Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25267934›Full record

ArticleArchiving : final program and proceedings. IS & T's Archiving Conference2013

Improving Software Sustainability: Lessons Learned from

Marie E Gallagher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archiving : final program and proceedings. IS & T's Archiving Conference, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Marie E GallagherLister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, U.S. National Library of Medicine; Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 LM999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Profiles in Science® digital library features digitized surrogates of historical items selected from the archival collections of the U.S. National Library of Medicine as well as collaborating institutions. In addition, it contains a database of descriptive, technical and administrative metadata. It also contains various software components that allow creation of the metadata, management of the digital items, and access to the items and metadata through the Profiles in Science Web site [1]. The choices made building the digital library were designed to maximize the sustainability and long-term survival of all of the components of the digital library [2]. For example, selecting standard and open digital file formats rather than proprietary formats increases the sustainability of the digital files [3]. Correspondingly, using non-proprietary software may improve the sustainability of the software--either through in-house expertise or through the open source community. Limiting our digital library software exclusively to open source software or to software developed in-house has not been feasible. For example, we have used proprietary operating systems, scanning software, a search engine, and office productivity software. We did this when either lack of essential capabilities or the cost-benefit trade-off favored using proprietary software. We also did so knowing that in the future we would need to replace or upgrade some of our proprietary software, analogous to migrating from an obsolete digital file format to a new format as the technological landscape changes. Since our digital library's start in 1998, all of its software has been upgraded or replaced, but the digitized items have not yet required migration to other formats. Technological changes that compelled us to replace proprietary software included the cost of product licensing, product support, incompatibility with other software, prohibited use due to evolving security policies, and product abandonment. Sometimes these changes happen on short notice, so we continually monitor our library's software for signs of endangerment. We have attempted to replace proprietary software with suitable in-house or open source software. When the replacement involves a standalone piece of software with a nearly equivalent version, such as replacing a commercial HTTP server with an open source HTTP server, the replacement is straightforward. Recently we replaced software that functioned not only as our search engine but also as the backbone of the architecture of our Web site. In this paper, we describe the lessons learned and the pros and cons of replacing this software with open source software.

Identifiers

PMID25267934
PMCPMC4176707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.