A presentation given at the Open Repositories conference in 2010. In part, the proposal reads and While repositories provide obvious benefits in hosting and managing content, it is equally clear that there is no “one size fits all” solution to the range of digital asset management needs at a typical institution, much less across institutions. A system that supports the submission, approval and dissemination of electronic theses and dissertations, for example, has demonstrably different requirements than a digitization workflow solution, an e-science data repository, or media preservation and access system. There is a clear need in the repository community to readily develop and deploy content-, domain-, and institution-specific solutions that integrate the flexibility and richness of customized applications and workflows with the underlying power of repositories for content management, access and preservation. This paper will provide an overview of Hydra’s philosophy, architecture, and components, as well as demonstrations of various Hydra installations. The paper will also provide a progress report on Hydra development to date and its overall roadmap, as well as provide observations on the successes and challenges of community-based development of shared repository solutions.
Keyword:
Community, Open Repositories 2010, Architecture, Repository, and Hydra
Subject:
Hydra Project
Creator:
Sadler, Bess, Sigmon, Tim, Mene, Willy, Green, Richard A, Staples, Thornton, McRae, Lynn, Cramer, Tom, and Awre, Christopher L
Contributor:
University of Hull, DuraSpace, University of Virginia, and Stanford University
Open source software isn’t really free. This might seem obvious to some, but there are many members of open source communities that consume rather than contribute, Slides from a panel session given at the Open Repositories conference in 2015 held in Indianapolis described thus, and they use the software but are either unwilling or unable to engage with the community to write code, submit use cases, create documentation, or do any of the other things that make an open source project a success. Fortunately, things don't have to be this way. Over the past two years, the Fedora project has undertaken a great effort to revitalize not only the software but the community itself. By maintaining open, transparent communication, soliciting use cases, development, and testing from community members, and establishing a clear project governance structure, we have laid the groundwork for a successful community source project. At the same time, the Islandora and Hydra communities have pursued similar strategies to build and sustain their own communities and the broader Fedora community. This panel will feature a discussion on the recent successes of the Fedora community and future plans to continue raising the level of community engagement and project ownership.
Keyword:
Community, Collaboration, Islandora, Hydra, Open Repositories 2015, and Fedora
Subject:
Hydra Project
Creator:
Ruest, Nick, Wilcox, David, and Cramer, Tom
Contributor:
York University, DuraSpace, and Stanford University
This annual report on the Hydra Project will provide a synopsis of the project’s current state from a high level perspective, including recent developments and important trends in adoption and activiity, the technical framework, the community framework, major projects and milestones, and where we may be going in the near future. With so much activity in so many different parts of the project, this session is a chance to take a step back from the many trees to survey the whole forest of the HydraSphere. A video of this session is available at the 'Related URL' below. (Very Low Audio for half of this and then just regular Low Audio - max out volume with headphones to hear) and The 'State of the HydraSphere' address given at Hydra Connect 2016, advertised thus