Evaluation and Usage Scenarios of Open Source Digital Library And

Program Evaluation and usage scenarios of open source digital library and collection management tools Georgios Gkoumas, Fotis Lazarinis, Article information: To cite this document: Georgios Gkoumas, Fotis Lazarinis, (2015) "Evaluation and usage scenarios of open source digital library and collection management tools", Program, Vol. 49 Issue: 3, pp.226-241, https:// doi.org/10.1108/PROG-09-2014-0070 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/PROG-09-2014-0070 Downloaded on: 14 December 2017, At: 06:36 (PT) References: this document contains references to 26 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1427 times since 2015* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2013),"Using open source software for digital libraries: A case study of CUSAT", The Electronic Library, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 217-225 https:// doi.org/10.1108/02640471311312393 (2012),"Open source integrated library management systems: Comparative analysis of Koha and NewGenLib", The Electronic Library, Vol. 30 Iss 6 pp. 809-832 https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471211282127

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:478536 [] For Authors Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0033-0337.htm

PROG 49,3 Evaluation and usage scenarios of open source digital library and collection management tools 226 Georgios Gkoumas and Fotis Lazarinis Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece Received 28 September 2014 Revised 17 January 2015 Accepted 1 March 2015 Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate open source software (OSS) for digital libraries and collection management and to propose different utilization scenarios based on the characteristics of the tools. Design/methodology/approach – The tools are assessed on the basis of their technical features and options, the type of the content they manage, the support for common library operations such as cataloging and circulation, the searching support and the interoperability options. Then they are evaluated by users and finally a number of usage scenarios are analyzed based on the results of the evaluation. Findings – The basic findings of the study is that open source digital library and collection management tools offer advanced operations and support various metadata and interoperability protocols with easy and user-friendly interfaces. Most of the tools are extensively used under various settings and establishments already. Language support for the interfaces should be extended with more languages and some tools with limited operations should be improved to be of practical use. Practical implications – The findings of the paper could be used support the selection of specific open source tools for various types of establishments. Originality/value – The study reviews the characteristics of a few OSS for digital libraries and collection management and reveals their specific strengths and weaknesses. It also presents a number of realistic scenarios and proposes the usage of specific tools based on time, technology and staff constraints. Keywords Digital libraries, Open source software, BiblioteQ, CollectionSpace, Dspace, Eprints Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) Several open source applications have been developed for library and collection management. Organizations may acquire, for free, fully functional software instead of using expensive proprietary software and they can even contribute in their development to integrate functions they consider as important. This paper deals with open source tools for digital libraries and collections. All the tools shown in Table I are free, released under a free software license or open source license such as GPL, Apache License, BSD and MIT. These tools were selected based on their significance resulting from relevant studies and by searching for open source digital library (DL) softwareinsearchengines. An Integrated Library Management System (ILMS) or Integrated Library System (ILS) is an enterprise resource planning system for a library, used to track items owned, orders made, bills paid and patrons who have borrowed. An ILMS must contain: • Program: electronic library and the concept of integrated, i.e. the application must cover all the needs of running a information systems Vol. 49 No. 3, 2015 library and using a database; and pp. 226-241 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited • to be composed of modules, responsible for: cataloging, acquisitions, circulation, 0033-0337 DOI 10.1108/PROG-09-2014-0070 serial management, online catalog (OPAC) and interlibrary loan. DL and Project name Official web site collection BiblioteQ http://biblioteq.sourceforge.net/ management CollectionSpace www.collectionspace.org/ Dspace www.dspace.org/ tools Eprints www.eprints.org/ Evergreen http://evergreen-ils.org/ Fedora Commons http://fedora-commons.org/ 227 Ganesha http://kmrg.itb.ac.id/ Greenstone www.greenstone.org/ Invenio http://invenio-software.org/ Koha (developed by the Koha Community) http://koha-community.org/ NewGenLib www.verussolutions.biz/ Table I. OpenBiblio http://obiblio.sourceforge.net/ List of reviewed Open Video Digital Library Toolkit (OVDLT) www.open-video-toolkit.org/ open source software

The software of Table I can be divided into two main categories: (1) ILMSs; and (2) digital repositories and collection management tools. The next section reviews relevant works and the Section 3 analyzes the aims of the paper and the evaluation methodology. In the Section 4, the results of the evaluation are shown in the next section the conclusions of the evaluation are discussed and usage scenarios of the software for different users and needs. The work is summarized in the last section.

2. Literature review Greenstone is one of the oldest and most commonly used DL free software. Witten et al. (2000) presented the features and evaluated Greenstone. They concluded that is a complete software system for creating DL collections. Witten et al. (2004) reviewed trends in more contemporary information environments. They illustrated how a well-designed DL software like Greenstone has the potential to enable non-specialist

Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) individuals to conceive, assemble, build and disseminate new information collections. In developing countries like India open source software (OSS) is more popular. Naik and Shivalingaiah (2006) compare the features, functions and usability of OSS like Greenstone, DSpace and Ganesha DL. Their study concludes that OSS include an interface that makes it easy for people to create their own library collections, allowing library staff to be actively involved in development projects. More recently, Witten (2008) discusses how Greenstone has helped spread the practical impact of DL technology throughout the world – particularly in developing countries. The study reviews the project’s origins, usage and the development of support mechanisms for the users. Witten describes how its international, humanitarian focus arose and the importance of cooperation with organizations such as Human Info NGO and UNESCO. The study concludes that digital libraries are crucial for information technology in developing countries as they provide a low cost way of distributing organized information widely. Biswas and Paul (2009) through an online survey examined the usability of popular open source DL software such as Dspace and Greenstone with some insights to Eprints and Fedora. They concluded that open source can empower less privileged PROG communities. According to their findings, Dspace is fairly powerful software and the 49,3 most popular among the open source DL tools, especially for educational institutions. Goh et al. (2006) noticed the absence of a simple to use instrument to evaluate a DL software. The objective of their work was to develop a checklist for DL evaluation and use this checklist on four software packages (CDSware, EPrints, Fedora and Greenstone). The checklist composed by identifying essential categories of features 228 that DL software should possess (e.g. Content Management, User Interface, User Administration, etc.). The results of the evaluation, conclude that open source DL software still lack certain functionalities. However, among the four evaluated tools Greenstone was able to fulfill most of all the vital indicators because of its strong support for end-user functionality. Also they noted, that each software package has individual strengths and weaknesses that will appeal to different organizations and stakeholders with different needs. Breeding (2008) discusses how the OSS movement has entered the library automation industry, introducing a new set of ILSs and a tendency in companies to adopt a business model based on services and support rather than software license fees. He provides detailed information about four major open source ILSs and the companies that support them (Koha, Evergreen, NewGenLib and OPALS). He concludes that the functionality of the open source ILSs products has matured at a fast pace as more libraries adopt such software and choose to sponsor specific development projects, any lapses in functionality seem to be closing rapidly. Nevertheless, libraries considering to adopt open source ILSs need to carefully review their features and functionality and measure their current and anticipated needs. Gairin et al. (2008), present an experiment that performed by a group of lecturers and students at the School of Library and Information Science at the University of Barcelona. Members of the OSS for Information Professionals Working Group created a virtual laboratory for the use of OSS for application in libraries, aimed at the professional community. They used OSS systems like PMB, OpenBiblio, Potnia, Alfresco, Dspace, Eprints and Refbase, which are used for library automation or for management of electronic resources, electronic documents, repositories, thesauri and bibliographies. The characteristics, functions and modules of the software are also presented in their study. Their conclusion is that though the virtual laboratory began

Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) as a means of testing and promoting OSS for libraries, it grew into a valuable learning environment for both teachers and students and provides material for teaching practice in a variety of subjects Krishnamurthy (2008), reviews the key developments in the open access and open source movement in the DL world. The author concludes that the open source movement has produced vast quantities of valuable software in DLs that help societies grow. The reasons librarians and libraries need the OSS model are reviewed in another study (Hasan, 2009). The study covers a fairly large list of software (Koha, NewGenLib, Greenstone, DSpace, Fedora, Eprints, Ganesha, CDSWare, CDS/ISIS). The study concludes that DSpace, EPrints, Greenstone and Koha are the most widely used OSS in India and worldwide because they provide flexible searching and browsing and a low degree of maintenance effort. The most used library software in Lahore, Pakistan, using a checklist and librarians’ opinions is studied in Shafique and Mahmood (2008). The methodology is based on questionnaire survey, interviews, document analysis and personal communication. The authors make a list of recommendations related to the selection of a the desired software in developing countries. Dspace, Fedora, GreenStone, Keystone and Eprints are compared in (Pyrounakis DL and and Nikolaidou, 2009). Each system was thoroughly studied based on specific collection characteristics and system features (object model, collection support, metadata, search and browse, interoperability, etc.). Their study proposes cases for which, each of these management systems is suitable. For example, if an institution needs a digital repository for research tools papers and dissertations produced by students and stuff, the most appropriate system is DSpace. 229 Anuradha and Sivakaminathan (2009) discuss the advanced features of searching and retrieving of bibliographic records and focus on full-text indexing and searching. Their work focusses on enabling full-text search feature in Koha, by integrating it with Greenstone Digital Library Software (GSDL). They accomplish this task by making use of Search and Retrieval by URL (SRU) feature available in both Koha and GSDL. Full-text search features in Koha are added by integrating it with the GSDL and Fedora Generic Search Service (Anuradha et al., 2011). Vasupongayya et al. (2011) reviewed several open source library management systems. Their review is based on traditional library services, management of digital files, interoperability and basic common functions such as security, alert system and statistical reports. Their study covers a fairly large list of software (Koha, Evergreen, OpenBiblio, OPALS, PMB, Emilda, NewGenLib, LA ILS, DSpace, Greenstone, iVia, BiblioteQ and MicroLCS) giving details such as technical compatibilities, supported environment, programming language requirements, basic requirement and active support. The study of Madalli et al. (2012) make some observations regarding digital preservation support available in existing open source DL software based on test beds (CDS-Invernio, DSpace, EPrints, Fedora, Greenstone and MyCoRe) created for that purpose. They concluded that there is much yet to be known and studied when it comes to the preservation of digital information as its state of development is still at a very early and experimental point. There are no established models for preserving multimedia-related works, online dialogues, etc. They note the necessity to convert items from proprietary formats into open formats and open standards, so they can then be uploaded into a digital archive for future storage, retrieval and preservation. To a large extent Fedora supports more features that are essential from a digital

Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) preservation point of view, but it lacks a user-friendly interface; hence, there are not many installations of Fedora. Dspace and EPrints are now used heavily all over the world to build digital repositories/institutional repositories. Koha and NewGenLib evaluated based on structured checklists prepared after the thorough study of reference tools, reference statistical data available and related literature (Singh and Sanaman, 2012). The study concludes that both software packages are more or less equally important in different aspects. Cherukodan et al. (2013) describe the design and development of a DL at Cochin University of Science and Technology, India, using DSpace. The study focus on the analysis of distribution of items and measuring the value by usage statistics employing the Google Analytics service. They conclude that it was a successful DL with visitors from 78 countries. Arora (2011) describes the design and structural components of MXMLiszt, an open source MusicXML DL platform that may be of interest to librarians with and without musical and/or programming backgrounds. A number of studies have been contacted on ABCD and the whole CDS/ISIS family of tools. Dhamdhere (2011) presents the major technical features of ABCD and its modules. The author concludes that it offers a nice solution for all types of modern PROG libraries to meet the ever-increasing needs of users when library budget is on the 49,3 decline. Another study compares in-depth Koha and ABCD according to their functionality and characteristics (Macan et al., 2013). This evaluation revealed that Koha has more functionalities than ABCD, especially those connected with the “next generation library catalog.” The study of Harinarayana and Raghavan (2008) examines the comparative retrieval effectiveness of CDS/ISIS and LibSys. The result shows that 230 neither of the two packages provide support for all the features that may be expected of ideal retrieval software. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is a number of studies on open source DL tools. These publications focus either on user satisfaction or on usability of the software. The current study combines methods of previous works and attempts to broaden the evaluation to a larger set of applications and to assemble a set of scenarios for assisting different organizations to select an appropriate application. The evaluation is, generally, based on the richness of features and the usability of the tools.

3. Aims and methodology The main purpose of this study is to help the adoption of open source DL management systems, by highlighting their futures and presenting a list of usage scenarios, based on the needs of different establishments. The work reported in this study is divided into four stages: (1) installation and utilization of the open source tools; (2) recording of the features of the software; (3) evaluation of the software by users; and (4) propose different usage scenarios based on the conclusions of the previous steps.

The following actions were completed in the first stage: • installation of the software either on Windows or on a virtual machine using VirtualBox (released under GPLv2 open source license) for Linux distributions; Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) • creation of a sample collection for each tool; and • creation of a user guide for each tool explaining the basic operations.

In the second stage, we focussed on the usual software features gathered either from the tools’ official web sites or from related studies and online guides. The union of all the features are grouped into categories (Table II). In this step we examined the existence of the individual operations in the evaluated tools.

Category Features

Traditional library services Cataloging, circulation, OPAC, acquisitions, serials management Digital files Manage different types of digital files Table II. Search Browsing, simple/advanced search List of features Interoperability features Support of protocols such as OAI-MPH, Dublin core by category User management Manage users with multiple roles In the third stage of the study, a user evaluation was conducted to record their DL and opinions with the software. The Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction collection (QUIS) (Chin et al., 1988; Harper and Norman, 1993) was used for the evaluation management study. The QUIS was designed to assess users’ subjective satisfaction with specific aspects of the human-computer interface. The evaluation method contains tools a demographic questionnaire, an overall measure of satisfaction, and measures of user satisfaction in four specific interface aspects (screen factors, terminology and 231 system feedback, learning factors and system capabilities). The grade scale is from 1 to 9, where 9 is the highest:

• Subjects participated in the evaluation experiment: ten users (six males and four females with an average age of 32 years) completed the QUIS questionnaire. All users were capable of using desktop applications such as word processors, spreadsheets and internet tools. • Materials used: the subjects completed an Open-office Spreadsheet version of the QUIS 7.0 questionnaire. • Evaluation procedure: users were given access to the installations and the user guides of each software. Table III shows the average time spent on each software by the users. After getting familiar with the software interface and completing the basic operations, users were asked to evaluate each software by using the QUIS questionnaire.

