Purpose: The following research questions structured our analysis: Does an open access institutional repository model respond to the needs of a non-academic documentation centre?  Is EPrints software a good match to support the needs of the existing metadata describing Artexte's collection?  What are the customizations required to accommodate existing Artexte metadata using EPrints?
Methods: We exported the existing metadata schema and sample data in Artexte’s three databases, performed a manual evaluation of metadata quality and compared the 49 Artexte fields to those available within the EPrints schema.  
Results:  We identify the metadata elements that mapped by default without the need for customization or modification and those which would need to be added to EPrints using configuration files.  We also identify the custom software development to accommodate Artexte metadata using EPrints: the bilingual controlled vocabulary demands an extension of the EPrints subject taxonomy model with thesaurus semantic relationships.
Conclusions:  Comparing Artexte and EPrints metadata schemas, we found that 15 out of 49 fields mapped by default without need for modification, 25 fields would need to be added to EPrints configuration files and 1 field will be removed during the migration.   With only 8 fields requiring some special attention, we conclude that EPrints is suitable to the needs of Artexte's bibliographic data management.