the dspace digital reposito

8/8/2019 The DSpace Digital Reposito.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-dspace-digital-reposito 1/7

{ 2006 11 09 }

The DSpace Digital Repository: A Project Analysis

Here is the conclusion of my analysis of DSpace. I liked this one, I had a fun time doing it.

The issue is that I use Latex and Bibtex, so I couldn’t seem to copy text from a PDF to submit

it to my blog without taking off the references. But, here is a full copy of my PDF, so you can

read it all if you want. I will update things when I can get the full paper translated.

Update: Full Paper below the cut, thanks to latex2rft

6 Summary of Issues and Benefits

6.0.1 Issues

As has been addressed, there are some problems with DSpace. In the first place, the

software is open source. While this does come with its own benefits, it also comes with its

own problems. Commercial support for the software does not exist at this time, neither for

installation nor for later technical issues. Libraries used to working with commercial software

or ILS vendors may find implementation difficult. Furthermore, some who have previously

implemented the software have had problems with performance while updating files and with

the structure of the communities, although these may have been fixed in successive releases

of the software.

The major difficulty we have found is with DSpace’s handling of metadata. While we feel that

the number of fields in Dublin Core is adequate for most if not all uses (DCMI Usage Board

2006), we are troubled by the lack of authority control when completing its fields. Without

some control over uniform titles, authors and subjects accessing the items in the future will

very problematic. However, this could be solved at an institutional policy level, with

guidelines for submission and librarians or faculty having roles in the “ workflow” overseeing

metadata. While there is no scope in this paper for a discussion of necessity of controlled

vocabulary, we will stress that this necessity does not just apply to paper documents, but to

digital ones as well.

6.0.2 Benefits

Despite this fault, we do find that DSpace has many positive aspects. We find it to be an

amazingly flexible and robust system which would be ready to handle almost any university’s

needs right out of the box. It has the flexibility to handle all types of documents and methods

of research, as well as the simplicity to encourage non-technical users towards the Open

Access (OA) of scholarly research. We also feel that, given Smith’s intentions as cited above,

the system would be an ready for a university to experiment in self-publishing even a part of

its faculty’s research. Furthermore, while open source can have its drawbacks, it has some

definite benefits. The software itself is customizable from the ground up, and any perceived

problems with the system could be fixed by an institution if they so desired. If this were

beyond the abilities of the institution, the software is free, has little hardware requirements,

and would require little administration for a simple, uncustomized installation.

7 Conclusions

It is the goal of the developer’s of DSpace to make the collection, preservation, indexing and

distribution of digital research objects simple (Smith, 2003), to the extent that it encourages

researches to self-archive their own work. Despite a few drawbacks that we have noted,

particularly with the lack of control over metadata, DSpace is an excellent digital repository

system supported by an active community of both users and developers. Given DSpace’s

flexibility to archive any type of digital object and deal with any model of research within a

department or other research community, it is a highly recommended system which can only

improve with further development. This flexibility is increased by the fact that DSpace is open

source, and any modifications or improvements can be implemented by the institutions

themselves, and those improvements can be shared with the wider research community.

1 Introduction

DSpace is an advanced digital repository system that aims to simplify the long-term

HOME

SEARCH

Find

PAGES

About

CATEGORIES

Books

Digital Culture

Libraries

Personal

Philosophy

Updates

Writing

ARCHIVES

March 2010

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

July 2009

April 2009January 2009

December 2008

November 2008

October 2008

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

December 2007

November 2007

October 2007

September 2007

August 2007

July 2007

June 2007

May 2007

April 2007

March 2007

February 2007

January 2007

December 2006November 2006

October 2006

September 2006

August 2006

Subject/ObjectSteven Chabot

DSpace Digital Repository: A Project Analysis / Subject/Object http://subjectobject.net/2006/11/09/the-dspace-digital-repository-a-proj...

7 27/8/2010 6:02 PM



archivization and access of digital research objects in any format. DSpace is an open-source,

web-based system which can be remotely accessed by submitters, administrators and the

general public, and can be modified to suit a particular institution’s needs. Furthermore, while

DSpace’s flexibility allows it to be used in a variety of scenarios (“ Introducing DSpace” 2006),

this paper will examine the usefulness of DSpace as a research repository implemented by

the library of a large university for use of its faculty and departments. Here we will examine

the installation, implementation, and usage of a DSpace set-up, and address some problems

or questions that may arise. A test installation of the software is beyond the scope of this

analysis, but reports from other users will be cited. In the end we will conclude that any

limitations of DSpace are minor, and that it would be a highly useful tool for any university to

implement.

