 I will address points made in the original call for this session, of course on the digital future, but also a bit on the ethics and the background of the democratisation. That's why we do the fair sharing and the open data. So I promise to return to these points, but first I will outline a bit of the case study and through Pan I will arrive there. Citizen science is part of, and also the open data is part of what you could call the democratisation of science, all kinds of challenges to science in the current society. So we're to share, to open access publications we have to explain to the public in simple language what we do and why we do it and we have to allow for participation that research is not a matter of professionals alone. In the field of history heritage and archaeology that takes the form of the question who owns the past. And of course the implicit answer is it's not the sole right of professionals in academia to write up what our past was. Private individuals can take part in research and there is actually human rights article 27 is the right to research and UNESCO devoted already in 1952 papers that academics should cooperate with the public. However, archaeology has moved in the opposite direction the previous decades. For instance, follow a letter, there was an increasing professionalisation in all countries created large infrastructures and large systems in which professional archaeologists did the job. More attention for non-professionals at Faro and now we're getting there that participatory heritage is a key word now adopted in many countries. Participatory government in general but heritage is seen as a field where this can work. A bit on metal detection because there there is this issue of participation is in archaeologists and the law in many countries are opposed to metal detection. But when we study their motivations, we find that they just want to keep a piece of history in their hands. They want to research. And of course that's happening a lot of other things that are not okay for instance objects get sold to the black market. But in principle they want to participate in research. Archaeology is about finding stuff isn't it and they're finding stuff so they think they're doing archaeology. They're not aware of our preservation in situ principles for instance. And they say plowing and fertilisers do the damage and I'm salvaging them. So I'll leave that discussion here but I'll stop now. But in the Netherlands there was a change in the heritage law in 2016 and we're now allowing metal detection and that's where we all started collecting the data. So the previous situation 40 years of illegal but generally tolerated private metal detection but a low level of reporting so we as researchers didn't know what was found and where it was in what collections. So in 2016 the topside of 30 centimetres was legalised to detect of course not of scheduled monuments and find reports are mandatory and the statistics are not completely gathered yet. But I can tell you that the 2017 reporting rate is at least 50% higher than the 2015 data in the older legislation. I say at least because find reports are still pouring in also about 2017. So it is taking up and there is cooperation and documentation of the finds. So the aims of our project is the systematic documentation of private collections making them available for heritage and academic research and the broader public via online publication in a link open data base. Improving the relationships between the private researchers and professional archaeologists and we want of course to contribute to European cooperation with partners doing it the same way or more or less the same way. We're not doing this alone, not just a university, now there is a broad national corporation of heritage agency, museums, universities, associations of volunteers and private individuals. The current state where it started three years ago, almost exactly three years ago, until now over 600 metal detector users, 6,000 locations, 60,000 finds are registered of which there are 61 boards. At the moment 21,000 are available online 37%. I don't like that that way too low, but we're going to work on that in the last year. The reason for that is the way we work. We work with standardized object descriptions, we call them reference time. What you see here to the left is the actual find, so it's a fragment, it has measurements, dimensions of course, it's a copper alloy, it's gilded, so that's the fragment and to the right is a standardized description of the crossbow roach of a certain group where it belongs to. That takes some time to write up, but of course when that object is found 100 times, we connect this find 100 times to do the same reference time. So these reference types contain an ideal type drawing, a preference label, for instance label, handroach, an alternative label or many alternative labels. Nowheim fibula is the same thing, but you have to tell the computer of course that is the same thing. Scope notes, definitions on the dating, distribution, etc. What is very important that you map it to other thezori, because we want others to be able to work with this data set. So we have to tell it to what term it connects in other thezori, and for instance we're mapping to the getty, art and architecture thezoris, and we tell them this is a, in this case, it's a narrow match of the getty term roach. That is why we do this is of course that every data set can be mapped to each other, every data set that is mapped to getty. But the getty is not very refined, it's not geared towards archaeology, so actually we should also develop other or make connections to different thezori, but this is the course that we chose. So pan is actually two things, it's a documentation and publication of privately owned artefacts, but it's also a reference collection of metal finds. It's bilingual, Dutch and English. It can be searched, this reference collection independently from the find reports. Objects and reference types have various URIs, and of course expansions are always possible, so it has a potential as a European thezorist or as a model for a later European thezorist. So we, although when writing up the application in 2015, I didn't know yet the fair term, the fair abbreviation, but we're pretty fair. The reference collection can be approached via an API server, if institutions want that. All images are free downloads under a CC4 licence, datasets can be downloaded as CS3 or TXT experts, so scholars can get access to this download function. The location data is a point where we have to be careful, it's not visible, the exact location of a find is not visible on the public website. Detectors are quite protective of their sites. Scholars do have access to the exact data, but have to promise that they will not publish them in detail. Furthermore, exports are shared with guns, are the Dutch National Trusted Repository, that's both for safekeeping just a backup, but also because they make the connection to European databases such as Ariadne. For these principles, we received the Dutch data prize last year, which we are really proud of. The public websites, you can order objects for periods, you can search the map, select provinces or municipalities where you want to see the finds. The reference collection can be searched independently and after lock-in, scholars can analyse and export the data and the forward tiers can manage their own collection. For them, it's a collection management tool and that's part why it's attractive to them. For the future, we were funded for four years as the setup phase and we had a specific aim for the backlog of older collections, so the detector is starting in the 70s of future collections and we wanted to safeguard these larger collections. Now we're in our last year and turning our eye to the transfer of the infrastructure to the National Heritage Agency. They take over this project in 2020 for new finds mostly and in preparation of that, we are trying to get a national pact together because it's important in the fair data and in the citizen science approach that I started with, it's important that it's not imposed by a governmental institution. It's vital that it's also supported by the volunteers but also by archaeologists in the country as well. So archaeologists of provinces, municipalities, scholars, museum and volunteers will come together in the coming months and discuss how they will use PAN and to what extent whether it's next to different systems or whether it will be the only infrastructure. And of course we hope that they agree to use and promote PAN as a central port of all artefact information. So what we aim for is that, of course the Heritage Agency has the infrastructure supports that but that it's a shared national ownership of artefact heritage, that's what we aim for. I wanted to make a quick jump on the durability issue to the CIL, the very famous corpus inscription in Latinarum started in 1853. Very influential, every study in Roman archaeology more or less makes use of it. 166 years later it's still highly relevant to Roman period research. But will our digital corpora achieve the same? I think other speakers have already voiced their concern that this might not be and there have been countless of websites and projects creating a database which is not available anymore. So what determines the success are just some thoughts which we have to take when comparing to digital repositories. Publication and distribution to all kinds of libraries was the form of open access I think of the 19th century. There was an international standard for the publication of inscriptions and it was supported by a stable and powerful organisation. So what do we have to arrange in the 21st century to achieve digital durability? Open access publication, of course the level of open access depends on the sensibility of personal information. You can't make everything open access, so think through which aspect you can open up and which ones you have to keep. Not only the data, but also the metadata of course. And you can think of open access for various groups. So different groups of users have access to different kinds of data. Of course we have to establish internationally accepted formats and interoperability. Data management I think must be done by this stable and central organisation. But at the same time the digital infrastructure is at a stable organisation. But at the same time make sure that also non-professionals and regional colleagues in the case of archaeology can use it and will use it and have interest in using it. And of course to ensure backup on various levels. I hope you visit our website and I thank you for your attention.