1. Research Output Repositories
Tomasz Miksa, TU Wien

2. This presentation is NOT about recommending you a specific system
Agenda
What is a repository system?
How to compare repository systems?
What systems are out there?
What can we learn from Portugal?
(How to introduce a repository system?)
This presentation is NOT about recommending you a specific system

3. What is a repository system?

4. Introduction Expectations evolved over time
from digitization to preservation of e-Science experiments

5. manage, share, access, and archive researchers’ datasets
specialized to aggregating disciplinary data
general collecting over larger knowledge areas
such as social sciences
repository allows examination, proof, review, transparency, and validation of a researcher’s results

7. https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/view/o:423816

12. Repositories scope Specialised General Aggregate experts’ data
disciplinary data
e.g. DNA sequencing
General
covering large knowledge areas
e.g. social sciences
Aggregate experts’ data
globally
locally
university
country

13. Architecture
Not different than other system which has frontend and baceknd.

14. Architecture
Not different than other system which has frontend and baceknd.

15. Architecture Conceptually like any web systems consisting of Example
frontend
backend
Example
online shopping

16. How to compare repository systems?
I am going to go through a list of things to consider.

17. Infrastructure Externally hosted solution Locally hosted solution
own ICT infrastructure required
IT staff required
developers, system administrators
Externally hosted solution
outsourcing of infrastructure
lack of control where the data is
can the external party be trusted?
Open source or Proprietary
who owns the code?
is it allowed to introduce changes?
Community support
number of similar instances
forum and mailing lists
professional support

18. Front-end Design Out of the box or development needed? Customisable?
Fedora Commons is just a backend
Customisable?
branding
Multi-lingual support?
Mobile-optimized design?

19. Content Organization Aggregations and Collections Metadata
proceedings, department outputs, etc.
help in navigating the repository
faceted search
Metadata
what are the default standards?
how easy to add another standard?

20. Content Organization & Multimedia
Single object may have many representations
Content presentation
PDF Viewer
Video streaming
Image previews
Audio playback
Slideshows

21. Content Discovery Inside of the repository Outside of the repository
advanced search
full text indexing
graphical navigation
geolocation
Outside of the repository
OAI-PMH
Search engines optimization
Google scholar indexing
DOI and persistent identifiers
Social Features and Notifications
Share, Bookmark, Comment, RSS

22. Publication tools Customisable submit forms Publishing workflow
specify required information for a submission
metadata
license
etc.
Publishing workflow
roles
editor, reviewer
notifications
Batch processing

23. Access Control & Authentication
IP ranges, user accounts, Access Control Lists
Embargo periods
Authentication
Not an issue for open access
Possible integrations to be considered
LDAP
CAS
System accounts
Shibboleth

24. Interoperability
OAI-PMH - Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting
query to discover repository contents
only for metadata
not for depositing
SWORD - Simple Web-service Offering Repository Deposit
deposit to multiple repositories at once
deposit by third party systems (e.g. lab equipment)
Export to Mendeley, DataCite, RefWorks, BibTeX, etc.

25. Reporting Needed for feedback and building the case Download reports
Active users
Google analytics integration

26. Preservation Back-ups LOCKSS compatibility Preservation tools
file system backup
import / export functionality
LOCKSS compatibility
Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe
peer to peer network
Preservation tools
format migration tools
risk management tools
preservation specific metadata collection
PREMIS, METS

27. A comparison of research data management platforms: architecture, flexible metadata and interoperability
Institutional Repository Software Comparison
Open Source Software for Digital Preservation Repositories: a Survey
Research Data Repositories: Review of current features, gap analysis, and recommendations for minimum requirements
Institutional repository software comparison: DSpace, EPrints, Digital Commons, Islandora and Hydra

28. Common survey and report shortcomings
Simplifications
‘customisable’ metadata
adding an XML template vs reprogramming the software
Not up to date
systems evolve fast
Superficial
deployment mode - sometimes both options exist
Zenodo as a service or open source at GitHub
community ‘support’
check how many posts there are and how fast people got answers
Currently no survey to compare them all

29. Best way is to get your hands dirty
Sort out the basics
What is the purpose of the repository?
Do I need more than one repository?
Which functionality is a must and which one is nice to have?
How should the system integrate with the existing infrastructure?
Browse through
official websites
wiki pages
GitHub issues
mailing lists
Contact people who already have an instance
Make test deployment of few systems
install
configure
populate with sample data
evaluate
Be agile!

