I'm really glad to see this, it's a good exercise to repeat periodically.
Out of curiosity I compared the Features section with the original DDAC
document and I was really gratified to find only a few minor changes and
additions. Most of the differences are clear improvements. However I
have some comments on some that do not seem like improvements to me.
A.2. The original document says "There are no conventions that must be
followed for naming directories or files." The revised adds "... or the
conventions are documented, verified and easy to follow...." For
library staff the revised might be good enough, but for system managers
you really want no restrictions on naming.
One requirement was omitted from section A: "A single computer file can
be part of multiple items without being stored more than once." Curious
why this was deleted, since repurposing is such a big deal these days.
D.1: The original had this requirement for automatic batch ingest but
also had a requirement for manual (by operator) item by item ingest.
I'd restore the requirement for item by item upload.
G.4. "All content can be readily re-deposited from DL to FDA
automatically, without additional effort (sending, processing, any
manual work) on behalf of library staff." -- This point is new and a
good one. Just want to add that it's also necessary to provide a way
for staff to flag content to go to FDA, as you need a way to distinguish
that which goes from that which doesn't.
H.1. The original version of this point required a relational database
as well. I remember there was some discussion of this at the time,
because our old DLXS system was not based on a standard RDBMS. Some
people felt very strongly that only an RDBMS gave them the flexibility
to do their own reporting in any way they wanted without learning new
tools. This turned out to be a negative for ContentDM when we evaluated it.
Two requirements were omitted from section H: One, that staff
privileges can be controlled, and another, that counts of stored
materials by genre, media, filetype etc. etc. be available. Curious why
these were omitted, I think they are both desirable.
Lee Dotson wrote:
> Hi DISC,
> Don't forget we have our regularly scheduled monthly call on Wednesday, May 13th at 1:00 pm. I'm sending an extra early reminder because I'll be at FLA most of next week (hope to see you if you're there!) and also because I wanted to share the attached document with you.
> A small working group from FIU and UF prepared a generic (platform-neutral) document which is attached for your review and comment. It borrows from an earlier draft prepared by DDAC some years ago. The current document contains two main sections: "Features Desired in a Digital Library System" (6 pages) and "Characteristics and Services Desired in a Digital Library Service Provider" (2 pages). The small working group decided to decouple "system" from "service provider" to avoid the possible pitfall of confusing system issues with implementation issues.
> Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to add an item to the agenda.
> Lee Dotson
> Digital Services Librarian
> University of Central Florida Libraries