Table  2.

 Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features

Category Feature DSpace  5.x Fedora  4.x  with   Fedora  4.x  with   Dataverse  4.x
Islandora  CLAW Hydra
The  DSpace   The  Fedora  Project's   One  body,  many   The  Dataverse  is  an  
Project  will  produce   mission  is  to  lead  the   heads  -­  Tailored   open  source  web  
the  world’s  choice   advancement  of  Free   applications  and   application  to  share,  
for  repository   and  open  source   workflows  for  different   preserve,  cite,  explore  
software  providing   software  and  content   content-­types,   and  analyze  research  
VISION
the  means  for   as  a  collaborative   contexts  and  user   data.
making  information   community. interactions.  Building  a  
openly  available   framework,  not  an  
and  easy  to   application.
manage.
INFRASTRUCTURE Server  resources Linux,  Windows,   Linux Linux  5  (Red  Hat),   linux,  
postgres,  mvn,ant,   Windows,  TomCat,   glassfish,postgreSQL,  
Java  Serverlet   solr  etc...Deployment   solr
(TomCat  etc) hardware  information  
and  server  structure  is  
complex  and  variable  
see  
https://goo.gl/jbHxgf  .
Local  /  Hosted  solutions Local  and  hosted   Local  and  hosted.   Local Local  and  hosted
@  ~  $5000  p.a. Hosting  through  
Discovery  Garden  @  
$12000  p.a.
Hardware  required 8G  RAM,  1TB   VMs  to  run  docker   vms  for:  Fedora  &  solr   min:  1  VM,  2  2.8  GHz,  8  
storage  (dependant   containers and  hydra  &  rails  and   GB  mem,  50  GB  disk;;  
on  content) oracle  database.   max:  6  servers,  64  GB  
Deployment  hardware   ram  each,  TBs  storage  
information  and  server   from  NAS  using  NFS,  
structure  is  complex   hardware  load  balancer
and  variable  see  
https://goo.gl/jbHxgf
Build  scripts mvn Docker,  Ansible ansible,  vagrant vagrant,  puppet,  ansible
Open  source Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Table  2.  Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features
Platform  customization
Support  community
Administrator   Yes,  with   Highly  configurable
configurations
User  roles
USER  INTERFACE/FRONT-­END Integrated  front-­end
Customisable  design
Mobile  optimised  design
Browse  options
Yes,  modularity   Through  community Through  community.   Possible  with  
through  Manakin,   Ruby  on  Rails   development  in  Java
xmlui  much  easier   development
than  jspui  which  
required  java  
development  to  
customize
Yes  -­  thousands  of   130  Institutions  or  DG   30  official  partner   17+  institutions
institutions company institutions  (and  
growing  annually)  and  
many  working  
collaborators
Highly  configurable Yes,  per  dataverse
restrictions
Yes,  with   Yes Yes Yes,  per  dataverse  and  
restrictions per  user  and  per  file.  Pre-­
defined  and  custom  roles
Yes,  JSPUI(java)   Islandora Hydra  (see  also  Sufia   Yes
or  Manakin  (xml) http://sufia.io/  hydra  
powered  repository  
front  end  )
Somewhat  through   Yes Yes,  easily  skinned   Yes.  Group  dataverses  
Manakin,  including   UI can  be  skinned  too
branding
Yes  -­  Manakin Yes Yes Yes
Yes  -­  faceted  (any   Yes,  faceted  (via  Solr) Customisable,  gated   Yes,  faceted  browsing  for  
field  provided  in   discovery citation  metadata  only.  
item  description)   Facted  search  is  possible  
provided  by  Solr (see  below)
 Table  2.  Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features

METADATA Customisable Yes  -­  Requires   Yes,  requires   Yes.  MODS  default   Potential  to  develop  in  
developer  input: developer  input:   and  ability  to  attach   conjunction  with  
extensive  and   default  set  to  Dublin   descriptive  metadata. authors
collection  specific. Core.  Customizable   Can  convert  metadata  
for  MODs  and  MODS   to  another  schema  'on  
to  Dublin  transforms.   the  fly'  and  DC,  EAD  &  
Any  xml-­based   PBCore  are  all  being  
schema  possible.   used  by  partner  
Solution  packs   institutions
provide  domain  
support
Required  fields  (DC) Yes Yes  -­  can  set Yes,  basic  and   Yes.  DDI,  DCMI  for  
extendible   citation  metadata
(customisable)
Exporting  schemas OAI-­PMH,  xml,   OAI-­PMH,  DC,   OAI-­PMH  and  most   JSON  and  XML
METs MODS,  xml,  and   others  due  to  
others  depending  on   conversion  ability
solution  pack
Schema  flexibility Flexible Flexible  -­  any   Flexible,  but  some   3  levels:  Citation,  domain  
metadata   customisation  requires   (astronomy,  life  sciences,  
schema.format developer  input social  &  humanities),  file-­
level  metadata

