Cited by 596Semantic Web and OntologiesData Quality and ManagementLibrary Science and Information Systems

Quality assessment for Linked Data: A Survey: A systematic literature review and conceptual framework

Open access
Zaveri, Amrapali, Rula, Anisa, Maurino, Andrea, Pietrobon, Ricardo, Lehmann, Jens, Auer, Sören·2015·Semantic Web

Abstract

The development and standardization of Semantic Web technologies has resulted in an unprecedented volume of data being published on the Web as Linked Data (LD). However, we observe widely varying data quality ranging from extensively curated datasets to crowdsourced and extracted data of relatively low quality. In this article, we present the results of a systematic review of approaches for assessing the quality of LD. We gather existing approaches and analyze them qualitatively. In particular, we unify and formalize commonly used terminologies across papers related to data quality and provide a comprehensive list of 18 quality dimensions and 69 metrics. Additionally, we qualitatively analyze the 30 core approaches and 12 tools using a set of attributes. The aim of this article is to provide researchers and data curators a comprehensive understanding of existing work, thereby encouraging further experimentation and development of new approaches focused towards data quality, specifically for LD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/sw-150175

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [35]35. Franz Baader, Calvanese Diageo, Deborah McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter Patel-Schneider, editors. The De- scription Logic Handbook. Cambridge, 2003.
  2. [40]40. Jens Bleiholder and Felix Naumann. Data fusion. ACM Com- puting Surveys (CSUR), 41(1):1, 2008.
  3. [58]58. Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Yue Pan, Pascal Hitzler, Peter Mika, Lei Zhang, Jeff Z. Pan, Ian Horrocks, and Birte Glimm, edi- tors, Proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Con- ference, ISWC, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 53- 59. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.
  4. [59]59. Olaf Hartig. Trustworthiness of Data on the Web. In Di- eter Fensel and Elena Simperl, editors, Proceedings of the STI Berlin and CSW PhD Workshop, co-located with Xinnovations, Berlin, Germany, 2008.
  5. [66]66. Joseph M. Juran, Richard S. Bingham, and Frank M. Gryna. The Quality Control Handbook. Rainbow-Bridge, 3 edition, 1974.
  6. [73]73. David Kopcso Leo Pipino, Ricahrd Wang and William Rybold, editors. Information Quality, volume 1. Routledge, 2005.
  7. [83]83. Leo L. Pipino, Yang W. Lee, and Richarg Y. Wang. Data qual- ity assessment. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 2002.
  8. [92]92. Denny Vrandecic. Ontology Evaluation. PhD thesis, Karl- sruher Instituts für Technologie (KIT), 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zaveri, A., Rula, A., Maurino, A., Pietrobon, R., Lehmann, J., & Auer, S.
Affiliations
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
Corresponding author
Zaveri, Amrapali
Venue
Semantic Web
Published
2015-03-17
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
63-93
ISSN
  • 1570-0844 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-4968
OpenAlex
W1870959433
Cited by
596
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 2
FWCI
68.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Semantic Web (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
  • Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information Systems
Keywords
linked data, data quality assessment, quality metrics, quality dimensions, quality terminology, quality management tools, crowdsourced data, data curation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review