This document discusses the use of open source workflow tools at the LSE Archives. It provides context on why open source was chosen, noting the flexibility, customizability, and lack of cost compared to proprietary software. The document also outlines some limitations of open source, and describes the archives' repository comparison process where they selected Fedora as most customizable for their needs.

1. Free and open source workflow
tools at LSE Archives
Ellie Robinson, Digital Archivist

2. Introduction
• Context
• Why/why not open source?
• Our tools

3. Workflow in context
• Born-digital archives are essentially the same
as paper archives
• Extended accessioning procedure
• Need to document everything

4. Why/why not open source?
• Open source = software with freely available
code, with right to change and redistribute
• Flexibility – modular approach, not committed
to any particular platform, ability to change as
needed
• Customisable
• Free
• Does require development

5. Some limitations
• Restricted to certain proprietary software
(Sophos and CALM)
• Sometimes have to make a physical purchase
• Trust issues?

6. Virus checking

7. Imaging

8. Checksumming
• 83e9a149dcd5d4560817054d9353596b
(MD5)
• 94d1e6cf44b506f6ac9787bff8aab7ee4a1bcba
f (SHA-1)
• Jacksum: http://www.jonelo.de/java/jacksum/
• Used to detect file changes, not hacking

9. Profiling

10. Our repository
• Compared three systems: DSpace 1.6, EPrints
3.2, and Fedora 3.3.
• Ranked according to our requirements and
how well they fitted into existing architecture
• Fedora found to be the most customisable

11. Conclusion
• Open source enables DP projects to get off the
ground quickly, but need support
• Archive community still waiting for one-sizefits-all solution
• Repository comparison:
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue64/fay