 Okay, good afternoon or good morning, depending on what time zone you're in. Welcome to this webinar on the ANS, and I'll explain why it's ANS in a minute, Trusted Data Repository Program. My name's Andrew Trelaw, I work for ANS and I was responsible for the Trusted Data Repository Program itself. So I'm going to start by providing a bit of context for the program and an overview of, very high level overview of Cortra SEAL. We then have three case studies, these were three projects that we funded, one from Siro, one from the National Imaging Facility and one from the Australian Data Archive. And I'll explain why we picked those and the different perspectives they provide. And then we have a slightly more freewheeling Q&A session at the end. So there should be plenty of time for you to ask any questions that you have. Trusted Data Repositories was a program that ANS funded in its 2016-17 annual business plan. 2016-17 seems like a very long time ago now. And a number of these projects, for reasons that they will explain, ran after the end of the 2016-17 financial year. And that's one of the reasons why we're talking about them now. It also means that this was a program that we started when ANS and Nectar and RDS were largely separate activities. Since that time, ANS, Nectar and RDS have been progressively aligning what they do, 2017-18 activities, which are of course still running, being undertaken under an integrated business plan. And so while it seems slightly strange to be talking about an ANS only program, for me at least, it is very much something that's been embraced by RDS and Nectar. So this overall trust agenda is very much something that is reflected in the 2017-18 business plan and is tied into a wider concern around research quality and trust in this. So please see this as entirely consistent with what the three projects as they come to get a care about, even though it started under an ANS only umbrella. I was trying to think about the best way to provide some context for the concern with trust in this. And I decided to go back, not to beer, although the beer is relevant, but go back to an article that was very formative for me in the early 90s, written by a guy called John Perry Barlow, who in fact died last month. So he was a guy who was, among other things, a lyricist for the band, The Grateful Dead, but was one of the early thinkers around intellectual property and ideas and wrote a very influential article called The Economy of Ideas, subtitled Everything You Know About Intellectual Property is Wrong, where my other things he'd distinguished between the main or in the contents. And so the way I want us to think about trust for the purposes of this seminar is to distinguish between the contents of a repository and the repository itself. And so what we all want is we want contents, in this case, something that we can consume without fear. And one of the ways that we are happy to, in this case, drink from this delightful glass of beer, is by looking at the container. And so the container has some characteristics that make the contents more trustworthy. One of the characteristics, I hadn't actually thought about this joke until now, one of the characteristics is the seal on top of the container in this case. You can see that the beer bottle has not been unsealed. And so we're prepared to believe that it hasn't been tampered with between the brewery and getting poured. And another of the elements of the trust that we might have in this particular beer is the label on the bottle. So we look at this and we say, ah, yes, I've heard of Batemans, if I think, I think is what that says. I've heard of Batemans. They produce trustworthy beer. There might be more information on the back. It might say brooding somewhere. So there's some brand information associated with the container that leads us to trust it more. And there may even be some provenance information about how the beer was produced, where the ingredients came from and so on. So the distinction that I want you to take out of this image is not, hmm, it's lunchtime. I'm really, I'd really like a beer now, but that distinction between container and contents. And in fact, the ANS trusted data repository projects were focused on the container. We had a separate set of projects called trusted research outputs, which were focused much more around the process of producing the outputs and the provenance associated with producing the outputs. In this webinar, we want to focus on the container, the trusted data repository projects. So we selected a small number of pilot projects, which were deliberately designed to cover as wide a range of settings as possible. So they covered a range of disciplines, human and non-human imaging in the case of NIF, social sciences, mostly quantitative social sciences in the case of ADA, water and a number of other physical sciences in the case of Siro, a number of different organizational settings, in some cases universities, in some cases a National Archive, in some cases a research institution, and a number of different provision models. And you'll hear more about each of those in the case studies. And the point was to try and get information about what it takes to implement trusted data repository. Part of what we were doing in the program was we're saying, look, we'd like you to use this, what was then called the data seal of approval, now called the core trust seal certification as the approach to follow to determine whether or not this was a trusted data repository. And so for those of you that are unfamiliar with core trust seal, this started out as a thing called the data seal of approval and was one of a number of certification schemes. If you look at the bottom of this slide, originally it was part of a three level hierarchy. So the simplest was data seal of approval. Next level up was a German standard, which was looking at standardization of digital resources. And the most advanced level was the thing that some of you may have heard of called the track criteria or ISO 16363. And what happened was that the world data system, WDS, worked with the research data alliance via a working group on repository audit certification, took the done data seal of approval, tweaked it a bit, added some additional questions and essentially agreed on this as what was for a while called the RDA WDS criteria. And then just recently has morphed into an