Use of Context in Data Quality Management: A Systematic Literature Review
Article No.: 19, Pages 1 - 41
Abstract
The importance of context in data quality (DQ) was shown many years ago and nowadays is widely accepted. Early approaches and surveys defined DQ as fitness for use and showed the influence of context on DQ. This article presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) for investigating how context is taken into account in recent proposals for DQ management (DQM). We specifically present the planning and execution of the SLR, the analysis criteria and our results reflecting the relationship between context and DQ in the state-of-the-art and, particularly, how this context is defined and used for DQM. The SLR is instrumental to the identification of context components and the design of a context formal model.
Primary Studies Selected by The Slr
[1]
M. Shakaib Akram and A. Malik. 2012. Evaluating citizens’ readiness to embrace e-government services. In 13th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, J. C. Bertot, L. F. Luna-Reyes, and S. Mellouli (Eds.). ACM, 58–67. DOI:
[2]
D. Ardagna, C. Cappiello, W. Samá, and M. Vitali. 2018. Context-aware data quality assessment for big data. Fut. Gen. Comput. Syst. 89 (2018), 548–562. DOI:
[3]
F. Arolfo and A. Vaisman. 2018. Data quality in a big data context. In Advances in Databases and Information Systems - 22nd European Conference, ADBIS 2018, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 11019), A. Benczúr, B. Thalheim, and T. Horváth (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 159–172. DOI:
[4]
M. T. Baldassarre, I. Caballero, D. Caivano, B. Rivas Garcia, and M. Piattini. 2018. From big data to smart data: A data quality perspective. In 1st ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Ensemble-Based Software Engineering, A. Bucchiarone, M. Mongiello, F. Nocera, and M. Sheng (Eds.). ACM, 19–24. DOI:
[5]
D. Barone, F. Stella, and C. Batini. 2010. Dependency discovery in data quality. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 22nd International Conference, CAiSE 2010, Hammamet, Tunisia, June 7–9, 2010. Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 6051), B. Pernici (Ed.). Springer, 53–67. DOI:
[6]
C. Batini and M. Scannapieco. 2016. Information quality in use. In Data and Information Quality—Dimensions, Principles and Techniques. Springer. DOI:
[7]
C. Batini and M. Scannapieco. 2016. Data quality dimensions. In Data and Information Quality—Dimensions, Principles and Techniques. Springer. DOI:
[8]
C. Batini and M. Scannapieco. 2016. Methodologies for information quality assessment and improvement. In Data and Information Quality—Dimensions, Principles and Techniques. Springer. DOI:
[9]
M. Belhiah, M. Salim Benqatla, and B. Bounabat. 2015. Decision support system for implementing data quality projects. In Data Management Technologies and Applications, Revised Selected Papers(Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 584), M. Helfert, A. Holzinger, O. Belo, and C. Francalanci (Eds.). Springer, 1–16. DOI:
[10]
L. Bertossi and M. Milani. 2018. Ontological multidimensional data models and contextual data quality. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 9, 3 (2018), 14:1–14:36. DOI:
[11]
L. Bertossi, F. Rizzolo, and L. Jiang. 2010. Data quality is context dependent. In Enabling Real-Time Business Intelligence - 4th International Workshop, BIRTE 2010, Held at the 36th International Conference on Very Large Databases, VLDB 2010, Singapore, September 13, 2010, Revised Selected Papers(Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 84), Malú Castellanos, Umeshwar Dayal, and Volker Markl (Eds.). Springer, 52–67. DOI:
[12]
Z. Bicevska, J. Bicevskis, and I. Oditis. 2017. Models of data quality. In Information Technology for Management, Extended Selected Papers(Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 311), E. Ziemba (Ed.). Springer, 194–211. DOI:
