Databases: fit for use or fit for us?
| Date | 01 March 1996 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01435129610108261 |
| Pages | 40-42 |
| Published date | 01 March 1996 |
| Author | C.J. Armstrong |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
Will the world of online and CD-ROM data-
bases end with a whimper, eclipsed by the
meteoric presence of the Internet? Will pro-
fessional intermediaries disappear, dinosaur-
like, in the wake of that self-sufficient DIY-er,
the end user? Will consumer information
utilities replace the reference desk? I think
not, although I know of at least one colleague
who sees the future of the information profes-
sional as a facilitator and developer of Web
pages. The reality is still a little different
because, quite simply, the information suppli-
ers are not ready for such a cataclysmic
change. They need intermediaries every bit as
much as we need them. We need the struc-
tured assurance of their databases and they
need the experienced user base.
Cathy Williams – an end-user database
searcher – confessed recently to a degree of
ignorance which database providers were
unlikely to recognize[1]. Her problem lay with
a lack of on-screen help and useful documen-
tation, a problem which is not unfamiliar to
anyone fielding a telephone call at the centre.
Very frequently quality issues can be traced to
a gap between user expectations of a database
and the reality of searching it at the terminal –
a gap which would not exist if documentation
described a database adequately. All too often
users do not appreciate the coverage, struc-
ture or capabilities and limitations of the
resource they are searching. Part of the prob-
lem is that no attempt has been made by the
information suppliers to provide a user-level
agreement which sets out exactly what the
product can and cannot supply – a specifica-
tion which lays down a series of parameters to
which the database will adhere. Such docu-
mentation as is supplied concentrates on the
best ways of searching the data – details about
coverage are often very sketchy.
All too often, even the most knowledgeable
searcher is brought up short by the data deliv-
ered on screen (or not delivered as in the case
of some records dealing with the Eider duck,
half of which had been indexed in error under
“Elder duck”!). CIQM has had a plethora of
items reported with incorrect citations, miss-
ing or mis-spelled authors, or even wrong
contact information. Quality issues in data-
bases are something which will never be
entirely erradicated – even if such a thing
where technically possible, I doubt whether
the average user would wish to pay for such a
service or would accept the delay in delivery
imposed by such quality management. In
40
Library Management
Volume 17 · Number 2 · 1996 · pp. 40–42
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0143-5124
Databases: fit for use or
fit for us?
C.J. Armstrong
The author
C.J. Armstrong is Director/Consultant at The Centre for
Information Quality Management (CIQM), Aberystwyth,
UK.
Abstract
Database users often find that not only do data retrieved
contain errors but that the databases themselves do not
live up to their expectations as far as coverage, structure or
capabilities. The Centre for Information Quality Manage-
ment (CIQM) has been set up to act as a clearing house for
database users who discover faults. Over and above this,
the centre is developing methodologies to offer users a
degree of quality assurance. Database labels provide mini-
specifications with quantitative and qualitative informa-
tion which allows users to see how far they can “trust” a
database. They are also an implicit standard which infor-
mation providers will maintain or improve. Accreditation
could lend labels greater authority. A second suggestion
from CIQM would entail panels of database users in
answering regular surveys in order to provide comprehen-
sive database reviews. CIQM is looking for user support
for these ideas.
To continue reading
Request your trial