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