[13]
J. Bicevskis, Z. Bicevska, and I. Oditis. 2017. Domain-specific characteristics of data quality. In Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS’17)(Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Vol. 11), M. Ganzha, L. A. Maciaszek, and M. Paprzycki (Eds.). 999–1003. DOI:
[14]
K. Banahene Blay, S. Yeomans, P. Demian, and D. Murguia. 2020. The information resilience framework: Vulnerabilities, capabilities, and requirements. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 12, 3 (2020), 14:1–14:25. DOI:
[15]
C. Bors, T. Gschwandtner, S. Kriglstein, S. Miksch, and M. Pohl. 2018. Visual interactive creation, customization, and analysis of data quality metrics. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 10, 1 (2018), 3:1–3:26. DOI:
[16]
P. Brous, P. Herder, and M. Janssen. 2016. Governing asset management data infrastructures. Proced. Comput. Sci. 95 (2016), 303–310. DOI:
[17]
I. Caballero, M. A. Serrano, and M. Piattini. 2014. A data quality in use model for big data - (position paper). In Advances in Conceptual Modeling - ER 2014 Workshops, ENMO, MoBiD, MReBA, QMMQ, SeCoGIS, WISM, and ER Demos, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 8823). Springer, 65–74. DOI:
[18]
C. Cappiello, W. Samá, and M. Vitali. 2018. Quality awareness for a successful big data exploitation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Database Engineering & Applications Symposium (IDEAS’18), B. C. Desai, S. Flesca, E. Zumpano, E. Masciari, and L. Caroprese (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 37–44. DOI:
[19]
L. A. Castelijns, Y. Maas, and J. Vanschoren. 2019. The ABC of data: A classifying framework for data readiness. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases - International Workshops of ECML PKDD 2019, Proceedings, Part I(Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 1167), P. Cellier and K. Driessens (Eds.). Springer, 3–16. DOI:
[20]
B. Catania, G. Guerrini, and B. Yaman. 2016. Context-dependent quality-aware source selection for live queries on linked data. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT’16), E. Pitoura, S. Maabout, G. Koutrika, A. Marian, L. Tanca, I. Manolescu, and K. Stefanidis (Eds.). 716–717. DOI:
[21]
B. Catania, G. Guerrini, and B. Yaman. 2019. Exploiting context and quality for linked data source selection. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’19), C. Hung and G. A. Papadopoulos (Eds.). ACM, 2251–2258. DOI:
[22]
C. Csáki. 2018. Towards open data quality improvements based on root cause analysis of quality issues. In Electronic Government - 17th International Conference, EGOV 2018, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 11020), Peter Parycek, Olivier Glassey, Marijn Janssen, Hans Jochen Scholl, Efthimios Tambouris, Evangelos Kalampokis, and Shefali Virkar (Eds.). Springer, 208–220. DOI:
[23]
C. Csáki and E. Prier. 2018. Quality issues of public procurement open data. In Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective - 7th International Conference, EGOVIS 2018, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 11032), A. Ko and E. Francesconi (Eds.). Springer, Cham, 177–191. DOI:
[24]
A. Davoudian and M. Liu. 2021. Big data systems: A software engineering perspective. Comput. Surv. 53, 5 (2021), 110:1–110:39. DOI:
[25]
H. Foidl and M. Felderer. 2019. Risk-based data validation in machine learning-based software systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Machine Learning Techniques for Software Quality Evaluation, F. Arcelli Fontana, B. Walter, A. Ampatzoglou, F. Palomba, G. Perrouin, M. Acher, M. Cordy, and X. Devroey (Eds.). ACM, 13–18. DOI:
[26]
C. Fürber. 2016. Data quality. In Data Quality Management with Semantic Technologies. Springer, 20–55. DOI:
[27]
M. Ge and M. Helfert. 2013. Cost and value management for data quality. In Handbook of Data Quality, Research and Practice. Springer. DOI:
[28]
