Transcript www.evskp.cz

Andrea Fojtu
Charles University in Prague, National Library of the CR
What are we going to talk about…
Long-term preservation of DD
terminology, OAIS model
State-of-the-Art
comparison of repositories –JISC survey
Comparison & results
Commercial vs. open source repositories
Conclusions
Long-term preservation of DD (LTPoDD)
Long-term preservation:
 Anglo-American resources:
digital preservation, (longterm) preservation of digital
objects or digital curation
Long-term preservation of DD
terminology, OAIS model
State-of-the-Art
comparison of repositories–JISC survey
 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”
Comparison & results
commercial vs. open source repositories
Conclusions
OAIS reference model
conceptual, terminological framework:
modules:
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” .









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
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
Repository Software Survey [online]. JISC RepositoryNet, March 2009 [cit. 2009-04-05].
Available at: <http://www.rsp.ac.uk/software/surveyresults>.
Comparison & results
Repositories:
Criteria:
 open-source SW:
 DSpace, Fedora,
 OAIS model implementation
 a wide range of supported
EPrints and ResearchOutput Repository
Platform
commercial SW:
 CONTENTdm, Digital
Commons, Digitool,
Equella, intraLibrary,
Open Repository, Vital
three relatively “new”
systems:
 Dias, SDB, Rosetta





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
Comparison & results #2
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
 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
Comparison & results #3
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
 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
Comparison & results #4
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
 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
Comparison & results #5
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
 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
Conclusions
Postulates:
Reality check:
there will be at least one SW

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
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


not a single repository complies to the chosen
criteria


YES and NO
YES
open source solution - better performance of open
source systems because of a widespread
developer and user community

NO
Reasons: LTPoDD is still in its infancy, SW is not a redemption!