organization called core trust seal. So there is now an organization called core trust seal.org, which is taken over responsibility for this certification program. It's relatively straightforward at the high level. There are 16 criteria that you use to assess your repository. Some of these are around your organization and the characteristics of your organization. Some of these are around the way your repository does digital object management. And you have varying levels of compliance possible for a number of these criteria so you can assess how well you're doing. In that respect, it's a little bit like a maturity model assessment. The thing I want to stress before we get into the case studies is that this is not just technology and in fact the technology is almost the least important bit. A lot of it is to do around the organizational processes and the kind of organization that's standing behind this trusted data repository. You can use the criteria to do a self-assessment and you hear a number of the presenters talk about a self-assessment or you can then submit that assessment for certification. External reviewers will look at that and maybe come back and ask some questions and you would then get a core trust seal tick which will last three years and there's a business model that sits behind that you have to pay for that but you can of course just do the self-assessment as an exercise for yourself at zero cost. There's more information there and links to the criteria but if you go to coretrustseal.org that will be enough. So that's all I really wanted to provide by way of introduction. What I'd now like to do is pass to the first of our presenters. So the first of our presenters is Michaela Lauren, sorry Lauren's my apologies, Michaela, who would like to talk to us about the sorrow experience in working with this approach. Okay, so today I'm just going to talk about Siro's trusted data repository project. So I'll go through the aims of the project, some background about the data access portal, the requirements for self-assessment as a TBR, gathering the evidence, applying for certification and also another aspect of our project was looking into hosting externally owned data. The aims of the trusted data repository project was to investigate certifying the data access portal as a trusted data repository, to develop a plan to implement changes to policies and procedures to support Siro business requirements and certification, to develop a plan to implement systems changes that may be required to the DAP infrastructure, to engage with external entities to host externally owned data as a test case and to prepare an application for certification. This is our data access portal. So just a bit of background information of the repository and this will provide some of the context that relates to the first section of the application. So the data access portal is currently an institutional repository and when we submitted our application, that's what we submitted our application as. The POSA is by self-service and is accessible to Siro staff using their institutional username and login. We have approximately 2,100 publicly available collections and storage of the data is over one petabyte. The subject matter includes a broad range of sciences with 17 of the 22 fields of research codes represented. The software and storage infrastructure of the DAP, which is what we term our data access portal, are developed and managed by Siro information management and technology. We have a data deposit checklist, which ensures depositors consider key quality and legal issues prior to deposit. A science leader then approves the collection after assessing it for quality and legal issues. The repository we offer a few different curation levels based on depositor needs. So the content can be distributed as deposited. We may offer some basic curation, brief checking or addition of basic metadata or enhance curation such as conversion to new formats. It does in native community or data users of the data access portal are researchers, industry, policymakers, general public and students. The data users can download the majority of collections without a user login and a smaller number of collections will require registration to access the files. So the requirements for self-assessment as a TDR. So when we went through the process to help with understanding the 16 requirements of the self-assessment, we read other organisations' applications and considered the evidence they had used. Applications were the core trust seal and now open with certified repository applications available on their website. Applications that were useful to us in reading were done as a part of the secretariat of the core trust seal and have been involved in developing the requirements and also the UK data archives. They had a well organised application with detailed evidence. To help with the next step of gathering and determining what evidence to use for sorrow and analysis was undertaken of the types of evidence used in a few of the published applications. We've included a list of references we use to inform our understanding of the requirements in the appendix of our report to ANTS. This will be published on their website. There also is a useful extended guidance document and webinar available on the core trust seal website that discusses the requirements and reviewers' expectations. Gathering the evidence. The certifying body have a preference for evidence that is public and we found this a major challenge. In this table are some examples of the evidence we used for the first part of the requirements which were organisational related from requirement 1 to 6. It gives an idea of new evidence we developed such as the mission statement. Also the difficulty with providing publicly available evidence. It also provides information about the departments we consulted for expert guidance within our organisation such as legal business development and staff from within our own information and technology management and technology department. We have attempted to overcome the challenge with providing public evidence with the development of collection development principles, preservation principles and an update of the data management live guide. These provide a summary of the processes for requirements from 7 to 16 which covered digital object management and technology. These public documents are