ostinmannual
Uploaded by
28 SLIDES
907 VUES
300LIKES

CONTENTdm vs DSpace vs Fedora

DESCRIPTION

CONTENTdm vs DSpace vs Fedora. Ralph LeVan OCLC Research. Data Support. Arbitrary Bitstreams? Arbitrarily Complex Objects? Versioning? Local Metadata Elements? Preservation Metadata? Batch Input? Rich Metadata Searching? Full-text Searching?. Arbitrary Bitstreams?. CONTENTdm yes

1 / 28

Télécharger la présentation

CONTENTdm vs DSpace vs Fedora

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. CONTENTdm vs DSpace vs Fedora Ralph LeVan OCLC Research

  2. Data Support • Arbitrary Bitstreams? • Arbitrarily Complex Objects? • Versioning? • Local Metadata Elements? • Preservation Metadata? • Batch Input? • Rich Metadata Searching? • Full-text Searching?

  3. Arbitrary Bitstreams? • CONTENTdm • yes • DSpace • yes • Fedora • yes

  4. Arbitrarily Complex Objects? • CONTENTdm • yes • DSpace • yes • Fedora • yes

  5. Versioning? • CONTENTdm • no • DSpace • no • Fedora • yes

  6. Local Metadata Elements? • CONTENTdm • yes • DSpace • yes, but they can’t be searched • Fedora • no

  7. Preservation Metadata? • CONTENTdm • no • DSpace • yes • Fedora • yes

  8. Batch Input? • CONTENTdm • yes? • DSpace • yes • Fedora • yes

  9. Rich Metadata Searching? • CONTENTdm • yes • DSpace • yes, but only on a few fields • Fedora • yes, but only on a couple of fields

  10. Full-text Searching? • CONTENTdm • yes, by moving the content into the metadata • DSpace • yes, through Google (in development) • Fedora • no

  11. User Support • User Roles With Privileges? • Workflows? • Object Marshalling? • Arbitrary Bitstream Retrieval? • Arbitrary Object Retrieval? • Web Interface? • Content Easily Integrated Into Web Pages?

  12. User Roles With Privileges? • CONTENTdm • User permissions on directories • DSpace • yes • Fedora • no

  13. Mediated Workflows? • CONTENTdm • no, but they have a three step commit • DSpace • yes • Fedora • no

  14. Object Marshalling? • CONTENTdm • yes • DSpace • yes • Fedora • no

  15. Arbitrary Bitstream Retrieval? • CONTENTdm • Only file types recognized by the browser • DSpace • Only file types recognized by the browser • Fedora • Only file types recognized by the browser

  16. Arbitrary Object Retrieval? • CONTENTdm • Only types defined by CONTENTdm (books, postcards, CDs, etc.) • DSpace • Web pages only • Fedora • yes

  17. Web Interface? • CONTENTdm • yes • DSpace • yes • Fedora • no

  18. Content Easily Integrated Into Web Pages? • CONTENTdm • yes • DSpace • no • Fedora • possible

  19. Miscellaneous Infrastructure • OAI-PMH? • Z39.50/SRW? • Open Source? • Open API’s? • Cross-Repository Searching?

  20. OAI-PMH? • CONTENTdm • yes • DSpace • yes • Fedora • yes

  21. Z39.50/SRW? • CONTENTdm • Z39.50 can be added • DSpace • SRW can be added • Fedora • no

  22. Open Source? • CONTENTdm • no • DSpace • yes • Fedora • yes

  23. Open API’s? • CONTENTdm • By license • DSpace • SRW for searching • Fedora • Yes

  24. Cross-Repository Searching? • CONTENTdm • Yes • DSpace • No • Fedora • No

  25. Data Support ● = Yes ○ = Qualified Yes

  26. User Support ● = Yes ○ = Qualified Yes

  27. Miscellaneous Infrastructure ● = Yes ○ = Qualified Yes

  28. Prioritized List Of New Features • Preservation Plan • Open Rendering Scheme • Open API’s • Workflow and User Roles • Versioning

More Related