At the final Advisory Group meeting towards the end of July 2012, the following points were made in relation to the evaluation of the quality of Linked Data produced and techniques used:
- Quality depends not only on time-consuming human-crafted links to third party datasets, but also on the quality of those datasets (the project had identified some potential mistakes in VAIF)
- Export processes such as those developed for the Penguin Archive use case were not really sustainable with the limited resources that archives usually have
- Limitations of some parts of Drupal mean that, in the Geology use case, we may not be able to make as much of the Linked Data as we would like
- Although we have made considerable efforts to make the user interface to the export and publication processes as smooth as possible, they are still not integrated enough to be adopted in normal working practice
- There is a considerable learning curve in understanding Linked Data and what is needed to create and publish them, which requires intensive support and/or time to read around the subject
- From a technical perspective, the project has highlighted how much impact on the data the production of Linked Data has – it’s not a simple conversion process
- The extent to which Linked Data has the potential to ‘draw in’ new audiences for collections is more limited than envisaged, as collection level descriptions are already available in the Archives Hub, ranked highly in Google searches and accessible via Calm
- It needs more resource, more space and more time!
In terms of methodology, the bringing together of different use cases and technical expertise had worked well, despite learning curves on all sides. The project had been beneficial in raising awareness of Linked Data issues in the Special Collections and Geology teams, and of archival and cataloguing practice in the technical team. Geology and Special Collections were also more aware of each others’ collections and potential for working together in the future.