available from the Siro DAP Help page. So what stage are we up to with applying for certification? So the data seal of approval feast applications in October 2017 and we missed this deadline. However, our application was submitted with the core trust seal in February 2018 as part of their soft launch to test their system. Processing of our application will begin when the core trust seal legal entity is finalised. So we're currently waiting to pay the administration fee of 1000 euro. And then our application will be processed. We found getting an account for the application management tool gave access to a staff member who promptly answered our questions and a word of warning once an application is submitted is locked. However, we found the helpful staff member could amend a small error we had made. One aspect of our project looked at investigating policies, procedures and system changes to host externally owned data. So why was this part of our strategy? As an organisation, we understand the value of new research possibilities in drawing together research data produced by organisations beyond Syro and across the research community. Also, researchers from our land and water business unit are interested in investigating a trusted repository for water research data. This vision is to bringing together nationally significant data from a wide range of organisations for the benefit of industry policy and research. So what did we implement as part of this part of the project? We defined the scope for accepting data in the collection development principles. For example, data should be aligned with Syro's function as set out in section nine of the Science and Research Industry Act, 1949. Terms and conditions were developed into an agreement to be signed by the depositing organisation called the Data Deposit Conditions. Some examples of the terms and conditions include that data is free from embargo. It has not previously been published with a DOI. Data is owned by the depositing organisation. Data complies with ethics, privacy, confidentiality, contractual licensing and copyright obligations and data will have a CC by licence applied. A data deposit form was developed for the data depositor to provide metadata. We developed some procedures for depositing externally owned data. The DAP is a self-service repository with access to deposit by Syro staff only. So the research data service will liaise with external data owners to facilitate the deposit of data. Then a science CSIRO science leader with the main knowledge of the data will be the approver of the collection. This is part of the risk management framework that all public data collections in the DAP are subject to. It involves a checker of the data quality and legal issues prior to publishing. So some future enhancements to the DAP include the ability to customise a collection landing page such as the addition of logos for external organisations, automation of the data deposit conditions within the existing DAP software and to develop a self-serve deposit interface for external organisations. We found that this project had some immediate benefits for us, such as when applying for a recommended repository status with journal publishers and funders, we found that we had information ready to use to meet those requirements. And we've also had inquiries from researchers regarding publishing externally owned data and we have now have a response with policies and procedures in place. So thank you. And there was a lot of people involved in this project within Sira, too many to list. But thank you to all of them as well. OK, so next another Andrew, Andrew Maynett, to talk about the NIF experience. All right. So I'm going to talk about National Trusted Data Repositories for the National Imaging Facility. So my name is Andrew Maynett. I'm a NIF Informatics Fellow at the Centre for Microscopy Characterisation Analysis at the University of Western Australia. So very quickly, what is NIF? The Australian National Imaging Facility is a $130 million project providing state-of-the-art imaging capability of animals, plants and materials for the Australian research community. A little map there to the right shows the various nodes of the National Imaging Facility around the country. Now, why is NIF interested in trusted data repositories? Well, the imaging equipment such as MRI, PET, CT scanners are capable of producing vast amounts of valuable research data. So we're interested in maximising those research outcomes and to do so the data must be stored securely. It must have its quality verified and should be accessible to the wider research community. From the core trust seal point of view, why trusted data repositories? Well, firstly, to be able to share data. Secondly, to preserve the initial investment in collecting that data. Thirdly, to ensure that the data remain useful and meaningful into the future. And the last one importantly is that funding authorities are increasingly requiring continued access to data that's produced by projects they fund. All right, now I want to talk specifically about the NIF RDS and NS Trusted Data Repositories project officially titled delivering durable, reliable, high quality image data for the National Imaging Facility. Now, broad aim of the project was to enhance quality, durability and reliability of data that's generated by the NIF. Now, by quality we mean that data has to be captured according to what we call the NIF agreed process. Durable means that the data has to have guaranteed availability for 10 years and reliable means that the data has to be useful for future researchers. So it has to be stored in one or more open data formats and with sufficient evidential metadata so we know how it was created, what the state of the instrument was at the time of creation and so on. The NIF nodes involved with the University of Western Australia, University of Queensland, University of New South Wales and Monash University. And in the project we limited our scope to MRI data but essentially the results are generalizable to other modalities and in fact we've already progressed to micro CT. So key outcomes from the project include the NIF agreed process to obtain trusted data from NIF instruments. I'll talk more about that shortly. The second is requirements necessary and sufficient for a basic NIF trusted data repository service. The third were exemplary repository