Validation Yes Yes Yes Yes

Versioning Yes Yes Yes Yes
Attachable  discipline-­ Yes Yes Yes,  and  ability  to   No  but  automatic  ingest  
specific  metadata   convert  schema from  select  file  types
document
Compound  object   Somewhat,  but  in   Yes  -­  with  solution   Yes,  compound  and   No,  but  dataverses  can  
handling development?   package complex be  nested
Manakin  can  link  
metadata
PRIVACY/SECURITY Embargo Yes With  scholar  module Yes Yes,  up  to  the  curator  of  
the  community  to  
publish.
 Table  2.  Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features

Auto-­lift  embargo  support Not  sure Yes-­  admin   Not  sure Not  sure
controlled,  with  
scholar  module  and  
possibly  Islandora  IP  
embargo  
https://wiki.duraspace.
org/display/ISLANDO
RA/Islandora+Scholar

Private/public  data
Authentication   Yes,  integration   Yes  -­  integrates  with   Yes  -­  integrates  with   Shibboleth  (LDAP
mechanisms
Access  controls
Yes Yes Yes,  groups  too Yes,  groups  too
 
mechanisms: LDAP,  CAS  and   LDAP,  CAS  and   apparently)
Password,   Shibboleth Shibboleth
Shibboleth,  LDAP,  
IP,  X.509
Yes,  'groups' Yes,  highly   Yes,  multi  level  for   Per  dataverse  and  per  
configurable differential  access. file.  Role-­based  as  well  &  
custom  roles.  Notificatio  
of  access  requests

SUBMISSION/INGESTION Data  types  accepted All  types All  types All  types All  types
Size  (storage  allocated,  
1GB  file  limit,  but   1  TB  via  REST  API 1  TB  via  REST  API 2  GB  limit  via  API  vs  
upload  limits  etc.) can  be  increased   larger  for  API.  
to  2GB. Compressed  archives  
Without  Cacoon,   limited  to  1000  files  for  
can  be  increased   automatic  unpack
to  4GB.
Metadata  data  submission Basic  DC  fields   Mandatory  fields  can   Mandatory  fields  can   Mandatory  fields  can  be  
mandatory  upon   be  customised be  customised set.
submission  
process,  other  
fields  can  be  added

Automated  metadata   Yes,  from  csv Yes,  from  csv Yes,  from  csv Yes  for  FITS  data
import  from  files
Data  deposit  API Yes,  SWORD Yes,  SWORD Yes,  SWORD Yes,  SWORD
 Table  2.  Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features

Error  reporting Unsure  -­  to  be   Unsure  -­  to  be   Unsure  -­  to  be   Unsure  -­  to  be  
determined determined determined determined
Declaration  form Yes  -­  upon  ingest,   Yes  -­  upon  ingest,   Yes,  each  digital   Templates  are  available  
can  be  customised can  be  customised object  requires  a  rights   but  unsure  if  presented  
declaration  on  ingest each  time  upon  
submission.
Curation  layer Yes  -­  collection   Yes,  'mediated   Yes,  'mediated  deposit   Yes
level deposit  system'  and   system'  and  ability  to  
ability  to  set  workflow   set  workflow  systems
systems
ACCESS/SHARING Licensing Yes,  customisable Yes,  customisable Yes,  customisable Yes,  CC0  by  default  but  
-­  as  part  of  manual   opt-­out  possible
submission  
process.
(creative  
commons,  
community/collecti
ons,  repository  
submission  
agreement)
Integration  with  other   Linkable  via   Linkable  via  metadata   Yes,  using  Blacklight   Very  efficient  at  linked  
institutional   metadata   harvesting  (OAI-­PMH) it  can  aggregate   Dataverse  repositories  
repositories/collections harvesting  (OAI-­ content  from   and  has  OAI-­PMH  
PMH) multiple  repositories   functionality  so  should  be  
with  links  back  to  the   linkable  via  metadata  
source  systems,   harvesting
allowing  unified  
search  and  browse  
of  separate  
repository  
systems/softwares