30. What repository systems are out there?

31. Fedora based NOT a Linux OS distribution!
Fedora commons provide backend only
Content model
RDF linked data
Persistent identifier
Versioning
Requires further development
Fedora provides an environment for low-level management of digital objects. In the Fedora model, an object consists of a persistent identifier, an XML document for object properties, and a number of datastreams each holding a content file or metadata record (the object can have more than one of each). Each object can assert relationships to any number of other objects through statements in RDF Linked Open Data format. Fedora does not however provide any high-level management functions for ingest, workflow management, preservation, search, or user authorisation. Rather, it is designed for developers to build support for these, using software layered on top of the Fedora environment.

32. Fedora based Hydra -> Samvera Islandora Phaidra
Ruby on Rails frontend
Apache Solr for indexing
Islandora
Drupal frontend
Virtual machines available for download
Integrates well with Archivematica
Phaidra
Perl + Catalyst
Each installation becomes a partner of a consortium

33. Archivematica Digital preservation system
Automates the process of preparing digital objects for ingest into a repository, for example:
Scan for viruses
Generate METS
Generate DIP (e.g. migrate)
Integrates with repository systems
For dissemination
e.g. Islandora, DSpace
Open source digital preservation system that automates the process of preparing digital objects for ingest into a repository. It supports ingest of prepared information packages into archival storage, and their access for dissemination via a repository or content management system. Supports repository integration e.g. with Dspace, Islandora. Also supports archival storage integration, e.g. with Arkivum, Duraspace.

34. Archivematica

35. Archivematica

36. DSpace Open source Popular Large open source community,
scholarly publication repositories
some data repositories
DataShare or Dryad
Large open source community,
variety of support and consultancy providers
Aims for ‘turnkey’ local installation, but can be complex to set up and maintain if customisation is required
Repository  Catalogue  Preservation 
Repository system providing ingest, access, data management and preservation features. DSpace structures the ingested content into collections, within a hierarchy of ‘communities’. This is intended to reflect typical research organisation structures. Collections contain items, which in turn comprise one or more files.
Pros: Support for wide range of content types, access controls, interoperability standards, virtualised storage. Preservation functions. Submission workflows customisable per collection. Customisable search. Wide take-up for scholarly publication repositories, and some data repositories including Edinburgh DataShare, and the Dryad open data repository. Large well established open source community, variety of support and consultancy providers.
Cons: Aims for ‘turnkey’ local installation, but can be complex to set up and maintain if customisation is required. Limited version control. Few data viewers available.
Further information: from provider DuraSpace. Also list of registered service providers

37. CKAN - Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network
Repository for datasets
Store data
Or holds metadata for datasets hosted externally
Pros:
faceted search
unrestricted metadata
data viewers
customisable
well-established open source community
wide take-up in government sector
Cons:
Lacks support for OAI-PMH
CKAN (Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network) is an open source data portal platform, that is, software for building a catalogue and repository for datasets. The system can store datasets, or simply hold metadata for datasets hosted externally.
Pros: Strong support for discovery services such as faceted search, unrestricted metadata. Data viewers. Versioning. Extensively customisable. Well-established open source community, wide take-up in government sector including data.gov.uk
Cons: Local installation is complex. Platform has relatively limited take-up for research data catalogues. Lacks support for OAI-PMH standard protocol for harvesting metadata.

38. Zenodo Runs on the open source Invenio platform
Developed by CERN
Enables ‘upload’ of any file
data, publication or code
Enables compliance for European (H2020) projects
Integration with Dropbox and GitHub
Source code available on GitHub
Customisation requires software development
No access or download statistics
No data viewers
Repository service launched within the OpenAIREplus project as part of a Europe-wide research infrastructure, and run on the open source Invenio platform. Enables ingest of any file or ‘upload’ whether data, publication or code into a ‘community’ or workspace claimed by a registered user. Multiple files are organised into named collections.
Pros: Free to use. Straightforward linking of research outputs and related information. Enables compliance and offers basic research analysis and reporting via OpenAire for European (H2020) projects. Flexible licensing. Open metadata standards. Access controls. Integration with DropBox.
Cons: Institutional customisation requires software development. Provides no access or download statistics. Metadata inflexible. No versioning. No data viewers. Basic succession plan.

