Metadata evaluation criteria in respect to archival maps description. A systematic literature review
| Published date | 07 February 2020 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-07-2019-0161 |
| Pages | 1-27 |
| Date | 07 February 2020 |
| Author | Marta Kuźma,Albina Mościcka |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
Metadata evaluation criteria
in respect to archival
maps description
A systematic literature review
Marta Ku
zma and Albina Mo
scicka
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Military University of Technology,
Warsaw, Poland
Abstract
Purposes –This paper aimsto present an objective summary of the current state of researchconcerning the
evaluationcriteria of map metadata. The undertaken research identifies whichauthors and to what extent the
discussed issues related to the metadataof objects collected in digital libraries, with particular emphasis on
cartographicmaterials.
Design/methodology/approach –Independent reviewers analysed the basic articles data. Selected
papers weresubject to quality assessment, based on thefull text and 12 questions. Finally, iterativebackward
referencesearch was conducted.
Findings –The results demonstratethat there are no universal criteria for metadata evaluation. There are
no works that would assess the metadata of cartographic studies, although numerous publications pointto
the need forthis type of work.
Practical implications –Metadata evaluationallows users to obtain knowledgewhether objects found in
the library are relevantfor their needs.
Originality/value –The criteria and methods most oftenused for assessing metadata quality which can
be adopted to map metadata evaluation have been identified. The authors identified the existing research
gaps and provedthat there is a need for research contributionsin the field of evaluating map metadata.
Keywords Digital libraries, Metadata, Archival maps, Raster maps
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Descriptions of maps have been collected for centuries. In the beginning, they were paper
catalogues (Andrew and Larsgaard,1999) and the data referred to paper maps. In the 1990s,
many cartographic collections were digitised. For example, in the mid-1990s, maps were
scanned and made available on CDs at the Malpass Library at Western Illinois University
(Allen, 2008). At the same time, the technology requiredfor geographic information systems
(GIS) was developing rapidly (March and Scarletto, 2017). In the US, the Association of
Research Libraries’(ARL) GIS Literacy Project was launched (Davie et al.,1999), which
enabled ARL member libraries to create GIS services within their libraries. An early
example of integrating GIS into non-geographic subject areas advised business liaisons to
The research was carried out as part of the statutory project “Acquisition and processing of geodata
for the needs of geospatial recognition systems”, task “Processing spatial data for the purpose of
terrain assessment”, grant number PBS 23-885/2019, realized in 2019 at the Military University of
Technology in Warsaw, Poland.
Archival maps
description
1
Received11 July 2019
Revised19 October 2019
19November 2019
Accepted19 December 2019
TheElectronic Library
Vol.38 No. 1, 2020
pp. 1-27
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0264-0473
DOI 10.1108/EL-07-2019-0161
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0264-0473.htm
encourage GIS technology to complement other data sources and analyses (Norris and
Tenner, 2000). At the beginning of the twenty-first century, digital libraries were
considering how to store map scans: whether they should be colour or monochrome, what
the scanning resolution should be and what the costs of storing maps using various
techniques were (Bidney,2019).
Nowadays, many large and smalllibraries, archives and museums have put their rapidly
growing collections of digital content online, creating an immense wealth of scholarly and
cultural information. Currently, there is a dynamic development of digital humanities.
Digital humanities can be defined as new ways of doing researchthat involve collaborative,
transdisciplinary and computationally engaged research, teaching and publishing. They
bring digital tools and methods to the study of the humanitieswith the recognition that the
printed word is no longer the main medium for knowledge production and distribution
(Burdick et al., 2012).
Margaritopoulos et al. (2012),Neumaier et al. (2016) and Stvilia and Gasser (2008)
emphasised that end users and providers have different needs related to the description of
objects in digital libraries. It could be that end users are mostly interested in descriptive
metadata, whereas providers may use additionalkinds of metadata, such as administrative
metadata, to maintain the collection.
Description of metadata for objectsstored in libraries, museums, or archives is very well
known and widespread. Metadata schemas were developed, such as the MARC standard
(for MAchine Readable Cataloguing) for the representation and communication of
bibliographic and related information in machine-readable form (LoC MARC, 2019); the
Dublin Core metadata schema, that can be used to describe digital resources, as well as
physical resources(DCMI, 2012); and the ISO 19115 metadata standard designed specifically
for representing geographicalinformation (ISO, 2014). There are also some well-known data
content standards –for example, resource description and access (RDA) for descriptive
cataloguing, provides instructionsand guidelines for formulating bibliographic data (RDA,
2019)–and conceptual models, such as the functional requirements for bibliographic
records (FRBR). Developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions (IFLA), the FRBR is a conceptual entity-relationship model that relates user
tasks of retrieval and access in online librarycatalogues and bibliographic databases from a
user’s perspective (IFLA, 2009). Its extensions –the functional requirements for authority
data (FRAD) which added a model for the description of authority data and relates that to
the user’s needs (IFLA, 2013) and functional requirements for subject authority data
(FRSAD) which was intended to supportglobal sharing and reuse of subject authority data
(IFLA, 2010)–were also developedby IFLA. The consolidation of the separately developed
conceptual models: FRBR, FRAD and FRSAD is a library reference model (LRM): a high-
level conceptual reference model developed within an entity-relationship modelling
framework (IFLA, 2017).
All the above initiatives aim to provide the correct characteristics of the objects, facilitate
access to them and allow the exchange of information between institutions. However, the
metadata of shared resources are not always of good quality, which may impede their use
and leave the collections underused (Stvilia and Gasser, 2008). Theoretically, a sufficient
description exists when all metadata elements are populated with values. However, in
practice, this is not what happens in the real world. Relevant surveys by Friesen (2004),
Guinchard (2002) and Najjar et al. (2003) have shown that indexers tend to fill out only
particular metadata elements thatcould be considered popular, while they ignore other, less
popular elements. The creation of metadata is a task that requires significant effort and
financial expenditures and, most importantly, the involvement of knowledgeable and
EL
38,1
2
To continue reading
Request your trial