Using the Audit Checklist for the Certification of a Trusted Digital Repository as a framework for evaluating repository software applications: A progress report

D-Lib Magazine

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2006, Pages

  Kaczmarek, Joanne ^a   Hswe, Patricia ^a   Eke, Janet ^a   Habing, Thomas G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845646695     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10829873     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1045/december2006-kaczmarek     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. For standard works on software evaluation and the incorporation of checklists, see T. Gilb, S. Finzi & D. Graham (1993). Software inspection. Wokingham, England; Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley;
2. and C. P. Hollocker (1990). Software Reviews and Audits Handbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
3. J. E. Rowley (1990). Guidelines on the evaluation and selection of library software packages. ASLIB Proceedings, 42(9), pp. 225-235.
4. Society of Archivists. Information Technology Group (1993). Criteria for software evaluation, a checklist for archivists: A paper produced by a working group of the society of archivists information technology group committee. London: The Society.
5. Society of Archivists
6. E. Dill, & K. L. Palmer (2005). What's the big IDeA? considerations for implementing an institutional repository. Library Hi Tech News, 22(6), pp. 11-14.
7. H. F. Cervone (2006). Some considerations when selecting digital library software. OCLC Systems and Services, Vol.22, no.2, Pp.107-110 22, (2): 107-110.
8. Cervone, p. 109.
9. OARINZ Project, 〈http://www.oarinz.ac.nz/index.php〉; repository evaluation available at 〈http://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/131/1062/ Repository%20Evaluation%20Document%20.pdf〉.
10. Open Society Institute's Guide to Institutional Repository Software v. 3.0 〈http://www.soros.org/openaccess//software/〉.
11. MIDESS Project, 〈http://www.leeds.ac.uk/library/midess/〉; repository evaluation available at 〈http://www.leeds.ac.uk/library/midess/ MIDESS%20workpackage%202%20-%20Functional%20and%20Technical%20Requirements %20Specification.pdf〉.
12. D. H.-L. Goh, A. Chua, D.A. Khoo, E. B.-H. Khoo, E. B-T. Mak & M. W-M. Ng (2006). A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software. Online Information Review, 30(4), 360-379.
13. Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program, 〈http://digitalpreservation.gov〉.
14. ECHO DEPository Project, 〈http://www.ndiipp.uiuc.edu〉.
15. Goh et al., p. 365.
16. C. Bailey, K. Coombs, J. Emery, A. Mitchell, S. Simons & R. Wright (2006). Executive summary. SPEC Kit 292. Institutional Repositories. Available at 〈http://www.arl.org/spec/SPEC292web.pdf〉.
17. Cornell Digital Preservation Management Workshop. Available at 〈http://library.cornell.edu/iris/dpworkshop〉.
18. Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes and Responsibilities (2002). Available at 〈http://www.rlg.org/en/pdfs/repositories.pdf〉.
19. RLG/NARA Audit Checklist for Certifying a Trusted Digital Repository. Available at 〈http://www.rlg.org/en/pdfs/rlgnara-repositorieschecklist. pdf〉.
20. OAIS Reference Model. Available at 〈http://public.ccsds.org/ publications/archive/650x0b1.pdf〉.
21. K. Collier, B. Carey, D. Sautter & C. Marjaniemi (1999). A methodology for evaluating and selecting data mining software. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.