Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 12 Next »

Project Title: Dspace Institutional Repository Implementation
Project Owner: David Lacy
Project Manager:Gabe Galson
Date Prepared: 
 
Project Customer:
Annie Johnson (Unlicensed)
Tech LeadChin U. Kim
Metadata SpecialistHolly Tomren
StakeholdersAnnie Johnson, ScholCom Team, Symplectic Team, Digitization Team, Gretchen Sneff, Margery Sly


Intended Users/Audience
Annie Johnson, Symplectic Team, ScholCom Team, Digitization Team, Temple grad students, Temple Faculty
Background
For several years now, the library has evaluated the feasibility of implementing an institutional repository. The project gained momentum with the implementation of Symplectic Elements and the option provided therein where a direct connection could be made between the two systems. With this connection, a faculty member can deposit a copy of their publication directly into the IR through Elements, thus simplifying the overall process for faculty and researchers. Dspace was selected as the software of choice because of its interoperability with Symplectic Elements.  DSpace 6.2 will be installed and tested through the Elements Dev and Prod instances.
High Level Requirements 

The Dspace project will be considered complete once the following requirements are met:

  • Dspace is installed and available for use.
  • The Open Access Module is installed on Symplectic Elements
  • The connection is made between the OA Module on SE and Dspace and data/information is successfully transmitted between the two systems.
  • Metadata mappings and practices are functional, clearly defined, and sustainable
  • Elements->DSpace deposit workflow functions in line with Temple Faculty and ScholCom team’s needs.  
  • The ETD procurement process is updated with ProQuest for all new ETDs.
  • The current ETDs in CONTENTdm are migrated to Dspace.


Timeline
Summary:  The implementation of Dspace will be phased. The first phase is to set up the connection between Dspace and Symplectic and to incorporate the ETD process into Dspace. This phase will include an update to the connection with ProQuest for the ETD delivery and a migration of the current ETDs in CONTENTdm to Dspace.  The second phase will be to make content hosted in DSpace accessible through a native or Blacklight-based interface.

Phase 1: June, 2018- January, 2019

Phase 2: January, 2019- May 2019


Infrastructure/software requirements  Technical Specifications

Server for DSpace V 6.2


Storage Space

Elements Production Instance
Elements Development Instance


Assumptions
  • The DSpace-Elements Repository Connection allows us to maintain acceptable metadata standards and implement policies that work for ScholCom and the faculty community.  
  • Hosting ETDs in DSpace will allow the support of current ETD policies, such as the embargo policy currently in place, and support a sustainable ETD ingest and metadata workflow.  
Risks/Constraints
  • Mapping/crosswalking work could be substantial and ongoing, due to the ever-widening scope of the Elements implementation, future software upgrades, and changes to Temple’s metadata standards.  
  • Beyond Phase 1, DSpace implementation and customization may take more technical support than 1 non-developer tech lead
  • This project could generate a significant amount of recurring work that must be absorbed.  


Options (ETD Workflow)  

Option 1 [ETDs]:  Feed current ETD workflow into DSpace

Assumptions:

  • The XSLT transformation process can be adapted to create a file uploadable through DSpace
  • Maintaining consistency between older and newer ETD metadata will be easier through this approach

Risks/constraints:

  • Relies on updating legacy code

Option 2 [ETDs]: Feed ETDs from Proquest directly into DSpace via SWORDv2

Assumptions:

  • Could simplify and make more adaptable the ETD ingest workflow, and cut down on staff time.

Risks/constraints:

  • New metadata workflows would have to be devised to replace the work Phil, Stefanie and Celio currently do


Options: Public Access to DSpace materials

Option 1 [Access]:  Materials presented through DSpace UI

Assumptions:

  • Some contact between users and the DSpace UI may be necessary to index ETDs in Blacklight

Risks/constraints:

  • Customizing the UI is somewhat of a waste of effort, providing access entirely through Blacklight would be preferable

Option 2 [ETDs]: Feed ETDs from Proquest directly into DSpace via SWORDv2

Assumptions:

  • Could simplify and make more adaptable the ETD ingest workflow, and cut down on staff time.

Risks/constraints:

  • New metadata workflows would have to be devised to replace the work Phil, Stefanie and Celio currently do


Best Option + Rationale:

As development/implementation proceeds the options will be evaluated.  As of now all options defined are still open.






  • No labels