M. Ge, M. Helfert, and D. Jannach. 2011. Information quality assessment: validating measurement dimensions and processes. In 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS’11). 1–12. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/75
[29]
M. Ghasemaghaei and G. Calic. 2019. Can big data improve firm decision quality? The role of data quality and data diagnosticity. Decis. Supp. Syst. 120 (2019), 38–49. DOI:
[30]
Q. Görz and M. Kaiser. 2012. An indicator function for insufficient data quality—A contribution to data accuracy. In Knowledge and Technologies in Innovative Information Systems - 7th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, MCIS 2012, Proceedings(Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 129), H. Rahman, A. Mesquita, I. Ramos, and B. Pernici (Eds.). Springer, 169–184. DOI:
[31]
C. Guerra-García, I. Caballero, and M. Piattini. 2010. A survey on how to manage specific data quality requirements during information system development. In Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - 5th International Conference, ENASE 2010, Revised Selected Papers(Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 230), L. A. Maciaszek and P. Loucopoulos (Eds.). Springer, 16–30. DOI:
[32]
D. Gürdür, J. El-khoury, and M. Nyberg. 2019. Methodology for linked enterprise data quality assessment through information visualizations. J. Industr. Inf. Integ. 15 (2019), 191–200. DOI:
[33]
E. Gyulgyulyan, J. Aligon, F. Ravat, and H. V. Astsatryan. 2019. Data quality alerting model for big data analytics. In New Trends in Databases and Information Systems, ADBIS 2019 Short Papers, Proceedings(Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 1064), T. Welzer, J. Eder, V. Podgorelec, R. Wrembel, M. Ivanovic, J. Gamper, M. Morzy, T. Tzouramanis, J. Darmont, and A. K. Latific (Eds.). Springer, 489–500. DOI:
[34]
L. C. Günther, E. Colangelo, H. Wiendahl, and C. Bauer. 2019. Data quality assessment for improved decision-making: A methodology for small and medium-sized enterprises. Proced. Manuf. 29 (2019), 583–591. DOI:
[35]
B. Heinrich, D. Hristova, M. Klier, A. Schiller, and M. Szubartowicz. 2018. Requirements for data quality metrics. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 9, 2 (2018), 12:1–12:32. DOI:
[36]
A. Karkouch, H. Mousannif, H. Al Moatassime, and T. Noël. 2016. Data quality in internet of things: A state-of-the-art survey. J. Netw. Comput. Applic. 73 (2016), 57–81. DOI:
[37]
S. Hyun Lee and A. Haider. 2012. Assessing information quality by six sigma method. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications - 17th International Conference, DASFAA 2012, International Workshops, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 7240), H. Yu, G. Yu, W. Hsu, Y. Moon, R. Unland, and J. Yoo (Eds.). Springer, 323–334. DOI:
[38]
X. Mao, B. Gong, F. Su, K. Xu, K. Xian, D. Liu, and H. Guo. 2019. Data quality management and measurement. In International Conference on Signal and Information Processing, Networking and Computers. ICSINC 2018(Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, Vol. 494), S. Sun (Ed.). Springer, Singapore, 229–236. DOI:
[39]
J. Maqboul and B. Bounabat Jaouad. 2020. Contribution of artificial neural network in predicting completeness through the impact and complexity of its improvement. In 3rd International Conference on Networking, Information Systems & Security (NISS’20). ACM, 31:1–31:8. DOI:
[40]
A. Marotta and A. Vaisman. 2016. Rule-based multidimensional data quality assessment using contexts. In Big Data Analytics and Knowledge Discovery - 18th International Conference, DaWaK 2016, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 9829), S. Madria and T. Hara (Eds.). Springer, 299–313. DOI:
[41]
J. Merino, I. Caballero, B. Rivas, M. A. Serrano, and M. Piattini. 2016. A data quality in use model for big data. Fut. Gen. Comput. Syst. 63 (2016), 123–130. DOI:
[42]
