Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Metadata quality
in learning repositories:
Issues & considerations
Nikos Palavitsinis, Nikos Manouselis,
Salvador-Sanchez ...
Key Concepts
• Learning Repositories
• Resources
• Metadata
Quantity is NOT the problem!
• MERLOT, ARIADNE, LRE for schools, MACE, etc
• Millions of resources on various
topics/areas...
Quality?
• Publishers of content are under pressure to
ensure that in the plethora of information that
is available in tod...
Truth or…
“Isn't it true, that only librarians like to
search? Everyone else likes to find”
Roy Tennant
Images taken from:...
…dare?
Context of the study
about Organic.Edunet
• Completed eContentPlus project (10/2007 –
10/2010) funded with 2.5M €
• Main objective: Make learni...
Stats
• 1,5 year of operation
• 53.859 visits
• 208.963 page views
• 41.804 unique visitors
• 166 countries
• 2.041 regist...
Multilingualism
• Multilingual interface (17 languages)
– Text-based search
– Browsing
– Tag-based search
– Semantic searc...
How did we get there?
Started on June of 2008…
Process (1/2)
• Developed an Application Profile of IEEE LOM
to be used to describe resources on Organic
Agriculture & Agr...
Organic.Edunet
IEEE LOM AP
Definition of own requirements
Selection of LOM elements
Semantics Refinement
Multiplicity cons...
Process (2/2)
• Developed a Repository Management Tool
where resources would be described with IEEE
LOM metadata (Confolio...
May 2009
• 6.600 resources uploaded in Confolio
– 1.100 fully annotated by partners
– 5.500 harvested and manually enriche...
First Analysis
• Measured metadata completeness for all IEEE
LOM AP elements
• Usage of metadata elements was not as high
...
Results
Improving Metadata Quality
Through a Metadata Quality
Assurance Mechanism
Step 1
• Review of metadata records by experts
(9/2009)
– Direct feedback through e-mail &
– Good & Bad metadata practices
Step 2
• Review of metadata records by subject-matter
experts (12/2009)
– Direct feedback through e-mail
– General statist...
January 2010
Time to measure again…
Second Analysis
• Improved completeness for…
– Mandatory elements: -0.3% to 82,4%
• Rights.Copyrights and Other Restrictio...
What about Educational elements?
• Educational…
– Intended End User Role: +66.1% (78.9%)
– Typical Age Range: +57.7% (61.5...
Overview
-20,00%
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
120,00%
Metadata elements
Completeness
After
Before
Conclusions
• Training experts on a specific field on
metadata concepts & principles, improved
resulting metadata complete...
Limitations
Improvement coming from familiarizing with the
annotation process
VS
Improvement coming from the mechanisms pu...
Future Research
• Insert more similar mechanisms throughout
the learning resource/repository lifecycle
• Focus more on add...
Metadata quality
in learning repositories:
Issues & considerations
Thank you!
palavitsinis@grnet.gr
ED-MEDIA 2011, 27/7-1/...
Metadata Quality in Learning Repositories: Issues & Considerations
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Metadata Quality in Learning Repositories: Issues & Considerations

