Information Continuity: A Temporal Approach to Assessing Metadata and Organizational Quality in an Institutional Repository

  • Erik Radio
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 478)


Repositories provide a vital infrastructure for an institution to aggregate and disseminate creative output, yet this task is only as successful as the effective organization of its content. The University of Kansas is currently undergoing a systematic review to analyze metadata and content organization in its own repository. This paper argues that for a full assessment to be achieved it is necessary to not view the repository as a fixed item, but as an entity with its own continuity. This temporal approach has a significant impact on establishing resource provenance for metadata policy adjustments, disciplinary migration, and resource extensibility. For any repository it is essential for ensuring long-term viability.


Institutional Repositories Information Hierarchy Author Generated Metadata Temporality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The University of Kansas, ScholarWorks,
  2. 2.
    Boydens, I.: Informatiques, normes et temps. Bruylant, Bruxelles (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bade, D.: It’s about Time!: Temporal Aspects of Metadata Management in the Work of Isabelle Boydens. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 49(4), 328–338 (2011), doi:10.1080/01639374.2011.571096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lubas, R.L.: Defining Best Practices in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Metadata. Journal of Library Metadata 9(3-4), 252–263 (2009), doi:10.1080/19386380903405165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boydens, I., Van Hooland, S.: Hermeneutics applied to the quality of em-pirical databases. Journal of Documentation 67(2), 279–289 (2011), doi:10.1108/00220411111109476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IDEALS,
  7. 7.
    Glushko, R., McGrath, T.: Document Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peponakis, M.: Libraries’ Metadata as Data in the Era of the Semantic Web: Modeling a Repository of Master Theses and PhD Dissertations for the Web of Data. Journal of Library Metadata 13(4), 330–348 (2013), doi:10.1080/19386389.2013.846618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gutierrez, C., Hurtado, C., Vaisman, S.: Introducing time into RDF. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 19(2), 207–218 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rimkus, K., Padilla, T., Popp, T., Martin, G.: Digital Preservation File Format Policies of ARL Member Libraries: An Analysis. D-Lib Magazine 20(3-4) (2014), doi:10.1045/march2014-rimkusGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    RLG-OCLC. Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities, Mountain View, CA (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilson, A.: How Much Is Enough: Metadata for Preserving Digital Data. Journal of Library Metadata 10(2-3), 205–217 (2010), doi:10.1080/19386389.2010.506395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    PREMIS Editorial Committee. Premis Data Dictionary for Preservation Meta-data, version 2.2. Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hawley, K.: Temporal Parts. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2010 edn. (2010),
  15. 15.
    Milea, V., Frasincar, F., Kaymak, U.: tOWL: A Temporal Web Ontology Lan-guage. IEEE. Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 42(1), 268–281 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Open Archives Initiative-Object Reuse and Exchange,
  17. 17.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Radio
    • 1
  1. 1.Watson LibraryThe University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations