Thanks for this, Eddie. I just added it to my list of SWORD

I like how you've separated out your implementation (i.e.
FedoraCollectionDepositManager) from the server/library code.
Different projects, different git repos. I'm planning on doing the

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Edwin Shin
<> wrote:
> Phil,
> There's also the fork of JavaServer2.0 that I did last year:
> which changed the packaging from war to jar, implemented multipart/related 
> support and some general maven/dependency maintenance.
> I did that as part of a very limited implementation of SWORD 2 for Fedora:
> -Eddie
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 3:22 PM, LEWIS Stuart <> wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>>> I forked and implemented the
>>> very minimal number of interfaces to get it to respond to some basic
>>> SWORD v2 operations such as retrieving a (fake) service document and
>>> (the very beginnings of) depositing a binary.
>>> I called the repo "Minimal viable SWORD v2 server implemented in Java"
>>> (though it's hardly viable) and you can find it at
>> Thanks for sharing this.  The JavaServer.20 was originally written as part 
>> of the DSpace SWORDv2 implementation, but it was thought at the time it 
>> would be worth abstracting out the SWORD part from DSpace part, in the hope 
>> that this might be reusable.  As far as I know, you're the first person to 
>> try using outside of DSpace (hence the lack of any other implementation or 
>> past experience).
>> Richard Jones wrote this and may be able to give you a few pointers, however 
>> he is offline this week at a conference (OAI8 in Geneva).  If you're 
>> attending Open Repositories next month, I'm sure he'd be happy to say hello 
>> and talk more about the code.
>>> p.s. I'm growing concerned that this mailing list is so quiet (and
>>> only admins can see the number of people subscribed). Have people
>>> moved on from SWORD to some other standard? If so, which one?
>> I just checked - there are 175 subscribers to this list.
>> As far as I know, SWORD is the main contender in town when it comes to a 
>> standardized deposit interface to this type of repository.  I've also 
>> wondered about the quietness of this list.  I think there may be a few 
>> reasons: one, is that a lot of repository users are still grappling with 
>> their repositories, without yet getting as far as accepting remote deposits. 
>>  Second, SWORD doesn't yet really have an active community sharing deposit 
>> tools.  Partly this is because many uses of SWORD will be very specific 
>> point-to-point integrations, which might not be of interest to too many 
>> others.
>> It would be good to hear a wider discussion about this, and how we share 
>> more about our individual uses of SWORD.
>> Thanks,
>> Stuart Lewis
>> Head of Research and Learning Services
>> Deputy Director Library & University Collections, Information Services
>> University of Edinburgh

Philip Durbin
Software Developer for

This email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.
sword-app-tech mailing list

Reply via email to