I have chosen new resources for assignment 2.  The resources were located through the Digital Library for Earth Science Education (DLESE).  Upon perusing the 10 resources, I came up with the following ratings using the 4 identified criteria:
 
 

Key: 1-4 * to show level of consistency; accuracy
(* is least consistent; accurate; **** is most consistent; accurate)

Why I took points off for consistency and accuracy:

Resource 1:  Not completely accurate, because the email contact has changed.
Resource 2:  Not completely accurate, because the email contact has changed.
Resource 3: No points taken off.
Resource 4: Points taken off because email contact has changed; also the metadata description doesn't point out the very helpful glossary feature.
Resource 5: Not completely accurate, because the email contact has changed.
Resource 6: No points taken off.
Resource 7: Not completely accurate because the email contact has changed.
Resource 8: 1/2 point taken off because not sure if email address is presently correct.
Resource 9: No points taken off.
Resource 10: Points taken off because email contact has changed; also wrong name on metadata."This Dynamic Planet" instead of "This Dynamic Earth".
 
 
 

Resources	Extent	Controlled Vocabulary	Descriptive	Appropriateness
Resource 1	****	yes	***	***
Resource 2	****	yes	****	****
Resource 3	****	yes	***	***
Resource 4	***	yes	***	***
Resource 5	****	yes	**	**
Resource 6	****	yes	****	****
Resource 7	****	yes	***	***
Resource 8	****	yes	***	***
Resource 9	****	yes	****	****
Resource 10	****	yes	****	****

Explanation of added criteria:

1.  Extent is the amount of detail inherent in the metadata. It is suggested in the article by Graham.*
2.  Controlled Vocabulary is suggested in the article Understanding Metadata.  It is also suggested in the article by Milstead and Feldman. *
3.  Descriptive in this this case is a subjective criteria for evaluating metadata.  It refers to how well the metadata tells you what is contained in the sources.
4.  Appropriateness is suggested in the article Understanding Metadata.  It refers to how appropriate the metadata is to the users of the sources. *  (For the purposes of this paper, how appropriate it is for educational purposes.)

* see references

For "extent", "descriptive", and "appropriateness", again I have used a system of 1-4* to show level of the criteria I have added.  So, in this case, *  would be least detailed, descriptive, and appropriate.  **** would be most detailed, complete, descriptive, and appropriate.

Why I took off points under "extent", "descriptive", and "appropriateness":

Resource 1:  Points taken off under "descriptive" and "appropriateness" because the metadata for this resource doesn't go the extra mile that some of the resources I have chose do, and list educational standards.
Resource 3:  Points taken off for same reason why it was taken off resource 1.
Resource 4:  Points taken off for same reason why it was taken off resource 1.
Resource 5:  2 points taken off under "descriptive" and "appropriateness" because the metadata does not list educational standards, and it is in my opinion, not as descriptive as the metadata for the other resources.
Resource 7:  Points taken off for same reason why it was taken off resource 1.
Resource 8:  Points taken off for same reason why it was taken off resource 1.

    Producing quality metadata is no easy task.  The criteria used in this report to evaluate the quality of metadata is not a complete list.  I have chosen criteria that I feel are helpful in rating the metadata for this purpose.  Other criteria include include the support of interoperability (see Understanding Metadata*); "conformance to expectations" (see Bruce article*); timeliness (see Bruce article*); and the support of the "long term management of objects in collections." (see Understanding Metadata*).  And still, this is not a complete list of criteria.

    Just as there are subjective elements to metadata; so too evaluating metadata can be subjective.  Some inaccuracies may be obvious, as I have noted in the explanation of the first table (title difference, email contact change). Others may not be readily apparent.  I have made a subjective judgment when I took off points for not pointing out a glossary feature and not listing educational standards.  In my explanation as to why I took off points on resource 5 (see above), I said it was my opinion.

    I hope in this paper that I have given an idea about the quality of the resources I have selected; pointed out flaws that can occur; pointed out metadata records that are specially helpful and why; and just generally provided food for thought.

The following web sites taken from:
Digital Library for Earth System Education (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004.  Web site: http://www.dlese.org/

1.  Visible Earth (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004.  Web site: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/

2.  A Close Look at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Aug. 2004). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004.  Web site: http://bonita.mbnms.nos.noaa.gov/educate/teachercurriculum/investigation2.html

3.  Virtual Vacationland (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004.  Web site: http://www.bigelow.org/virtual

4.  Earth Observatory (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004.  Web site: http://earthbobservatory.nasa.gov

5.  Earth Science Picture of the Day (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004.  Web site: http://epod.usra.edu

6.  Earth Science World Image Bank (2004). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004.  Web site: http://www.earthscienceworld.org/imagebank/index.html

7.  Window to My Environment (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004.  Web site: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/wme/

8.  Earth Update (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004.  Web site: http://mtpe.com/mtpe/spheres.html

9.  All About Glaciers (n.d.). Retrieved Dec. 2, 2004.  Web site: http://nsidc.org/glaciers/

10. Kious, W.J. & Tilling, R.I. (n.d.) This Dynamic Planet: The Story of Plate Tectonics. Retrieved Dec. 2, 2004.  Web site: http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/dynamic.html#anchor10790904

Metadata title

10. Kious, W.J. & Tilling, R.I. (n.d.) This Dynamic Earth: The Story of Plate Tectonics.  Retrieved Dec. 2, 2004.  Web site: http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/dynamic.html#anchor10790904

Actual title
 
 

Some of these references were directly drawn from, and the rest I perused and came up with ideas for the added criteria that can be used to evaluate metadata.  Sources directly drawn from are noted with an asterisk (*).
 

Barton, J., Currier, S., and Hey, J.M.N. (2003). Building Quality Assurance into Metadata Creation: An Analysis Based on the Learning Objects and
 e-Prints Communities of Practice. Dublin Core Conference, Seattle, WA. Web site: http://www.siderean.com/dc2003/201_paper60.pdf

Bruce, T. (2004, May 21). The Continuum of Quality: Defining, Expressing, and Exploiting Metadata. Web site:   http://metadata-wg.mannlib.cornell.edu/forum/index.php?date=2004-05-21

Coleman, A. (2004). Guide to Selecting and Cataloging Quality WWW Resources for the Small Library. Fairfield, CA: Learning Resources Association of the
 California Community Colleges.

Coleman, A., deCharon, A., Frost, C. O., Ginger. K., & Raskin, R. (last update: 2004, Oct. 15). A Framework for the Future of Educational Digital     Libraries: Metadata and Vocabularies for Learning. Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004, from IRLS 501 WebCT.

Graham. P. (1990). Quality in Cataloging: Making Distinctions. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 16, 213-218.

Milstead, J. & Feldman, S. (1999). Metadata: Cataloging by Any Other Name... Web site: http://www.cbuc.es/5digital/1.pdf

Task Force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules: Final Report (1998). Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access. Web site:
http://archive.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/ccda/tf-tei5.html

Taylor, A. (2004).  The Organization of Information (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Understanding Metadata (2004).  Bethesda, MD: NISO Press. Retrieved Nov. 27, 2004 from NISO web site: http://www.niso.org