 Welcome everyone, we're going to go ahead and get started. So my name is Bill Brannon, I'm at Johns Hopkins University and I have with me Saeed Choudhury and John Kellerman from Carnegie Mellon and Eclipse Foundation respectively. And we're going to be talking today about the past, the public access submission system just to give you a rundown about what we're going to be focused on and how we're going to go through this. First of all, Saeed is going to give us a history, a brief history of what the past project is, how it came to be, what the purpose of it was at the very beginning, and then also talk about really why pass is so well suited to address the concerns and the needs that the OSDP memo that we've talked about a lot here at CNI is really in a good position to move that forward. At that point, John is going to pick up a demo of pass so you can see how it works and what someone using pass would see as they're walking through the system and talk about what the Eclipse Foundation is, why they're engaged here, and how it is that they're helping the past project move forward. And I'm going to talk about the recent work that has happened in the past project and the roadmap for the future and how you can be engaged if you are interested in talking more about pass. So with that, I will hand it over to Saeed. Thank you, Bill. I really hope there's no Adobe update looming on this laptop. So Bill and John have done a very capable and admirable job picking up the reins of pass. I'm here to talk about the origin story. So in the before times pre-COVID, John Hopkins announced that it would have an open access policy like I'm sure many of your institutions do as well. The president actually at Hopkins basically also said, well, why can't we do something to help make it easier for our researchers to comply? And that was the inspiration behind the pass project. So the open access policy was rolled out by the provost office and the president of the institution actually gave some support to develop the platform. It was inspired by conversations with Peter Subur, Jeff Spees when he used to be at the center of open science, Heather Yeager at MIT and Ellen Finney when she was at MIT. And the fundamental premise in some sense was can we find a way to build a platform that researchers could use to comply with both public access compliance and open access, institutional open access policies? So we talked a lot about incentives as we should. Maybe the other side of that is reducing burden on researchers, right? So if you reduce the friction or you make it more seamless for people to do things, they're more likely to participate. So pass was built with this premise of how do we align what researchers have to do anyway in terms of public access compliance with what they might wish to do or institutions might wish that they do with open access policy. And NIH through PubMed Central had been thinking about these kinds of issues even before the Nelson memo, right? It made very much in response to the prior one in 2013. So we worked with the National Library of Medicine directly to integrate pass with the National Library of Medicine. So the current or most recent memo has this concept of the agency designated repository. Now I do not represent any of the agencies. I do not represent OSTP just to be very clear. But I attend as many of these webinars as I can. I'm sort of like a spun trying to absorb what does this memo really mean? What are the implications? And I've actually talked to people at OSTP as well directly. So this is not an uninformed view, I don't think, but it's not an official one. But the fact of the matter is that the term agency designated repository is being used over and over again. And at the NSF, most recent NSF session, I actually asked the question, is the NSF public access repository, one that was built by NSF and DOE, the agency designated repository? And the answer was yes. If you heard Bob Hanisch's presentation yesterday, NIST has built its own repository. So I think this is a healthy development. There's certainly space and value in having the federal agencies directly respond with their own sort of approaches. What I have not heard as much, quite frankly, is how the library built infrastructure or publisher built infrastructure might play into this ecosystem. So PASS is basically an opportunity in some sense to participate with these agency designated repositories, right? And it's not to say it's the only way, it's not to say it's mutually exclusive in some way. But there is this growing kind of infrastructure that the agencies themselves are building, and PASS is fundamentally a platform that allows us to interface and interact with that. And I mentioned we started with PubMed Central and NIH, but we did receive a grant from NSF, while I was still in Hopkins, to extend PASS's design and functionality to work with other agencies. In this case, particularly NSF and DOE, through what they call PAR. But we tried to take a more generalized approach. And we also tried to take a more generalized approach to the institutional repositories that it might work with as well. And then finally, thought about data. So as you know, the Nelson memo is now very explicit about data being a core part of public access compliance. So PASS has been designed with the data deposit as part of the roadmap in a linked data sense, right? Not necessarily that you're gathering the data artifacts, but that you at least know where they are and how they can be linked. So that work isn't finished. I'm not asserting that we're ready to work with PAR, but we did a lot of the work in the homework with NSF and DOE directly. And it did result in a packaging specification that's available for the community to work with. And we worked with several institutions in a workshop. So I think we're well positioned to sort of extend PASS to work with other agencies, other repositories, and bring on new partners. But I will say, and these are my former colleagues, no disrespect intended to them at all, Hopkins running a system is not a good model for the entire community to work. And that's true of any single institution, right? And we heard that feedback somewhat directly from the funders as well. So we started working with the Eclipse Foundation because they basically have a very good track record of taking open source projects, moving them into a community, building that robust kind of maintained, sustained, dare I say, industrial professional model of open source software development. So we've been very pleased to work with Eclipse and I'll hand it over to John Kellerman who will do a demo and talk a little bit more about the Eclipse Foundation. Thanks, Said, and good morning. Yeah, so let's get into a demo. We've been working now together for probably a little over a year. And as part of this effort to bring this out of Johns Hopkins and sever some of those dependencies to make it more generally applicable. What I'm gonna show you here is a demo of an operational system, a recording, excuse me, of a demo, of an operational system running at the Eclipse Foundation, it's demo.eclipse-pass.org. You'll get that URL at the end of the presentation. And it's the system that's been moved outside of Johns Hopkins. Some of those dependencies have been severed and I'll admit up front some of this is mocked up. Because this is a system that's in flight. We wanted to get something running for this conference here so that you all could see that this is real. So if you go there, there's a link. You'll see, see the demo. You click on that link, you come here. There's a recording here that we posted to YouTube. So you can view the demo. That little here, that link down there, is another page with instructions for running the demo. If you'd actually like to do it yourself, get on the system. You can do that. Most importantly, in there are credentials for signing onto the system. Part of the work that we did was eliminate the Johns Hopkins authentication and replace it. This is just basic auth and you could see highly secure three character password. It's all letters. So this is the main page and we're gonna start a new submission. You can view your submissions. You can view your grants. You need your digital identifier here if you have one. And with that, we can then load the information. You can see there in the upper right, we've loaded the information about this article. And we also have the ability to, let me pause here, when you're doing an article, in this case, we've pulled the information in. We've got the information about the article. We're gonna proceed and submit it. You can also create an article for somebody else. So you can create an article, you can start the work and maybe a staff, a co-PI through the work and then hand it over to you for submission. In this next page, these are all the grants that are associated with you where you're the PI or the co-PI. So we're gonna pick a grant that goes along with this submission. And with this submission and this grant come open access policies. And you can see here there are two, the NIH policy and Johns Hopkins has a policy. They published two, J Scholarship. And with those policies come the actual repository. So here you can see PubMed Central and J Scholarship. This particular case, it's optional. So we'll go ahead and leave it checked. Here is a review of the details, the people involved for this submission. If we have an ORCID ID that you can see those. Oh, let me pause here. PASS also supports the ability to embargo a research. If you need to publish something to meet a grant requirement, but you're not ready to have it public, you can embargo it for a, until a certain date. So we're not gonna embargo this. And we'll go to the final, oh, sorry, files. This is full disclosure, mocked up. But these would be the files associated with the submission. You can pick a file, the manuscript that goes along with this submission and upload it. And then proceed to the final page, which is a review of all the details of the submission file that you added. And then you'll submit it. In this case, J Scholarship has a license grant requirement. So we understand that, we'll post that for the submitter to click accept. If it had been a different repository with a different license grant requirement, we would have put that there confirmation. And it's submitted. And then you'll see, you get a link here for the submission. And on that very first page, you saw a start of submissions, submissions. If you clicked on that submissions, you'd see all of your submissions. You would see this. And then you can follow the status for each of the repositories. This gets updated on a regular basis. You could go back and you see it's moved from submitted to whatever's next. And I think that is it. Get out of here and get back to the presentation from current slide. Oh, actually, I have, I got demo. That's right, one more. Oh, I got eclipse, that's right. So I am with the Eclipse Foundation. And our mission is to build collaborations around open source. Our background is, for any of you software engineers out there, the Eclipse IDE and the Java development tools that came along with that. We've since branched out much more broadly. We've got a worldwide footprint. The majority of our staff is between the US, Canada and Europe. We've got membership that's worldwide. As I mentioned, the DNA is facilitating collaboration. Originally, it was a bunch of software