The objectives of this Technical Evaluation process are: [1] To gain understanding of the design, architecture and implementation details of the short-listed Repositories [i.e. repository software packages], [2] To evaluate the short-listed Repositories against an agreed set of criteria, [3] To pay particular attention to the long-term development and maintenance lifespan of the short-listed Repositories, [4] To engage members of the Open Source community in the process where relevant, [5] To recommend the most suitable candidate Repository/s, [6] To choose a system that can aggregate published metadata and offer a bureau/hosting service...[7] To select a system/s that offers institutions a repository system that is feature rich yet has low implementation and support overheads, and [8] To report our findings in a concise and complete manner.
The project initially screened DSpace, Eprints, Fedora, ARNO, CDSWare, and i-TOR. Then it picked the first three for closer study. In the end, it recommended Fedora and gave honorable mention to Eprints.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 9/19/2006 12:48:00 PM.
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.
