Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Community-requested features in the new release include an enhanced statistics package which provides more information about how your repository is being used, an embargo facility so items can be kept dark for a period of time, and a batch metadata editing tool which can be used to change, add, find/replace metadata as well as facilitate mass moves, re-order values or add new items in bulk. And there’s more such as authority control which contains an integration with the Sherpa Romeo Service for publisher names, as well as the Library of Congress Nameservice. Other new features include:

• Delegated administration
• OpenSearch
• Command launcher
• OAI-PMH harvesting of items from remote repositories
• Configurable OAI-PMH dublin core output
• Move item functionality in XMLUI
• If-Modified-Since / Last-Modified header support in XMLUI
• Change to logging behaviour to ensure better log retention and management
• Update to the latest handle server library
• Ability to perform batch imports and exports from zip files of items
• New test scripts to test database and email settings
• Ability to set legal jurisdiction in creative commons licensing

1. OAI-PMH: MOAI 1.0.6 Released
2. Summary of DSpace Community Network Survey Results
3. DSpace Sites: What Do You Want in Version 1.6?
4. DSpace 1.5.2 Stable Released
5. DSpace Statistics Add-on Version 2.1 Released

Here's an excerpt from:

Our experience in this project pointed towards three main ideas:

• Many smaller institutions are staffed sufficiently to use the Manakin technology for branding and interface tweaking, as they can leverage web development skills, providing that system administration support for maintaining a development DSpace is available.
• Development of advanced Manakin themes (defined as development that significantly alters, removes, or rearranges interface components, or that integrates new functionality into the interfaces) is comparable to web-application development in terms of complexity. As such, more advanced development is only likely to succeed for institutions whose staffing includes a dedicated expert in web application development, and one who is familiar with XML technologies (i.e. XML, XPath, XSL), and possibly AJAX, and Javascript.
• Smaller institutions with more advanced goals should consider working together and using outside expertise in theme development. Outside expertise could be supplied through partnering with other institutions pursuing Manakin development projects or through vendors.

Read more about it at "Using Manakin to Expand the Capabilities of DSpace Repositories."

1. Presentations from the DSpace User Group Meeting 2009
2. Word + SWORD + Ingester = Word to DSpace Deposit
3. Summary of DSpace Community Network Survey Results
4. DSpace Sites: What Do You Want in Version 1.6?
5. DSpace Statistics Add-on Version 2.1 Released

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Over 90 participants from 20 different countries attended the fall DSUG 2009 meeting. In addition to the European community, DSpace users from the United States, Brazil, New Zealand and Singapore were in attendance. Copies of the presentations and video recordings are now available for most of the sessions.

1. Presentations from the Third United Kingdom Council of Research Repositories Meeting
2. Presentations from the CNI Spring 2009 Task Force Meeting
3. Presentations about Digital Repositories from Gregynog Colloquium 2009
4. Texas Conference on Digital Libraries 2009 Presentations
5. DSpace Sites: What Do You Want in Version 1.6?

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The launch of the "MIT Open Access Articles" collection coincides with International Open Access Week to reflect the spirit of an MIT faculty policy established in March 2009.

The policy affirms the faculty's commitment "to disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible."

The collection consists of the authors' final submitted manuscripts. Published versions may also appear where the publisher's policy allows for such posting. Both versions are identified for readers.

MIT authors are encouraged to send their papers to oapolicysubmissions@mit.edu or use a web form for inclusion in the collection.

The MIT Libraries are administering the policy under the guidance of the Faculty Committee on the Library System, and are maintaining a list of publishers who are fully cooperating with the policy.

---

1. Wake Forest University Library Faculty Adopt Open Access Policy
2. “Open Access Policy for University Of Kansas Scholarship”
3. Open Access: Text of Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009

Here's an excerpt:

ICE-TheOREM was a project which made several important contributions to the repository domain, promoting deposit by integrating the repository with authoring workflows and enhancing open access by prototyping new infrastructure to allow fine-grained embargo management within an institution without impacting on existing open access repository infrastructure.

In the area of scholarly communications workflows, the project produced a complete end-to-end demonstration of eScholarship for word processor users, with tools for authoring, managing and disseminating semantically-rich ETD (Electronic Theses and Dissertations) documents fully integrated with supporting data. This work is focused on theses, as it is well understood that early career researchers are the most likely to lead the charge in new innovations in scholarly publishing and dissemination models.

The authoring tools are built on the ICE content management system, which allows authors to work within a word processing system (as most authors do) with easy-to-use toolbars to structure and format their documents. The ICE system manages both small data files and links to larger data sets. The result is research publications which are available not just as paper-ready PDF files but as fully interactive semantically aware web documents which can be disseminated via repository software such as ePrints, DSpace and Fedora as complete supported web-native and PDF publications.

1. SWORD2 Project Final Report
2. Enhanced Ingest to Digital E-Research Repositories: Final Report
3. Streamline Integrating Repository Function with Work Practice: Tools to Facilitate Personal E-Administration, Final Report v1.3
4. DISC-UK DataShare Project: Final Report
5. WRAP—Warwick Research Archive Project: Final Report

Here's an excerpt:

The SWORD vision is about 'lowering the barriers to deposit', primarily for depositing content into repositories, and additionally, for depositing into any system which may wish to receive content from remote sources. The SWORD protocol defines a standard mechanism for depositing into repositories and other systems. The project and protocol were developed because there was previously no standardised way of doing this. A standard deposit interface allows repository services to be built that can offer functionality such as deposit from multiple locations, e.g. disparate repositories, desktop drag'n'drop tools, or from within standard office applications. SWORD can also facilitate deposit to multiple repositories, increasingly important for depositors who wish to deposit to funder, institutional or subject repositories. There are many other possibilities, including migration of content between repositories and transfer to preservation services. In addition to refining the existing SWORD application profile, the SWORD2 project has developed a number of tools and services to demonstrate these possibilities. It has also been pro-active in promoting SWORD and encouraging uptake within other repositories, services and tools, notably with its adoption into the Microsoft Article Authoring Add-in for Word 2007 and with the new Microsoft Zentity repository system .

The core aims of the project were to update the SWORD Protocol, the SWORD repository code libraries in the DSpace, Fedora, EPrints and Intrallect repositories, and the existing reference demonstrators. A Facebook application and validator have also been developed. Advocacy efforts include an e-learning case study, a briefing paper, a new SWORD website, and a range of additional dissemination activities, including conference papers, presentations, demonstrations and workshops at a number of national and international conferences and meetings.

1. Towards Repository Preservation Services. Final Report from the JISC Preserv 2 Project
2. Enhanced Ingest to Digital E-Research Repositories: Final Report
3. JISC Final Report—CTREP, Cambridge TETRA Repositories Enhancement Project
4. DISC-UK DataShare Project: Final Report
5. SWORD Named Most Innovative Project at JISC Repositories and Preservation Conference

Here's an excerpt:

CTREP created a connector between an Institutional VRE and an Institutional Repository. It is designed to be reusable in a number of different institutions where policy on deposit varies by means of a flexible deposit configuration system. In the process of executing the project:

• the various stakeholders came to understand institutional cultural differences and address them in such a way that recent projects with a strong Repository and research dissemination/visualisation aspect have been more joined up than would previously have been possible
• we developed an approach to policy expression designed both to avoid creating unnecessary tension within the institution during its development, and also to be authorable by a wide range of individuals
• we have sought to record and capture lessons learnt (based, in part on case studies) for future institutionalisation projects
• we developed a number of techniques which allowed apparent barriers to integration to be overcome by technical-architectural tools
• we open-sourced the integration
• we modified our approach to metadata/data binding in light of community feedback and developed a spreadsheet-based automated approach with which contributors felt comfortable, but which required a number of technical obstacles to be overcome through the use of creative programming techniques.

1. JISC Repositories and Preservation Programme: Final Evaluation Report
2. SWORD2 Project Final Report
3. Enhanced Ingest to Digital E-Research Repositories: Final Report
4. EMBRACE—EMBedding Repositories And Consortial Enhancement—Final Report
5. DISC-UK DataShare Project: Final Report

1. DSpace 1.6 Released
2. Presentations from the DSpace User Group Meeting 2009
3. Summary of DSpace Community Network Survey Results
4. DSpace Sites: What Do You Want in Version 1.6?
5. DSpace Statistics Add-on Version 2.1 Released

Here's an excerpt:

This complete end to end process allows you to create Word templates, and to mark them up with required and optional fields. It also allows you to embed details of the SWORD deposit repository URL (so the users do not need to know what it is) within the template for easy deposit. This could be used for example for a journal editor to provide a template and a deposit location for new paper submissions all-in-one.

1. EasyDeposit, Toolkit for Creating SWORD Deposit Interfaces, Released
2. SWORD PHP Library Version 0.9
3. SWORD2 Project Final Report
4. SWORD PHP Library Version 0.7
5. SWORD Named Most Innovative Project at JISC Repositories and Preservation Conference

Here's those by Texas Digital Library staff:

• Adding OAI-ORE Support to Repository Platforms
• Introducing Vireo: ETD Submittal and Management for DSpace
• Texas Digital Library Services
• Texas Digital Library Services Preservation Network

1. Presentations from the Digital Repository Federation International Conference 2009
2. Presentations from the DSpace User Group Meeting 2009
3. Digital Videos: Presentations from Access 2009 Conference
4. Presentations about Digital Repositories from Gregynog Colloquium 2009
5. Papers/Presentations from Open Repositories Conference 2009

Here's an excerpt:

The DISC-UK DataShare Project was funded from March 2007-March 2009 as part of JISC's Repositories and Preservation programme, Repositories Enhancement strand. It was led by EDINA and Edinburgh University Data Library in partnership with the University of Oxford and the University of Southampton. The project built on the existing informal collaboration of UK data librarians and data managers who formed DISC-UK (Data Information Specialists Committee–UK).

This project has brought together the distinct communities of data support staff in universities and institutional repository managers in order to bridge gaps and exploit the expertise of both to advance the current provision of repository services for accommodating datasets, and thus to explore new pathways to assist academics at our institutions who wish to share their data over the Internet. The project's overall aim was to contribute to new models, workflows and tools for academic data sharing within a complex and dynamic information environment which includes increased emphasis on stewardship of institutional knowledge assets of all types; new technologies to enhance e- Research; new research council policies and mandates; and the growth of the Open Access / Open Data movement.

With three institutions taking part plus the London School of Economics as an associate partner, a range of exemplars have emerged from the establishment of institutional data repositories and related services. Part of the variety in the exemplars is a result of the different repository platforms used by the three project partners: DSpace (Edinburgh DataShare), ePrints (e-Prints Soton) and Fedora (Oxford University Research Archive, ORA)–all open source software. LSE took another route and is using the distributed Dataverse repository network for data, linking to publications in LSE Research Online. Also, different approaches were taken in setting up the repositories. All three institutions had an existing, well-used institutional repository, but two chose to incorporate datasets within the same system as the publications, and one (Edinburgh DataShare) was a paired repository exclusively for datasets, designed to interoperate with the publications repository (Edinburgh Research Archive). The approach took a major turn midway through the project when an apparent solution to the problem of lack of voluntary deposits arose, in the form of the advent of the Data Audit Framework. Edinburgh participated as a partner in the DAF Development project which created the methodology for the framework, and also won a bid to carry out its own DAF Implementation project. Later, the other two partners conducted their own versions of the data audit framework under the auspices of the DataShare project.

A number of scoping activities were carried about by the partners with the goal of informing repository enhancement as well as broader dissemination. These included a State-of-the-Art-Review to determine what had been learned by previous repository projects in the UK that had forayed into the data arena. This resulted in a list of benefits and barriers to deposit of datasets by researchers to inform our outreach activities. A Data Sharing Continuum diagram was developed to illustrate where the projects were aiming to fit into the curation landscape, and the range of curation steps that could be taken, from simple backup to online visualization. Later on, a specialized metadata schema was explored (Data Documentation Initiative or DDI) in terms of how it might be incorporated into repository systems, though repository development in this area was not taken up. Instead, a dataset application profile was developed based on qualified Dublin Core (dcterms). This was implemented in the Edinburgh DataShare repository and adapted by Southampton for their next release. The project wished to explore wider issues with open data and web publishing, and therefore produced two briefing papers to do with data mashups–on numeric data and geospatial data. Finally, the project staff and consultant distilled what it had learned in terms of policy development for data repositories in a training guide. A number of peer reviewed posters, papers, and articles were written by DISC-UK members about various aspects of the project during the period.

Key conclusions were that 1) Data management motivation is a better bottom-up driver for researchers than data sharing but is not sufficient to create culture change, 2) Data librarians, data managers and data scientists can help bridge communication between repository managers & researchers, and 3) IRs can improve impact of sharing data over the internet.

1. Towards Repository Preservation Services. Final Report from the JISC Preserv 2 Project
2. ETD Self-Archiving Tools: ICE-TheOREM Final Report
3. SWORD2 Project Final Report
4. JISC Final Report—CTREP, Cambridge TETRA Repositories Enhancement Project
5. Policy-making for Research Data in Repositories: A Guide

Here's an excerpt:

The aim of the Welsh Repository Network (WRN) was to put in place an essential building block for the development of an integrated network of institutional digital repositories in Wales. The project entailed a centrally managed hardware procurement programme designed to provide every HEI in Wales with dedicated and configured repository hardware. In close collaboration with the technical, organisational and operational support specifically provided for Welsh Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) within the JISC funded Repositories Support Project (RSP), also delivered from Aberystwyth University, this initiative provided a cost-effective, collaborative and decisive boost to the repository agenda in Wales and helped JISC achieve the critical mass of populated repositories and digital content that is a stated objective of the Repositories and Preservation Programme.

The project employed a three-stage approach: requirements gathering, procurement and installation, and monitoring and evaluation. Extensive site visits and regular communication with project partners were a fundamental aspect of project activity and a variety of models were used for procuring hardware including collaborative approaches, outsourcing to commercial software and establishing hosting agreements.

At its most practical level the principal deliverable of the WRN project has been the provision of repository hardware capacity in each and every HEI in Wales which, in combination with the hands-on technical support provided by the RSP, enabled all 12 HEIs to have functional institutional repositories by March 2009. More generally, the project has contributed a series of case studies and test sites that provide the wider JISC community with practical insights into the process of matching alternative organisational models, repository types and hardware configurations to different geographical and institutional settings. The main conclusion to be drawn from the WRN is that while providing funds for procuring hardware helps to push repository development up the institutional agenda, the support that goes with the funding, especially the technical support, is a far more crucial factor in generating a successful and lasting outcome.

Read more about it at the "project Web site."

1. JISC Repositories and Preservation Programme: Final Evaluation Report
2. Online Catalogue and Repository Interoperability Study (OCRIS): Final Report
3. Cloud Computing and Repositories: Fedorazon: Final Report
4. EMBRACE—EMBedding Repositories And Consortial Enhancement—Final Report
5. DISC-UK DataShare Project: Final Report

Here's an excerpt:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Library of Medicine® (NLM) undertook an 18-month project to evaluate, test and recommend digital repository software and systems to support NLM's collection and preservation of a wide variety of digital objects. This article outlines the methodology NLM used to analyze the landscape of repository software and select three systems for in-depth testing. Finally, the article discusses the evaluation results and next steps for NLM. This project followed an earlier NLM working group, which created functional requirements and identified key policy issues for an NLM digital repository to aid in building NLM's collection in the digital environment.

1. JISC Repositories and Preservation Programme: Final Evaluation Report
2. Digital Preservation: Repository of Authentic Digital Objects Source Code Released
3. Welsh Repository Network Final Report
4. John Robertson Overviews Digital Repository Software Developments
5. “Repository Software Survey, March 2009″

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The joined organization, named "DuraSpace," will sustain and grow its flagship repository platforms – Fedora and DSpace. DuraSpace will also expand its portfolio by offering new technologies and services that respond to the dynamic environment of the Web and to new requirements from existing and future users. DuraSpace will focus on supporting existing communities and will also engage a larger and more diverse group of stakeholders in support of its not-for-profit mission. The organization will be led by an executive team consisting of Sandy Payette (Chief Executive Officer), Michele Kimpton (Chief Business Officer), and Brad McLean (Chief Technology Officer) and will operate out of offices in Ithaca, NY and Cambridge, MA.

"This is a great development," said Clifford Lynch, Executive Director of the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI). "It will focus resources and talent in a way that should really accelerate progress in areas critical to the research, education, and cultural memory communities. The new emphasis on distributed reliable storage infrastructure services and their integration with repositories is particularly timely."

Together Fedora and DSpace make up the largest market share of open repositories worldwide, serving over 700 institutions. These include organizations committed to the use of open source software solutions for the dissemination and preservation of academic, scientific, and cultural digital content.

"The joining of DSpace and Fedora Commons is a watershed event for libraries, specifically, and higher education, more generally," said James Hilton, CIO of the University of Virginia. "Separately, these two organizations operated with similar missions and a shared commitment to developing and supporting open technologies. By bringing together the technical, financial, and community-based resources of the two organizations, their communities gain a robust organization focused on solving the many challenges involved in storing, curating, and preserving digital data and scholarship," he said.

New Products

DuraSpace will continue to support its existing software platforms, DSpace and Fedora, as well as expand its offerings to support the needs of global information communities. The first new technology to emerge will be a Web-based service named "DuraCloud." DuraCloud is a hosted service that takes advantage of the cost efficiencies of cloud storage and cloud computing, while adding value to help ensure longevity and re-use of digital content. The DuraSpace organization is developing partnerships with commercial cloud providers who offer both storage and computing capabilities.

The DuraCloud service will be run by the DuraSpace organization. Its target audiences are organizations responsible for digital preservation and groups creating shared spaces for access and re-use of digital content. DuraCloud will be accessible directly as a Web service and also via plug-ins to digital repositories including Fedora and DSpace. The software developed to support the DuraCloud service will be made available as open source. An early release of DuraCloud will be available for selected pilot partners in Fall 2009.

Key Benefits of the DuraSpace Organization

DuraSpace will support both DSpace and Fedora by working closely with both communities and when possible, develop synergistic technologies, services, and programs that increase interoperability of the two platforms. DuraSpace will also support other open source software projects including the Mulgara semantic store, a scalable RDF database.

DuraSpace is mission-focused. The organization will be associated with its broader mission of working towards developing services and solutions on behalf of diverse communities rather than focusing on single-solution product development. This change in orientation can be characterized as moving beyond the software and toward the mission.

DuraSpace will bring strength and leadership to a larger community and amplify the value brought by each organization individually. With both organizations working in unison, there can be significant economies of scale, synergies in developing open technologies and services, and a strong position for long-term sustainability.

1. DSpace 1.6 Released
2. Presentations from the DSpace User Group Meeting 2009
3. "Getting Started with Fedora"
4. Fedora Repository 3.2.1 Released
5. New HatCheck Issue from Fedora Commons

Here's an excerpt:

• Type of institution: 83% of respondents represent academic institutions, 19% research centers, 10% archive/public library, 10% government *
• Number of items: More than half of the respondents have 2,500 or less items in their repositories, only 15% have 10,000 or more items . . . .
• Modifications to software: 54% minor cosmetic, 29% new features, 29% significant UI customizations, 23% no changes, 8% core code changes*

*Many of the questions allowed for multiple answers, therefore some of the numbers and percentages represent multiple answers from the same respondent.

1. DSpace 1.6 Released
2. Making DSpace 1.5 Your Own: Customizations via Overlays
3. “AAHSL Institutional Repositories (IR) Survey Summary and Analysis: 2008 Survey, 2005-2008 Comparison”
4. DSpace and Fedora Commons Merge to Form DuraSpace
5. DSpace Sites: What Do You Want in Version 1.6?