2 Project Summary

DSpace was completed in November 2002 through a joint ef fort between Hewlett-Packard

Labs (HP) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who have released the

resulting code under an open-source licence, specifically the permissive BSD license (Smith,

2003). This means that end-users can adjust, modify or improve the code as they see fit, and

furthermore the project developers do evaluate and reincorporate any improvements made

by users into the main distribution (Smith, 2003). As of this writing the software is hosted on

the open-source repository Sourceforge which currently offers version 1.4 of the software,

indicating the project is beyond beta testing ready for end-users (“DSpace” 2006). DSpace

Federation’s unofficial list has over 100 institutions using DSpace (“DSpaceInstances”2006).

We can conclude that the software is well tested and supported by a community of users.

However, as the software is open-source, neither MIT nor HP offers official support (Smith,

2003).

The project was designed to be a tool for institutions, in MIT’s case a university, to implement

a central location where faculty, departments, disciplines, labs and research centres could

store their published and pre-published research for access by others and long-term

archivization. The developers claim that the software was build to support “every function

that a research organization needs to run a production digital repository service, but as

simply as possible” (Smith, 2003). Furthermore, the software was designed to be

multidisciplinary: it is designed around the idea of the “Community,” which designs its own

work flows and manages its own deposits, which we will examine under “ Usage and

Institutional Policy.” Communities can be any size, from labs to departments to entire

institutes of research (Smith, 2003).

As well, the repository does not simply archive text as some other e-print servers, butanything that may be part of faculty research. Text, audio and video are the most obvious

data formats, but the system will except anything in any format for viewing with the

appropriate software: data sets, complex computer models and simulations, even binary

software (e.g. .EXE files) (“EndUserFaq”2006). The software goes beyond the needs for

eTheses and pre-print servers, although these have been implemented with DSpace (Jones

2004, Nixon2003). The director of the project, MacKenzie Smith, envisions a future where

scholarly journals are removed from the publishing process and universities self-pulish

faculty research with the help of software like DSpace (“ Interview: A journey into

DSpace”2003). DSpace is a robust and flexible repository implementation that, with the right

policies, will be able to handle any research users would wish to deposit in it.

3 Technology Considerations

3.0.1 Requirements

DSpace is designed to run on a standard UNIX system with minimal resources (Smith, 2003),

which should already be in place in most university environments. The system itself is

composed of a standard open-source database (PostgreSQL) and web-server (Apache and

Tomcat) software. The back end of the service runs on Java, and theoretically it could run on

any operating system environment, but this is untested by the developers (Smith, 2003). The

DSpace Foundation recommends IT support by someone with both UNIX administration

experience and Java programming ability (“DSpace System Manager: Impliment

DSpace”2006), although this may only be necessary if an institution were looking to heavily

modify their local installation. Given someone familiar with UNIX software installation and

networking, a basic system could be installed very quickly and simply (Horsman & Pompe

2005).

3.0.2 Support

While neither MIT nor HP offers official support, there is a very active community around the

software, and it is in active development. Beyond the DSpace Wiki <http://wiki.dspace.org>

which addresses both technical and non-technical questions, there are also general,

technical and development mailing lists at <http://dspace.org/feedback/mailing.html> which

July 2006

June 2006

May 2006

April 2006

March 2006

December 2005

October 2005


7 27/8/2010 6:02 PM



are very active and bugs are actively tracked on the Sourceforge site <http://sourceforge.net

/projects/dspace/> . There may be some issues with universities who are not experienced

with the support process regarding open-source software and are more familiar with

commercial customer support. Nevertheless, most large university libraries do have IT staff

with the recommended level of experience who should be very familiar with open-source

software.

4 Usage and Institutional Policy

4.0.1 Submission

After installation the system is accessed through a set of three web-based interfaces (Smith,

2003). One is for the end-users, one for those in the submission process, discussed below,

and one for administrators (Smith, 2003). Those formats viewable from within the browser

are loaded on demand, with all other formats available for download and viewing with the

required software (Smith, 2003). In examining the system from the prospective of a submitter

or an administrator, an installation was beyond the scope of this analysis, but we can cite

other users’ impressions of the software. Nixon (2003) outlines a seven step process for

depositing materials: three Description steps, Upload, Verify, Licence and Complete. These

steps are tracked by a progress bar, and the submitter is free to move back and forth

between the steps. For ease of use the submitter, who might not be technically inclined, does

not have to know the file format of his submission as DSpace analyses the file and assigns

an appropriate designation upon upload (Nixon2003). One issue Horsman and Pompe (2005)

found was that the upload process was slow, particularly for larger files, although this may

have been improved in a successive version. Lastly, the submitter can select a licence for their submission, allowing for the choice of an open-source (i.e. Creative Commons) licence if

desired.

