Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 03:24:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1107270260.29972.1711697047873@lyrasis1-roc-mp1>
Subject: Exported From Confluence
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_Part_29971_1670538824.1711697047873"
------=_Part_29971_1670538824.1711697047873
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
This page will be used to collect materials for an environmental=
scan of literature related to =
software upgrades and migrations as well as planned or recommended Fedora 3=
.x - Fedora 4.x upgrade projects.
Sources
- Reframing Open Source Repositor=
y Upgrades by Erin Tripp (dataset - https://osf.io/s3qx6/)&nbs=
p;
- General migration advice "=
Open Source Repository Upgrades: Top Adv=
ice from Practitioners": 1) Slides 2=
) Speaking Notes
- Digital Collections Survey Report by Bridge2=
Hyku Project Team
- Fedora and Digital Preservation Survey=
a> by Fedora Leadership Group
- Jonathan Rochkind Blog post "O=
n the present and future of samvera technical architectures" https://bibwild.wordpress.com/2018/08/28/on-the-present-and-future-of-sam=
vera-technical-architectures/
- Breaking =
Up With CONTENTdm: Why and How One Institution Took the Leap to Open Source=
by Gilbert & Mobley
Hit=
ting the Road towards a Greater Digital Destination: Evaluating and Testing=
DAMS at the University of Houston Libraries by Wu, et al.
A Clean Sweep: The Tools and Processes o=
f a Successful Metadata Migration, Anna Neatrour, Jeremy Myntti, M=
att Brunsvik, Harish Maringanti, Brian McBride & Alan Witkowski
- Objectivity Data Migration, Marcin Nowak, Krzysztof Nienartowicz, Andrea Valassi, Magnus Lubeck=
, Dirk Geppert
- Outside The Box: Building=
a Digital Asset Management Ecosystem for Preservation and Access, =
;Andrew Weidner, Sean Watkins, Bethany Scott, Drew Krewer, Anne Washington,=
and Matthew Richardson
- Are we still working on =
this? A meta-retrospective of a digital repository migration in the form of=
a classic Greek Tragedy (in extreme violation of Aristotelian Unity of Tim=
e), Steve Van Tuyl, Josh Gum, Margaret Mellinger, Gregorio Luis Ra=
mirez, Brandon Straley, Ryan Wick, Hui Zhang
- The Devil=E2=80=99s Shoe=
horn: A case study of EAD to ArchivesSpace migration at a large university<=
/a>, Dave Mayo and Kate Bowers
- The Semantics of Metadat=
a: Avalon Media System and the Move to RDF, Juliet L. Hardesty and=
Jennifer B. Young
- Massive N=
ewspaper Migration =E2=80=94 Moving 22 Million Records from CONTENTdm to So=
lphal, Alan Witkowski, Anna Neatrour, Jeremy Myntti and Brian McBr=
ide
- Taking Contr=
ol: Identifying Motivations for Migrating Library Digital Asset Management =
Systems, Ayla Stein, Santi Thompson
- Deploying Islandora a=
s a Digital Repository Platform: a Multifaceted Experience at the Universit=
y of Denver Libraries, Shea-Tinn Yeh, Fernando Reyes, Jeff Rynhart, Phi=
lip Bain
- A Doomsday =
Scenario: Exporting CONTENTdm Records to XTF, Andrew Bullen
Berghaus,F., Blomer, J., Cancio Melia, G., Dallmeier=
Tiessen, S., Ganis, G., Shiers, J., Simko, T. (n.d.) CERN Services for Lon=
g Term Data Preservation. Retrieved from https://cds.cern.ch/record/2195937/files/iPRES2016-CERN_July3.pdf=
- International Linked Da=
ta Survey for Implementers, 2018 Report, OCLC Research
- From Silos to Opaquenamespace: Oregon Digital's=
Migration to Linked Open Data in Hydra, Julia Simic, Sarah Seymore
- Understanding Metadata Needs When Migrating DAMS, =
Ayla Stein, Santi Thompson
- Time, Money, and Effort: =
A Practical Approach to Digital Content Management, Christine Wiseman, Al Matthews
- Who gives a DAM?: T=
he Iterative Process for Assessing Digital Asset Management Tools, =
;Bailey,=
Bondurant, Buckner, Creel, duPlessis, =
span>Huff, Melgoza, Mosbo, Muise, Potvin, Sewell, Wright
- Spinning Communication to Get People Excited about Technolog=
ical Change, Suzanna Conrad
- Overly Honest Data Repository Development, Colleen Falla=
w, Elise Dunham, Elizabeth Wickes, Dena Strong, Ayla Stein, Qian Zhang, Kyl=
e Rimkus, Bill Ingram, and Heidi J. Imker
Developing Instit=
utional Research Data Repository: A Case Study, Zhiwu Xie, Julie=
Speer, Yinlin Chen, Tingting Jiang, Collin Brittle, Paul Mather
Migrating to an Open Source Instituti=
onal Repository: Challenges and Lessons Learned, Devin Soper, Bryan Bro=
wn
Migrating an IR to New T=
echnology: Opportunities, Challenges, and Decision-Making Processes, Simone Sacchi, Eva T. Cunningham
Summary
Repository upgrades and migrations are quite common, and the literature =
covers several important aspects of this process: motivations for undertaki=
ng a migration, the difficulty of migrations, the possible benefits of a mi=
gration, and advice for those looking to undertake a migration in the futur=
e.
