A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software

Published date01 July 2006
Pages360-379
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610686283
Date01 July 2006
AuthorDion Hoe‐Lian Goh,Alton Chua,Davina Anqi Khoo,Emily Boon‐Hui Khoo,Eric Bok‐Tong Mak,Maple Wen‐Min Ng
Subject MatterInformation & knowledge management,Library & information science
A checklist for evaluating open
source digital library software
Dion Hoe-Lian Goh, Alton Chua, Davina Anqi Khoo,
Emily Boon-Hui Khoo, Eric Bok-Tong Mak and
Maple Wen-Min Ng
Division of Information Studies, School of Communication and Information,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Abstract
Purpose – Many open source software packages are available for organizations and individuals to
create digital libraries (DLs). However, a simple to use instrument to evaluate these DL software
packages does not exist. The objectives of the present work are to develop a checklist for DL
evaluation and use this checklist on four DL software packages.
Design/methodology/approach – Features that characterized “good” open source DL software
were determined from the literature. First identified were essential categories of features that DL
software should possess. These categories were then decomposed into supporting features. From
these, a checklist that covered all such features was developed. The checklist was then used to evaluate
four popular open source DL software packages (CDSware, EPrints, Fedora, and Greenstone) for the
purposes of assessing suitability for use in a DL project to be undertaken by the authors.
Findings – A checklist consisting of 12 categories of items was developed. Using this, Greenstone
was found to be the best performer, followed by CDSware, Fedora and EPrints. Greenstone was the
only software package that consistently fulfilled the majority of the criteria in many of the checklist
categories. In contrast, EPrints was the worst performer due to its poor support for certain features
deemed important in our checklist, and a total absence of functionality in other categories.
Originality/value – The present work attempts to develop a comprehensive checklist for assessing
DLs. Its flexibility allows users to tailor it to accommodate new categories, items and weighting
schemes to reflect the needs of different DL implementations.
Keywords Digital libraries,Program testing, Computer software
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Digital libraries (DLs) facilitate creation, organization and management of multim edia
digital content and collections, and provide search, retrieval and other information
services over computer networks and other electronic media. Developments in DL
technologies have changed the way people access and interact with information, and
have also extended the concept of libraries far beyond physical boundaries.
Digital library systems have the potential to empower users, not just librarians, to
conceive, assemble, build and disseminate new information collections (Bainbridge
et al., 2003). Therefore, one of the key functionalities of a DL should be the matching of
user work patterns. To achieve this, a thorough understanding of the users of libraries
and the system itself should be obtained. Apart from the need for deeper
understanding of users, the fit between the tools used to craft the DL and the
necessary requirements has to be ascertained.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
OIR
30,4
360
Refereed article received
26 January 2006
Revision approved for
publication 13 March 2006
Online Information Review
Vol. 30 No. 4, 2006
pp. 360-379
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/14684520610686283
The Asian Communication Resource Center (ACRC), located in Nanyang
Technological University (Singapore), is a regional center dedicated to developing
information resources on different aspects of communication, information, media and
information technology disciplines, especially in Asia. The center has about 20 years’
worth of documents including books, journals, conference proceedings and working
papers. To make these materials more accessible to users who are not based in
Singapore, the ACRC decided to explore the possibility of building a DL to provide
online access to these materials.
It was decided in the early stages of the project that open source DL software was to
be used, given the amount of work done in this area by academics and practitioners in
the field, as well as the opportunities for using the DL as a research platform to test
new concepts and technologies. However, a search of the literature yielded little in the
evaluation of DL software, confirming Saracevic’s (2000) observation that much effort
has been put into DL research and practice but not so much on evaluation. This gap led
to the present work. Specifically, we conducted a study that examined the features of
four DL software packages against a set of predetermined criteria that were deemed to
be essential for the development of the ACRC DL. Our objectives were to:
.Determine the features that characterize “good” open source DL software and
develop a checklist from these features. Here, we identified essential categories of
features DL software should possess. Examples include content management,
searching, and metadata standards. These categories were then decomposed into
supporting features. From these, a checklist that covered all such features was
developed.
.Evaluate the features of candidate open source DL software against the checklist.
The checklist was applied to four open source DL software packages that were
identified as possible candidates for the ACRC DL. Scores were assigned to each
DL depending on its level of support for the features in the checklist.
.Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the DL software. After scoring, a
comparison of the features across the DL software packages was examined with
the objective of identifying similarities, differences, strengths and weakness of
our candidate software.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In the next section, open source
concepts and a description of our candidate open source DL software are presente d.
The development of our checklist and the evaluation criteria used are discussed. This
is followed by a presentation and analysis of the evaluation results of the DL software
packages. We conclude with opportunities for future work and a general discussion of
our evaluation experience.
Open source software
Open source software has been a nebulous reference to any software that is free, and is
often confused with freeware and shareware. The Open Source Initiative (OSI; www.
opensource.org) has therefore become a certification body for open source software
under a commonly agreed-upon definition for “open source”. Highlights of the OSI’s
Open source
digital library
software
361

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT