Created by David Walker, last modified on Feb 04, 2019

Date

Attendees

  • David Walker

  • Andrew Weiss

  • Dana Ospina

  • Kevin Cloud

  • Renaldo Gjoshe

  • Zach Vowell

Goals

  • Any questions or feedback for Dana and the external group

  • Review single-instance demo system

  • Reach decision on single vs. separate campus repositories

Discussion items

Time

Item

Who

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?

Action items

  •  

Decisions