Ana səhifə

National Library of Medicine Recommendations on nlm digital Repository Software

Yüklə 1.4 Mb.
ölçüsü1.4 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

2.2. Working Guidelines

2.2.1. Goals and Scope of the NLM Digital Repository

Institutional Resource
The NLM digital repository will be a resource that will enable NLM's Library Operations to preserve and provide long-term access to digital objects in the Library's collections.

The NLM digital repository will contain a wide variety of digital objects, including manuscripts, pamphlets, monographs, images, movies, audio, and other items.  The repository will include digitized representations of physical items, as well as born digital objects. NLM's PubMed Central will continue to manage and preserve the biomedical and life sciences journal literature. NIH's CIT will continue to manage and preserve HHS/NIH videocasts.

Future Growth
The NLM digital repository should provide a platform and flexible development environment that will enable NLM to explore and implement innovative digital projects and user services utilizing the Library's digital objects and collections. For example, NLM could consider utilizing the repository as a publishing platform, a scientific e-learning/e-research tool, or to selectively showcase NLM collections in a very rich online presentation.

2.2.2. Resources

Staff will provide system architecture and software development resources to assist in the implementation and maintenance of the NLM digital repository.

Library Operations
Staff will define the repository requirements and capabilities, and manage the lifecycle of NLM digital content.

3. Project Methodology and Initial Software Evaluation Results

3.1 Project Timeline

The Working Group held its kick-off meeting June 12, 2007 and completed all work by December 2, 2008.

  • Phase 1: Completed September 25, 2007. A qualitative evaluation was conducted of 10 systems, and three were selected for in-depth testing.

  • Phase 2: Completed October 22, 2007. A test plan was developed and a wide range of content types was selected to be used for testing.

  • Phase 3: Completed October 13, 2008. Three systems were installed at NLM and hands-on testing and scoring of each was performed. On average, each system required 85 testing days or just over four months from start of installation to completion of scoring.

  • Phase 4: Completed December 2, 2008. The final report was completed and submitted.

3.2. Project Start: Preliminary Repository List

Based on the work of the previous NLM Digital Repository Working Group, the team conducted initial investigations to construct a list of ten potential systems/software for qualitative evaluation. The group also identified various content and format types to be used during the in-depth testing phase.

3.3. Qualitative Evaluation of 10 Systems/Software

The Working Group conducted a qualitative evaluation of the 10 systems, by rating each system using a set of Master Evaluation Criteria established by the Working Group (see Appendix A). Members reviewed Web sites and documentation, and talked to vendors and users to qualitatively rate each system. Each system was given a rating of 0 to 3 for each criterion, with 3 being the highest rating.  Advantages and risks were also identified for each system.

The Working Group was divided into four subgroups, and each subgroup evaluated two or three of the 10 systems.  Each subgroup presented their research findings and initial ratings to the full Working Group.  The basis for each rating was discussed, and an effort was made to ensure that the criteria were evaluated consistently across all 10 tools.  The subgroups finalized their ratings to reflect input received from discussions with the full Working Group.  

All 10 systems were ranked, and three top contenders were identified (see Appendix B). DigiTool, DSpace, and Fedora were selected for further consideration and in-depth testing. Below are highlights of the evaluation of the 10 systems.

  • Developed by: PTFS (commercial).

  • Advantages:

    • Strong search capabilities. 

  • Risks:

    • Small user population.

    • Reliability and development path of vendor unknown.

  • Developed by: University of Washington and acquired by OCLC in 2006 (commercial).

  • Advantages:

    • Good scalability.

  • Risks:

    • No interaction with third party systems.

    • Data stored in proprietary text-based database and does not accommodate Oracle.

    • Development path of vendor unknown.

  • Developed by: Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) (open source) and released under the GNU GPL license as a digital repository system for 11 public universities.

  • Advantages:

    • Richest preservation functionality. 

  • Risks: 

    • Back-end/archive system.

    • Must use DAITSS in conjunction with other repository or access system.

    • Planned re-architecture over next 2 years.

    • Limited use and support; further development dependent on FCLA (and FL state legislature).

  • Developed by: Ex Libris (commercial) as an enterprise solution for the management, preservation, and presentation of digital assets in libraries and academic environments.

  • Advantages:

    • "Out-of-the-box" solution with known vendor support.

    • Provides good overall functionality.

    • Has ability to integrate and interact with other NLM systems.

    • Scalability and flexibility may be issues.

  • Risks:

    • NLM may be too dependent on one commercial vendor for its library systems.

  • Developed by: MIT Libraries and HP Labs (open source) as one of the first open source platforms created for the storage, management, and distribution of collections in digital format.

  • Advantages:

    • "Out-of-the-box" open source solution.

    • Provides some functionality across all functional requirements.

    • Community is mature and supportive.

  • Risks:

    • Planned re-architecture over next year.

    • Current version's native use of Dublin Core metadata is somewhat limiting.

  • The Subgroup decided to discontinue the evaluation due to EPrints (open source) lack of preservation capabilities and its ability to only provide a small-scale solution for access to pre-prints.

  • Developed by: University of Virginia and Cornell University libraries (open source).

  • Advantages:

    • Great flexibility to handle complex objects and relationships.

    • Fedora Commons received multi-million dollar award to support further development.

    • Community is mature and supportive.

  • Risks:

    • Complicated system to configure according to NLM research and many users.

    • Need additional software for fully functional repository.

  • Developed by: Cooperatively by the New Zealand Digital Library Project at the University of Waikato, UNESCO, and the Human Info NGO (open source).

  • Advantages:

    • Long history, with many users in the last 10 years.

    • Strong documentation with commitment by original creators to develop and expand.

    • Considered "easy" to implement a simple repository out of the box.

    • DL Consulting available for more complex requirements.

    • Compatible with most NLM requirements.

  • Risks:

    • Program is being entirely rewritten (C++ to Java) to create Greenstone 3. Delivery date unknown.

    • Development community beyond the originators is not as rich as other open source systems.

    • DL Consulting recently awarded grant "to further improve Greenstone's performance when scaled up to very large collections" -- implies it may not do so currently.

    • Core developers and consultants in New Zealand.
Keystone DLS

  • Developed by: Index Data (open source).

  • Advantages:

    • Some strong functionality. 

  • Risks:

    • Relatively small user population.

    • Evaluators felt it should be strongly considered only if top 3 above are found inadequate.

    • No longer actively being developed as of August 2008.

  • Developed by: VTLS, Inc. (commercial) as a commercial digital repository product that combines Fedora with additional open source and proprietary software and provides a quicker start-up than using Fedora alone.

  • Advantages:

    • Vendor support for Fedora add-ons.

  • Risks:

    • Vendor-added functionality may be in conflict with open-source nature of Fedora.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət