IntroductionThe Semantic Web community provides a common Resource Description Framework (RDF) that allows representation of resources such that they can be linked. To maximize the potential of linked data - machine-actionable interlinked resources on the Web - a certain level of quality of RDF resources should be established, particularly in the biomedical domain in which concepts are complex and high-quality biomedical ontologies are in high demand. However, it is unclear which quality metrics for RDF resources exist that can be automated, which is required given the multitude of RDF resources. Therefore, we aim to determine these metrics and demonstrate an automated approach to assess such metrics of RDF resources.MethodsAn initial set of metrics are identified through literature, standards, and existing tooling. Of these, metrics are selected that fulfil these criteria: (1) objective; (2) automatable; and (3) foundational. Selected metrics are represented in RDF and semantically aligned to existing standards. These metrics are then implemented in an open-source tool. To demonstrate the tool, eight commonly used RDF resources were assessed, including data models in the healthcare domain (HL7 RIM, HL7 FHIR, CDISC CDASH), ontologies (DCT, SIO, FOAF, ORDO), and a metadata profile (GRDDL).ResultsSix objective metrics are identified in 3 categories:Resolvability(1),Parsability(1), andConsistency(4), and represented in RDF. The tool demonstrates that these metrics can be automated, and application in the healthcare domain shows non-resolvable URIs (ranging from 0.3% to 97%) among all eight resources and undefined URIs in HL7 RIM, and FHIR. In the tested resources no errors were found forparsabilityand the other threeconsistencymetrics for correct usage of classes and properties.ConclusionWe extracted six objective and automatable metrics from literature, as the foundational quality requirements of RDF resources to maximize the potential of linked data. Automated tooling to assess resources has shown to be effective to identify quality issues that must be avoided. This approach can be expanded to incorporate more automatable metrics so as to reflect additional quality dimensions with the assessment tool implementing more metrics.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-023-02182-8.