Transcript Slide 1
One Platform, Two Stories Oregon State University Willamette University Academic Commons ScholarsArchive@OSU Institutional Repositories: A Definition Broadly defined, an Institutional Repository is a service that … • Collects digital content produced • • • • • by an institution Provides a variety of access levels to content Preserves content over time Supports stable, reliable Web access over time Enables discovery of content by various audiences Integrates with other services (external repositories, authoring tools, web sites) Let’s see… Should we go with XMLUI or JSPUI? WU First Collections Undergraduate theses (currently 1500 and growing) Moveable Type (1993-2003) Technical Considerations • More complex to install and support than some options; easier than others • Easier: CONTENTdm • More complicated: Fedora • Out-of –the-box interface that is modestly customizable and XML user interface that is highly customizable given the right skill set (css, xslt) • Support for a growing number of protocols (OAI-PMH, SWORD, Dublin Core, METS, MODS, SRW/U) Technical Considerations (continued) • Handle service provides stable URLs that do not • • • • change if the resource is renamed or relocated Monitoring of file integrity, item provenance, repository history File format registry Robust authorization system and support for external authentication protocols Regular software releases (current release 1.5.1, a 2.0 development branch is underway) OSU Libraries Customizations Front-end Web Server (2) Application Server (2) Database Server (1) Linking from Catalog to ScholarsArchive Oregon Explorer Template Willamette University Customizations Front-end Web Server (1) Application Server (1) Database Server (1) LDAP Authorization by employee_type XMLUI Design 1. Submission process that can be customized and used by departments outside the library 2. Handle server provides stable URL 3. Fine-grained authorization for item access and collection maintenance roles 4. Standards-based development and an active international developer community 5. DSpace Foundation facilitates forward-thinking, collaborative development work 6. SWORD supports integration with other systems (e.g.: Open Journal Systems e-journal publishing software) 7. Can be used to archive a wide variety of digital object types 8. User interface can be used out-of-the-box or customized and shared (e.g.: improved support for image browsing) 9. Application code can be modified and shared 10. Commercial support is available if you need it COAS Home Page ScholarsArchive Community Page Progress Buttons Verify Screen Ability to Save Submission Ability to Restrict Access 1. Many customizations are not possible without the appropriate technical skills 2. Relatively complex to install and administer 3. Native support for image browsing is poor, but the XMLUI can help with this 4. DSpace 2.0 will introduce more modularity, but modifying the current code base can add significant complexity to upgrades 5. The authorization system is powerful but relatively difficult to use in its current incarnation 6. Contracting for hosted DSpace from a vendor solves support issues but may limit how DSpace is used at your institution 7. Not easy to integrate with external tools and Web sites •No Technical Support •Disconnect Between Developers and Users •Developers Answer to Employers/Institutions •Customizations Can Wreak Havoc DSpace Statistics What Excites Us About the Future? Michael Spalti, Head of Library Systems Division Willamette University [email protected] Sue Kunda, Digital Production Librarian Oregon State University [email protected]