4.0.2 Communities

The submission process itself depends greatly on the policies of a particular “Community” as

understood by DSpace. As noted, communities can be of any size, from a small lab to a large

institute. They are defined by the internal policies regarding submission and access to the

research of that group. Submitters are not bound to a particular community, but they do have

to select which community their work will be submitted to (Nixon2003). Users of the system

with different levels of involvement work within a community to access the submission and

prepare it for archivization, a work not being archived until it goes through the community’s

process (Smith, 2003).

4.0.3 Policy

While it could be the policy of a community to allow any of its faculty to submit papers which

are automatically archived, a more complex example may have a group of people designated

as reviewers, a member who is responsible for metadata (discussed below) and a project

co-ordinator who gives final approval (Smith, 2003). A research object would need to be

reviewed and edited according to the community’s policy before it were ultimately archived.

Each person with a role in the process can log on to the system to see what objects are at

what stage of review, and what action must be taken by the various members of the process.

The developers of DSpace call this a “workflow,” (Smith, 2003) and have designed the

system to be flexible enough to handle the work flow of all researchers, from sole English

professors to complex bio-chemical medical research teams.

There can be problems, however, with the implementation of communities. Nixon (2003)

found the communities too “ flat” as sub-communities were not implemented. However, I

believe this critique misunderstands the role of the community. Communities are not,

primarily, for organization of the archive, which can easily be handled by metadata, but are

necessary for the submission process, which can be radically different not only for different

departments across the university, but also “sub-communities” within each department.

Nevertheless, Nixon (2003) does state that sub-communities were added as of version 1.2 of

DSpace.

5 Metadata and Access

5.0.1 Metadata

DSpace archives all research objects under a qualified Dublin Core metadata standard

(Smith, 2003). This is recorded at the time of submission, is displayed with the item when

accessed, and items can be searched by their metadata by end-users (Nixon 2003). Like alldiscussions of metadata, however, there are those who require both more and less

information. Jones jones2004 found the possible metadata as more than adequate for his

uses while Horsman and Pompe horsman2005 found the metadata severely lacking in

specificity for archive purposes. Furthermore they found the lack of multilevel description and

authority control over vocabulary problematic (Horsman & Pompe 2005). Browsing the


7 27/8/2010 6:02 PM



University of Toronto’s own “T -Space” repository list of subjects

<https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/browse-subject> without a controlled vocabulary and

classification scheme proves to be daunting, and searching by subject is very difficult as well.

It might be possible for individual communities to control their own vocabulary, but this is not

a function of the software itself.

5.0.2 Integration

This standard metadata scheme does allow tight integration between DSpace and other

digital repositories, through the implementation of the Open Archives Initiative protocol

(Smith, 2003). This allows data submitted to DSpace to be “harvested” by other repositories.For instance, a community working in Library and Information Science, while submitting their

papers to their local DSpace repository, might also concurrently submit their work to a OAI

compliant pre-print repository such as the Digital Library of Information Science and

Technology (DLIST) <http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu> without having to re-upload files or re-enter

metadata a second time. This makes the connections between databases very easy and

efficient, promoting scholarly interaction beyond the local department or faculty.

5.0.3 Access

Works are accessed by a unique identifier called a “handle,” the goal being to have

persistent citations to a particular document or object for as long as possible (Smith, 2003).

Handles are organized by a special proxy server which keeps track of handles and their

corresponding objects, allowing an item to move or change while retaining the same URL for

web-brower access. As already noted, the user ’s web-browser will open any formats it

recognizes, and any other formats will be downloaded for viewing by the appropriate

software. Not only does this allow for secure archivization and cataloguing of materials, but

also gives researches direct links to previously read materials and long lasting citations

within their own publications for others to follow what they had read. These permanent URLs

also facilitate long-term archivization: as file formats and technologies change, those archives

which can be translated between formats can retain the same URL, allowing transparent

access to users in the distant future (Smith, 2003).

