Metadata Quality Issues
in Learning Object Repositories
PhD Candidate
Nikos Palavitsinis
PhD Supervisors
Ass. Prof. Salvad...
Structure
• Introduction
• Digital Repositories & Federations
• Metadata & Education
• Quality & Metadata
• Metadata Quali...
Introduction
3/55
Problem
• Generic Problem: Low quality metadata in
digital repositories that affects resource
discovery
• Specific Problem...
Background
• Relevant studies that look into quality issues:
– Study based on the Open Language Archives
Community (Hughes...
Aim of Digital Repositories
• Databases used for storing and/or enabling the
interoperability of Learning Objects (McGreal...
7
ARIADNE case
21 elements <50%
21 elements >50%
8
ARIADNE case
14 elements <50%
12 elements >50%
Metadata
• Metadata is structured information that describes,
explains, locates, or otherwise makes it easier to
retrieve,...
Metadata in Education
• In the field of Technology-Enhanced Learning, the
need for describing resources with information t...
Quality
• Level of excellence; A property or attribute that
differentiates a thing or person
• Quality is the suitability ...
Quality in Metadata
• Poor quality metadata can mean that a resource is
essentially invisible within a repository of archi...
Metadata Creators
• In some cases, subject matter experts have been
proven to be better in metadata creation than
informat...
Metadata experts VS Domain experts
14
I have studied
information
management
I know how to
create & manage
data sources
I h...
Metadata Creation
• Metadata today is likely to be created by people
without metadata training, working largely in
isolati...
Metadata Quality Metrics (1/2)
• Completeness
– Number of element values provided by annotator,
compared to the total poss...
Metadata Quality Metrics (2/2)
• Objectiveness
– Degree in which the metadata provided describe the
resource in an unbiase...
Back to the problem
• How might we insert quality assurance
mechanisms in the digital repository lifecycle,
to enhance met...
Proposed Method
19/55
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process
20
Structure
21
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Structure
Metadata Design Phase
• Description
– Metadata specification / application profiling of an existing
metadata schema that w...
Testing Phase
• Description
– The envisaged system/tool is implemented & the users are
working with the first implementati...
Calibration Phase
• Description
– The envisaged system/tool is deployed in a controlled
environment and the subject matter...
Building Critical Mass Phase
• Description
– Tools have reached a high-maturity phase and the
metadata application profile...
Regular Operation Phase
• Description
– Metadata used in the tool(s) are finalized and content
providers are uploading res...
Case Study
27/55
Case Study
• Metadata Quality Assessment Certification
Process applied in the Organic.Edunet
Federation of Learning Reposi...
Metadata Design Phase
29
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase
• Metadata Und...
Metadata Design Phase
30
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase
31
• Preliminary Hands-on Annotation
– Subject matter experts annotate a sample of their
resources using the suggested met...
Metadata Design Phase
32
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase
Results
33
Results
Question Totally Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Totally Agree
Is the element easy for you to
understan...
Results
34
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase
Worst rated Rating
Is the el...
Testing Phase
• Hands-on annotation experiment
– Core metadata quality criteria
– Related more with information management...
Results
36
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Testing Phase
Results
37
Title “Please use a more comprehensive title. For example the CRC acronym, can
be refined as Cooperative Resear...
Calibration Phase
• Metadata Quality Peer Review Exercise
– Peer reviewing metadata records using a pre-
defined quality g...
Calibration Phase
39
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Calibration Phase
Results
40
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Calibration Phase
Building Critical Mass Phase
• Analysis of Usage Data coming from tool(s)
– Expecting to verify findings from the experime...
Building Critical Mass Phase
42
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase
...
Results
43
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase
Results
44
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase
Compare & Contrast
45
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase
Best rated...
Building Critical Mass Phase
• Metadata Quality Certification Mark
– Introduced the concept of a “Quality Seal” for
each m...
Regular Operation Phase
• Regular Analysis of Usage Data coming from
the tool(s)
– Any improvement to the quality of the m...
Results
48
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Regular Operation Phase
Results
49
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Regular Operation Phase
Results
50
Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Regular Operation Phase
Regular Operation Phase
• Online Peer Review Mechanism
– Deployed on the Organic.Edunet Federation Portal
– Collecting rat...
Overview
Experiment
No of
participants /
records
Phase Date
Application Profile Questionnaire &
Hands-on annotation
20 Met...
PhD Progress
53/55
Progress VS Publications (1/2)
Experiment Phase Date Published
Application Profile Questionnaire &
Hands-on annotation
Met...