Linked  objects Yes Yes Yes,  complex   Unsure

arrangements  are  
possible
 Table  2.  Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features

Private  project/group   Yes,  but  not   Unsure,  but  likely   Yes  -­  development   Yes  -­  collaborative  
spaces collaborative possible  with   required working  spaces  and  
development options  to  share  final  
datasets  in  project  
spaces  as  private  or  
public
ANALYSIS Visualisation  and   No,  but  possible   Depends  on  modular   Yes,  visualisation   Unsure  -­  likely  possible,  
playback  of  multimedia with  filter  plug-­ins   media  solution  packs:   capabilities  are   but  limited
(requiring   images,  video,   extensive,  but  
development).   documents,  binaries. requires  
Claimed  access  to   development  (uses  
text,  images,   Blacklight  for  
moving  images,   tailored  views  of  
mpegs  and  data   different  types  of  
sets media).
Graphing  of  tabular  data Unsure Yes  -­  with   Yes,  with  development Yes,  built-­in  capability  -­  
implementation  of   Stata,  SPSS,R,xls,  CSV  
solution  packs can  be  ingested  and  
viewed  with  
TwoRavens
Geographic  data  analysis Yes,  but  requires   Yes  -­  solution  packs Yes Yes,  built-­in  capability  -­  
development Shapefiles  viewed  with  
WorldMap
Images Yes,  but  requires   Yes Yes Yes
development
Other -­ -­ -­ Astronomy  FITS
Access  to  data  via  API No  -­  download  only Yes  REST  API Yes  REST  API Yes

POLICY Guidelines  available   Unknown Unknown Can  be  added  to  terms   Can  be  added  to  terms  of  
through  interface: of  use use
(DMP,  deposit,  
preservation,  sharing)
Automated   Unknown Unknown Unknown,  but  likely   Yes  (data  usage  
acknowledgement  of  data   possible  through   agreement),  templates  
policies: development exist
(preservation,  RDM,  open  
access,  ownership,  etc)
 Table  2.  Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features

Policies  section  on   Yes,  can  be  added   Yes,  can  be  added   Yes,  can  be  added   Yes,  templates  exist,  to  
landing  page with  simple   with  simple   with  simple   be  determined  in  action
development development development
Succession  plan Well  supported  by   Crowd/community-­ MoU  between  partner   Well  supported  by  
extensive   sourced  funding   institutions  ensures   Harvard  and  partner  
community.  Does   model.  Not  currently   long-­term  cooperation   institutions.
not  require  large   secured  and   and  sustainability
funding  to  be   struggling  to  raise  
sustainable necessary  funds.
Origin  of  funding Originally  Hewlett   FEDORA:  Originally   FEDORA:  Originally   Harvard,  MIT,  IQSS  
Packard  and  MIT,   well  funded  by  the   well  funded  by  the   partnerships  with  
but  now  funded  by   Gordon  and  Betty   Gordon  and  Betty   extended  community  -­  
The  Duraspace   Moore  Foundation   Moore  Foundation   long  history  of  university  
Community   (Cornell  U.  and  U.   (Cornell  U.  and  U.   funding  and  no  threat  to  
Sponsorship   Virginia).  Now   Virginia).  Now   sustainability.
Programme. supported  by  The   supported  by  The  
Duraspace   Duraspace  Community  
Community   Sponsorship  
Sponsorship   Programme
Programme.
HYDRA:  Not  funded,  
ISLANDORA:   institutional  partner  
Islandora  Claw   model  is  stable
development  funded  
through  incentivised,  
optional  membership  
fees.
ARCHIVING Author  ID  (orcid,   Yes,  ORCID Yes  -­  ORCID Yes,  ORCID  solution   No  -­  ORCID  integration  
scopus,DAI) pack is  planned  for  future  
development
Version  control Yes  -­  new  function   Yes Yes Yes,  data  and  metadata.  
and  still  being   No  deletion
improved
 Table  2.  Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features

