 Hi everybody, good morning. My name is Matthias Liffis and I'm the Product Manager for Persistent Identifier Services at the Australian Research Data Commons. I'd like to start this webinar by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which I live and work, the Wajak people of the Nungar Nation. Like to pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging and extend that respect to any First Nations people here today. We're very excited to have you here. Some people still joining. We have a lot to tell you about the Australian National PID Strategy which has been in development for many months and there still are a few months to go and you'll find out all about that. I am your host today and I'd like to introduce our two presenters. We have Natasha Simons who is the Director of National Coordination at the Australian Research Data Commons and the Co-Chair of the Research Data Alliance National PID Strategies Group. We also have Linda O'Brien who is the former PVC Information Services at Griffith University and also the former chair of the International Orchard Board and Linda's been working with the ARDC on this strategy. We will probably save questions until the end or at least answering the questions at the end. Feel free to ask your questions in the chat and I'll be keeping an eye on them and moderating Q&A at the end of the session. But without any further ado, I think I will hand over to you, Natasha. Great, thank you very much, Matthias. And hello, everybody, welcome. So the first slide please, Matthias. Okay, Matthias has already done a welcome to country. However, I would also like to acknowledge and celebrate the first Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and pay my respect to their elders past, present and emerging. I'm in Brisbane. So welcome from Terbal and Yagura country. Next slide please. Okay, so why are we having a national PID strategy? There are a few reasons outlined on this slide which I think all of you will be able to relate to. So we know that there's been an exponential growth in the amount of digital data that's out there. We also know that the elements supporting the research lifecycle are often siloed which makes them difficult to find or access. For example, the information about a grant can be separate from the data that is collected during a project that is brought by the recipients of the grant and that makes it very difficult to find access to that information. It also leads to the replication of information in different systems, duplication, barriers to cross-disciplinary research which we know is increasingly more valuable and challenges reproducibility as well. And it also leads to administrative burden and unnecessary cost on institutions, on researchers, on everyone really who's part of the research and innovation system. And we also know that deriving insights requires machine readability. And there is a reference there to fair, the findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable, the fair principles which I'm sure many of you are familiar with in relation to research. Next slide please. Okay, so we also have a research, an Australian research and innovation environment which has an increasing focus on accelerating world-class research and reducing that administrative burden in order to increase the impact of research and also its contribution to areas of national importance. So you can see there a number of things that are in flux at the moment in the Australian research and innovation environment. There is a revitalization of Australia's science priorities. We have the university's Accord. We've had a review of the ERA. There's the university's Trailblazer program which is about linking research and industry. So there's all kinds of moving parts happening at the moment in the ecosystem. Next slide please. So there is a strategic value proposition in having a national strategy. And it's about managing that increase in digital data across the research and innovation system and tackling some of those silos that I've mentioned. So it's about fueling research excellence, driving innovation, increasing impact, delivering greater agility, transparency and administrative efficiency. And we think that persistent identifiers are a critical component of being able to achieve these things. And there are a key piece in world-leading national information infrastructure. Next slide please. Okay, so what are PIDs? This is a bit of a wordy slide for you, but if you look to the right, you will see some examples. So I think most people will be able to relate to ORCID for example, which is an identifier that is used to identify researchers and be able to link them to the works that they produce. We also have DOIs listed there, the digital object identifiers that are routinely assigned to articles produced through research and there are a few other identifiers there that you may or may not be familiar with. But essentially PIDs are these alphanumeric codes that are resolvable on the internet and allow you to positively identify a range of different entities. So ORCID for example, is identifying people, places as another thing, things, raw the research organization registry there is used to identify organizations. So you have different persistent identifiers for different things. And metadata is associated with persistent identifiers about the entities that they're describing. And that really helps with machine readability and exchange of information and helps us to support. It's basically about the implementation of the fair principles there, which specifically mentions PIDs. So they enable us to leverage the power of emerging technologies, manage and interpret those large volumes of data because they are machine readable and they do have that metadata attached. And you can use APIs to retrieve the metadata attached to those DOIs and those ORCIDs and other identifiers. Next slide, please. So how can PIDs help? Well, again, another wordy slide. No apologies for that. But if you just look at the diagram on the left, so the huge value in persistent identifiers really is the linkages between them. So it's not that there's one PID to rule them all and that's the one we should use and that's gonna solve everybody's problems is actually the linkages between the different PIDs that makes for this rich kind of what we call a graph where you can then query that information programmatically to find out information. So a researcher has an ORCID and that is connected to an organization that might have a raw, is connected to the data that has a DOI, the publication that has a DOI, et cetera. And when you have those things linked, you can say, give me this grant, now give me all the researchers associated with this grant, give me the data that came out of the grant, give me the organizations that they're part of, et cetera, et cetera. So it creates a really robust environment for being able to give us more analytical information on what is happening with our research outputs, which helps discoverability and also analysis and tracking of impact as well of the research that's underway. Next slide, please. So another piece of evidence in why we should be having a national PID strategy is this report by MoreBrains Cooperative in the UK. So they were commissioned by ARDC and the Australian Access Federation last year to look at a cost-benefit analysis of persistent identifiers in the Australian research system. Now, many of you may have already read this report or heard about this report because we have been talking about it for a little while now. It came out, I think it was about August last year, sometime. And that basically found that there is a cost saving to the Australian research sector of nearly 38,000 person days per year, which equates to about $24 million per year for investment in a few key persistent identifiers. And they calculated that based on their findings that the same information is rekeyed an average of three times by three different people at a single university. And that information can actually be got automatically from harvesting of the persistent identifiers and pulling the metadata back from those persistent identifiers. So next slide, please. So another case study that was part of that report was this one. So the Australian Research Council has integrated ORCID IDs into their grant management system. And they query the ORCID API to bring back some of the metadata and pre-populate grant applications. So in the past, you had to do all this hand formatting in terms of your lists of publications for your grant and fill all that information out manually. And now you don't have to do that because by querying ORCID, that information is brought into the system. And you can see this anecdotal quote from Professor Joe Schachter, who was the provice chancellor for research infrastructure at University of Queensland. And he says that integration of ORCID in the grant management system has saved him an average of three to four days per grant application, which is really staggering if you times that by the number of grants that are applied for the amount of time that researchers spend doing this. Next slide, please. So to give you a glance at the current PID landscape in Australia, so this is a current snapshot, not looking at where we want to be, but where we actually are at the moment. So we definitely have very good PID infrastructure in Australia and most of it is offered in collaboration or partnership with international PID providers, such as ORCID and DOI, et cetera. And that's really important because research is international. And of course, the exchange of that information with international PID providers is really important. And that means that the identifiers that you mint are part of robust international infrastructure as well. So next slide, please. Okay, so here is an example of why it can be better going together in this national PID strategy. So the Australian ORCID Consortium has saved the sector $4.5 million for members between 2016 and 2022, and that ORCID Consortium is led by the Australian Access Federation and they have helped lower the barrier to be able to integrate with ORCID savings, all those savings, and in-country local support available from AAF. Next slide, please. Similarly, we also have the Australian Data Site DOI Consortium example, which is led by ARDC, is offered in partnership with Data Site, and where the DOI minting costs for organisations are covered by the ARDC. So next slide, please. So the approach that we're taking here is to have a national conversation to create a strategy that delivers shared value for all stakeholders. So in my experience, you can tell people what to do and they won't do it, and you can give them money to do something, and they will do it as long as the money lasts. But if you can actually have a conversation with them about the shared pain points that we all have and how something like Persistent Identifiers might make a difference to reducing those pain points or addressing those pain points completely, then we actually have buy-in in terms of having a national strategy where people can see the value, they want to contribute, they wanna be part of it and get the benefits from it. And so we also want an accompanying roadmap that's built on shared action and accountability. So it's not just one group taking accountability for this, but it's actually across the whole country, across the stakeholders