Progress VS Publications (2/2)
55
PhD Work
Experiment Phase Date Published
Log files analysis from Annotation Tool Metadat...
Early Publications
• Knowledge Organization Systems
– Online study of Knowledge Organization Systems
on agricultural and e...
Real Users
• Organized a series of workshops involving
users annotating resources
– Organic.Edunet Summer School 2009
– Jo...
Stakeholder Consultation
• e-Conference: held during October 2010
(6/10-30/10)
• Experts on Quality for e-learning
• Two p...
Topics
• Each main topic, had 4 refining questions,
• Each main topic, had 1 or 2 moderators
• The e-Conference had 2 admi...
What’s next
60/55
Next Experiments
• Pilot Experiment in Agricultural Learning
Resources’ Repository completedcompleted
– Organic.Edunet (Co...
Timeline
5/09 5/10 10/10
Literature
Review (A)
Adapted
MeQuACeP
2/11
Pilot
Experiment
Validation
Experiments
12/11 9/12
In...
Next Steps
• 11/2011 – Journal paper on Metadata
Quality Assessment Certification Process
readyready
• 4/2012 – Journal pa...
Metadata Quality Issues
in Learning Object Repositories
Thank you for your attention!
64
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Metadata quality in digital repositories

0 views
1,282 views

Published on

Presentation of a part of my PhD work so far, in Alcala de Henares

Published in: Technology, Education, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
0
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
39
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Metadata quality in digital repositories

  1. 1. Metadata Quality Issues in Learning Object Repositories PhD Candidate Nikos Palavitsinis PhD Supervisors Ass. Prof. Salvador Sanchez-Alonso, Dr. Nikos Manouselis
  2. 2. Structure • Introduction • Digital Repositories & Federations • Metadata & Education • Quality & Metadata • Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process • PhD Work/Research • Timetable • Next Steps 2
  3. 3. Introduction 3/55
  4. 4. Problem • Generic Problem: Low quality metadata in digital repositories that affects resource discovery • Specific Problem: How might we insert quality assurance mechanisms in the digital repository lifecycle, to enhance metadata quality Introduction/Problem 4
  5. 5. Background • Relevant studies that look into quality issues: – Study based on the Open Language Archives Community (Hughes, 2004) – Studies based on the National Science Digital Repository (Zeng et al., 2005; Bui & Ran Park, 2006) – Studies based on ARIADNE Federation repositories (Najjar et al., 2004; Ochoa et al., 2011) 5 Introduction/Background
  6. 6. Aim of Digital Repositories • Databases used for storing and/or enabling the interoperability of Learning Objects (McGreal, 2007) • Enable the efficient search & discovery of objects (Richards et al., 2002) • How can the digital repositories fulfill their goals, if the quality of the metadata provided is poor? – Is it that poor? 6 Digital Repositories & Federations/Aim of Digital Repositories
  7. 7. 7 ARIADNE case 21 elements <50% 21 elements >50%
  8. 8. 8 ARIADNE case 14 elements <50% 12 elements >50%
  9. 9. Metadata • Metadata is structured information that describes, explains, locates, or otherwise makes it easier to retrieve, use, or manage an information resource • …vital component of the learning object economy (Currier et al., 2004) 9 Metadata & Education/Metadata
  10. 10. Metadata in Education • In the field of Technology-Enhanced Learning, the need for describing resources with information that extends the scope of regular metadata has been identified early (Recker & Wiley, 2001) • Most commonly used metadata schemas in education are IEEE LOM & Dublin Core • For users of Educational Repositories, problems in metadata result to poor recall of resources and inconsistent search results (Currier et al., 2004) 10 Metadata & Education/Metadata in Education
  11. 11. Quality • Level of excellence; A property or attribute that differentiates a thing or person • Quality is the suitability of procedures, processes and systems in relation to the strategic objectives • Metadata are of high importance to the success of Learning Object Repositories (LORs) – Heery & Anderson, 2005; Guy et al., 2004; Robertson 2005 11 Quality & Metadata/Quality
  12. 12. Quality in Metadata • Poor quality metadata can mean that a resource is essentially invisible within a repository of archive that remains unused (Barton et al., 2003) • Different settings and purposes require different approach to what represents quality in metadata (Robertson, 2005) – Quality cannot be discussed in a vacuum (Bruce & Hillman, 2004) 12 Quality & Metadata/Quality in Metadata
  13. 13. Metadata Creators • In some cases, subject matter experts have been proven to be better in metadata creation than information specialists (Greenberg et al., 2001; Park, 2009) • Neither resource creators nor the information specialists handle pedagogic aspects of metadata well (Barton et al., 2003) • Importance of having only trained professionals providing metadata (Holden, 2003) 13 Quality & Metadata/Metadata Creators
  14. 14. Metadata experts VS Domain experts 14 I have studied information management I know how to create & manage data sources I have been involved in EU projects for digital libraries I have a PhD in education I know how to create educational resources I have worked with teachers for over 20 years I think I can use the expertise of both…