The evaluation from typical users improves our understanding of the software usability and helps in selecting the most appropriate software in practical scenarios presented later in Section 5.

4. Results 4.1 Installation Most of the tools are available in more than one operating system (see Tables X and XVI). For the purposes of this study, all software were installed in a Linux

Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) distribution (Debian 6.0). The available Microsoft Windows versions were also installed in Windows XP. Many of the tools required the installation of additional software (apache, tomcat, mysql, postgres, etc.) and different server configurations so as to operate. Dspace and Evergreen required some familiarity with the Linux command line. BiblioteQ and Greenstone were easy to install. The main conclusion is that most of the tools required advanced software capabilities to be installed.

Average time working with software Number of users (n ¼ 10) 1 2345678910

Less than 1 hour | Table III. 1 to 4 hours | Average time 4 hours to 1 day | subjects used the 1 day to 1 week | software PROG 4.2 Software features 49,3 The list of depending on the software orientation, we will make a generic distinction of the software into two categories: first one for applications that aim to be an ILS and second for the applications whose main purpose it to be used as collection management tools (Table IV). 4.2.1 Software features (ILS). The first category of features covers the traditional 232 library services. Most of the software qualified as an ILS has full or partial support of most of these services (Table V). Koha and NewGenLib provide a strong support for all the required services. Table VI deals with the support for different types of digital files, e.g. image, sound, text, video, markup, etc. The purpose of the digital files is primarily to act as metadata of a library record, e.g. a cover page image, an audio file, a movie, the full content of a book, etc. The software should have features for basic management of those files, like operations to add or remove them. In Table VI, we present the capabilities of each tool in supporting and managing different digital files. The term “Full Support” is used when central formats per category can be uploaded and “Partial Support” when the software handles only a few specific file types. OpenBiblio does not provide any support for managing additional digital files, but most of the other tools have partial support (e.g. BiblioteQ can only add a book cover) or full support of different file types. Different methods for browsing and searching data in DLs are, undoubtedly, important. Table VII, highlights the supported features. The term Browsing is for browsing information through catalogs via links. On the other hand, search terms are

Software category Software

ILS BiblioteQ, Evergreen, Koha, NewGenLib, OpenBiblio Table IV. Collection management CollectionSpace, Dspace, Eprints, Fedora Commons, Ganesha, Greenstone, Software category tools Invenio, OVDLT Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) Software Circulation Cataloging OPAC Acquisitions Serials management

BiblioteQ || Evergreen |||Limited Limited TableV. Koha |||| | Traditional library NewGenLib |||| | services OpenBiblio |||Limited Limited

Software Full support Partial support No support

BiblioteQ | Evergreen | Table VI. Koha | Management of NewGenLib | electronic documents OpenBiblio | used when users can find the information using key words in a search form. The term DL and Simple Search is used when the only option is to specify simple text in the form, collection whereas in Advanced Search more options are available, e.g. search by title, author, management date, etc. Last, Full-text Search is the ability to search for text in the body of a digital file such as a .pdf, .doc or an .html file. tools User management is quite important for all libraries. This category includes the creation of users with different roles, management of passwords, option to recover 233 forgotten password, etc. As seen in Table VIII, most of the systems offer some kind of support for user management, except BiblioteQ, which support users for circulation purposes only. Interoperability is the ability of tools to exchange information with other tools. As seen in Table IX, the majority of the software supports one or more data exchange protocols. These features allow the systems to gather, exchange and merge multimedia metadata assets from different information environments. The ability for a software to run on different platforms is an important advantage of many OSS. Different organizations tend to be proficient on specific operating systems, software and programming languages. Table X lists the supported operating systems,

Software Browsing Simple search Advanced search Full-text search

BiblioteQ || Evergreen || Koha || | | NewGenLib || Table VII. OpenBiblio | Search features