A common motivation for repository migrations is the cost of a commercia=
lly licensed product. Gilbert and Mobley were faci=
ng an increased cost to their CONTENTdm license due to reaching the item li=
mit of their current tier, and Stein and =
Thompson cited license and maintenance fees as one of the main dri=
vers of repository migrations based on survey data. Issues with the commerc=
ial platform itself, from performance and scale limitations (Neatrour et al., Witkowski et al.) to a lack of flexibility with regard to=
file and metadata formats (Gilbert and Mobley, Wu et al.), were also key motivat=
ors. Finally, better support for digital preservation (Stein and Thompson, Berghaus et al., Fallaw et al.) and li=
nked data (Wu et al., Stein and Thompson) rounded out the top motiv=
ators in the literature.
There are many factors that make migrations difficult, but there is one =
primary problem category throughout the literature: metadata. Van Tuyl et al. cite metadata remediation as the biggest =
time sink during their migration project, and many others (Bridge2Hyku Team, Gilbert and Mobley, Neatrour et al.) present case studies that involve significant time=
spent on metadata normalization, de-deduplication, and remediation. This s=
peaks to a related difficulty often cited in the literature: inconsistent o=
r =E2=80=9Cmessy=E2=80=9D source data. The process of mapping metadata from=
one repository system to another would be much simpler were it not for the=
fact that many legacy systems tend to have metadata quality problems in th=
e form of custom local fields, duplicate fields, and misspelled entries.
There is a great deal of migration advice to be found in the literature,=
based primarily on lessons learned from migration projects. Tripp =
;summarizes much of this advice into four categories: planning, metadata no=
rmalization, migration, and verification. Each of these categories is repre=
sented in the rest of the literature; Nowak et al.&nbs=
p;undertook a great deal of planning for their migration project, while Simic and Seymore invested a l=
ot of time in large scale metadata normalization prior to migration. The mi=
gration phase itself was often accomplished with a combination of scripts a=
nd manual intervention, and the same is true of the verification step.
Common The=
mes
- Motivations for migration
- Commercial license costs<=
/li>
- Lack of flexibility
- Staff investment vs. licensing f=
ees
- Performance and scale issues
- Better integration with other ap=
plications/services
- Support for linked data=
li>
- Support for digital preservation=
- Migration difficulty
- Custom metadata fields
- Inconsistent data
- Different data models
- Metadata mapping: e.g. MODS XML =
to RDF
- OSS documentation is not always =
complete/accurate
- Migration benefits
- Metadata improvement/enrichment<=
/span>
- Skills development
- Streamlined workflows
- Enhanced discovery via metadata =
enrichment
- Migration advice
- Importance of communication
- Engaging with stakeholders, coll=
ecting feedback, reporting on progress
- Working with a representative sa=
mple
- Requirements, scope
- Normalize metadata before migrat=
ion
- But carefully scope this effort<=
/span>
- Iterate, spot check
- Agile methodologies
- Contingency planning: staff turn=
over, learning curve, no single points of failure
- Need for clear roles and respons=
ibilities
- Repository requirements
- Flexible object types and metada=
ta
- Batch ingest (e.g. from a spread=
sheet)
- Large community
- Modularity
- Status of Fedora
- Most still using Fedora 3=
- Plans to migrate but few timelin=
es
- Samvera/Fedora has major perform=
ance issues
- Is the value of Fedora worth the=
complexity it introduces in the Samvera stack?
- Tools
- Several examples of tools develo=
ped to aid/automate migration activities
------=_Part_29971_1670538824.1711697047873--