6 Summary of Issues and Benefits

6.0.1 Issues

As has been addressed, there are some problems with DSpace. In the first place, the

software is open source. While this does come with its own benefits, it also comes with its

own problems. Commercial support for the software does not exist at this time, neither for installation nor for later technical issues. Libraries used to working with commercial software

or ILS vendors may find implementation difficult. Furthermore, some who have previously

implemented the software have had problems with performance while updating files and with

the structure of the communities, although these may have been fixed in successive releases

of the software.

The major difficulty we have found is with DSpace’s handling of metadata. While we feel that

the number of fields in Dublin Core is adequate for most if not all uses (DCMI Usage Board

2006), we are troubled by the lack of authority control when completing its fields. Without

some control over uniform titles, authors and subjects accessing the items in the future will

very problematic. However, this could be solved at an institutional policy level, with

guidelines for submission and librarians or faculty having roles in the “ workflow” overseeing

metadata. While there is no scope in this paper for a discussion of necessity of controlled

vocabulary, we will stress that this necessity does not just apply to paper documents, but to

digital ones as well.

6.0.2 Benefits

Despite this fault, we do find that DSpace has many positive aspects. We find it to be an

amazingly flexible and robust system which would be ready to handle almost any university’s

needs right out of the box. It has the flexibility to handle all types of documents and methods

of research, as well as the simplicity to encourage non-technical users towards the Open

Access (OA) of scholarly research. We also feel that, given Smith’s intentions as cited above,

the system would be an ready for a university to experiment in self-publishing even a part of

its faculty’s research. Furthermore, while open source can have its drawbacks, it has some

definite benefits. The software itself is customizable from the ground up, and any perceived

problems with the system could be fixed by an institution if they so desired. If this were

beyond the abilities of the institution, the software is free, has little hardware requirements,

and would require little administration for a simple, uncustomized installation.

7 Conclusions

It is the goal of the developer’s of DSpace to make the collection, preservation, indexing and


7 27/8/2010 6:02 PM



distribution of digital research objects simple (Smith, 2003), to the extent that it encourages

researches to self-archive their own work. Despite a few drawbacks that we have noted,

particularly with the lack of control over metadata, DSpace is an excellent digital repository

system supported by an active community of both users and developers. Given DSpace’s

flexibility to archive any type of digital object and deal with any model of research within a

department or other research community, it is a highly recommended system which can only

improve with further development. This flexibility is increased by the fact that DSpace is open

source, and any modifications or improvements can be implemented by the institutions

themselves, and those improvements can be shared with the wider research community.

References

DCMI Usage Board (2006) DCMI metadata terms. Retrieved November 8 2006 from the

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative website: http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/.

DSpace (2006). Retrieved November 8 2006 from Sourceforge website:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/dspace/.

DSpaceInstances (2006). Retrived November 8 2006 from DSpace Wiki:

http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php/DspaceInstances.

DSpace System Manager: Implement DSpace. (2006). Retrieved November 8 2006 from

DSpace Federation website: http://dspace.org/implement/sys-man.html.

EndUserFaq. (2006). Retrived November 8 2006 from DSpace Wiki: http://wiki.dspace.org

/index.php//EndUserFaq.

Horsman, P. & Pompe, K. (2005). Building a digital archive: A dutch experience. RLG

DigiNews, 9(6). Retrieved November 8 2006 from RLG website: http://www.rlg.org

/en/page.php? Page_ID=20865#article2.

Interview: A journey into DSpace. (2003), October 20. Open Access Now. Retrieved

November 8 2006 from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?

page=features&issue=7.

Introducing DSpace. (2006). Retrieved November 8 2006 from DSpace Federation website:

http://dspace.org/introduction/index.html.

Jones, R. (2004). DSpace vs. ETD-db: Choosing software to manage electronic theses and

dissertations. Ariadne(38). Retrieved November 8 2006 from: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk

/issue38/jones/.

Nixon, W. (2003). DAEDALUS: initial experiences with EPrints and DSpace at the University

of Glasgow. Ariadne(37). Retrived November 8 2006 from: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37

/nixon/.

Smith, M., Bass, M., McClellan, G., Tansley, R., Barton, M., Branschofsky, M. (2003).

DSpace: an open source dynamic digital repository. D-Lib Magazine, 9(1). Retrieved

November 8 2006 from: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january03/smith/01smith.html.

TechnicalFaq. (2006). Retrived November 8 2006 from DSpace Wiki: http://wiki.dspace.org

/index.php//TechnicalFaq.

Posted by Steven Chabot on Thursday, November 9th, 2006, at 9:27 pm, and filed under

Uncategorized.Follow any responses to this entry with the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can post a comment, or trackback from your site.