Software Νο support Basic support Intermediate support Advanced support

Software Interoperability protocols

BiblioteQ Supports Z39.50 Evergreen Supports search/retrieve via URL and Z39.50 servers, exports to MARC21, Atom, Dublin Core and imports MARC21 Koha Supports MARC21, UNIMARC, import/export bibliographic records, allow third-party add-ons, uses web services Table IX. NewGenLib Supports MARC21 and Z39.50 Interoperability OpenBiblio Supports MARC features PROG the requirements and the programming languages on which the assessed tools 49,3 are based. The programming language is important as users can expand the functionality of a tool by developing routines encoded in the respective programming language. 4.2.2 Software features (collection management tools). Most of the software in the previous section support up to some point traditional library services. On the 234 contrary tools like DSpace, Greenstone and Fedora lack most of these features, because they are primarily designed for creating and managing digital repositories (Table XI). Furthermore, tools such as CollectionSpace and OVDLT are developed for specific purposes, e.g. for managing museum collections or creating digital video libraries. Most of the tools have partial support (e.g. OVDLT accepts only video files) or full support of different file types (Table XII). Some of the tools provide even more features for managing digital media files. For instance, Greenstone and Invenio can convert a

Programming Software Operating system Software requirements languages

BiblioteQ FreeBSD, Linux, OS X, Solaris, PostgreSQL or SQLite C++,Qt Windows XP Evergreen Linux PostgreSQL C, Perl, Python Koha Linux Apache, MySQL Perl Table X. NewGenLib OS independent PostgreSQL, JBoss Java Software Application Server requirements OpenBiblio OS independent Apache, MySQL PHP

Software Circulation Cataloging OPAC Acquisitions Serials management

CollectionSpace || Dspace || Eprints || Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) Fedora Commons | Limited Ganesha || Table XI. Greenstone || Traditional library Invenio || services OVDLT ||

Software Full support Partial support No support

CollectionSpace | Dspace | Eprints | Fedora Commons | Ganesha | Table XII. Greenstone | Management of Invenio | electronic documents OVDLT | pdf file into plain text or image and in OVDLT video files are converted in a format DL and suitable for the Web. collection Almost all the collection management tools support multiple methods for browsing management and searching data in digital libraries, the only exception is Fedora Commons which provides only a simple search (Table XIII). tools Greenstone and Fedora are the less sophisticated tools in terms of user management. Invenio and DSpace are the most effective tools in this category because they support 235 advanced options for managing user passwords (Table XIV). As seen in Table XV, the majority of the software supports one or more data exchange protocols with the exception of CollectionSpace and OVDLT. Table XVI lists the supported operating systems, the requirements and the programming languages on which the assessed tools are based.

Software Browsing Simple search Advanced search Full-text search

CollectionSpace || | Dspace || | | Eprints || | | Fedora Commons | Ganesha || | Greenstone || | | Invenio || | | Table XIII. OVDLT || | Search features

Software Νο support Basic support Intermediate support Advanced support

Software Interoperability protocols

CollectionSpace None DSpace OAI-PMH, SWORD, OpenSearch, and RSS Eprints Import/export MARC through plug-in, and supports OAI-PMH Fedora Commons FOXML, exports to FedoraMETS, Atom Ganesha Import/export metadata in its own form Greenstone Supports: Z39.50, OAI, SRU, Web, MediaWiki, exports to GreenstoneMETS, FedoraMETS, MARCXML, DSpace Table XV. Invenio Supports MARC and OAI-PMH Interoperability OVDLT None features PROG Programming 49,3 Software Operating system Software requirements languages

CollectionSpace Linux, Mac OS X, Windows 7 PostgreSQL, Apache Tomcat Java and XP with SP3 Dspace UNIX-type OS Apache Tomcat, Postgres Java Eprints UNIX-type OS, Windows XP, Perl 236 Vista, OSX Fedora Commons Linux, Solaris, Windows, Java, Flash Player Java Mac OS X Ganesha OS independent Apache, MySQL Php Table XVI. Greenstone OS independent Java C++, Perl Software Invenio Unix-like OS Apache, MySQL Python requirements (DL) OVDLT Linux, Mac OS X 10.5 and 10.6 MySQL, Ruby on Rails, Apache Ruby

4.3 User satisfaction The last stage of the evaluation dealt with the measurement of user satisfaction. Data summaries for each question of the short version of QUIS 7.0 are presented in Tables XVII and XVIII. The scores shown are the averages of the scores given by users in questions belonging to each of the seven general usability satisfaction categories presented in the table (Scores are on a 1 to 9 scale).

Usability category BiblioteQ Evergreen Koha NewGenLib OpenBiblio

Total estimate by the user 7.6 6.2 7.8 7.6 7.8 Screen 8.3 8.8 8.2 8.1 8.9 Terminology and information of the system 7.9 8.0 8.4 8.7 7.6 Learnability 8.5 7.0 8.4 8.2 8.3 System features 8.3 8.3 8.1 8.8 7.9 Table XVII. Manual and online help 2.3 8.2 7.8 8.9 6.7 QUIS 7.0 results Multimedia 5.1 7.1 8.1 8.6 6.3 (ILS) Average score 6.9 7.7 8.1 8.4 7.6 Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT)

Usability category CollectionSpace DSpace Eprints Fedora Ganesha Greenstone Invenio OVDLT

Total estimate 8.2 8.8 7.6 7.8 7.3 7.5 7.0 8.8 by the user Screen 8.5 8.1 8.7 7.2 6.4 7.8 8.7 7.9 Terminology 8.7 8.2 8.6 7.0 6.9 8.5 7.6 7.8 and information of the system Learnability 8.4 8.5 7.0 8.0 6.2 8.5 5.7 8.6 System features 7.0 7.9 7.1 7.7 6.9 7.4 7.4 7.5 Table XVIII. Manual and 6.2 8.4 6.0 7.1 1.7 6.8 8.3 7.6 QUIS 7.0 results online help (collection Multimedia 6.5 7.8 6.6 8.4 6.6 7.1 6.3 8.1 management tools) Average score 7.6 8.3 7.4 7.6 6.0 7.7 7.3 8.1 As seen in Table XVII, the general average score of all questions, for the ILS family DL and software, varies from 6.9 to 8.4, which is a strong indication that users were strongly collection satisfied with the interfaces. The tools which had a very positive impact on the users, were NewGenLib and Koha due to their completeness and understandability. management For the second category of software, the general average score of all questions tools varies from 6.0 to 8.3, which also indicated that users were satisfied with the interfaces (Table XVIII). The tools which had a very positive impact on the users, were Dspace 237 and OVDLT. On the contrary, Ganesha proven to be the weakest in this evaluation.

4.4 Usage scenarios Based on the aforementioned data, each system has certain advantages and shortcomings. Thus, proposing one system for all types of uses and organizations is not possible. It is safer to propose one or more systems for different organizations with varying needs. Typically, the needs of each establishment or user varies, depending on the desired features, the type and nature of the objects they manage, the way of organizing and distributing the content and the human resources available for managing the software and the content. Table XIX provides a summary of which

Requirements and solutions Type of user Requirements Time/human resources Software

1. Primary School A small library Administrator: a teacher or BiblioteQ small group of students 2. Large School Easy to use OPAC Content management by a OpenBiblio group of users 3. Large School (2) The catalogue is accessible No restraints Koha, via the Web NewGenLib, Evergreen 4. Institution Digital repository No restraints Dspace, Invenio 5. University Digital repository, Lending No restraints NewGenLib, Library Koha, Evergreen 6. Organization Publishing digital documents Strict deadlines, limited Eprints very often and thus an easy staff Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) way is needed to access the documents 7. Organization Publishing electronic books in Lack of qualified staff Greenstone formats suitable for web and optical discs 8. Organization Digital preservation, Non-strict time. Technical Fedora responsible for multiple metadata protocols staff is available Commons digitizing and formats of collections digital files 9. Museum/Gallery Management of exhibits for Relatively small CollectionSpace internal use. Detailed implementation time description of exhibits in many languages. Interlibrary loan, locations, images 10. Film Present collections of its works No restraints Open Video management in a public web catalog. Digital Library Preview the films directly Toolkit Table XIX. through the catalog Usage cases PROG system(s) we consider better in various occasions, depending on user requirements, 49,3 time limits and available human resources. The next paragraphs provide a more detailed description for each of these scenarios. A more detailed description of the above scenarios of software usage for different users and needs is given below: Scenario no.1: consider a case where a primary school needs to operate a small 238 library and the manager is a teacher, or a small group of students. In this case, it is recommended the use of BiblioteQ, which is very easy to install, supports localization, and the learning curve is quite short as is relative simple to use. Additionally, it supports all the basic operations of a typical library, such as cataloging (books, music CD, DVD movies, etc.), user account management and circulation supports. Furthermore, it supports locations of materials (e.g. library in class C1, rack in class E, etc.) and easy management of book covers (automatically from Amazon or from a file). Scenario no.2: in this scenario, we extend the previous case, considering a larger, probably secondary school, that needs to create an easy-to-use electronic library with an OPAC. Additionally, the establishment needs to have different groups of people to manage the content. In this case the best option is OpenBiblio, which is easy to install and use. It supports all the necessary features, such as cataloging, circulation, reports (view or export to file) on student loans. Additionally, it supports the definition of multiple user types with different rights (circulation, cataloging, management and report creation) as well as typical members, for students and teachers wishing to borrow books. Scenario no.3: the last two cases are further extended with the requirement to access the catalog through Web. In this occasion the most appropriate solutions are Koha, NewGenLib and Evergreen. All these applications provide the ability for users to request an item online and provide and expand all the features discussed in the previous two scenarios. For instance, they provide reports and statistics for circulation, cataloging, acquisitions and lists of the most popular items. Furthermore, they support the association of digital files for each record, e.g. pdf files and pictures. Scenario no.4: in this scenario we examine the case where an institution or university needs a digital repository for research papers, theses, technical reports and notes

Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) produced by students and staff. Appropriate systems in this case are DSpace and Invenio. Dspace’s philosophy is based on organizing the information in communities (e.g. university departments) and collections (e.g. articles and dissertations) and supports user management. The Invenio, has a similar philosophy, granting full freedom to advanced users of the community to create a repository based on collections documents related to the institution. Administrators can adapt the appearance and submission process. Scenario no.5: in this scenario, a university needs a digital repository for research papers and dissertations produced by students and staff. The library should also operate as a lending library. In this case, the most appropriate system is NewGenLib as it supports lending operations, user and group management, public directory, support for uploading files of different formats. It is the only one that supports an easy way to promote students from one course to a successive course. Alternatively Koha or Evergreen could be used, which have similar features. Scenario no.6: if an organization needs a digital collection to publish digital content in a simple form to strict deadlines. The preferable Web interface of the system is like a portal. With these requirements, the most suitable system would be EPrints, which separates presentation from storage, is not bound to specific metadata standards and DL and provides a simple web interface for submitting and presenting the digital information. collection It provides user management mechanisms, so users can contribute content or have an editing role. Finally, each document may belong to many departments and topics, management enabling users to easy locate the desired information by browsing by subject, tools department, year, author and offering possibilities complex queries. Scenario no.7: organizations that publish digital files, mainly digital books, but lack 239 qualified personnel should resort to Greenstone, as it is easy to install and can organize the information in collections. Additionally it provides an easy drag and drop way to import files into collections, a large number of metadata, automatic conversion of text documents like PDF files to plain text or images and even supports the creation of tables of contents. Furthermore, it provides an easy presentation of documents in a hierarchical form and supports full-text search. Scenario no.8: this scenario concerns organizations where the main priorities are digital preservation, multiple metadata standards and support of different forms of digital content. Fedora Commons is the most appropriate tool, as it provides a very adaptable modular architecture. Although it does not have an easy to use web interface or functionality, is the best option for accommodating many different materials and collections. Scenario no.9: a museum (intercultural, archeological, technological, film, folklore, contemporary art, etc.) or a gallery that manages the exhibits for internal use in a time demanding mode should aim for CollectionSpace. Detailed descriptions of exhibits in more than one language, dimensions and other characteristics of the objects are supported by the tool. It also supports lending of artifacts to other organizations or borrowing from others, definition of locations (permanent and temporary) of exhibits and the attachment of pictures. Learning CollectionSpace is not demanding, as the interface is simple, all the functions are organized in an easy to learn approach and provides the addition, selection and re-use of terms such as names of authors and organizations. Scenario no.10: companies engaged in film or animation production or distribution that need to make available video resources through their own Web-based DL as streaming files are considered in this scenario. The most suitable solution is the Open Video DL toolkit, which is designed for exactly this purpose. It is the only tool with

Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) support for video directly through the web site by converting the digital video files in an appropriate form streamed through flash player. Also, its use is simple, and a large list of film-production related information can be submitted. Further, different lists of movies can be created and the administrator can choose the desired storyboard image that best represents the video.

5. Conclusions and future work Open source DL software is important as it can support cost effectively different needs and the source code is available for amendments and improvements. In this study, we compared the richness of features and evaluated thirteen open source DL and collection management software supporting content of various media forms. Throughout the study, we observed some problems, that should be solved to broaden the user base. Those problems can be summarized mainly into the two following general categories:

• Language support: though many offer multi-language support, for less popular languages like Greek there is no support. Exceptions are the Greenstone, BiblioteQ and Invenio. Also, official installation manuals are available in English only. PROG • Functional issues: this category concerns usability problems, such as the lack of 49,3 some features, the unexpected actions following the users’ actions (e.g. in Fedora Commons after uploading of a file does not show a success message), and some unimplemented options (e.g. in NewGenLib the button to add the search results from servers Z39.50 does not work). Nevertheless, all the evaluated software can be used for the creation, distribution, 240 management and support of digital content. Each tool has its unique characteristics that makes it suitable for various uses. The final selection is based on the design, the available features, the supporting platforms and the needs of the users. Most of the assessed software provide operations, comparable to commercial products, for the creation and management of digital libraries.

References Anuradha, K.T. and Sivakaminathan, R. (2009), “Enhancing full text search capability in library automation package: a case study with koha and greenstone digital library software”, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 231-239. Anuradha, K.T., Sivakaminathan, R. and Kumar, P.A. (2011), “Open-source tools for enhancing full-text searching of OPACs: use of koha, greenstone and fedora”, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 231-239. Arora, N. (2011), “MXMLiszt: a preliminary MusicXML digital library platform built on available open-source technologies”, OCLC Systems & Services, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 298-316. Biswas, G. and Paul, D. (2009), “An evaluative study on the open source digital library softwares for institutional repository”, International Journal of Library and Information Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-10. Breeding, M. (2008), “Major open source ILS products”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 16-31. Cherukodan, S., Kumar, G.S. and Kabir, S.H. (2013), “Using open source software for digital libraries: a case study of CUSAT”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 217-225. Chin, J., Diehl, V. and Norman, K. (1988), “Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human–computer interface”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Washington, DC, pp. 213-218. Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) Dhamdhere, S.N. (2011), “ABCD, an open source software for modern libraries”, Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 1-17, available at: www.iclc. us/cliej/cl32dhamdhere.pdf Gairin, J., Gallo, P. and Duesa, Α. (2008), “A virtual exhibition of open source software for libraries”, 16th BOBCATSSS Symposium – providing access to information for everyone, Zadar, pp. 319-325. Goh, D., Chua, A., Khoo, D., Khoo, E., Mak, E. and Ng, M. (2006), “A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software”, Online Information Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 360-379. Harinarayana, N.S. and Raghavan, K.S. (2008), “Retrieval capabilities of CDS/ISIS and LibSys: a comparison”, Annals of Library and Information Studies, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 91-100. Harper, B.D. and Norman, K.L. (1993), “Improving user satisfaction: the questionnaire for user interaction satisfaction version 5.5”, Proceedings of the 1st Annual Mid-Atlantic Human Factors Conference, Virginia Beach, VA, pp. 224-228. Hasan, N. (2009), “Issues and challenges in open source software environment with special reference to India”, International Conference on Academic Libraries (ICAL-2009), pp. 266-271. Krishnamurthy, M. (2008), “Open access, open source and digital libraries: a current trend in DL and university libraries around the world”, Program: Electronic Library & Information collection Systems, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 48-55. management Macan, B., Fernández, G.V. and Stojanovski, J. (2013), “Open source solutions for libraries: ABCD vs Koha”, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 136-154. tools Madalli, D.P., Barve, S. and Amin, S. (2012), “Perspectives on digital preservation in open-source digital library software”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 161-164. 241 Naik, U. and Shivalingaiah, D. (2006), “Digital library open source software: a comparative study”, Proceedings of the CALIBER 2006: 4th International Convention on Automation of Libraries in Education and Research Institutions, pp. 27-39. Pyrounakis, G. and Nikolaidou, M. (2009), “Comparing open source digital library software”,in Theng, Y., Foo, S., Goh, D. and Na, J. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Digital Libraries: Design, Development, and Impact, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, pp. 51-60, doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-879-6.ch006. Shafique, F. and Mahmood, K. (2008), “Integrated library software: a survey of Lahore”, Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 6-13. Singh, M. and Sanaman, G. (2012), “Open source Integrated Library Management Systems: comparative analysis of Koha and NewGenLib”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 809-832. Vasupongayya, S., Keawneam, K., Sengloilaun, K. and Emmawat, P. (2011), “Open source library management system software: a review”, International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 820-825. Witten, I.H. (2008), “The development and usage of the greenstone digital library software”, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 31-38. Witten, I.H., McNab, R.J., Boddie, S.J. and Bainbridge, D. (2000), “Greenstone: a comprehensive open-source digital library software system”, Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Digital libraries, pp. 113-121. Witten, I.H., McNab, R.J., Boddie, S.J. and Bainbridge, D. (2004), “Digital libraries: developing countries, universal access, and information for all”, 7th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, ICADL 2004, Shanghai pp. 35-44.

Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT) Further reading Ryu, Y.S. (2005), “Development of usability questionnaires for electronic mobile products and decision making methods”, PhD disseration, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia. The University of Maryland (n.d.), “About the QUIS, version 7.0”, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, available at: http://lap.umd.edu/quis/ (accessed March 16, 2013).

Corresponding author Dr Fotis Lazarinis can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] This article has been cited by:

1. Dr Andrew Cox Constanze Curdt Institute of Geography, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany Dirk Hoffmeister Institute of Geography, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany . 2015. Research data management services for a multidisciplinary, collaborative research project. Program 49:4, 494-512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] Downloaded by UFSCAR At 06:36 14 December 2017 (PT)