M. Milani, L. Bertossi, and S. Ariyan. 2014. Extending contexts with ontologies for multidimensional data quality assessment. In 30th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDE’14). IEEE, 242–247. DOI:
[43]
A. Ngueilbaye, H. Wang, M. Khan, and D. Ahmat Mahamat. 2021. Adoption of human metabolic processes as data quality based models. J. Supercomput. 77, 2 (2021), 1779–1817. DOI:
[44]
D. Poeppelmann and C. Schultewolter. 2012. Towards a data quality framework for decision support in a multidimensional context. Int. J. Bus. Intell. Res. 3, 1 (2012), 17–29. DOI:
[45]
M. Riesener, C. Dölle, G. Schuh, and C. Tönnes. 2019. Framework for defining information quality based on data attributes within the digital shadow using LDA. Proc. CIRP, Int. Acad. Product. Eng. 83 (2019), 304–310. DOI:
[46]
F. Ibrahim Salih, S. Adli Ismail, M. M. Hamed, O. Mohd Yusop, A. Azmi, and N. Firdaus Mohd Azmi. 2019. Data quality issues in big data: A review. In Recent Trends in Data Science and Soft Computing, F. Saeed, N. Gazem, F. Mohammed, and A. Busalim (Eds.), Vol. 843. Springer, Cham, 105–116. DOI:
[47]
V. S. Santana and F. S. Lopes. 2019. Method for the assessment of semantic accuracy using rules identified by conditional functional dependencies. In Metadata and Semantic Research - 13th International Conference, MTSR 2019, Revised Selected Papers(Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 1057), E. Garoufallou, F. Fallucchi, and E. William De Luca (Eds.). Springer, 284–297. DOI:
[48]
F. Serra. 2020. Handling context in data quality management. In ADBIS, TPDL and EDA 2020 Common Workshops and Doctoral Consortium - International Workshops, Proceedings(Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 1260), L. Bellatreche, M. Bieliková, O. Boussaïd, B. Catania, J. Darmont, E. Demidova, F. Duchateau, M. M. Hall, T. Mercun, B. Novikov, C. Papatheodorou, T. Risse, O. Romero, L. Sautot, G. Talens, R. Wrembel, and M. Zumer (Eds.). Springer, 362–367. DOI:
[49]
F. Serra and A. Marotta. 2016. Data warehouse quality assessment using contexts. In Web Information Systems Engineering - WISE 2016-17th International Conference, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 10042), W. Cellary, M. F. Mokbel, J. Wang, H. Wang, R. Zhou, and Y. Zhang (Eds.). 436–448. DOI:
[50]
G. Shankaranarayanan and R. Blake. 2017. From content to context: The evolution and growth of data quality research. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 8, 2 (2017), 9:1–9:28. DOI:
[51]
S. Sicari, A. Rizzardi, D. Miorandi, C. Cappiello, and A. Coen-Porisini. 2016. A secure and quality-aware prototypical architecture for the Internet of Things. Inf. Syst. 58 (2016), 43–55. DOI:
[52]
I. Taleb, M. Adel Serhani, and R. Dssouli. 2019. Big data quality: A data quality profiling model. In SERVICES 2019-15th World Congress, Held as Part of the Services Conference Federation, SCF 2019, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 11517), Y. Xia and L. Zhang (Eds.). Springer, 61–77. DOI:
[53]
J. Tepandi, M. Lauk, J. Linros, P. Raspel, G. Piho, I. Pappel, and D. Draheim. 2017. The data quality framework for the Estonian public sector and its evaluation—Establishing a systematic process-oriented viewpoint on cross-organizational data quality. Trans. Large-scale Data Knowl.-center. Syst. 35 (2017), 1–26. DOI:
[54]
I. Todoran, L. Lecornu, A. Khenchaf, and J. Le Caillec. 2015. A methodology to evaluate important dimensions of information quality in systems. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 6, 2-3 (2015), 11:1–11:23. DOI:
[55]
Á. Valencia-Parra, L. Parody, Á. J. Varela-Vaca, I. Caballero, and M. T. Gómez López. 2019. DMN for data quality measurement and assessment. In Business Process Management Workshops - BPM 2019 International Workshops, Revised Selected Papers(Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 362), C. Di Francescomarino, R. M. Dijkman, and U. Zdun (Eds.). Springer, 362–374. DOI:
[56]