  15. 15. Metadata Creation • Metadata today is likely to be created by people without metadata training, working largely in isolation and without adequate documentation • Metadata records are also created automatically, often with poorly documented methodology and little or no indication of provenance • Unsurprisingly, the metadata resulting from these processes varies strikingly in quality and often does not play well together (Hillman et al., 2004) 15 Quality & Metadata/Metadata Creation
  16. 16. Metadata Quality Metrics (1/2) • Completeness – Number of element values provided by annotator, compared to the total possible number of values • Accuracy – Metadata descriptions correspond to the actual resource they describe • Consistency – Degree of conformance of the metadata provided according to the rules metadata application profile used 16 Quality & Metadata/Metadata Quality Metrics
  17. 17. Metadata Quality Metrics (2/2) • Objectiveness – Degree in which the metadata provided describe the resource in an unbiased way • Appropriateness – Fitness of use of the metadata provided when considered in terms of the envisaged services of the environment/tool deployed • Correctness – Usage of the language in the metadata, syntactically and/or grammatically 17 Quality & Metadata/Metadata Quality Metrics
  18. 18. Back to the problem • How might we insert quality assurance mechanisms in the digital repository lifecycle, to enhance metadata quality? • Solution that capitalizes more on the human factor but also on automated methods of examining metadata quality Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Introduction 18
  19. 19. Proposed Method 19/55
  20. 20. Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process 20
  21. 21. Structure 21 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Structure
  22. 22. Metadata Design Phase • Description – Metadata specification / application profiling of an existing metadata schema that will be used in a specific context • Quality Assurance Methods – Metadata Understanding Session – Preliminary Metadata Hands-on Annotation • Actors – Subject-matter experts & metadata experts • Outcomes – Initial input for metadata specification – Paper-based metadata records 22 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Metadata Design Phase
  23. 23. Testing Phase • Description – The envisaged system/tool is implemented & the users are working with the first implementation of the metadata standard • Quality Assurance Methods – Test implementation of the tool – Hands-on annotation experiment – Metadata Quality Review of test sample of resources • Actors – Subject-matter experts & metadata experts • Outcomes – Good & Bad Metadata Practices Guide – Feedback for the development of the system/tool 23 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Testing Phase
  24. 24. Calibration Phase • Description – The envisaged system/tool is deployed in a controlled environment and the subject matter experts continuously upload resources on it • Quality Assurance Methods – Metadata Quality Peer Review Exercise • Actors – Subject-matter experts & metadata experts • Outcomes – Good & Bad Metadata Practices Guide updated – Recommendations for metadata improvement – Peer Review results related to the quality of metadata for the resources examined 24 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Calibration Phase
  25. 25. Building Critical Mass Phase • Description – Tools have reached a high-maturity phase and the metadata application profile has been finalized. Repository accepts a large number of resources • Quality Assurance Methods – Analysis of Usage Data coming from the tool(s) – Metadata Quality Certification Mark • Actors – Metadata experts • Outcomes – Minor changes to application profile – Recommendations for metadata improvement 25 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Building Critical Mass Phase
  26. 26. Regular Operation Phase • Description – Metadata used in the tool(s) are finalized and content providers are uploading resources regularly. This period lasts for as long as the deployed services are online • Quality Assurance Methods – Regular Analysis of Usage Data coming from the tool(s) – Online Peer Review Mechanism – Quality Prizes/Awards for selected resources • Actors – Metadata experts & Content users/consumers • Outcomes – Recommendations for metadata improvement 26 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Regular Operation Phase
  27. 27. Case Study 27/55
  28. 28. Case Study • Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process applied in the Organic.Edunet Federation of Learning Repositories • Each respective Phase is presented focusing on its application in the Organic.Edunet case 28 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study
  29. 29. Metadata Design Phase 29 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase • Metadata Understanding Session – Form that assesses elements easiness to understand, usefulness and appropriateness for the application domain – Also asking whether or not each element should be mandatory, recommended or optional Duration 2 hours Annotated Objects 0 Actors involved 20 metadata & subject-matter experts
  30. 30. Metadata Design Phase 30 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase
  31. 31. 31 • Preliminary Hands-on Annotation – Subject matter experts annotate a sample of their resources using the suggested metadata application profile – Session organized with the participation of all content providers with supervised annotation of resources Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase Metadata Design Phase
  32. 32. Metadata Design Phase 32 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase
  33. 33. Results 33 Results Question Totally Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Totally Agree Is the element easy for you to understand? 0% 4% 21% 42% 33% Is this element useful for describing Organic.Edunet content resources? 0% 12% 33% 41% 14% Is the selection of the element’s possible values clear and appropriate? 0% 4% 37% 50% 9% Best rated Rating Is the element easy for you to understand? General. Keyword Technical. Format Technical. Size 9.2 / 10 Is this element useful for describing Organic.Edunet content resources? General. Identifier General. Description Technical. Format 8.8 / 10 Is the selection of the element’s possible values clear and appropriate? General. Description Rights. Cost Format.Size 8.1 / 10 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase
  34. 34. Results 34 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Metadata Design Phase Worst rated Rating Is the element easy for you to understand? Classification. Taxon Relation. Resource Educational. Semantic Density 3.1 to 4.8 / 10 Is this element useful for describing Organic.Edunet content resources? Classification. Taxon Annotation. Entity Annotation.Date 2.3 to 3.1 / 10 Is the selection of the element’s possible values clear and appropriate? Classification. Taxon Classificatio n.Purpose General. Identifier 2.9 to 4 / 10 Mandatory Recommended Optional Question Before After Before After Before After Should this element be mandatory, recommended or optional? 19 25 26 21 12 11 Percentile change in overall number of mandatory / recommended or optional elements +31% -19% -8,3%
  35. 35. Testing Phase • Hands-on annotation experiment – Core metadata quality criteria – Related more with information management practices and less with the content itself – Issues that are not connected to the domain of use for the resources 35 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Testing Phase Duration 1 week Annotated Objects 500 objects (5%) Actors involved 4 metadata experts Resources Reviewed 15 per metadata expert (60)
  36. 36. Results 36 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Testing Phase
  37. 37. Results 37 Title “Please use a more comprehensive title. For example the CRC acronym, can be refined as Cooperative Research Centre just to provide the user with a way to understand what this learning resource is about.” Keyword “More keywords needed. Just one keyword is not enough, and even so, the keyword text here is misleading. These keywords should be provided separately as “turkey” and “poultry” along with some others, and not as one “turkey poultry”.” Typical Age Range “…why is it that simple pictures of pigs in the snow with no scientific details on them cannot be used for children that are less than 10 years old? Couldn’t these pictures be used in the context of a primary class?” Context “Since the age range is from 15 years old to undefined, it only makes sense that the Educational context cannot be limited to higher education but should also consider high school. Be very careful because in this sense, these two elements should not conflict.” Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Testing Phase
  38. 38. Calibration Phase • Metadata Quality Peer Review Exercise – Peer reviewing metadata records using a pre- defined quality grid assessing metadata quality metrics • Completeness, accuracy, correctness of language, etc based on Bruce & Hillman’s model 38 Duration 3 weeks Annotated Objects 1.000 objects (10%) Actors involved 20 subject matter experts Resources Reviewed 105 resources (5 per expert) Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Calibration Phase
  39. 39. Calibration Phase 39 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Calibration Phase
  40. 40. Results 40 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Calibration Phase
  41. 41. Building Critical Mass Phase • Analysis of Usage Data coming from tool(s) – Expecting to verify findings from the experiment in the “Metadata Design” Phase • Necessary elements, being used more, • Elements with values easy to understand being used correctly, etc. • Beginning of the intensive content population 41 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase Duration 1 week Annotated Objects 6.600 objects (60%) Actors involved 2 metadata experts Resources Analyzed 6.600
  42. 42. Building Critical Mass Phase 42 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase • “1” shows that an element is completed whereas “0” shows the opposite • In the case of elements with multiplicity >1, values can be “2”, “3”, etc. – Interesting to look at the case of keywords, classification terms and/or educational elements
  43. 43. Results 43 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase
  44. 44. Results 44 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase
  45. 45. Compare & Contrast 45 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase Best rated Rating Is the element easy for you to understand? General. Keyword Technical. Format Technical. Size 9.2 / 10 Is the selection of the element’s possible values clear and appropriate? General. Description Rights. Cost Format.Size 8.1 / 10
  46. 46. Building Critical Mass Phase • Metadata Quality Certification Mark – Introduced the concept of a “Quality Seal” for each metadata record that a content provider uploads to the Organic.Edunet Federation – In meta.metadata element 46 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Building Critical Mass Phase
  47. 47. Regular Operation Phase • Regular Analysis of Usage Data coming from the tool(s) – Any improvement to the quality of the metadata? – Measuring completeness only – Analysis conducted on October 2010 47 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Regular Operation Phase Duration 1 week Annotated Objects 11.000 objects (100%) Actors involved 2 metadata experts Resources Analyzed 11.000
  48. 48. Results 48 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Regular Operation Phase
  49. 49. Results 49 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Regular Operation Phase
  50. 50. Results 50 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Regular Operation Phase
  51. 51. Regular Operation Phase • Online Peer Review Mechanism – Deployed on the Organic.Edunet Federation Portal – Collecting ratings on metadata quality for all resources available 51 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Regular Operation Phase
  52. 52. Overview Experiment No of participants / records Phase Date Application Profile Questionnaire & Hands-on annotation 20 Metadata Design 1/2009 Metadata Record review from metadata experts 4 / 60 (records) Testing 4/2009 Metadata Record review from subject matter experts 20 / 105 (records) Calibration 6/2009 Log files analysis from Annotation Tool 6.600 (records) Building Critical Mass 9/2009 Log files analysis from Annotation Tool 11.000 (records) Regular Operation 10/2010 52 Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process/Case Study/Overview
  53. 53. PhD Progress 53/55
  54. 54. Progress VS Publications (1/2) Experiment Phase Date Published Application Profile Questionnaire & Hands-on annotation Metadata Design 1/2009 JIAC 2009 Palavitsinis et al.: Interoperable metadata for a federation of learning repositories on organic agriculture and agroecology Metadata Record review from metadata experts Testing 4/2009 MTSR 2009 Palavitsinis et al.: Evaluation of a Metadata Application Profile for Learning Resources on Organic Agriculture Metadata Record review from subject matter experts Calibration 6/2009 ED-MEDIA 2011 Palavitsinis et al.: Metadata quality in learning repositories: Issues and considerations 54 PhD Work
  55. 55. Progress VS Publications (2/2) 55 PhD Work Experiment Phase Date Published Log files analysis from Annotation Tool Metadata Design 9/2009 ICSD 2009 Palavitsinis et al.: Evaluating Metadata Application Profiles based on Usage Data Log files analysis from Annotation Tool Testing 10/2010 ED-MEDIA 2011 Palavitsinis et al.: Metadata quality in learning repositories: Issues and considerations
  56. 56. Early Publications • Knowledge Organization Systems – Online study of Knowledge Organization Systems on agricultural and environmental sciences • Palavitsinis & Manouselis, ITEE 2009 • Metadata Lifecycle – “Towards a Digital Curation Framework for Learning Repositories: Issues & Considerations” • Palavitsinis et al., SE@M 2010 56 PhD Work
  57. 57. Real Users • Organized a series of workshops involving users annotating resources – Organic.Edunet Summer School 2009 – Joint Technology Enhanced Learning Summer School 2010 – American Farm School & Ellinogermaniki Agogi workshops – HSci Conference in Crete • Working with users (i.e. subject-matter experts, educators and metadata experts) PhD Work/User Events 57
  58. 58. Stakeholder Consultation • e-Conference: held during October 2010 (6/10-30/10) • Experts on Quality for e-learning • Two phases – four topics • Provided input for a separate PhD chapter PhD Work/e-Conference 58
  59. 59. Topics • Each main topic, had 4 refining questions, • Each main topic, had 1 or 2 moderators • The e-Conference had 2 administrators • 1 keynote was recorded from Mrs. Amee Evans Godwin of the Institute for Knowledge Management in Education (IKSME) PhD Work/e-Conference/Topics 59
  60. 60. What’s next 60/55
  61. 61. Next Experiments • Pilot Experiment in Agricultural Learning Resources’ Repository completedcompleted – Organic.Edunet (Confolio) • Validation Experiment in Scientific/Scholarly Content Repository ongoingongoing – VOA3R case (in Calibration Phase) • Validation Experiment in Cultural Content Repository ongoingongoing – Natural Europe case (in Testing Phase) 61 Timetable
  62. 62. Timeline 5/09 5/10 10/10 Literature Review (A) Adapted MeQuACeP 2/11 Pilot Experiment Validation Experiments 12/11 9/12 Introductory Research Literature Review (B) 6/12 62 Timetable WRITING
  63. 63. Next Steps • 11/2011 – Journal paper on Metadata Quality Assessment Certification Process readyready • 4/2012 – Journal paper on MeQuACeP applied in other contexts pendingpending • 6-9/2012 – Writing of thesis 63 Next Steps
  64. 64. Metadata Quality Issues in Learning Object Repositories Thank you for your attention! 64

×