vendors building an IDE and a tool integration framework. And I was fortunate enough to be part of a team that created Eclipse and incorporated the original foundation. And that was 2001 and 2004. And in the 20 ensuing years, the breadth of the collaborations we have going on there is just, it just continues to amaze me. It may be a standard operating system for embedded devices, technology around internet of things. We've got a software-divine vehicle collaboration. We've got some standards worth with Java going on there. And it is about facilitating collaboration. What the foundation provides is a layer of governance and structural processes that enforce and enable vendor neutrality and organizational neutrality in a way that helps, it would be probably more industry than research and academia, but not run afoul of antitrust legislation, which when you get competitors collaborating is a real risk. So there's governance processes that get layered on top of open source to assure the quality, well, to the best that we can, assure the quality of the software, but also the provenance of the software. Where is it coming from? What do we know about it? And under what licenses are we acquiring that software? Because at the end of the day, we have not-for-profit members, we have academic members, we also have commercial members, and they need to put a commercial license on the software that they're collaborating on. We have to make sure that we have the ability to put a commercial license on the software that we're producing. Okay, Bill. Thank you, John, and Sayid. So as John was noting, there was really an intentional choice here to bring Eclipse into the conversation to say let's take this project for something that is primarily being run at Johns Hopkins, which it is currently at Johns Hopkins in production at the moment and is being used there. But we want to expand the pool of interested folks. We want to be able to speak about PASS in a way that it's a collaborative community of multiple institutions working together to solve these kinds of problems together as opposed to being a single institution resource. So looking at the past year, we spent a good amount of time doing that initial work to transition to the Eclipse, making sure that we were following all the guidelines and the government's processes, and there was software development pieces that fell into that as well. Certainly, we started to look at if we want this to be a larger community-focused effort, how do we ensure that as people come in and become engaged and are doing this work with us, how do we make this as easy as possible, as seamless as possible, and ensure that as software developers take a look at the code that they're able to see something that makes sense to them, that they have the appropriate documentation, that they have wrappers around this that make it understandable and usable, and they can deploy it easily and get moving quickly. And that was really a lot of the focus of the work over the past year on the past project. So we looked at the release process, how do we get that to happen quickly, how do we ensure that we can do that as a community, not just as an individual institution. We looked at our coding standards, we looked at what's the documentation requirements, how would we put that in a place that other people can contribute to it, not just the software developers, how do we ensure that all the dependencies that we have in the background align, not just dependencies, but also software development and coding practices pass is primarily a Java based application, but there were some other languages involved as well, so we consolidated that to ensure that we have an easy starting point, at least for Java developers who are trying to jump in and understand all the pieces of the system, and looking at how do we test this system, how do we manage deployments. So there was a lot of this work to ensure that we're actually in a place to be able to step into a community development process, and I feel like we've made a lot of progress there. Along the way, we recognized that some of the components of pass were a little bit long in the tooth. When pass started, we selected a Fedora 4 repository, which has served well, and we had an opportunity to talk amongst the group and say, is this really the best fit for the pass project moving forward? Recognizing that if we continue with Fedora, we would need to transition and migrate to Fedora 6. You were in the last session, there's a lot of work that's required to do that kind of migration, and that is non-trivial. So we considered really is pass the best fit, and we decided in the end that actually pass is not intended to be a repository solution, pass is intended to be a transfer point to ensure that researchers are able to get their manuscripts, their research data all submitted into appropriate repositories. So we simplified the entire architecture to allow the software to be easier to manage and maintain and move forward. So we're actually now using the Oxford Common File layout that has been mentioned a couple of times here underneath a new API layer. Basically, everything that you see in orange here is new for this year with pass. That's why, as John mentioned, some of the pieces of the demo are mocked out at this point because what we have in production at Hopkins is we're still moving in the direction of replacing it with this upgraded system. So there's been a lot of flux on the center, but I think we've come down to a really solid set of APIs and a new set of data management practices within pass. We've also consolidated, kind of on both ends of that orange block, are how does content come into pass? How does content flow out in terms