The project blog at http://blogs.lib.purdue.edu/rep/ gives more information …
The analysis includes both qualitative and quantitative measures taken from default installations of the repositories on a benchmark machine with a predefined base collection. The repository software will also be evaluated on the execution of four common workflows: consume, submit, accept, and batch.
Our aim is to produce a holistic evaluation that will describe the four repository software packages in a comparative manner, similar in approach to Consumer Reports. The output of this study will be useful for repository developers, repository managers, and especially those who are selecting a repository for the first time. As members of these respective communities and the organizations who support them are increasingly collaborating (e.g, DuraSpace), this study will help identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of each solution to inform the “best-of-breed” in future solutions that may be developed.
We solicited and received input from the principals of each repository project. The purpose of this blog is to request comments from the DSpace, Fedora, e-Prints, and Zentity developer and user communities to help us refine our evaluative criteria and appropriate measures and methods. Comments can be left at http://blogs.lib.purdue.edu/rep/2010/02/25/a-comparative-analysis-of-institutional-repository-software