2019-01-28 Meeting notes

10min

External group report

Dana

• Heard back from nine consortia

  • Missouri stop using a central repository

• Hard to summarize as each consortia is different

• The platform is not the critical issue for determining success

• Governance, funding, staffing were bigger factors

  • especially important for a single instance (vs. separate instances)

40min

Single vs. separate campus repositories

David

• The need for multi-tenancy

  • Our other systems all use some kind of multi-tenancy

    • Alma, Primo, apps developed by the CO

  • DSpace

    • In the beginning: Separate instances, lots of problems

    • Now: Atmire-developed custom multi-tenant DSpace

  • Samvera Hyrax

    • Hyku was meant to fill this role

      • Overdue, still in-development

      • Upgrades after customizations would be difficult (compared to Hyrax)

    • Aaron’s model: Separate front-end instances, consolidated back-end

      • 25 prod servers + equal number development servers

      • Complex AWS, version control set-up

      • More flexibility than what we’ve previously had

      • Separate design, metadata, configurations

        • Some of this can be copied between instances, with attending overhead

• Single instance alternative – see demo.

  • Pros:

    • Simpler set-up, can focus limited resources on this one instance

    • Uniform design, metadata, authentication

    • Improved discovery

      • But what about locally hosted campus repositories?

    • More easily accommodate systemwide initiatives?

      • Academic technology projects

      • AB 2192

  • Cons

    • Little flexibility for local metadata

    • Little to no flexibility for branding, institutional identity

      • Was listed as very important by campuses

    • Unknown scaling issues

      • likely addressed by AWS

    • Unknown issues around third-party integrations if not all campuses participate

      • e.g., DOI minting

    • Requires consensus on most decisions

      • Scope of the repository (see next issue)

        • Too narrow and we exclude content unnecessarily

        • Too broad and we swamp the search results with potentially irrelevant content

      • Metadata

• Group is leaning toward single instance

  • But a more formal governance structure (before launch) and scope are critical

  • What voices are we not capturing in this discussion?

What to do with desire to use Hyrax for digital archives & collections?

David

• Scope

  • This was a significant factor in moving forward with Samvera

  • Home for out-of-scope content from DSpace

  • Migration from CONTENTdm, Islandora, and other systems is major work

• What are the costs associated with all these things?

Secondary systems: Faculty profiles, open access publishing

David

• Scope

  • Faculty profiles

    • VIVO (or other?)

    • Bespoke application?

  • Open access publishing

    • OJS now

    • Monographs?

    • Conferences?

• What are the costs associated with all these things?