39. Dataverse Repository system
Own instance -> becomes part of community
22 installations, e.g. Harvard, DANS (NL)
Supports citation, versioning, Specific disciplinary metadata standards
Easy to install
Vagrant (virtual machine)
Popular in social science domain
Enables organisations to host a storage and access system for research materials. The software creates self-contained ‘dataverses,’ each of which is designed to support individual researchers or research groups.
Pros: Support for citation. Access controls. Versioning. Support for specific disciplinary metadata standards. Data viewers. Basic preservation functions. Designed to be easy to install.
Cons: Currently low take-up outside quantitative social science domains. Limited-take up in UK.

40. EPrints Available since 2000
Wide take-up for scholarly publication repositories
But also supports research data (ReCollect)
Support for wide range of content types, metadata schema, interoperability standards
EPrints Services
not-for-profit commercial services organisation
Help
build your own repository
host for you
Module designed for research data repository purpose, resulting from Jisc projects at Universities of Southampton and UK Data Service at University of Essex. Recollect is currently a plug-in requiring a clean EPrints 3+ installation. EPrints 4 offers the Recollect functionality as an optional repository ‘layer’. Recollect adapts the base EPrints platform data model to enable research data and documentation files to be organised as ‘collections’.
Pros: Support for wide range of content types, metadata schema, interoperability standards, virtualised storage (via plug-in). Customisable search. Wide take-up for scholarly publication repositories, and some data repositories including UKDS ReShare, University of Bath, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. EPrints has large well-established open source community, and several support and consultancy providers.
Cons: Less extensible than DSpace. Lacks collaboration support. Few data viewers available

41. Commercial solutions Figshare Figshare for Institutions Preservica
Publically available repository
Free of charge
Alternative to zenodo
Figshare for Institutions
Dedicated, partially customised instance hosted by figshare
Loss of institutional control
Proprietary API instead of common standards
Uncertain succession plan
Preservica

42. Repository registries
Directory of Open Access Repositories – DOAR
Based on registrations
Registry of Open Access Repositories – ROAR
Automatically harvested list based on OAI-PMH
Projection of DOAR and ROAR onto google maps

44. List of repository software (not instances)

45. Portugal for Palestine

46. Scientific Open Access Repository of Portugal (RCAAP)
Objectives
Increase the visibility, accessibility and dissemination of Portuguese research results
Facilitate access to information about Portuguese scientific output
Integrate Portugal in the wide range of international initiatives in this domain

47. RCAAP Portal Meta-repository Currently: Runs on DSpace
Aggregates metadata from Portuguese and Brazilian repositories
Actual data remains inside of these repositories
Currently:
1,5 million documents
126 Repositories
Runs on DSpace

48. RCAAP repository types
Local Repository
installation, configuration and operation of a repository with own facilities and infrastructure
Hosting Service for Institutional Repositories (SARI)
Software as a Service
Centrally hosted
hardware, hosting, connectivity, foundation systems, applications, security, backup service, monitoring
Institution administrates, define policies, gets customization
Common Repository
Shared with others
Intended to institutions whose scientific production does not justify the creation of a repository also serves as a incubator repositories.

49. Conclusion

50. Conclusion Analysed functions Test systems on your own
You may need more than one system
You may decide on the scope based on domain, institution, etc.
Depends on what skills you have and how much money you have
Fedora developed on your own vs paid service

51. References
A comparison of research data management platforms: architecture, flexible metadata and interoperability
Institutional Repository Software Comparison
Open Source Software for Digital Preservation Repositories: a Survey
Research Data Repositories: Review of current features, gap analysis, and recommendations for minimum requirements
Institutional repository software comparison: DSpace, EPrints, Digital Commons, Islandora and Hydra