in the sector. Next slide, please. So the vision then is about accelerating Australian research quality, efficiency and impact, which I talked about earlier on through the universal use of connected pits and realising that through that national conversation with stakeholders and development of the roadmap. Next slide, please. What are the components and timeline of the national PID strategy? So on the left-hand side, we have the inputs into the strategy. So we have a national PID strategy task force, which I'll talk about in a minute. And we've had a whole series of engagement opportunities in the national PID strategy to date. So we kicked this off around February this year. And we're now in September, we're going through to November for a first iteration of the roadmap release. So it's an iterative process, though. The strategy is already available for you to comment on. And you can do that by putting in a submission to which will be looked at by the national PID strategy task force. So we wanna have some active engagement with different groups as well. So we have some workshops planned for the next little while we have a workshop with the institutional underpinnings group. We have a workshop with the NCRIS group. We have already had some high level discussions with government and the same with funder groups as well. And through that, we want to be able to keep working on what we have in the past and refining it based on feedback. Coming up with that national PID strategy and five year roadmap, at least the first iteration by the end of the year. Next slide, please. So here is a glimpse at the national PID strategy task force, which was set up in February. It's chaired by Professor Keith Nugent, who's the AMU deputy vice chancellor for research and innovation. And this is a group of senior stakeholders who are helping provide strategic advice to the ARDC on the development of the PID strategy and roadmap. Next slide, please. We also had some working groups that operated during the year. So actually part of my slide is in there. Yes, April through to July. So these working groups were formed via an open call that was issued in the workshop that we held. And we held an open workshop in February to kick off the strategy. It was a hybrid event in Canberra and online. And we issued an open call for working group topics and working group. So we got eight working groups that came out of that. There are the topics. So the idea was to explore the aspirational and potential use cases for PIDs in each of these areas and feed those use cases into the strategy development. So you can see we had quite a broad range there in the type of topics that were looked at by the working groups and they've all made their submissions since then. Next slide, please. We've also had other engagement activities, as I mentioned. So we've given it a range of presentations. Here's just a sample of some of them. And we've also had members of the task force, members of the Australian awkward steering committee, such as call and corded, et cetera, being able to share that information with their members through their newsletters as well. Next slide, please. And I'll hand to Linda for this part. Thanks very much, Natasha, for setting the scene so perfectly. And it's super exciting to be part of this project to get the strategy and roadmap off the ground. And I think, as you'll appreciate, this is complex. Natasha and I were involved with others on implementing the awkward work in Australia and that was, we thought it was complex. This is much more complex in terms of getting everyone engaged because we are interested in the total research ecosystem and it's really about lifting quality, efficiency and impact. So it benefits both the research quality itself as well as the ways in which we measure the quality of that and how we make it more efficient through use of connected persistent identifiers. And I think the universal word's important. One of the things the task force were particularly keen on was that this was a national approach. We really were trying to lift the game across the whole country. And I noticed a couple of our task force members are on this call, so it's great to have you here. Next slide, please. So as I've said, national, coordinated, collaborative. Every part of the system needs to engage to make this work. And interestingly, our first question in the chat, because I've been having a look, was talking about the NARC awkward integration and how that might be improved. So it's interesting that each of these players within the ecosystem from the researcher right through to the NARC or the library within a research institution or the research office or whoever it might be, all have a role to play. So I think it's really important we're engaging with all of you and thinking about how we make this happen. Because it's not just the research organisations, but then it's also these levels of government, business and industry where they're partners and contributors to research innovation. Because I think if you imagined a five year out, amazing opportunity, imagine if we did have that national view of how research was being translated into innovation within business and industry or how business and industry are contributing and how we might tell that connected and interconnected story. Next slide, please. So there are six key goals within the strategy. The first is about making the inputs to research fair. So again, I think given the audience, I don't need to explain why that matters. But obviously, if you can make all those inputs, no matter what sort they are, it could be a piece of equipment. It could be an expert who supports you in that research. It could be a grant if all of