L. Visengeriyeva and Z. Abedjan. 2020. Anatomy of metadata for data curation. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 12, 3 (2020), 16:1–16:30. DOI:
[57]
J. Wang, N. J. Martin, and A. Poulovassilis. 2011. An ontology-based quality framework for data integration. In Workshops on Business Informatics Research - BIR 2011 International Workshops and Doctoral Consortium, Revised Selected Papers(Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 106), L. Niedrite, R. Strazdina, and B. Wangler (Eds.). Springer, 196–208. DOI:
[58]
M. Zárraga-Rodríguez and M. J. Álvarez. 2015. Experience: Information dimensions affecting employees’ perceptions towards being well informed. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 6, 2-3 (2015), 12:1–12:14. DOI:
References
[1]
G. D. Abowd and E. D. Mynatt. 2000. Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans. Comput.-hum. Interact. 7, 1 (2000), 29–58. DOI:
[2]
M. Baldauf, S. Dustdar, and F. Rosenberg. 2007. A survey on context-aware systems. Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiq. Comput. 2, 4 (2007), 263–277. DOI:
[3]
C. Batini, C. Cappiello, C. Francalanci, and A. Maurino. 2009. Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. Comput. Surv. 41, 3 (2009), 16:1–16:52. DOI:
[4]
C. Batini and M. Scannapieco. 2016. Data and Information Quality - Dimensions, Principles and Techniques. Springer. DOI:
[5]
M. Bazire and P. Brézillon. 2005. Understanding context before using it. In Modeling and Using Context, 5th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2005, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 3554), A. Dey, B. Kokinov, D. Leake, and R. Turner (Eds.). Springer, 29–40. DOI:
[6]
L. Bertossi. 2019. Database repairs and consistent query answering: Origins and further developments. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’19), D. Suciu, S. Skritek, and C. Koch (Eds.). ACM, 48–58. DOI:
[7]
C. Bolchini, C. Curino, G. Orsi, E. Quintarelli, R. Rossato, F. A. Schreiber, and L. Tanca. 2009. And what can context do for data? Commun. ACM 52, 11 (2009), 136–140. DOI:
[8]
C. Cappiello, C. Francalanci, and B. Pernici. 2004. Data quality assessment from the users perspective. In IQIS 2004, International Workshop on Information Quality in Information Systems, (SIGMOD 2004 Workshop), F. Naumann and M. Scannapieco (Eds.). ACM, 68–73. DOI:
[9]
F. Chiang and R. J. Miller. 2008. Discovering data quality rules. VLDB Endow. 1, 1 (2008), 1166–1177. DOI:
[10]
X. Chu, I. F. Ilyas, S. Krishnan, and J. Wang. 2016. Data cleaning: Overview and emerging challenges. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD’16), F. Özcan, G. Koutrika, and S. Madden (Eds.). ACM, 2201–2206. DOI:
[11]
P. Ciaccia and R. Torlone. 2011. Modeling the propagation of user preferences. In 30th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling(LNCS, Vol. 6998), Ma. Jeusfeld, L. Delcambre, and T. Wang Ling (Eds.). Springer, 304–317. DOI:
[12]
C. Cichy and S. Rass. 2019. An overview of data quality frameworks. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 24634–24648. DOI:
[13]
J. Debattista, S. Auer, and C. Lange. 2016. Luzzu—A methodology and framework for linked data quality assessment. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 8, 1 (2016), 4:1–4:32. DOI:
[14]
A. K. Dey. 2001. Understanding and using context. Person. Ubiq. Comput. 5, 1 (2001), 4–7. DOI:
[15]
E. Duval. 2001. Metadata standards: What, who & why. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 7, 7 (2001), 591–601. DOI:
[16]
A. Even and G. Shankaranarayanan. 2009. Dual assessment of data quality in customer databases. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 1, 3 (2009), 15:1–15:29. DOI:
[17]
M. Ge and M. Helfert. 2007. A review of information quality research—Develop a research agenda. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Quality, M. A. Robbert, R. O’Hare, M. Markus, and B. Klein (Eds.). MIT, 76–91.