Citation  and  references No,  but  can  be   Scholar  module No,  but  can  be   EndNote  XML,  RIS  
integrated integrated.  (Integration   Format,  or  BibTeX  
in  Sufia  for  Endnote,   Format
Zotera,  Mendeley)

PRESERVATION Redundancy No,  but  can  be   No,  but  can  be   No,  but  can  be   LOCKSS  network
integrated integrated integrated
Persistent  IDs Yes  -­  CNRI  handle   Yes,  with  plugins Yes,  with  plugins Yes
system
DOI  capability Yes  -­   Yes-­  DataCite Yes-­  DataCite DataCite  &  EZID
interoperability  with   Community/collection   Community/collection  
EZID  and  Datacite   level  DOIs? level  DOIs?
API  and  conversion  
of  DSpace  
metadata  into  
Datacite  format  for  
DOI  retrieval
BUT  no  support  for  
community/collecti
on  level  DOIs

Persistent  data  deposit Checksums  with   Checksums  with  audit   Checksums  with  audit   Universal  Numeric  
audit  trails trails. trails Fingerprint
Integration  with   Yes  -­  ASpace Yes,  Archidora Yes.  Integration  plug-­ In  development,  proof  of  
Archivematica ins  being  developed   concept  stage
(Hull/York  
collaboration  through  
Jisc  funding)
LOCKSS  compliance Yes,  integration   Yes,  integration   Yes,  integration  option Yes:  +  EZ-­Proxy,  DDI,  
option option Z39.50
Content  back-­up Yes  -­  but  issues   Yes Yes PostgresQSL  database  
with  versioning   backup  and  study  files.  
depending  on   Glassfish  configand  
choice  of  back-­up   customizations  too
procedure
ADMIN/REPORTING Tracking Yes,  SOLR Yes,  SOLR Yes,  SOLR Yes,  via  guestbooks.  
Access  requests  too
 Table  2.  Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features

Usage/download  reports
Stakeholder  reports
Yes,  SOLR  &   Yes,  SOLR Yes,  SOLR Yes,  IDs  and  custom  
elastic  search   questions.  Sharing  and  
(Manakin) reporting  too.
Customised   not  known not  known Not  automatically
monthly  reporting

Author  reports Customised   not  known not  known Not  automatically

monthly  reporting

Altmetrics Altmetrics  badges   not  known not  known In  development

can  be  
embedded.  
collection  stats  
are  visible
DISSEMINATION search  API Yes  -­  Lucene   Yes  -­  GSearch? Yes  -­  GSearch? Yes
(Java)
OAI-­PMH  compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes
Publishing  workflows JSPUI  &  XMLUI   Yes  (details  not   Yes  (details  not   Yes:  draft,  review,  
have  submission   known) known) published
workflow  including  
Author  and  
Publisher  roles
Faceted  search Yes Yes Yes Yes
Search  engine   Yes,  SOLR,   Yes,  SOLR Yes,  SOLR Yes,  SOLR
optimisation Google,  optomised  
for  Google  Scholar
Social  media  share   Yes,  may  require   not  known Yes  (many  options   Yes  (Facebook,  Twitter,  
options development with  Sufia:  Facebook,   Google  Plus)
Twitter  etc)
Features  page Not  sure Yes,  requires   Yes,  requires   Display  featured  
development development dataverses  on  main  page
(through  customisation  
or  with  Sufia  and  also  
upcoming  Hydra-­in-­
aBox)
 Table  2.  Comparison  of  open  source  repository  software  features

RSS Yes Yes Yes Yes

Integration  with  discovery   Yes,  -­  OAI-­PMH,   Yes Yes Yes
platforms Open  Search,  
RSS,  SWORD
Integration  with  research   Yes Yes Yes Planned  for  development
profiles  (ORCID)
DATA  PUBLISHING  WORKFLOW Versioning  of  published   Yes  -­  but  only   Yes  (details  not   Yes Yes
datasets backs  up  latest   known)
version
Communities  and  curators   Yes Yes,  requires   Yes  (highly   Yes  -­  easy  and  
of  data  collections development customisable  through   extensive
development)
Deletion  possible Yes Yes,  CRUD  (create,   Yes,  CRUD  (create,   No,  only  deaccession
read,  update,  delete) read,  update,  delete)