The JISC and ESRC-funded SOSIG service  is one of the longest running RDN subject gateways. SOSIG provides access to high quality, peer-reviewed records on Internet resources in the area of Social Science, Business and Law.
Many projects will be providing metadata which describes projects' deliverables, which may include resource discovery or educational metadata.
In order for projects to gain an understanding of the importance which JISC services place on the quality of metadata, this case study has been written which describes the approach to 'spring-cleaning' which SOSIG has carried out as one of its quality assurance procedures in order to ensure that its records continued to provide high quality information.
The core of the SOSIG service, the Internet Catalogue, holds over 26,000 structured metadata records describing Internet resources relevant to social science teaching, learning and research. Established in 1994, SOSIG is one of the longest-running subject gateways in Europe. The subject section editors have been seeking out, evaluating and describing social science Internet resources, developing the collection so that it now covers 17 top-level subject headings with over 1,000 sub-sections. Given the dynamic nature of the Internet, and the Web in particular, collection development is a major task. Collection management (i.e. weeding out broken links, checking and updating records) at this scale can also be something of a challenge.
The SOSIG core team, based at ILRT in Bristol, devotes considerable resource to removing or revising records with broken links (human checks based on reports from an automated weekly link-checking programme). Subject section editors, based in universities and research organisations around the UK, also consider durability and reliability of resources as part of the extensive quality criteria for inclusion in the Catalogue. They regularly check records and update them: however, the human input required to do this on a systematic and comprehensive scale would be beyond current resources. SOSIG has therefore recently embarked on a major 'spring cleaning' exercise that it is hoped will address this issue and keep the records current. We describe below the method, and outcomes to date.
There are several reasons why such collection management activity is important. User feedback indicates that currency of the resource descriptions is one of the most appreciated features of the SOSIG service. SOSIG and other RDN hubs are promoted on the basis of the quality of their records: offering out-of-date descriptions and other details is likely to frustrate users and, in the long term, be detrimental to their perceptions and therefore use of the service. Recent changes in data protection legislation also emphasise the obligation to check that authors/owners are aware of and happy with the inclusion of their resources in SOSIG. Checking with resource owners also appears to have incidental public relations benefits and is helping to develop the collection by identifying new resources from information publishers and providers.
How did we go about our spring-clean? Each of the metadata records for the 26,000 resources catalogued in SOSIG contains a field for 'administrative email' - the contact email address of the person or organisation responsible for the site. We adapted an existing Perl script (developed in ILRT for another project), which allowed a tailored email to be sent to each of these addresses. The message includes the URL of the SOSIG record(s) associated with the admin email. Recipients are informed that their resources are included in SOSIG and are asked to check the SOSIG record for their resource (via an embedded link in the message) and supply corrections if necessary. They are also invited to propose new resources for addition to the Catalogue.
We first considered a mass, simultaneous mailout covering all 26,000 records. The script sends one message per minute to avoid swamping the servers. However we had no idea of the level of response likely to be generated and wanted to avoid swamping ourselves! We therefore decided to phase the process, running the script against batches of 2,000 records on a roughly monthly basis, in numerical order of unique record identifiers, these were grouped notifications so that an administrator would get one email referring to a number of different sites/pages they were responsible for. The process was run for the first time at the end of July 2002 and, on the basis of low-numbered identifiers, included records of resources first catalogued in SOSIG's early days. The SOSIG technical officer oversaw the technical monitoring of the process, whilst other staff handled the personal responses, either dealing with change requests or passing on suggestions for additional resources to Section Editors responsible for specific subject areas on SOSIG.
In total we received 950 personal responses (approximately 4%) from email recipients. A further 3,000 or so automated 'bounced' responses were received. Those of us who are regular and long-term users of the Web are well aware of the fairly constant evolution of Web resource content and features. The SOSIG spring clean exercise also highlights the extent of change in personnel associated with Web resources. As mentioned above, of the emails sent relating to the first 4,000 records, over a quarter 'bounced' back. Although a very small proportion of these were automated 'out of office' replies, most were returned because the address was no longer in use.
The majority of the personal responses requested a change in the URL or to the administrative email address recorded for their resource. Many had stopped using personal email addresses and had turned to generic site or service addresses. Others reported that they were no longer responsible for the resource. As the first batches included older records, it will be interesting to see whether the proportion of bounced and changed emails reduces over time, or whether people are really more volatile than the resources.
We have to assume that the remaining email recipients have no cause for complaint or change requests. In fact, we were very pleased at the overwhelmingly positive response the exercise has generated so far. Many simply confirmed that their records were correct and they were pleased to be included. Others noted minor corrections to descriptions, URLs and, as mentioned, admin email addresses. Many also took the time to recommend new resources for addition to the Catalogue. Only one or two concerns were raised about the inclusion of certain data in the recorded, although there were several queries which highlighted changes needed to the email message for the second and subsequent batches.
One of these arose as a result of the de-duplication process, which only operates within each batch of 2,000 records. Where the same admin email address is included in records excluded from that batch, the de-duplication process ignores it. Some recipients therefore asked why we had apparently included only some of their resources, when they are actually on SOSIG, just not in that particular set of records.
Only one major issue was raised, that of deep-linking. It seems that this is a problem for one organisation, and raises questions about the changing nature of the Web - or perhaps some companies' difficulty in engaging with its original principles. Time will tell whether this is an issue for other organisations: to date it has been raised only once.
Spring-cleaning in domestic settings always involves considerable effort, and the SOSIG spring clean is no exception. SOSIG staff spent about a week, full-time, dealing with the personal responses received after each batch of 2,000 records were processed. The first batch of messages all had the same subject line, so it was impossible to distinguish between responses appearing in the shared mailbox used for replies. In the second 2,000, the subject line includes the domain of the admin email address, which makes handling the responses much easier.
Bounced messages create the most work, because detective skills are then necessary to check resources 'by hand' and search for a replacement admin email address to which the message can then be forwarded. Minor corrections take little time, but the recommendation of new resources leads to initiation of our usual evaluation and cataloguing processes which can be lengthy, depending on the nature and scale of the resource.
We realised that timing of the process could have been better: initiating it in the middle of Summer holiday season is likely to have resulted in more out-of-office replies than might be expected at other times. Emails are now sent as routine to owners of all new additions to the catalogue: this complies with the legal requirements but is also an additional quality check and public relations exercise. Once informed of their inclusion in the gateway, resource owners may also remember to notify us of changes in future as has already been the case!.
Although time-consuming, the spring clean is still a more efficient way of cleaning the data than each Section Editor having to trawl through every single record and its associated resource. Here we are relying on resource owners to notify us of incorrect data as well as new resources: they are the ones who know their resources best, and are best-placed to identify problems and changes.
If you are providing metadata which will be passed on to a JISC service for use in a service environment the JISC service may require that the metadata provided is still up-to-date and relevant. Alternatively the service may need to implement validation procedures similar to those described in this document.
In order to minimise the difficulties in deploying metadata created by project into a service environment, projects should ensure that they have appropriate mechanisms for checking their metadata. Ideally projects will provide documentation of their checking processes and audit trails which they can make available to the service which may host the project deliverables.
This document is based on an Ariadne article entitled "Planet SOSIG - A spring-clean for SOSIG: a systematic approach to collection management" originally written by Lesley Huxley, Emma Place, David Boyd and Phil Cross (ILRT). The article was edited for inclusion as a QA Focus case study by Brian Kelly (UKOLN) and Debra Hiom (ILRT).
Contact details for the corresponding authors is given below.
University of Bristol
University of Bath
"Approaches To 'Spring Cleaning' At SOSIG", by Debra Hiom, Lesly Huxley, Emma Place, David Boyd and Phil Cross (ILRT) and Brian Kelly (UKOLN).
Published by QA Focus, the JISC-funded advisory service, on 17th October 2003.
Available at <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/documents/case-studies/case-study-25/>
This document was originally published as a "Planet SOSIG" column in the Ariadne ejournal.