1. Andrea Fojtu Charles University in Prague, National Library of the CR

2. 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

4. Long-term preservation of DD (LTPoDD) Long-term preservation:  Anglo-American resources: digital preservation, (long- term) preservation of digital objects or digital curation  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” 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

5. OAIS reference model conceptual, terminological framework:  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”.modules:  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

8. 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

9. Repository Software Survey [online]. JISC RepositoryNet, March 2009 [cit. 2009-04-05]. Available at:.

11. Comparison & results Criteria :  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  servicesRepositories:  open-source SW:  DSpace, Fedora, EPrints and Research- Output Repository Platform  commercial SW:  CONTENTdm, Digital Commons, Digitool, Equella, intraLibrary, Open Repository, Vital  three relatively “new” systems:  Dias, SDB, Rosetta

12. Comparison & results #2  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  servicesRepozitáře:  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

13. Comparison & results #3  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  servicesRepositories  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

14. Comparison & results #4  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  servicesRepositories:  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

15. Comparison & results #5  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  servicesRepositories:  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

17. Conclusions Reality check:  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  YES and NO  not a single repository complies to the chosen criteria  YES  open source solution - better performance of open source systems because of a widespread developer and user community  NO Postulates :  there will be at least one SW 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 Reasons: LTPoDD is still in its infancy, SW is not a redemption!