4.4 Article

Evaluating the quality of the LOD cloud: An empirical investigation

期刊

SEMANTIC WEB
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 859-901

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/SW-180306

关键词

Data quality; Linked Data; empirical study; data quality survey

资金

  1. Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Postgraduate Fellowship [GOIPD/2017/1204]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland
  3. European Regional Development Fund through the ADAPT Centre for Digital Content Technology [13/RC/2106]
  4. Irish Research Council (IRC) [GOIPD/2017/1204] Funding Source: Irish Research Council (IRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing adoption of the Linked Data principles brought with it an unprecedented dimension to the Web, transforming the traditional Web of Documents to a vibrant information ecosystem, also known as the Web of Data. This transformation, however, does not come without any pain points Similar to the Web of Documents, the Web of Data is heterogenous in terms of the various domains it covers. The diversity of the Web of Data is also reflected in its quality. Data quality impacts the fitness for use of the data for the application at hand, and choosing the right dataset is often a challenge for data consumers. In this quantitative empirical survey, we analyse 130 datasets (approximate to 3.7 billion quads), extracted from the latest Linked Open Data Cloud using 27 Linked Data quality metrics, and provide insights into the current quality conformance. Furthermore, we publish the quality metadata for each assessed dataset as Linked Data, using the Dataset Quality Vocabulary (daQ). This metadata is then used by data consumers to search and filter possible datasets based on different quality criteria. Thereafter, based on our empirical study, we present an aggregated view of the Linked Data quality in general. Finally, using the results obtained from the quality assessment empirical study, we use the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) test in order to identify the key quality indicators that can give us sufficient information about a dataset's quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据