these things can be made fairer, a sample, an observation. Then obviously we can start to reduce duplication and increase productivity in research and potentially do new types of research. And similarly with outputs and acknowledging here that inputs are also outputs. If we make them fairer, again, we have these great opportunities to really build on that research in new ways, create new research and reduce duplication and the timeliness of translating that into impact. And again, we've had good examples of this from across government and research agencies saying, if only we were better able to make our environmental impact studies more visible and findable, we could reduce some of the duplication that's occurring and improve research into the future, for example. And the next is about reproducibility, provenance and attribution. So how can we be better at being able to reproduce that research, understand the provenance of it, make sure the attribution is accurate without creating greater administrative burden. And this is where PIDs can really play a key role and really assist researchers to minimize the amount of time they spend but also ensure that they are properly recognised for the work that they do. Next slide. The other three goals are around optimising the ecosystem. So how do we better evaluate research quality impact and evidence of public benefit? And again, this has come through very strongly from the task force and also in talking with government and it plays into the university chords conversation. If you read the interim report, it talks about using advances in data science to do a lighter touch evaluation of research quality and impact and clearly PIDs are integral to that. So it's definitely on the radar. There's a lot of interest in how we use this to better trace through that story and particularly that public benefit story. How do we evidence that the investment we're making as a nation in research is really generating the benefit that we wish to see? Also, we need to optimise our ability to understand the impact of different inputs. So this is, again, grants as one example. It's not the only example. But the things that we are investing in, how do we make sure that that's delivering the value that we want to see? And I think, you know, one of our conversations with the NH and MRC, for example, was, you know, do I know if one large grant is more effective than lots of small ones? How can I evidence this impact? And that investment in research infrastructure certainly very much. So the four in terms of increased investment. So are we getting the value out of that investment and how do we evidence that? How do we show that that investment's having an impact? And finally, one that I think is in part post-pandemic, but it's about, you know, how well prepared are we as a nation to manage the critical challenges ahead? Do we have the research capability we need in the areas that we need? And again, this is a question that's being asked by government amongst others. But, you know, do we have these capabilities and how can we tell what we do and where are those capabilities to address the challenges ahead? Next slide, please. So the five-year roadmap, Natasha's referenced already, it will be iterative, definitely, because of the way in which we're thinking about how to capture the fact that it is about shared accountability and action. So how do we capture that complex story of how we're all contributing to delivering the roadmap? And we do believe that it will be refreshed and extended annually. So that we sum things that are clearer across the five years and others that will iterate over time. The roadmap itself is framed by some criteria that will help inform priority setting. Obviously, we can't do everything at once. And again, this is something that Task Force is very keen to see. How do we work out what we need to do first? Who needs to take board actions and buy when to really achieve what's required? And there will be an ongoing advisory task force to oversee the roadmap. Next slide. Okay, over to you, Natasha, to the roadmap. Thanks very much, Linda. That's fantastic. So just an update on the roadmap, as Linda was saying, we are thinking that that will be enabled by a capability maturity model that's tailored for different stakeholder groups, stakeholder groups. And the reason for that is that rather than sort of saying, well, perhaps you're benchmarking here and you wanna get to here, how do you actually do that? It can be a bit daunting to say, well, I'm here and that just seems like too high a mountain to climb. And the idea of a capability maturity model is that you can see the little pieces or the little bricks you need to step on along the way to get to the top. And it's not gonna be linear, the capability maturity model, you can come in at different points. And I'll give an example of that in a minute for how we're looking at it for funders. And it's just a very early example. We're also thinking that the roadmap will be interactive. So rather than sort of saying, do these things, we'll also ask people to sign up and say, I'm going to do this. So I am, you know, I don't know, a library at institution X and I am going to implement machine to machine DOI minting in my repository, something like that. Might be a sign up action or I'm a research funder and I am going to mint DOIs for my grants. That might be an example of a sign up action model. And we're going to build it. As I mentioned before, we do have good national peer infrastructure in Australia and we're gonna build on that. And that's provided by the ARDC and AAF in partnership with international peer providers. So we've got pretty good starting point there. Next slide, please. Here's