[view academic citations]

Similar Posts:

Between Books and Bytes

Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy – Elaine

Peterson

On Hobbies

Serendipitous Browsing: A summary and commentary of Thomas Mann’s “What’s

Going on at the Library of Congress?”

Jealousy, or, why closed access journal articles not only hurt scholarship, but basicthe flow of knowledge

{ 6 }


7 27/8/2010 6:02 PM



Comments

Dorothea | 10-Nov-06 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

Thank you; this is an excellent summary.

Re: authority control. While DSpace could conceivably provide a

scaffold for authority control, even tying it into national or international

authority files wouldn’t solve the problem in fields where the monograph

is not the primary mode of publication. Too many scientists don’t have

authority records!For what it’s worth, I check authority via the LoC, intervene in the

database as necessary to unite author representations, and don’t fret

about representations for authors with no authority records.

A union authority database would be a wonderful thing

1.

Steven Chabot | 10-Nov-06 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

Thank you for your comments.

And I agree with you on the authority control issue. I realize that things

like that are difficult, but I had to say something negative about the

project. And as I indicated, authority control could be implemented by a

librarian.

However my conclusions are genuine. I am particularly excited by the

project and I would love to get involved with DSpace installation at my

own university, but it doesn’t seem to be as publicized as it could be. I

never new U of T had is own repository all through my undergrad here,

and looking at it now things are kind of a mess.

Too bad that the student positions they advertise seem to be for

undergraduates and not graduate library students.

2.

Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics, Cambridge - Jim Downing

» Blog Archive » | 14-Nov-06 at 10:22 am | Permalink

[...] Steven Chabot has posted an analysis of the DSpace project and

software (Full report in PDF). As has been addressed, there are someproblems with DSpace. In the first place, the software is open source.

While this does come with its own benefits, it also comes with its own

problems. Commercial support for the software does not exist at this

time, neither for installation nor for later technical issues. Libraries used

to working with commercial software or ILS vendors may find

implementation difficult. Furthermore, some who have previously

implemented the software have had problems with performance while

updating files and with the structure of the communities, although these

may have been fixed in successive releases of the software. The major

difficulty we have found is with DSpace’s handling of metadata. While

we feel that the number of fields in Dublin Core is adequate for most if

not all uses (DCMI Usage Board 2006), we are troubled by the lack of

authority control when completing its fields. Without some control over

uniform titles, authors and subjects accessing the items in the future will

very problematic. However, this could be solved at an institutional policy

level, with guidelines for submission and librarians or faculty having

roles in the “workflow” overseeing metadata. While there is no scope in

this paper for a discussion of necessity of controlled vocabulary, we will

stress that this necessity does not just apply to paper documents, but to

digital ones as well. [...]

3.

Jenny | 09-Oct-07 at 12:04 am | Permalink

I’m surprised that the fact that DSpace is open source is considered a

‘problem’. It is just open source. Open source has considerable

advantages over proprietary software where the code is unavailable –

you can actually do things with it. This is a benefit and not a problem.

Anyone who works with open source, including libraries, understands

that open source is not free – that you need to have the tech support in

place or available to support the implementation. But products like

DSpace (and others like Moodle, Sakai, Shibboleth etc) have been built

4.


7 27/8/2010 6:02 PM



Name *

Email *

Website

Message

« PROCRASTINATIONS UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

AND WORLDCAT »

by a group or community who have a professional approach to the

development process. It’s not a world of cowboys out there any more

-but communities of contributors. T he establishment of the DSpace

foundation also means that DSpace will be properly supported into the

future.

Steven Chabot | 09-Oct-07 at 12:07 am | Permalink

Jenny,

All things with which I agree, and which I also addressed in my analysis.

5.

Dirk Swart | 03-Apr-08 at 9:25 am | Permalink

This is a great article. Any chance you could do the same thing for

Fedora?

Jenny, I completely agree with you about open source, but want to add

that in my experience implementing FOSS at universities is typically

more expensive than an off the shelf solution, and that a significant

portion of the costs are hidden, so much so that it may look cheaper.

This increased cost is not necessarily bad – it spends money “at home”,

usually on people, and given low staff turnover there is at least a strong

case that this is a sound investment.

6.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

Receive an email if someone else comments on this post?

Post

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

© 2010 Steven Chabot | Thanks, WordPress | Barthelme theme by Scott | Valid XHTML & CSS | RSS: Posts & Comments

Type the two words:


the dspace digital reposito

Documents