Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Information Quality Dimensions for Maps and Texts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Data and Information Quality

Part of the book series: Data-Centric Systems and Applications ((DCSA))

Abstract

In Chap. 2, we have considered quality dimensions for structured data. In this chapter, we move from data quality dimensions to information quality dimensions. We will consider two coordinates for the types of information, respectively, the perceptual coordinate and the linguistic coordinate. From one side, we will explore how dimensions change according to the coordinate and to the type of information, considering as to the perceptual coordinate the case of maps and as to the textual coordinate the case of semistructured texts . From the other side, we will deal with a better detail a topic that has been introduced in Chap. 2, related to how dimensions change or evolve when specific domains are considered. In particular, we will consider a special kind of semistructured texts, namely, law texts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Agnoloni T, Francesconi E (2011) Modelling semantic profiles in legislative documents for enhanced norm accessibility. In: ICAIL, pp 111–115

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aluisio S, Specia L, Gasperin C, Scarton C (2010) Readability assessment for text simplification. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Fifth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amsterdam AU (2001) The role of verification in improving the quality of legal decision-making. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2001: The Fourteenth Annual Conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, vol 70

    Google Scholar 

  4. Biagioli C, Francesconi E, Spinosa P, Taddei M (2003) The nir project: Standards and tools for legislative drafting and legal document web publication. In: Proceedings of ICAIL Workshop on e-Government: Modelling Norms and Concepts as Key Issues, pp 69–78

    Google Scholar 

  5. Biagioli C, Cappelli A, Francesconi E, Turchi F (2007) Law making environment: perspectives. In: Proceedings of the V Legislative XML Workshop, pp 267–281

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chall JS (1995) Readability Revisited: The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Brookline Books, Cambridge, vol 118. Brookline Books, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  7. Consiglio Regionale della Toscana (2003) Indice di qualita’: Percorso e metodologia (in Italian)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Crossley SA, Greenfield J, McNamara DS (2008) Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. Tesol Quarterly 42(3):475–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. DuBay WH (2004) The Principles of Readability [Online Submission]

    Google Scholar 

  10. Elhadad N, Sutaria K (2007) Mining a lexicon of technical terms and lay equivalents. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on BioNLP 2007: Biological, Translational, and Clinical Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 49–56

    Google Scholar 

  11. Farr JN, Jenkins JJ, Paterson DG (1951) Simplification of flesch reading ease formula. Journal of Applied Psychology 35(5):333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fellbaum C (1999) WordNet. Wiley Online Library

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32(3):221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gostojić S, Milosavljević B, Konjović Z (2013) Ontological model of legal norms for creating and using legislation. Computer Science and Information Systems 10(1):151–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Graesser AC, McNamara DS (2011) Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science 3(2):371–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Graesser AC, McNamara DS, Louwerse MM (2003) What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In: Rethinking Reading Comprehension, pp 82–98

    Google Scholar 

  17. Graesser AC, McNamara DS, Louwerse MM, Cai Z (2004) Coh-metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36(2):193–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gunning R (1952) The Technique of Clear Writing. McGraw Hill International Book, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Guptil C, Morrison J (1995) Elements of Spatial Data Quality. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  20. Halliday M, Hasan R (1976) Cohesion in English. English Language Series, Longman, URL http://books.google.it/books?id=zMBZAAAAMAAJ

    Google Scholar 

  21. Herzfeld T, Weiss C (2003) Corruption and legal (in) effectiveness: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Political Economy 19(3):621–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. INTERPARES Project (accessed 2014) http://www.interpares.org

  23. Jain AK (2001) Corruption: a review. Journal of Economic Surveys 15(1):71–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson S, Kaufmann D, Zoido-Lobaton P (1998) Regulatory discretion and the unofficial economy. American Economic Review 88(2):387–392

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kincaid JP, Fishburne Jr RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Technical report, DTIC Document

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kitson HD (1921) The Mind of the Buyer: A Psychology of Selling. Macmillan, New York, vol 21549

    Google Scholar 

  27. Klare GR (1974) Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly 62–102

    Google Scholar 

  28. Koda K (2005) Insights into Second Language Reading: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Lupo C, Batini C (2003) A federative approach to laws access by citizens: the “normeinrete” system. In: Electronic Government. Springer, New York, pp 413–416

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Lupo C, De Santis L, Batini C (2005) Legalurn: a framework for organizing and surfing legal documents on the web. In: Challenges of Expanding Internet: E-Commerce, E-Business, and E-Government. Springer, New York, pp 313–327

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Mann WC, Thompson SA (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3):243–281

    Google Scholar 

  32. McLaughlin GH (1969) Smog grading: a new readability formula. Journal of Reading 12(8):639–646

    Google Scholar 

  33. McNamara DS, Louwerse MM, Graesser AC (2002) Coh-metrix: automated cohesion and coherence scores to predict text readability and facilitate comprehension. Unpublished Grant proposal, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee

    Google Scholar 

  34. Newbold N, Gillam L (2010) The linguistics of readability: the next step for word processing. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Writing: Writing Processes and Authoring Aids. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 65–72

    Google Scholar 

  35. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1994) Improving the quality of laws and regulations

    Google Scholar 

  36. Osservatorio Legislativo Interregionale, Italy (2007) Regole e suggerimenti per la redazione di testi normativi (in Italian)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ostman A (1997) The specifications and evaluation of spatial data quality. In: Proceedings of the 18th ICA/ACI International Conference, pp 836–847

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ozuru Y, Dempsey K, McNamara DS (2009) Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction 19(3):228–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Payne RS, McVay S (1971) Songs of humpback whales. Science 173(3997):585–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Quality of laws Institute (accessed 2014) URL http://www.qualityoflaws.com

  41. Renkema J (2001) Undercover research into text quality as a tool for communication management. Reading and writing public documents: problems, solutions and characteristics. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 37–57

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sala M (2006) Versions of the constitution for Europe: linguistic, textual and pragmatic aspects. Linguistica e filologia 22:139–167

    Google Scholar 

  43. Senate M (2010) Legislative research and drafting manual

    Google Scholar 

  44. Senter R, Smith E (1967) Automated readability index. Technical report, DTIC Document

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shekhar S, Xiong H (2008) Encyclopedia of GIS. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Shi W, Fisher P, Goodchild MF (2003) Spatial Data Quality. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  47. Van Engers TM (2004) Legal engineering: a knowledge engineering approach to improving legal quality. In: eGovernment and eDemocracy: Progress and Challenges, pp 189–206

    Google Scholar 

  48. Veregin H, Hargitai P (1995) An evaluation matrix for geographical data quality. In: Elements of Spatial Data Quality, pp 167–188

    Google Scholar 

  49. Viscusi G, Batini C, Mecella M (2010) Information Systems for eGovernment: A Quality of Service Perspective. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Wikipedia (accessed 2014) https://www.wikipedia.org/

  51. Xanthaki H (2001) The problem of quality in eu legislation: what on earth is really wrong? Common Market Law Review 38:651–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zakaluk BL, Samuels SJ (1988) Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future. ERIC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università degli Studi di Milano-Biccoca, Milan, Italy

    Carlo Batini

  2. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica-Istat, Rome, Italy

    Monica Scannapieco

Authors
  1. Carlo Batini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monica Scannapieco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Batini, C., Scannapieco, M. (2016). Information Quality Dimensions for Maps and Texts. In: Data and Information Quality. Data-Centric Systems and Applications. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24106-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24106-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24104-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24106-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation