How can you open data from a digital repository and make it discoverable, accessible, and combinable based on the researcher’s needs? And how do you usefully combine digital repository, library catalog, and library web site data so researchers can collect, re-purpose, and re-mix the data in support of their research? This snapshot, presented at the Digital Library Federation Forum in October 2014 discusses both work completed to expose repository data and plans to combine that data with library catalog and web site data to create a Solr-indexed data source that preserves context and provides thorough, useful, and sharable access to the information, collections, and resources at the Indiana University Libraries.

1. Let it go: Exposing digital collections
for accessible and useful data
Juliet L. Hardesty
Metadata Analyst, Indiana University Libraries
DLF Forum, Atlanta, Georgia
October 28, 2014
#dlfforum @jlhardes

2. @jlhardes
Current discovery & access
flickr

3. There’s more than Fedora
at IU Libraries
@jlhardes
• Digital repository (Fedora)
– Individual items
– Groups of items
• Library catalog (IUCAT)
– Individual items
– Collection-level records
– Serial records
• Library web site
– People
– Subjects
– Services

4. Some details
• System-wide
– Library catalog
– Digital repository
• Campus-wide
– Library web site
• Include holdings information?
julia-map
@jlhardes

5. Even more details
• Digital repository
– Individual item records
• Library catalog
– Collection level records
• Different metadata formats
julia-map
@jlhardes

6. @jlhardes

7. @jlhardes

8. The Combining
flickr
@jlhardes

9. @jlhardes

10. Letting it go
flickr
@jlhardes

11. References
@jlhardes
jlhardes@iu.edu
• Breeding, M. (2005). Plotting a new course for metasearch. Computers in Libraries, 25(2), 27-29.
• Emde, J. Z., Morris, S. E., & Claassen-Wilson, M. (2009). Testing an academic library website for
usability with faculty and graduate students. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4(4),
24-36.
• Hofmann, M. A. & Yang, S. Q. (2011). How next-gen r u? A review of academic OPACs in the United
States and Canada. Computers in Libraries, 31(6), 26-29.
• Hofmann, M. A. (2012). “Discovering” what’s changed: a revisit of the OPACs of 260 academic
libraries. Library Hi Tech, 30(2), 253-274.
• Johnson, T. (2013). Indexing linked bibliographic data with JSON-LD, BibJSON and Elasticsearch. The
Code4Lib Journal, 19. Retrieved from http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7949
• Kipp, M. E. I. (2005). Complementary or discrete contexts in online indexing: A comparison of user,
creator, and intermediary keywords. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences, 29(4), 419-
436.
• Stephens, O. (2011). Mashups and open data in libraries. Serials: The Journal for the Serials
Community, 24(3), 245-250.
• Thomas, M., Caudle, D. M., and Schmitz, C. M. (2009). To tag or not to tag? Library Hi Tech, 27(3),
411-434.
• Voorbij, H. J. (1998). Title keywords and subject descriptors: A comparison of subject search entries
of books in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 54(4), 466-476.
flickr