services across all four participating nodes. And then the last one were self-accessiments against the core trustworthy data repositories requirements from core trust seal. So the NIF agreed process requiring high quality data. This is essentially this requirements that have to be satisfied to obtain high quality data which we call NIF certified data. That's then suitable for ingestion in a NIF trusted data repository service. We mandate the repository data must be organized by project ID because project IDs will persist with time whereas user IDs don't. Users come and go. Now to be NIF certified the data must have been acquired on a NIF compliant instrument or about that shortly. It has to possess NIF minimal metadata so that includes cross reference to relevant instrument quality control data. It has to include the native data generated by the instrument in proprietary format and include conversions to one or more open data formats. So the requirements for a NIF trusted data repository service we drew upon the core trust seal requirements in the left column that you see there and additionally added some NIF requirements so one of them you've seen already the project ID requirement but we also require an instrument ID requirement. Quality control requirement, authentication by Australian Access Federation requirement, interoperability that is we should be able to upload data from one repository to another, redeployability it should be possible to deploy the service from one NIF node to another and a service requirement that essentially we have a help desk responding to requests regarding the repository. So in a nutshell if we have a look at this diagram if we can concentrate on the right hand side if we have we've got the four sites UWA, UQ, UNSW and Monash so true that at that particular site represents the trusted repository. Login is by the Australian Access Federation so that means on any of the sites it will direct you back to your institutional login page and use institutional credentials. As I mentioned before data sets are organized by project ID. A data set is associated with an instrument and provided the NIF agreed process has been followed then a NIF certification flag indicating that it is certified is also included with the data set and the repository has a record for the instrument the instrument itself is linked to another special project called the Quality Control Project and also a handle to a record in Research Data Australia. So looking at the bottom of the screen you can see Research Data Australia is a data and service discovery portal provided by ANS so we put into that an instrument description that's both hardware and software and there's a unique handle to that record. If we look at top left now at the instrument PC or client PC data is uploaded according to the NIF agreed process so the top box above NIF agreed process the user data set has to have minimal metadata as the project ID, instrument ID, date and time the data was acquired implicit metadata that's in the proprietary data the native data from the instrument and conversions to one or more open data formats. The instrument operator can also upload data to the Quality Control Project which includes the Quality Control Standard Operating Procedure which of course can be updated over time and Quality Control Data. So what this means is that when a user uploads data to the repository there's an automatic link to the Quality Control Project and so it's possible to know the state of the instrument at the time that the data was acquired. This is what the portal looks like for Trudat at UWA so we have based this on the MyTardis platform which originated at Monash with several extensions developed during the project and we use Docker technology to be able to easily deploy different sites. So this allows easy instrument integration simple data sharing and user controlled publishing of data sets. Okay now I come to the comparison of all the self-assessments against the core trust seal requirements so all four sites did their own self-assessments for their respective repositories and what we can see here in this table so this shows the first eight such requirements is that essentially we independently arrived at the fairly similar level of assessment except for the cases there where we marked in blue and so the third one we talk about continuity of access so Monash here believes that at this point in time that that was not assured whereas the other three sites did so I should point out this self-assessment is a statement of the reality the situation at the point in time that the self-assessment was completed and then there was a difference as well at row four which is a requirement for confidentiality in ethics Monash have this fully implemented whereas the other three sites are in various stages of getting this to be implemented and then the other differences with the remaining requirements some differences with respect to data storage documented storage procedures workflows and data discovery and identification post funding so the project hasn't finished just because the funding has finished so we intend to maintain the services for ten years now and we plan to meet quarterly to make sure that this happens we are integrating additional instruments as I said we're adding micro CT instruments at the moment we will create a project web portal so we have a single landing page for all these trusted data repository services we're planning new national and international service deployments including one in Turku Finland we're refining and improving the trusted data repository portal and we intend progressing the core trust seal certification so very quickly benefits of the NIF trusted data repository services for NIF users in the broader community means reliable durable access to data improve the liability of research outputs and provenance associated with it making NIF data more fair easier linkages between publications and data and stronger research partnerships for NIF it means improved data quality improved international reputation we run multi-center trials and for the various research institutions enhanced reputation management and means by which to comply with the draft code for responsible research and enhanced ability to engage in multi-center imaging research projects and with that I thank you and I list on the page here the various project leads at the