Page History: Digital object repository software

Compare Page Revisions

71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Current 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

« Older Revision - Back to Page History - Newer Revision »

Page Revision: 2010/02/04 14:41

Table of Contents [Hide/Show] Greenstone    Capcity    Interface/ease of use    Access to contect    Security/stability issues    News, reviews, and articles about Fedora Commons DSpace General works about Digital Repositories

Digital Object Repository Software Quick Comparison

	open source	GUI (admin, ingest, export, and editing)	OS	parse METS	batch uploads	formats supported	harvest capability
Greenstone	yes	yes, yes, yes, yes
ContentDM	no	yes, sort of, yes, yes
Fedora Commons	yes	yes, sort of, yes, sort of
DSpace	yes

Greenstone¶

• website: http://www.greenstone.org/
  

• spec sheet
  ===News, reviews, and articles about Greenstone===
• Bainbridge, D., Osborn, W., Witten, I.H. & Nichols, D.M. (2006). Extending Greenstone for Institutional Repositories. In Digital Libraries: Achievements, Challenges and Opportunities, 9th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, ICADL 2006, Kyoto, Japan, November 27-30, 2006(pp. 303-312). Berlin: Springer. Abstract: We examine the problem of designing a generalized system for building institutional repositories. Widely used schemes such as DSpace are tailored to a particular set of requirements: fixed metadata set; standard view when searching and browsing; pre-determined sequence for depositing items; built-in workflow for vetting new items. In contrast, Fedora builds in flexibility: institutional repositories are just one possible instantiation—however generality incurs a high overhead and uptake has been sluggish. This paper shows how existing components of the Greenstone software can be repurposed to provide a generalized institutional repository that falls between these extremes.
  Top
  ==ContentDM==
  

• website: http://www.contentdm.org/
  

• spec sheet:
  Top
  ==Fedora Commons==
  

• website: http://www.fedora-commons.org/
• spec sheet
• Features
  

Capcity¶

"Store all types of content and its metadata," " Digital content of any type can be managed and maintained," Metadata about content in any format can be managed and maintained," "Scale to millions of objects,"

Interface/ease of use¶

"Metadata about content in any format can be managed and maintained" "Web-based Administrator GUI (low-level object editing)"

Access to contect¶

"Access data via Web APIs (REST/SOAP)," "Provide RDF search (SPARQL)" "Content Model Architecture (define "types" of objects by their content)" " GSearch (fulltext) Search Service" "Multiple, customer driven front-ends."

Security/stability issues¶

"Rebuilder Utility (for disaster recovery and data migration)," "The entire repository can be rebuilt from the digital object and content files." " JMS messaging (your apps can "listen" to repository events)"

"OAI-PMH Provider Service"

News, reviews, and articles about Fedora Commons¶

1. Moore Foundation funding, 2007
2. Discussion of DSpace/Fedora merger, 2009
   
   

Top

DSpace¶

• website:http://www.dspace.org/
• spec sheet
  

General works about Digital Repositories¶

1. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Volume 47 Issue 3 & 4 2009, Special issue on Metadata and Open Access Repositories
2. Reese, T., & Banerjee, K. (2008). Building digital libraries: A how-to-do-it manual. New York: Neal-Schuman.
   

Top