of submissions? So capturing the data loading journals, grants, publications, all the information that you saw in the demo that John presented was as pass captures that information and we're able to present it to researchers so they don't have to type in all the things that they've already typed into some other system. If there's an existing DOI for their submission somewhere else, let's pull that in, make sure that they don't have to redo all of that work and also ensures that it's not being done incorrectly or there aren't misspellings along the way. So it simplifies the process and ensures that we're capturing things in a consistent way. And on the other side, the deposit services, as Said mentioned, we want to really be able to expand the list of capabilities for what pass can submit to. Right now, J Scholarship at Hopkins is a D-Space repository so there's an expectation for all Hopkins researchers to submit there. Also PubMed Central, those are the primary two that we focused on up to this point as well as exploration with NSF. We want to expand this list, that's why there's an extra box there that indicates there's more conversation to be had and we want to see how far we can take this to pull the content in and then move it out in different places. So looking forward, there's really two components of this. One is from a technology standpoint, there's a lot of work to continue and complete that we've already got underway that I was talking about that we've done over the past year. We want to be including things like observability monitoring systems, we want to ensure that the release, packaging, deployment flow, the automation there is seamless and it works really well and it's something that happens quickly. With the sandbox system, the demo system that John talked about, we're in a one-click deployment model already but we want that to be even faster and work as quickly as possible to ensure that we can do this work in an efficient way working with a collaborative group. And then the second part of that is building that collaboration. So an opportunity to really start engaging with a greater amount of the community that also has these issues at your academic institutions that researchers could use this kind of system to do the submissions that they're already doing but perhaps do it in a simpler way. So along that line, if you'd like to talk to us about past, if you have an interest, you think this might be valuable, you just want to learn more, we're going to have a session in the Senate room today right after CNI at 3.30. Please come join us, and that's an opportunity to ask questions. I know we'll have a little bit of time for that here but there's an expanded conversation to happen and we really want to invite everyone to join us there. With that, I'll open it up with, I think we just have a few minutes for questions. And I'll note also the demo that John showed is at the link at the bottom of the page there. Hello, thanks. Brett Bobly, National Endowment for the Humanities. A quick question. So a faculty member goes to pass, upload their paper, pass is supposed to send a copy to PubMed. But what if the faculty member published in a journal that wants to send it directly to PubMed? How does pass deal with that? Sure, so there's an option within pass to select I've already sent this here or I'm going to send this here later. So we're trying to build in the capabilities. If it's already been submitted and there's a DOI, you can pull that in and have that just say to submit to your DSPACE repository, institutional repository, whatever that is. So there are some checkboxes, some options along the way where you can say, actually I don't need you to do this part of the submission, it's really only important to do this other piece, so. Bill, this one, oh, I don't know if this is working. So also their NIH has a deduping service. So if by some chance somebody doesn't recognize whatever it gets deduped and the duplicate copy gets. Hi, I'm Ashley Jester, Boston University. I think I have a related question. So this is really fascinating technology but my question was centered on when that faculty member or whomever is doing this submission is uploading the file. What kind of guidance is provided to make sure that they put the right file there? And I speak of like sometimes faculty want to put their fully accepted manuscript with the publisher's markup and it's like, ah, you can't use that version, you have to use a different version depending on what they are. I'm just wondering what kind of guidance is in the system to make sure people are putting the right file when they do that submission. Yeah, I think that's an ongoing question, certainly. We can provide documentation around it and we can provide guidance. We certainly have had a faculty come to us and ask, can I get help using the system? And so there's opportunities there. I think that's one of the things, especially with a broader group of conversation, how is that happening now? And how do we ensure that we provide guidance where needed but we don't overburden the process? And since we all read the terms and conditions of everything we click, as you remember in that screen, you can read the Hopkins Institutional Policy which states very clearly what version you're supposed to work with and the NIH policy which also states very clearly what version. But absolutely, this is an education and a sort of raising awareness moment and I think that's where the library can play a very important role in the data management services being not just sort of compliance but what these versions mean and what the implications are and so on. All right, I think we are out of time. Okay, cool. Okay. Thanks everyone. Thank you.