A good metadata record is one that is accurate, complete, consistent with other records, and

current (Bruce and Hillmann, 2004; Miller, 2011). Although there are other factors to consider
when determining if a record is of high quality, these stand out as being the foundational core
contributors that lead to records that are not only of good quality but also interoperable and
accessible to users. Accuracy in metadata refers not only to the description of the resource being
factual but also to the technical application of assigning metadata to a resource being done
correctly. If there are inconsistencies from one record to the next in following local and
schematic guidelines, then the metadata becomes discordant, and the end result may be an
illogical representation of the institution’s resources that can lead to inaccessibility.
Completeness of records is important to consider when assessing quality due to the ability of a
metadata creator to more thoroughly depict a resource through the inclusion of as many
applicable elements as possible. Additionally, current, or what Bruce and Hillmann (2004)
describe as “timeliness” metadata is another important factor to consider due to the persistence of
the need to ensure up-to-date records to provide users with accurate discovery points.

It is important to maintain and assess the quality of metadata because it directly impacts the
discoverability and management of resources (Yasser, 2011). From an administrative metadata
standpoint, without these aforementioned factors the resource at hand could be mismanaged,
which could potentially lead to a loss of pertinent information about the preservation status,
technical features of a resource (file format/size), rights, and accessibility of a resource, etc. If
anything is incorrect within the metadata and or missing when one goes to harvest the metadata
to apply it to another repository or database, information can be lost along the way and the
context of the original metadata will be indistinguishable, thus forcing the resource to be less
meaningful in searches and therefore less interoperable across platforms.
References:
Bruce, T.R. & Hillmann, D.I. (2004). The continuum of metadata quality: Defining, expressing,
exploiting. In D.I. Hillmann & E.L. Westbrooks (eds.) Metadata in Practice, pp. 238-256.
Miller, S. (2011) Metadata for Digital Collections, Chapter 9 (pp. 227-249)
Yasser, C.M. (2011). An analysis of problems in metadata records. Journal of Library Metadata,
11(2), 51-62.