various nodes so thank you very much okay thank you Andrew Maynard so that's two quite different perspectives on trusted data repositories the third perspective comes from Heather Lisaw and Steve McGeckin from the Australian Data Archive we're the Australian Data Archive which is a social science research data archive and our mission is to be a national service for the collection and preservation of digital research data and to make these available to academics, government and other researchers we hold about 5,000 data sets in over 1,500 studies of all areas of social science from social attitudes, surveys, censuses aggregate statistics administrative data and many other sources both qualitative and quantitative our data holdings are sourced from academics government and private sector so we undertook the process with ANS as part of the trusted repositories we originally started under the data seal of approval before they had actually combined fully with the world data service or systems so originally we were the DSA and then we became the DSA WDS when we found out that they were moving to the core trust seal we delayed our implementation of which guidelines to take we officially started the DSA WDS in March of 2017 and submitted our application in April of 2017 we were due to have a review from our reviewers in May but it didn't actually arrive until August then we made our corrections to this we sent it back in and then we got another aspect of corrections did the other round of corrections and submitted and finalized in February of 2018 so slightly less than a year's length of process but we are a core trust seal repository now we did use the November 2016 DSA WDS guidelines which weren't as detailed as what is given in the core trust seal and there were no people to look at for reference as in Michaela had said she looked at others for reference there was no one to look at for reference for this new core trust seal so we kind of flew from what people had done in the DSA WDS and flew blind for a bit so when we went through the process which was a very useful process for self-assessment we identified four of the guidelines which we set at a level 3 which is the implementation phase of process which were data integrity and authenticity the guideline 10 which was preservation and planning guideline 15 which was technical infrastructure and guideline 16 later in assessment with one of our reviewers we also changed guideline 9 which is documented storage down to a level 3 everything else we had set at a level 4 for our repository our repository has been around for about 35 years coming up on 40 years so we do have quite a few procedures in place so some of the challenges that we found doing the core trust seal process when we initially undertook it there was no recommendation of what a minimum requirement would be for any of the guidelines so we didn't know if we set it at a 3 if that meant we wouldn't be able to get a core trust seal or not or if you set it at a 1 can you still get a core trust seal there doesn't seem to be a minimum requirement that we have ever found the extended guidelines do detail things a little bit better nowadays for those who are undertaking it in the future and we weren't sure if you had to respond to every aspect of all of the sub questions in a guideline or just to the overall arching guideline we also found that there was a complex interplay between the relevant documents required for a guideline and those for other guidelines so that one document may respond to up to 4 different guidelines or it may respond to only one guideline and also we found it difficult for providing evidence from documents which were not in the public domain like the other two we had to go through our own websites and find out what we did have forward facing what we had internally facing and which aspects of those we feel we can now put into an outward facing website or wiki page there should be all aspects should be outward facing but if things have to be inward facing there seems to be some basis that the courtrecile can deal with that the assessors did not indicate in our original guidelines that you had to have a timeline for things that were in process the new guidelines do state that you have to list a guideline of when you plan to have your implementation in place by so we had to add that in our final version of when we planned to have these items forward facing and our new websites up and running and we had to come up we had no idea when we originally started the process what the process entailed and what time frames it was going to take we were unclear if it was going to take a few months or a year it ended up taking us a year but the courtrecile does seem to be coming along as an organization much better so the timeline should move a bit quicker now so from our experience we found that doing as Michaela and Andrea had done going through and finding out what is in the public domain already and what can safely be put into the public domain is a good first step for any repository undertaking the courtrecile and how to cite the items which are out of the public domain in the private element is still an area of question which the courtrecile is dealing with we also would like to know how to deal with items that are out of our direct control such as funding models infrastructure and governance being a part of a larger university or as CSIRO part of a governmental body and Andrew being part of multiple institutions how do you fit into their governance models how do you fit into the infrastructure and how is this relay to the courtrecile with these complexities also the risk management section of the courtrecile we found a bit difficult because they kept referencing almost ISO standard requirements and to undertake an ISO standard for a risk assessment to do a base courtrecile seemed a bit overkill for us so finding some risk management standards that are free and in the public domain would be very useful and we actually answered the final one which is the guidelines are freely available for self-assessment without paying to obtain the seal you can just undertake the courtrecile as a self-assessment for your repository so you can define what your repository is where your boundaries are and undertake the assessment so in the Australian context these aren't necessarily only in the Australian context we did find that they relate