an example of a capability maturity model, a very early days example of what it might look like for funders. So if a goal of the strategy or of your research funding organisation is to reduce administrative burden for researchers during the grant application process, then you might integrate Orchid into your grant management system, then query the Orchid API to bring that data back and pre-populate the grant submissions as per the ARC example. And then you might choose a third step, which is writing successful grants to Orchid Records. And that's nice because it will come with the authority of research funder X, has given this grant to this person. Next slide, please. And just continuing on that funder's example, if a goal is making grants more discoverable for impact, then the first step might be to create landing pages for each grant. And that seems like a very simple thing to do. We know that internationally, a lot of funders don't actually do that. So that's actually a big step forward. Then get a raw identifier for your funding agency because you want to be able to link a grant that is issued by which, you want to identify the funding agency issuing the grant. So you might assign a raw research organization registry identified for that. Then you might assign DOIs to grant records, which is the international best practice now for grant identification and then contribute records to grant discovery services. Obviously, if you mint the DOI, they already go automatically into the databases of either Crossref or Datasite, for example, both of which are minting, well, Crossref Mint's grant identifies now, Datasite has a pilot to be able to do that. But both of those, you're contributing into that international peer infrastructure. Next slide, please, which contributes to their discovery. So how would you like to contribute? This is the last side. We've done a lot of talking at you and shared where we're at so far. And a lot of you have been involved already in the development either through working groups or making a submission or attending the workshop. So thank you very much for your contribution so far, and we really hope it continues. So you can review the draft strategy and provide your feedback. You can send in a submission, whether that's by yourself as an individual or you can do a group submission or an organization submission. You can join one of these open webinars or events. You can book a workshop for your team. So we have a sort of format for a two-hour workshop that basically goes what are the pain points in the research and innovation system that you are having? How do you think PIDs can help? Here is an update on the national strategy and what kind of action plan can we create with you to address these pain points and build them into the national strategy roadmap. So you can also invite us to present at your event and thank you to those who have already done so. We have been doing a round of presentations. So I think that is my last slide. Next one, please, Matias. I think it's just a picture of the team. So if you want to get in touch with any of us individual, Lee, this is the team at ARDC. So thank you for your attention and I'll turn it over for questions and discussion. Thank you very much, Natasha. We have had only two questions in the chat so far and the first one, I'm not sure if you'll be able to give an answer directly but give it a go. I'm also not going to be mentioning names associated with the questions to protect privacy in the recording. So one comment or question, researchers I have promoted the ARC Orchid integration to say the process at their end is convoluted and time-consuming to connect and get operational. Can improvements be made? I'm not sure that we can answer that as we're not from Australian Research Council. I'm not sure that's the feedback across the board though because ARC have done their own measure of how researchers are finding their engagement with that system. But if anyone from ARC is on the call and would like to answer that, that's great. But otherwise I don't think we can, Linda or I could answer that one, I'm afraid. Right, thank you, Natasha. We have had somebody from the AAF respond to that question asking for more information. And the second question that we've received so far, is the ARDC engaging with vendors of research management platforms on this issue? Most of these integrations would rely on capacity built into these systems, which might not be something that we institutions can control at the user end. I actually, whoever asked that question, I really love that question because that is the way that we're thinking about. In fact, we just had a meeting earlier today where we talked about that. So obviously there is a cost saving for universities if the integration can be done in a system that they are already using. So an example there, so RAID is an identifier that the ARDC provides to identify research projects that identify the ability to mint that identifier. We've been working with the Redbox team at QSIF, so Redbox is an application that is used across, I think it's 11 or 12 Australian universities. Once that integration goes into the production system, then all the universities using that system, the Redbox system, will be able to mint RAIDs. So there's definitely a lot of logic in that. At the moment, we're really, that I think that would be an action item that would be built into the roadmap. As in, I don't know that we're at the right stage to talk to Fender was just yet, but once we have more information, we have a bit of a bare bones roadmap, then I think that would be an action item that would be included in there. Linda, did you have anything you wanted to add to that? No, I think that's a perfect answer. It is something that obviously has come up in a range of conversations, but as I think you noted even this morning Natasha, there's still quite a few institutions using bespoke systems for all good. So we need to cater for both. I guess I'm really interested in asking the group that's here what we could be doing differently to make sure that they understand where we're at and they can contribute to developing the strategy and roadmap because I think we need everybody's support in actually getting this across the line and making the actions happen. So be really interested if people on the call have ideas about things that we could be doing other than what we've already been through and listed. There are other things that we can be doing that would help to engage the broader community. Now, we don't have any further questions, but there have been a couple of comments that I'd like to highlight. So a comment from somebody who works at Orkut that very few funders globally have integrated Orkut into their workflows. So a big cue to us to the Australian research funders who do that. And then another comment from a researcher that the Orkut integration for the grant systems makes the filing of required final reports much easier as well. So it's not just applying for the grant, but it's then also the reporting requirements at the end because for example, publications are already included in the reports. So the whole timeline is something to think about, not just the original award, but let's move beyond that. And then a comment that it would be good to have consistent messaging across research facilities. So that researchers all cite PIDs in a similar way. So it's easier for facility managers to track. And yes, the way that facilities are acknowledged in publications is something close to my heart. We had, well, I chaired the organization of facilities working group. We thought very hard about this and made a submission to the process too. Linda or Natasha, did you have anything to add about any of those comments or responses for those comments? I think that speaks to the cultural change aspect of this as well, that when researchers are publishing what do they cite, when do they cite it, how do they cite it? And we know that's been very challenging in the research data space, where for some time there's been a lack of consistency in the way researchers cite data. So some of them put it in a supplementary section and don't mention it in the article. Some of them reference it in the article with an identifier or not with an identifier. And some of them use a proper citation statement at the end to their own data or other people's data that they used in the course of research. So that is a culture change aspect. I know it's one that, at least on the data side, the publishers have been working for some time to look at and try and, because we all want, with citations being the currency of research still, we really want to be able to get into that culture landscape as part of this national PID strategy, I think to have some guidelines around things like that would be quite useful. So that could be, again, part of the roadmap action plan. Thank you, Natasha. A few more comments coming in. So identifying points of friction would be good. There's still a considerable gap in raw adoption by publishers, which feeds downstream into publications and awkward records and so on. So a dialogue with all stakeholders would be beneficial. Yes, agreed. And just to mention that the research funder registry is becoming part of raw now. So that might also help that case of in raw has been a relatively, relatively new identifier that is still growing. So yeah. Yep, a few more comments and come in, but we have a question now too. I know, so I'll jump ahead to that. What will feed into the sign up part? Now, I assume that the question is about the sign up part of the roadmap. For example, how would decisions regarding what areas to target be made or what might be the best place, sorry, to ask to get it done? Yeah, we're working that out. If you have suggestions though, you should say. I mean, some of the things we're thinking about is just using, I guess, making the suggestions in a way through the capability maturity model. So if I'm an institution and I can look to the roadmap and I can see the capability maturity model, I can say, well, look, I think I can do this over the next year and then you can do a sign up there. But there's different lenses into this. So there might be, for example, Siobhan's on the call, she chairs the instruments, research instruments for Australia Community of Practice, the instrument PIDs group, and they are talking about developing a capability maturity model for the instrument identifiers. So you could come at it as a facility who wants to identify your instruments so you can better track their use. So perhaps you can come at it from that angle and sign up there. So the mechanism and how we do that is all to be defined. And that is the point of having this webinar. We don't have it all worked out and we would really like your input there. So that's, I don't know if you want to add to that, Linda, but that's about all I've... I guess it's just based on our experience with awkward adoption. Within universities, particularly, they will all do it slightly differently. They'll have different groups that take ownership and accountability and responsibility for making things happen. So at the end of the day, we need to create a roadmap that allows for the differences, but works toward getting a national coordinated approach. And I guess that's what we'll be working through, how best to do that because it's not... I mean, you know, they're