Information Brokering or DIY | Learning on the Internet | Local IT Networks | Quality Assurance and Labelling | Information is Power Quality Assurance and Labelling Chair: Anne Bundell This workshop discussed what a database label should be - a clear specification of the scope, use and quality of a database. The workshop debated what a label should look like and how it could be used. Should there be some kitemark of quality? The members of the workshop split into three groups and worked through a pro-forma label for a TAP database to stimulate discussion Anne informed the group that at the last meeting of the ALTSU executive there had been a discussion on the work of the Centre for Information Quality Management, an organisation with origins in the Library Association and the United Kingdom On-line User Group. Their function is to create a system for the assurance of the quality of on-line databases and provide a system for feedback. They decided on the idea of a database 'label'. The issue is: do we, as training database practitioners need some sort of quality kitemark to give our databases increased credibility? A label was defined as a set of statements - a snapshot of a database allowing for QA and feedback from users. The questions up for discussion are: Do we need an external QA kitemark along the lines of a BSI standard? Should there be different levels of kitemark? Should the DfEE exclude non-qualifying databases? How should the label be published? On the web? Do users want to complain about the database and if so, how can they? Anne emphasised that the group discussion should focus on the service standard and not data management. There was general consensus that a quality label is a desirable aim particularly if the database is to be made available on the Internet. It was felt that the label should state what software is used, what database standards are applied and possibly what frontend system is deployed. There was much discussion as to who the beneficiary of the label actually should be. Should it be for the benefit of the end user or to satisfy the funding bodies. Many in the group felt that a label could not meet the needs of both although there was strong argument to the contrary. There was no reason why the label could not impart valuable information the end user and at the same time offer a means of database evaluation that would be meaningful to the funding body. For the end user the label must provide a clear description of the content of the database including the range of data included and the geographic area covered. By range it was felt that this could include the 'type' of providers collected (possibly as defined by the ULI provider type codes) and the type of provision (possibly as defined by the ULI qualification aims codes). However, it was not felt that numbers were important. It would be important to ensure that the label described the general range of provision - full time, part time etc). There was some debate as to where this label should be displayed. It was felt by some that this could be a problem if, as suggested by the CIQM, the label should be displayed at every outlet. Could this mean that a label could be out of date and therefore misleading if a particular site was not updated in line with the allocated schedule? After discussion this was not felt to be a major problem. Although not all the issues arising from the pro-forma were discussed in detail it was felt that qualifying for the CIQM kitemark may not be the appropriate route for TAP databases. However, it may be appropriate for some other, external body such as ALTSU to define the contents of a label and the criteria for awarding it. It may also be appropriate for the awarding of the kitemark to be the criteria for inclusion of a database in any national information service.