schema and further help researchers who analyze data repository trends.

Keywords

References

  1. Caplan, P. (2003). Metadata fundamentals for all librarians. American Library Association.
  2. DRI. (2013). Caring for Digital Content: Mapping International Approaches. Royal Irish Academy. ISBN 978-1-908996-25-1
  3. Jones, S. (2012). Curation policies and support services of the main UK research funders. Retrieved from http://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/RC%20policy%20overview%20v2.2.pdf
  4. Kim, S., & Lee, W. (2014). Global data repository status and analysis: based on Korea, China and Japan. Library Hi Tech, 32(4), 706-722. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2014-0064
  5. Lone, F., Rather, R., & Shah, G. J. (2008). Indian Contribution to Open Access Literature: A Case Study of DOAJ & OpenDOAR. Chinese Librarianship. International Electronic Journal, 29.
  6. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). Finding open access articles using Google, Google Scholar, OAIster and OpenDOAR. Online Information Review, 32(6), 709-715. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810923881
  7. Pampel, H., Vierkant, P., Scholze, F., Bertelmann, R., Kindling, M., Klump, J., Goebelbecker, H., Gundlach, J., Schirmbacher, P., & Dierolf, U. (2013). Making Research Data Repositories Visible: The re3data.org Registry. PLOS ONE, 8(11), 1-10. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078080
  8. Shafi, S. M., Gul, S., & Shah, T. A. (2013). Web 2.0 interactivity in open access repositories. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 703-712. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2011-0121