very much informed the conversations we had initially around Orca and recognising that each institution will be different in the way in which to approach these things. So I think it's much easier when you're talking about someone like the ARC, much more difficult when you're talking about a research institution. And so it's how best to make that happen and how to engage all the elements within the institution. A few more comments that I wanted to highlight. And really there are... Talk about APIs and integrations that we really need to make sure that these integrations work well because sometimes what has been implemented isn't necessarily what the aspiration was. And so somebody can say, yes, there's an integration, but it doesn't necessarily take advantage of the full functionality as well as it could. Another comment noting that RetractionWatch has signed a partnership with Crossref to integrate the RetractionWatch database somehow, which feeds back into that research quality component, Blender. No researcher wants their work retracted, but it's a good thing to be able to track in a machine-readable way. And there is... I'm not sure if it's a specific question or a suggestion for something to be done. How detail of the metadata should be supplied when minting a PID? This person comments that they would like to know the best practice. And I mean, best practice for PIDs and filling in metadata are really quite important, aren't they? Yep, they are very important. And I think so different PIDs have different metadata requirements. So they usually have a core set of metadata requirements and then an extendable set of metadata requirements. And they have different mechanisms. For example, ORCID is a researcher sign-up. So a researcher goes and gets an ORCID and they own their ORCID. For DOIs, that's minted through an organization. So the organization has to have the capability to provide the minimal set of metadata there. For example, data site has six different metadata elements that are core requirements when you're minting a DOI through them. So it's going to be different. I agree with the idea of providing some best practice because it definitely is better if we can do more than the minimum and particularly if we can link other PIDs in the metadata. So not just to mention that you're associated with the University of Queensland, but to put the University of Queensland ORCID in an identifier when you're minting a DOI, for example, would be a best practice example. So that could be something else we could add to roadmap development. Linda, what do you think? Yeah, I think so. And I think the thing to note here because it may not have come out as clearly in our presentation is that the real value is the linking of the PIDs, not the individual ones. So it's an interconnected story because the real value stories will come from linking. But the other thing to recognize is that the international PID landscape is at different levels of maturity. So some PIDs are much more mature than others and they're evolving. So you mentioned ORCID, I mean ORCIDs, I've got my five-year-old T-shirt on, but it's over 10 now. Whereas ORCIDs is much younger and still evolving. And so we also have to think about how what we're doing nationally fits within that landscape and which ones are more mature, which can we move on more quickly. And also there's a chance for us to shape the development of these international standards. It's not just a one-way flow. So that has to play into our thinking over the five years as well, which things are ready to really adopt and portion that comes back to the standards question. And are there things that we want changed within those providers' metadata standards that will help us deliver the outcomes that we want to see? Right, thank you. Now, we've had a few more comments and no more questions, but we are getting close to time. I'd like to give everybody a few minutes to get to their next meeting or grab a glass of water in between. So with that, Natasha or Linda, did you have any final comments? I think just to thank everyone for coming today and I hope you got something out of it and we certainly heard some very good feedback from you. So thank you very much that will really help in the thinking process because this is a co-design process, this National PID Strategy and Roadmap and it really needs your involvement and input into it to make sure it's useful to all the stakeholders in the Australian research sector. So please, you can engage with us in all the ways that we've already mentioned. So just reach out. Yes, and thank you for me too. It's great to see so many people interested and I appreciate your levels of interest will vary and your levels of understanding and expertise will vary, but please stay engaged and please get in touch. The more we can have conversations, the better the strategy and roadmap will be. Right, thank you. And look, we are also keeping a log of the chat. So even if I did not mention your comment in particular, we'll be able to go through them while Natasha and Linda will be going through them all after the webinar. So thank you once again for coming along. We look forward to hearing from you about the National PID Strategy and we look forward to being able to share more with you over the rest of the year. Oh, sorry, I wanted to give one more plug in that there will be a number of PID-related events taking place at the E-Research Australasia Conference in October in Brisbane this year. So please have a look at the program, pick out all the PID-related events and come to all of them, the other sessions. I mean, I'm sure they'll be great as well. So thank you very much and enjoy the rescue day. Thanks, Bail. Thank you, bye.