to other repositories worldwide but the complexity of how institutions and repositories one institution may encompass multiple repositories or one repository may encompass multiple institutions all this affects your governance your funding, your security and all of those aspects as well as things that are in the national framework so things that are involved in our national road maps how these play into the courtrecile and how they're also out of the control of the individual repositories infrastructure frameworks infrastructure that is provided by your host institution and the government frameworks of host institutions which are not easily explainable in a courtrecile so these are not necessarily as I said Australian specific but more to the repository sector because the repository sector is a very varied sector with multiple institutions multiple repositories playing different roles okay, thank you Steven Heather so we've now heard from three separate experiences of engaging with trusted data repositories in the courtrecile and we now have 15 minutes or so for questions the first question is from Nick who says that they got data seal of approval in 2012 so very early on is there any advantage in going through the WDS process would any of the three panellists like to weigh in on that one I'll take that one Andrew my sense would be probably I mean the there's a sort of three year certification in and of itself so it's a question from the point of view of being ongoing certification I suppose there's a consideration there what I would say to you having been through we were familiar with the DSA in its original version and what it morphed into in the courtrecile there is probably a heavier expectation on some of the risk management and preservation requirements than there was in the past and the emphasis is shifted somewhat I would say the other point I would probably make is that the review process itself we were kind of flying blind as Heather pointed out our experience is probably not reflective of everyone as a whole I think the courtrecile organisation itself was developing and the reviewing that was going on probably the reviews themselves are probably a bit different as they brought together what was the DSA approval was a social standard to begin with and into the humanities as they've done as well it has I think the WDS side of this is more the physical life of the sciences in particular of the earth sciences so there's probably a shift in emphasis there I think it would be a good experience but it might be different from what you went through in the DSA experience so I would probably reflect on that okay thanks Steve comments from either of the presenters if you want to weigh in on that okay no so it looks like a no maybe if I could ask a question that builds on that question from Nick and Steve's answer so under courtrecile the idea is that you would apply for certification certification that certification would run for three years I know that they've talked about a sort of a lightweight re-certification down the track if you want to get re-certified in three years time would any of the presenters like to comment on the question of the time length for the certification or rather the expiry time for certification time and whether that is a reasonable thing to do is it in your view does it seem sensible that your certification would slowly evaporate over a three year period and that there'd be value in applying again in three years time anyone want to touch that? I guess I might check and say the amount of effort I guess in getting the original certification through I'd say it'd be worth it to keep this going to the future and it should be three years would seem reasonable and it should be a fairly lightweight exercise to get that re-certification that's having not yet achieved certification first time around I would say there Andrew I think three years is about the right sort of cycle as well so long as the certification process itself the time frame shortens so our application list for April 2017 our certification was in February 2018 our certification will end in the December 2019 so I think the cycle is right given the context of what the content is and so this is I think partly a function of the organisation itself evolving and sorting itself out but the process itself has to speed up somewhat in order to make that three year cycle an appropriate one I think that's the right time frame to speed up the process that makes sense and I sorry go on as soon as you do have most of your documents together and you know which ones need to evolve the re-certification should go a bit quicker because you can just copy and paste pretty much and iterate what new developments have happened to your institution or your repository in that time yep that makes sense so as in most new things that one does the first time is a bit painful and then it gets easier two questions from Camilla the first question is what is Ann's long-term plan to include university repositories to have all the university repositories meet the core trust seal so that is an interesting combination of issues there firstly it would now be Ann's Nectar IDS as we continue to merge towards a new organisation and the Ann's Nectar IDS is not really in a position to require university repositories to do anything university repositories will apply for core trust seal if they see value in doing it themselves in the case of the projects that presented here we provided some funding to help ADA and NIF and Syro do something but something they really wanted to do anyway so I don't think that yeah I think it's going to depend on the drivers for the individual repositories as to whether they see value in this and then the second question was on the duration of the data to be preserved Kamala's comment there was 10 years of data preservation seems like it's a relatively short period of time especially in the case of clinical trials I'll leave it to the three presenters to comment on that but I would just say that I suspect the 10 years is a consensus number and is not a you have to throw it away after 10 years number it's a at least that number I'm pretty sure the NHMRC Australian Code for Responsible Conductive Research says either 7 or 10 so it's not inconsistent with that but would any of the presenters like to weigh in on the subject of 10 years before I move to the next