Open%20source%20vs.%20COMMERCIAL%20SOLUTIONS%20FOR%20DIGITAL%20REPOSITORIES

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
(No Transcript)
4
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 Rothenbergs famous saying
  the digital information lasts forever or five
  years,   whichever comes first

5
OAIS reference model

• conceptual, terminological framework
• Open Archival Information System Reference Model
• ISO 147212003
• model gt 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

6
OAIS reference model
7
(No Transcript)
8
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 todays 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

9
Repository SW Survey, 2009
Repository Software Survey online. JISC
RepositoryNet, March 2009 cit. 2009-04-05.
Available at lthttp//www.rsp.ac.uk/software/surve
yresultsgt.
10
(No Transcript)
11
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
• administrators 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

12
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
• administrators functions
• services

• Repozitáre
• 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

13
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
• administrators 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

14
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
• administrators 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

15
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
• administrators 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

16
(No Transcript)
17
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!
18
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?andrea.fojtu_at_ruk.cuni.cz