From: Jill Emery <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:12:41 -0700

Hi All,

I'm very intrigued by the post from Rick Anderson. Why abbreviate the
paragraph on the DPLA document like that?

The full paragraph reads:

"Sharing only records within DPLA’s collecting scope

Bibliographic records, records that do not resolve to a digital resource
that is freely and openly available on the web, and records pointing to
EADs (online finding aids) are out of DPLA’s collecting scope. In addition,
at this time DPLA does not collect items from institutional repositories
(such as electronic theses or dissertations, preprints, or grey
literature), or data sets. Please ensure that these types of records are
organized into sets that can be excluded during harvest and/or removed from
your feed."

The intent of DPLA is to uncover "hidden" digital assets which may not
otherwise gain ready findability on a commercial search engine like
Google(tm).

Instead of seeing this as a slight, librarians should see their work with
making content discoverable through their institutional repositories as
being readily "found" and to use a phrase Mr. Anderson is fond of: "good
enough."

All the best,

Jill