[18]
B. Heinrich, M. Klier, and M. Kaiser. 2009. A procedure to develop metrics for currency and its application in CRM. ACM J. Data Inf. Qual. 1, 1 (2009), 5:1–5:28. DOI:
[19]
S. Issa, O. Adekunle, F. Hamdi, S. Si-Said Cherfi, M. Dumontier, and A. Zaveri. 2021. Knowledge graph completeness: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 31322–31339. DOI:
[20]
L. Jiang, A. Borgida, and J. Mylopoulos. 2008. Towards a compositional semantic account of data quality attributes. In 27th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling(LNCS, Vol. 5231), Q. Li, S. Spaccapietra, E. Yu, and A. Olivé (Eds.). Springer, 55–68. DOI:
[21]
J. Juran. 1999. Juran’s Quality Handbook. 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
[22]
F. Kamei, I. Wiese, C. Lima, I. Polato, V. Nepomuceno, W. Ferreira, M. Ribeiro, C. Pena, B. Cartaxo, G. Pinto, and S. Soares. 2021. Grey literature in software engineering: A critical review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 138 (2021), 106609. DOI:
[23]
B. Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University 33, 2004 (2004), 1–26.
[24]
K. Linderman, R. G. Schroeder, S. Zaheer, and A. S. Choo. 2003. Six sigma: A goal-theoretic perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 21, 2 (2003), 193–203. DOI:
[25]
D. Loshin. 2011. 8 dimensions of data quality. In The Practitioner’s Guide to Data Quality Improvement, D. Loshin (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, 129–146. DOI:
[26]
S. S. G. S. Mylavarapu. 2020. Context-aware Quality Assessment of Structured and Unstructured Data. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oklahoma State University.
[27]
M. P. Neely. 2005. The product approach to data quality and fitness for use: A framework for analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Quality (MIT ICIQ’05), Sponsored by Lockheed Martin, MIT, F. Naumann, M. Gertz, and S. Madnick (Eds.). MIT.
[28]
R. C. Nickerson, U. Varshney, and J. Muntermann. 2013. A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22, 3 (2013), 336–359. DOI:
[29]
E. H. M. Pena, E. C. de Almeida, and F. Naumann. 2019. Discovery of approximate (and exact) denial constraints. Proc. Endow. 13, 3 (2019), 266–278. DOI:
[30]
L. Pipino, Y. W. Lee, and R. Y. Wang. 2002. Data quality assessment. Commun. ACM 45, 4 (2002), 211–218. DOI:
[31]
M. Rashid and M. Torchiano. 2016. A systematic literature review of open data quality in practice. In 2nd Open Data Research Symposium (ODRS’16), Vol. 2. Retrieved from https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:65606922
[32]
S. W. Sadiq, T. Dasu, X. Luna Dong, J. Freire, I. F. Ilyas, S. Link, R. J. Miller, F. Naumann, X. Zhou, and D. Srivastava. 2017. Data quality: The role of empiricism. SIGMOD Rec. 46, 4 (2017), 35–43. DOI:
[33]
M. Scannapieco and T. Catarci. 2002. Data quality under a computer science perspective. J. ACM 2 (2002), 1–15.
[34]
F. Serra. 2015. Evaluación de la Calidad de Datos en un Sistema de Data Warehousing: Un Enfoque Basado en Contextos. Master’s thesis. PEDECIBA. Universidad de la República, Uruguay.