question so I might answer first if I can so I think you're right NHMRC, ARC requirements for 7 years for retaining data the figure of 10 was essentially in the original research proposal was something reasonable each of the NIF nodes and the associated institutions were happy to support but that doesn't mean we won't support beyond the 10 year period that was just we agreed that collectively we could do to ensure 10 years is a long time to guarantee services running but the plan each of the nodes is that we would continue to the future the 10 years is proof of concept that we can indeed do this over a long period of time in the case of NIF this was establishing some new repository services so that's been a challenge unto itself and guaranteeing 10 years of running service is no mean feat 10 years seems like a long time great I hear it was the lead for that that NIF trusted data repository and I think one of the things we need to recognise is that over 10 years the nature of the repository is going to change we don't know where we're going to be storing data in 10 years institutions to guarantee more than 10 years at this point in time is going to be difficult national imaging facility as Andrew has already said is committed to providing mechanisms for data storage but we could in 10 years those repositories could be existing on Amazon or on other publicly domain services so we felt we wanted a commitment from the partners at the time we signed the contract that they would guarantee to maintain that for storage for that 10 years but we're committed to looking for mechanisms beyond that and then of course then you've got to look at migration of data between those repositories and that's an issue we'll have to address indeed and for the benefit of those people who are unfamiliar with the August presence of Graham Galloway he is the director of the national imaging facility just on that can I just make a quick comment which is this is one of the things that we were referencing at the end here which actually creates the complexity of responding to the guidelines in terms of saying how long you will maintain a service or how long you're potentially making commitments you can't realistically fulfill and in some way some of the expectations in the CEO needed to account for that I think a little bit more than they probably did is unrealistic for us to say that we you know other than be able to say look we've been running for you know 35 years we'll probably still be here in 10 years time but I say in terms of that commitment you know I can say the ANU will be here in 10 years time or if I'm the National Archives I can say that there aren't many organizations that actually make such claims or parts of organizations so yeah and that's actually a really good point Steve that I think the the data seal of approval certainly came out of an environment where they the players involved at the time were largely National Archives and they saw the world through that set of lenses you know we've been around forever we're going to be around forever I'm trying to apply that as you move out into the wider data repository space it gets harder and harder to make those kinds of commitments I realize we're running close on time so I might just skip over an observation and maybe finish with this question which is what did it cost in terms of human and non-human resource to get certification did any of you try and add up how much time and effort you put into this or did you choose not to because the number was just going to be too scary we can say we're in terms of human resource well one of the human resources in this room so part of our funding was to contribute to that and say that you are working a fair chunk of about nine months probably to put that together there's a reasonable portion of my time as well not that level but probably half a day a week for several months bits and pieces of other parts of our organization as well there aren't too many non-human resources because we were certifying an existing facility realistically it was a document gathering or creation exercise so it really was primarily staff time there was the involvement there was a little bit of development but not much but I think the experience would be different in Andrew's case in particular where you were helping in your service I can sort of reflect on to certify an existing service it really is staff time it depends on how good your documentation is already in that way it actually is a useful experience because it reminds you of what you haven't done so there was real value in that but there was a time that's involved in that as well yep all right thank you Michaela is it possible for you to respond to that yes certainly we had similar commitment as the ADA we had myself and another data librarian working on this and then given that we were looking at hosting externally available data we also had some of our researchers talking to external organisations as well so however to cost time is a difficult thing and also our legal council also putting a significant time and effort into developing new procedures and policies for hosting externally owned data okay thank you and Andrew Maynips did you want to weigh in on that yes so similar experiences we had the challenge I guess of having four different sites we had a project manager of each site and a little team around that project manager to address some of these issues talk to IT services talk to library services to resolve some of the question then as the overall project manager I was consulting with each of the other project managers and trying to come to consensus even talking to yourself Andrew to understand some of the questions and how to respond and I guess at the end of the day it was giving an honest response with the best information you have at hand and that is the honest status of your how you've addressed each of the requirements yep alright thank you and I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there we're over time my apologies to those people who have questions in the question panel that we haven't got to yet but in particular my thanks to the presenters to Michaela, to Heather, to Steve to Andrew Maynips and to Graham for weighing in thank you for sharing your experiences with us it's been a benefit to the community and we look forward to seeing or hearing from some of you on our next webinar thank you all