Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
Year
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Khan, Shazia
- Dspace or Fedora:Which is a Better Solution?
Abstract Views :271 |
PDF Views:15
Authors
Affiliations
1 Yasin Meo Degree College, Nuh - 122107, Haryana, IN
1 Yasin Meo Degree College, Nuh - 122107, Haryana, IN
Source
Journal of Information and Knowledge (Formerly SRELS Journal of Information Management), Vol 56, No 1 (2019), Pagination: 45-50Abstract
This paper presents a comparative study of two popular Digital Library Software, Dspace and Fedora. The paper begins with brief descriptions of Open Source Software systems and Digital libraries, and presents a comparison of Dspace and Fedora in two tables based on a set criterion. The study suggests that though Fedora provides the best repository framework as compared to other digital repository software systems, it appeals to high technical end users and as a result there are not as many installations of the software.Keywords
Digital Library, Dspace, Dublin Core, DuraSpace, Fedora, Metadata, Open Access Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI PMH), OpenDOAR, Open Source Software, Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR), Unicode, Interoperability.
References
- Biswas, G. and Paul, D. (2009). An evaluative study on the open source digital library softwares for institutional repository. International Journal of Library and Information Science, 2(1):1-10. [Google Scholar]
- Clevland, G. (1998). Digital libraries: Definitions, issues and challenges. Canada: IFLA. https://www.ifla.org/archive/udt/op/udtop8/udt-op8.pdf.
- DeRidder, Jody L. (2007). Choosing software for a digital library. Library Hi Tech News. 24(9/10):19-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/07419050710874223.
- Dion Hoe‐Lian Goh, Alton Chua, Davina Anqi Khoo, Emily Boon‐Hui Khoo, Eric Bok‐Tong Mak and Maple Wen‐Min Ng. (2006). A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software. Online Information Review, 30(4):360-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610686283.
- DuraSpace (2017b). Technical specifications (Fedora). Data accessed 29 April 2017. http://fedorarepository.org/resources/technical-specifications.
- DuraSpace (2017a). Technical specifications (Dspace). Data accessed 29 April 2017. http://dspace.org/techspecs.
- Gkoumas, G. and Lazarinis, F. (2015). Evaluation and usage scenarios of open source digital library and collection management tools. Program. 49(3): 226-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/PROG-09-2014-0070.
- Java (2017). Programming language. In: Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. Data accessed 1 May 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language).
- Kumar Das, A. (2015). Comparing open source digital library software: special reference to DSpace, EPrint and Greenstone. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering. 5(7):70-73. Data accessed 29 April 2017. https://www.ijarcsse.com/docs/papers/Volume_5/7_July2015/V5I7-0132.pdf.
- Kumar, V. (2008). Comparative evaluation of open source digital library packages. Data accessed 29 April 2017. http://drtc.isibang.ac.in/ldl/bitstream/handle/1849/441/comparative_evaluation_DL_vinit.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed= y.
- Lagoze, C. and Van de Sompel, H. (Eds). (2002). The open archives initiative protocol for metadata harvesting. Data accessed 1 May 2017. http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html.
- Lesk, M. (1997). Practical digital libraries: Books, bytes, and bucks. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 3p.
- O’Connor, S. (2017). What is interoperability, and why is it important. Data accessed 15 October 2017. http://healthcare.adsc.com/blog/what-is-interoperabilityand-why-is-it-important.
- Ontario (2013). Open source software. Data accessed 29 April 2017. http://www.onebusiness.ca/sites/default/files/MEDI_Booklet_Open_Source_Software_accessible_E.pdf.
- Pyrounakis, G. and Nikolaidou, M. (2009). Comparing open source digital library software. In: Handbook of research on digital libraries: Design, development, and impact, information science reference, Hershey, PA, edited by Theng, Y., Foo, S., Goh, D. & Na, J. 2009, 51-60. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59904-879-6.ch006. [Google Scholar]. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-879-6.ch006.
- TechTarget.WhatIs.com (2017). Metadata. Data accessed 19 October 2017. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/metadata.
- The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Postnote (2005). Open source software. Data accessed 28 April 2017. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn242.pdf.
- The Swedish Agency for Public Management, STATSKONTORET (2003). Free and open source software. Data accessed 29 April 2017. https://www.campussource.de/org/opensource/docs/schwed.studie.pdf.
- Unicode (2017). The Unicode Standard. About the unicode® standard: Characters for the world. Data accessed 19 October 2018. http://www.unicode.org/standard/standard.html.
- Webopedia (2017). Metadata. Data accessed 19 October 2017. https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/metadata.html.
- Wheeler, D.A. (2015). Why OSS/FS? Look at the numbers! Data accessed 29 April 2017. http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html.