Evaluating DSpace, Eprints, and Fedora

Richard Wyles and others, Technical Evaluation of selected Open Source Repository Solutions, version 1.3.  A report from the OARINZ project (Open Access Repositories in New Zealand).  Undated but apparently released September 15, 2006.  Excerpt:

The objectives of this Technical Evaluation process are:  [1] To gain understanding of the design, architecture and implementation details of the short-listed Repositories [i.e. repository software packages], [2] To evaluate the short-listed Repositories against an agreed set of criteria, [3] To pay particular attention to the long-term development and
maintenance lifespan of the short-listed Repositories, [4] To engage members of the Open Source community in the process where relevant, [5] To recommend the most suitable candidate Repository/s, [6] To choose a system that can aggregate published metadata and offer a bureau/hosting service...[7] To select a system/s that offers institutions a repository system that is feature rich yet has low implementation and support overheads, and [8] To report our findings in a concise and complete manner.

The project initially screened DSpace, Eprints, Fedora, ARNO, CDSWare, and i-TOR.  Then it picked the first three for closer study.  In the end, it recommended Fedora and gave honorable mention to Eprints.