I find that very interesting, as I was not aware there were other
established certification requirements, besides the one I mentioned,
by the OCLC.
I will search for that info, but will also appreciate any url you may
provide about those other certification efforts. I hope they may
better be in sync with our particular scenario.
Thank you once again!
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Uwe Klosa <uwe.klosa@...> wrote:
> We did have plans of a repository certification few years ago. This is quite
> a dragging process and we do not have the man power to carry it out. We did
> carry out a pre-study 2 years where we compared the German and Australian
> concepts and rules for certification of repository servers. After that has
> nothing happened here in Sweden in this area as far as I am aware.
> Kind regards
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Filipe Correia <fcorreia@...> wrote:
>> Hello Uwe,
>> Thank you for your reply!
>> Your scenario is indeed one I can relate to. Do you have any plans for
>> repository certification, on a long-term preservation perspective? The
>> preservation checklist I've mentioned appears to me as not being
>> entirely compatible with the use of a repository on a documents
>> production phase, rather only on a phase when all documents are
>> defined for "permanent" preservation.
>> Filipe Correia
>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Uwe Klosa <uwe.klosa@...> wrote:
>> > In DiVA we're using Fedora as an repository for two purposes. The first
>> > one
>> > is to archive publication metadata and files. The second one is two
>> > support
>> > a publication workflow for different types of publications. We do have
>> > mainly a publication workflow for doctoral theses where the digital
>> > object
>> > is the original thesis. Furthermore the system is used by an Open Access
>> > journal where also the digital objects are the orignals.
>> > I think there have been discussions to use Fedora behind a CMS. But I do
>> > not
>> > know if there is one out there.
>> > Regards
>> > Uwe Klosa
>> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Filipe Correia <fcorreia@...>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Dear Fedora Commons community,
>> >> We are currently studying the best approach for an institutional
>> >> repository using fedora, but are finding some difficulties.
>> >> It's easy to find fedora case studies on the Web, but our scenario is
>> >> somewhat different from all the others we are finding, even though we
>> >> find it hard to believe we are the firsts with such a use case.
>> >> Let me explain. We are trying to address two main concerns:
>> >> - Nowadays, all of our new documents are digital ones --- even if
>> >> they are paper documents, they are turned into a digital form when
>> >> they enter our institution. All of these documents are currently
>> >> stored on a very archaic repository, which doesn't provide us with the
>> >> control access we would like, doesn't properly handle unique object
>> >> identification, and doesn't really scale to a much larger number of
>> >> files.
>> >> - The long term preservation of these objects hasn't really been
>> >> thought out before, but we want to start taking it into account.
>> >> So, our thoughts were to start using fedora, and ingesting digital
>> >> objects from the moment they appear on the organization. Our document
>> >> management system (which handles the document workflow) would make use
>> >> of the underlying fedora infrastructure by maintaining references to
>> >> the appropriate digital objects. Right on the moment our digital
>> >> objects were "born" they wouldn't have much associated metadata, but
>> >> it would grow as the object would be further used, throughout the
>> >> organization.
>> >> At the same time, taking our long term preservation concerns into
>> >> account, we have been looking at the OAIS model and at this repository
>> >> certification checklist: http://bibpurl.oclc.org/web/16712
>> >> These sound to us as very wise advises but, at the same time, poses
>> >> some
>> >> doubts:
>> >> - For certification purposes, the repository would have to maintain
>> >> *only* long-term-preservation objects, but if we ingest "newborn"
>> >> objects, that will not be the case. Only later the objects will be
>> >> evaluated and considered worthy of long-term preservation, or not ---
>> >> in which case they can be discarded.
>> >> - For our day to day administrative activities it makes perfect sense
>> >> to use a repository since the moment the document is created... does
>> >> this mean we will have to have a second repository to which to copy
>> >> the digital objects when the time comes? (this seems silly to us... Is
>> >> it?)
>> >> If someone has faced a similar scenario, we would really love to hear
>> >> your take on this matter. It seems to us that repository models are
>> >> being thought out mainly for end-of-the-line archiving (that is, when
>> >> they have served their main administrative purposes), but we think it
>> >> could be very useful to use them sooner on the document life-cycle.
>> >> Thank you in advance!
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Filipe Correia
>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
>> >> challenge
>> >> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
>> >> prizes
>> >> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the
>> >> world
>> >> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Fedora-commons-users mailing list
>> >> Fedora-commons-users@...
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-users