The usual way to characterize the decision to run an institutional repository on open-source software versus outsourcing it is to think of it as in-house IT expertise versus lack of same. If you’re a big library with an IT shop, you run open source. If you’re not, you call up the vendors.
I used to subscribe to that view. After some things I heard at SPARC-DR, I have changed my thinking. Truthfully, your choices may be constrained in either direction; if you have money but no IT staff, you’re hiring a vendor, whereas if you have IT expertise (even at my borderline-competent level) but no budget, you have no choice but to free-ride on open source.
Let’s imagine that you have a real choice, though. You have in-house IT. You also have a budget. You have to make a choice. In that case, the question is where you want to use your people. Where is their time best spent?
My current thinking is that if you have that choice, the only defensible reason to use open-source right now is if you are seriously planning to write novel code on top of the platform you choose....
I’m willing to give a little bit on this stance in the case of EPrints, which I believe stands up very well on its own against vendor offerings....I would also encourage repositories that use vendors to demand that those vendors support SWORD....
Bluntly, I don’t think there’s any excuse to adopt DSpace or Fedora unless you’re planning some serious hacking—unless the value you add actually depends on that hacking....
This equation would change if there were livelier code exchanges in the open-source software communities....
The simple fact is that every minute I spend on DSpace, I’m not spending on content recruitment, advocacy, metadata, copyright clearance, service development and provision, and all the other aspects of repository management. Honestly, those things are where a conscientious repository manager should be spending her time....
Posted by
Peter Suber at 11/25/2008 11:29:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