3,786 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

Metadata Quality in Learning Repositories: Issues & Considerations

  1. 1. Metadata quality in learning repositories: Issues & considerations Nikos Palavitsinis, Nikos Manouselis, Salvador-Sanchez Alonso ED-MEDIA 2011, 27/7-1/7, Lisbon, Portugal
  2. 2. Key Concepts • Learning Repositories • Resources • Metadata
  3. 3. Quantity is NOT the problem! • MERLOT, ARIADNE, LRE for schools, MACE, etc • Millions of resources on various topics/areas/fields Image taken from: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/223/475156707_d56e38f251.jpg
  4. 4. Quality? • Publishers of content are under pressure to ensure that in the plethora of information that is available in today’s web, resources are highly discoverable and highly credible Walker, 2010 Quality of metadata Quality of content
  5. 5. Truth or… “Isn't it true, that only librarians like to search? Everyone else likes to find” Roy Tennant Images taken from: http://gigglebot.net/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/librarian.png & http://www.ala.org/img/alonline/computer%20guy.jpg
  6. 6. …dare?
  7. 7. Context of the study
  8. 8. about Organic.Edunet • Completed eContentPlus project (10/2007 – 10/2010) funded with 2.5M € • Main objective: Make learning content on Organic Agriculture and Agro-ecology available online, for a range of stakeholders. • And: Develop educational scenarios to be used within schools & universities
  9. 9. Stats • 1,5 year of operation • 53.859 visits • 208.963 page views • 41.804 unique visitors • 166 countries • 2.041 registered users • 10.967 resources
  10. 10. Multilingualism • Multilingual interface (17 languages) – Text-based search – Browsing – Tag-based search – Semantic search • Multilingual resources (10 languages) – Images, videos, articles, scenarios, etc • Multilingual metadata (17 languages) – IEEE LOM Application Profile
  11. 11. How did we get there? Started on June of 2008…
  12. 12. Process (1/2) • Developed an Application Profile of IEEE LOM to be used to describe resources on Organic Agriculture & Agroecology
  13. 13. Organic.Edunet IEEE LOM AP Definition of own requirements Selection of LOM elements Semantics Refinement Multiplicity constraints and values Relationships and dependencies Required extensions Application Profile Binding Evaluation of AP Evaluation phase Results’ analysis AP modifications
  14. 14. Process (2/2) • Developed a Repository Management Tool where resources would be described with IEEE LOM metadata (Confolio – http://oe.confolio.org)
  15. 15. May 2009 • 6.600 resources uploaded in Confolio – 1.100 fully annotated by partners – 5.500 harvested and manually enriched records • Time to start playing with the data…
  16. 16. First Analysis • Measured metadata completeness for all IEEE LOM AP elements • Usage of metadata elements was not as high as desired, but was as low as anticipated!
  17. 17. Results
  18. 18. Improving Metadata Quality Through a Metadata Quality Assurance Mechanism
  19. 19. Step 1 • Review of metadata records by experts (9/2009) – Direct feedback through e-mail & – Good & Bad metadata practices
  20. 20. Step 2 • Review of metadata records by subject-matter experts (12/2009) – Direct feedback through e-mail – General statistics
  21. 21. January 2010
  22. 22. Time to measure again…
  23. 23. Second Analysis • Improved completeness for… – Mandatory elements: -0.3% to 82,4% • Rights.Copyrights and Other Restrictions (82.4%) • Rights.Cost (64%) – Recommended elements: 47,4% to 82,9% • Rights.Description (82.9%) • General.Keyword (78.1%) – Optional elements: 13,2% to 79,9% • General.Coverage (79.9%)
  24. 24. What about Educational elements? • Educational… – Intended End User Role: +66.1% (78.9%) – Typical Age Range: +57.7% (61.5%) – Context: +47.4% (57.6%) – Language: +50.9% (51.2%) – Difficulty: +36.1% (36.2%) – Semantic Density: +35.9% (36.1%) – Interactivity Level: +35.8% (36.1%) – Interactivity Type: +35.6% (35.9%) – Description: +13.2% (14.7%)
  25. 25. Overview -20,00% 0,00% 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 80,00% 100,00% 120,00% Metadata elements Completeness After Before
  26. 26. Conclusions • Training experts on a specific field on metadata concepts & principles, improved resulting metadata completeness • Manual effort is really important • Further effort for optional elements needed
  27. 27. Limitations Improvement coming from familiarizing with the annotation process VS Improvement coming from the mechanisms put into place Is it possible to measure separately?
  28. 28. Future Research • Insert more similar mechanisms throughout the learning resource/repository lifecycle • Focus more on additional metadata quality metrics on top of completeness • Extend this framework to other types of resources, i.e. cultural collections, etc.
  29. 29. Metadata quality in learning repositories: Issues & considerations Thank you! palavitsinis@grnet.gr ED-MEDIA 2011, 27/7-1/7, Lisbon, Portugal

×