1 / 18

Open source vs. COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS FOR DIGITAL REPOSITORIES

Open source vs. COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS FOR DIGITAL REPOSITORIES. Andrea Fojtu Charles University in Prague, National Library of the CR. What are we going to talk about…. Long-term preservation of DD (LTPoDD). Long-term preservation:

oriole
Télécharger la présentation

Open source vs. COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS FOR DIGITAL REPOSITORIES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Open source vs. COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS FOR DIGITAL REPOSITORIES Andrea Fojtu Charles University in Prague, National Library of the CR

  2. What are we going to talk about…

  3. Long-term preservation of DD (LTPoDD) Long-term preservation: • Anglo-American resources: digital preservation, (long-term) preservation of digital objects or digital curation • The importance of the digital preservation may be corroborated by a Rothenberg’s famous saying: “the digital information lasts forever or five years,   whichever comes first”

  4. OAIS reference model conceptual, terminological framework: Open Archival Information System Reference Model ISO 14721:2003 model –> it is possible to adapt the repository to the specific needs and challenges prerequisite to a trustworthy repository “an archive, consisting of an organization of people and systems that has accepted the responsibility to preserve information and make it available for a designated community [...] and for long enough to be concerned with the impacts of changing technologies, including support for new media and data formats, or with a changing user community” . modules: producer – individual vs. organizational SIP (submission information package) ingest = import (single vs. bulk) data management archival storage AIP (archival information package) administration access DIP (dissemination information package) preservation planning

  5. OAIS reference model

  6. State-of-the-Art JISC survey : • March 2009 • SW: CONTENTdm, Digital Commons , DigiTool, DSpace, Eprints, EQUELLA, Fedora, intraLibrary, Open Repository, VITAL, Zentity • study: functionalities of today’s available open-source and commercial systems is very even • how about DODD? Criteria: • supported formats • thumbnails • user interface functions • advance search • browsing • classification/subject headings • user authentication • statistics • SW platforms, OS, scripting languages • metadata • interoperability

  7. Repository SW Survey, 2009 Repository Software Survey [online]. JISC RepositoryNet, March 2009 [cit. 2009-04-05]. Available at: <http://www.rsp.ac.uk/software/surveyresults>.

  8. Comparison & results Criteria: OAIS model implementation a wide range of supported formats open architecture for other applications and plug-ins internal tools for format change (e.g. emulation, migration) SW and/or HW (in)dependence administrator’s functions services • Repositories: • open-source SW: • DSpace, Fedora, EPrints and Research-Output Repository Platform • commercial SW: • CONTENTdm, Digital Commons, Digitool, Equella, intraLibrary, Open Repository, Vital • three relatively “new” systems: • Dias, SDB, Rosetta

  9. Comparison & results #2 OAIS model implementation a wide range of supported formats open architecture for other applications and plug-ins internal tools for format change (e.g. emulation, migration) SW and/or HW (in)dependence administrator’s functions services • Repozitáře: • open-source SW: • Fedora • OAIS model implementation, METS, not PREMIS, open standard, OS, HW independence; dependence on PC – Midrange server, SIP as a “compound digital object”, nonexistence of migration and emulation tools, indexing for full-text search • not known: limited number of DD, limits for (a bulk) ingest, ingest scheduler, versioning of digital documents, statistics, support in CZ

  10. Comparison & results #3 OAIS model implementation a wide range of supported formats open architecture for other applications and plug-ins internal tools for format change (e.g. emulation, migration) SW and/or HW (in)dependence administrator’s functions services • Repositories • commercial SW: • IBM DIAS • system is named in many ways(implemented according to the needs of an institution), not much information, missing METS, PREMIS, not an open standard, OS, SW platforms dependence; SIP as a stream package (not more than 5 thousand files in one SIP), no ingest scheduler, missing ingest scheduler, web archiving, support in CZ • not known: OAIS, HW dependence questionable, limits for (a bulk) ingest, statistics

  11. Comparison & results #4 OAIS model implementation a wide range of supported formats open architecture for other applications and plug-ins internal tools for format change (e.g. emulation, migration) SW and/or HW (in)dependence administrator’s functions services • Repositories: • commercial SW: • Tessella SDB • OAIS support, METS (possible to export), PREMIS, open standard, OS, SW, HW platform independence; SIP as a logical entity, versioning of digital objects, ingest scheduler, web archiving, statistics, indexing for full-text search, browsing, support in CZ, no limit for (a bulk) ingest

  12. Comparison & results #5 OAIS model implementation a wide range of supported formats open architecture for other applications and plug-ins internal tools for format change (e.g. emulation, migration) SW and/or HW (in)dependence administrator’s functions services • Repositories: • commercial SW: • Ex Libris Rosetta • OAIS support, METS (possible to export), PREMIS, open standard, OS, SW, HW platform independence; SIP as a logical entity, versioning of digital objects, ingest scheduler, web archiving, statistics, indexing for full-text search, browsing, support in CZ, no limit for (a bulk) ingest

  13. Conclusions Reality check: theoretical comparison (based on search in presentations, articles, papers on the Internet) is very complicated and partially misrepresenting there will be at least one SW solution perfectly suitable for the LTPoDD • open-source and commercial • YES and NO not a single repository complies to the chosen criteria • YES open source solution - better performance of open source systems because of a widespread developer and user community • NO • Postulates: • there will be at least one SW solution perfectly suitable for the LTPoDD • open-source and commercial • not a single repository complies to the chosen criteria • open source solution - better performance of open source systems because of a widespread developer and user community Reasons: LTPoDD is still in its infancy, SW is not a redemption!

  14. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?andrea.fojtu@ruk.cuni.cz

More Related