Pyrounakis and Nikolaidou’s article gives a good comparison of several collection management systems and discusses some important features in each one. But it do not contain some CMS, like OMEKA, CONTENTdm and WordPress. Kucsma Reiss and Sidman’s article has described a good practice of OMEKA. And I have some experiences working with CONTENTdm in the practicum this semester. From the “Usage of content management systems for websites”, we can find that WordPress is heavily used now. So I want to compare some features in those three collection management systems.
The features of WordPress including changing of themes and the rich plugins. It is also a famous blogging tools. By now, I am comfortable about using WordPress. I think it is a very good and easy-to-learn blogging tool. All the functions are quite straightforward. I like that users can make tags and save drafts on WordPress. Although those functions maybe common in other blogging tools, I think WordPress have done that better. And I am interested in how WordPress works as a CMS.
Then, like it said by CHNM Director Dan Cohen, OMEKA is “WordPress for your exhibitions and collections.” I think it is a good definition of OMEKA, because it is also easy for users to customize their websites. According to Kucsma Reiss and Sidman’s article, WordPress is not good for building collections. So they choose to use OMKEA which is a good tool for librarians with less funding and small collections. So I am curious about how it works with large collections.
For CONTENTdm, the Recollection Wisconsin project in WiLS uses that to collect and share Wisconsin’s historical resources online. It is usually be used by many large libraries to manage their digital collections. The metadata of the large amount of resources can be entered into the spreadsheets, and then be imported into CONTENTdm. So it is useful for some big collections. It is also helpful when there are many staffs working on the same collection.