Lists Project – making collection lists searchable through Trove

List Project Report The Lists Project set out to investigate the issues involved in making lists that describe collections searchable online. The work included creating models of ways to convert the lists into metadata and how to chose one of those methods.

Bibliographic data models summary Model 1 – List as digital image attached to collection level MARC record Model 2 – List as indexed data searchable via Trove Model 3 – List as enhanced collection level MARC record Model 4 – List as item level MARC records

Model One – List as digital image attached to collection level MARC record. The List - Farsi collection

MARC record showing link to list.

Model Two – List as machine readable text indexed by Trove. The List - Griffin and his work

Terms from the Griffin list searched on Trove.

MARC record showing link and indexing flag

Model Three – List is converted to collection level MARC record, enhanced by list terms. The List - Finding aid for Giblin papers

Papers of Giblin MARC record enhanced with list terms.

Model Four – List converted to item level MARC records. The List – Baulkham Hills plans spreadsheet.

One of the Baulkham Hills item level records.

Nature of lists The nature of the list and the collection it represents will influence the metadata structure and choice of data model. The characteristics of the data on the list will affect the method and required resources to convert the list to metadata.

Conclusions about lists Machine readable text is paramount to most conversions. Homogeneity of data makes conversion easier. Finer granularity of access can only be usefully provided if distinctive data is available. Item format and published status will determine match/merge loading profiles.

More conclusions about lists A model choice can be unfavourable if it relies on good MARC record linking which is unavailable in some systems. Data format and arrangement determines the ease and expense of list conversions. To review or not to review the data for quality and currency is a difficult decision. If the list is hierarchical in nature like archival finding aids, there will need to be compromise between collection context and metadata presentation.