[35]
F. Serra and A. Marotta. 2017. Context-based data quality metrics in data warehouse systems. CLEI Electron. J. 20, 2 (2017). DOI:
[36]
F. Serra, V. Peralta, A. Marotta, and P. Marcel. 2022. Modeling context for data quality management. In Conceptual Modeling - 41st International Conference, ER 2022, Proceedings(LNCS, Vol. 13607), J. Ralyté, S. Chakravarthy, M. Mohania, M. Jeusfeld, and K. Karlapalem (Eds.). Springer, 325–335. DOI:
[37]
F. Serra, V. Peralta, A. Marotta, and P. Marcel. 2022. Use of context in data quality management: a systematic literature review. CoRR abs/2204.10655, (2022). DOI:
[38]
F. Serra, V. Peralta, A. Marotta, and P. Marcel. 2023. Context-aware data quality management methodology. In New Trends in Database and Information Systems - ADBIS 2023 Short Papers, Proceedings(Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 1850), A. Abelló, P. Vassiliadis, O. Romero, R. Wrembel, F. Bugiotti, J. Gamper, G. Vargas-Solar, and E. Zumpano (Eds.). Springer, 245–255. DOI:
[39]
G. Shankaranarayanan and Y. Cai. 2006. Supporting data quality management in decision-making. Decis. Supp. Syst. 42, 1 (2006), 302–317. DOI:
[40]
ISO/IEC 25012 Standard. 2024. Retrieved from iso25000.com/index.php/en/iso-25000-standards/iso-25012.
[41]
K. Stefanidis, E. Pitoura, and P. Vassiliadis. 2011. Managing contextual preferences. Inf. Syst. 36, 8 (2011), 1158–1180. DOI:
[42]
D. M. Strong, Y. W. Lee, and R. Y. Wang. 1997. Data quality in context. Commun. ACM 40, 5 (1997), 103–110. DOI:
[43]
R. Y. Wang, H. B. Kon, and S. E. Madnick. 1993. Data quality requirements analysis and modeling. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Data Engineering, Austria, IEEE Computer Society. 670–677. DOI:
[44]
R. Y. Wang, M. P. Reddy, and H. B. Kon. 1995. Toward quality data: An attribute-based approach. Decis. Supp. Syst. 13, 3-4 (1995), 349–372. DOI:
[45]
R. Y. Wang and D. M. Strong. 1996. Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 12, 4 (1996), 5–33. DOI:
[46]
S. Watts, G. Shankaranarayanan, and A. Even. 2009. Data quality assessment in context: A cognitive perspective. Decis. Supp. Syst. 48, 1 (2009), 202–211. DOI:
[47]
M. Weiser. 1999. The computer for the 21st century. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput. & Commun. Rev. 3, 3 (1999), 3–11. DOI:
[48]
A. Zaveri, A. Rula, A. Maurino, R. Pietrobon, J. Lehmann, S. Auer, and P. Hitzler. 2013. Quality assessment methodologies for linked open data. Semant. Web J. 1, 1 (2013), 1–5.
Index Terms
- Use of Context in Data Quality Management: A Systematic Literature Review
Recommendations
Context-aware Big Data Quality Assessment: A Scoping Review
The term data quality refers to measuring the fitness of data regarding the intended usage. Poor data quality leads to inadequate, inconsistent, and erroneous decisions that could escalate the computational cost, cause a decline in profits, and cause ...
Total Data Quality Management and Total Information Quality Management Applied to Costumer Relationship Management
ICIME 2017: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Management and EngineeringData quality (DQ) is an important issue for modern organizations, mainly for decision-making based on information, using solutions such as CRM, Business Analytics, and Big Data. In order to obtain quality data, it is necessary to implement methods, ...
Modeling Context for Data Quality Management
Conceptual ModelingAbstractThe importance of context for data quality (DQ) has been shown decades ago and is widely accepted. Early approaches and surveys defined DQ as fitness for use and showed the influence of context on DQ. However, very few proposals for context ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2024
126 pages
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 04 October 2024
Online AM: 17 June 2024
Accepted: 24 May 2024
Revised: 05 April 2024
Received: 07 July 2022
Published in JDIQ Volume 16, Issue 3
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Survey
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 145Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)145
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)62
Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in