 Okay, so we're going to get started. First of all, thanks to everyone for joining us today. And I'll just start by acknowledging and celebrating the first Australians on whose lands we meet and pay my respects to the elders past and present. I live and work on Ghana country here in South Australia. Next up, I'd like to introduce Rosie Hicks, our CEO who's here to participate in the Q&A and my colleague, Grace Williams, who's here to assist today. I'd also like to introduce Jill Ben, Kylie Brass, Anna Johnston, and Ron Decker from the HASS RDC advisory panel. Two of our other advisory panel members, Chris Haverly and Peter Rattles and their apologies. So the primary purpose of today's session is to test whether the proposed Trove project meets the needs of the research community. But it's also an opportunity to identify any capability gaps that we can't fund in this current round of development but may help to inform any future investment. So we're really excited about this development and I'm sure that all of you are, but we do want to ensure that we proceed in a transparent and collaborative manner. And therefore, here we are today at the round table. So during today's session, I'll give a little bit of background about the investment into the HASS research data commons and the Indigenous Research Capability Program. And I apologize, some of you may have heard all of that before, but there may be some new faces in the room. We'll then give you an opportunity to ask questions of the Trove team and their collaborators from ANU. As we discuss the plan, I'd like you to add any questions that you might have to the shared document and Rhys will be adding the link to that document in the chat if he hasn't already done so. I know he's just added the evaluation criteria document. If somebody's asked your question in the document already, you can add a plus one to the third column and that will help us prioritize questions for answering. If we don't get to answering your question today, we will be answering all of those questions and make sure that it remains accessible after today's event. So a little bit of background about the HASS RDC and Indigenous Research Capability Program. The need for investment in both the Humanities Arch and Social Sciences, as well as the Indigenous Research Area was detailed in the 2016 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap. DESI or the Department of Education, Skills and Employment subsequently commissioned three studies which identified a number of investment-ready programs that would benefit from national research infrastructure funding. And while not all of those recommendations from the studies have been funded at this time, the activities earmarked to participate in this initial round of development displayed an advanced state of readiness to participate in and benefit from the HASS research data commons. So funding for those four activities has been guided by the recommended investment ratios in the DESI studies and project plans for the language data commons of Australia, integrated research infrastructure for social sciences and improving research capabilities were approved for investment by the ARDC Board at its meeting in October. We'll be hearing from the leads of the Trove activities today, as you know. So as you know, both the ARDC and the HASS RDC and Indigenous Research Capability Program are supported as part of the National Research Infrastructure Strategy, and Chris. And these investments are in response to the National Research Infrastructure Roadmapping processes, or you can see this quite clearly in the project objectives that reflect the research infrastructure investment plan and the increased principles. Okay, so we've put the evaluation criteria document into the chat. So there are more criteria there than you see here. But the evaluation criteria have been strongly tied to the increased principles, you know, and to name a few that Australians in investment in research infrastructure should be planned and developed with the aim of maximising the contributions of the research, should be developed on a collaborative, national and non-exclusive basis, should the eligibility rules encourage collaboration and co-investment. And there should be as few barriers as possible to accessing major infrastructure for those undertaking research. Due regard must also be given to the whole of life costs of major infrastructure. Okay, so let's have a quick look at the timeline for the next steps. So as you are probably aware of the draft project plan, along with the evaluation criteria, the increased principles and a feedback submission facility are now available on the ARBC website. November the 17th will be the last day that you will be able to submit feedback. So please make sure that you add that date to your diary and do take the time to provide written feedback. The leads, the advisory panel and I will be working to ensure that any feedback received is incorporated into the plans where reasonable. We will also be compiling a register of needs and capabilities that we can't cover in this round. On the 7th of December, I will be presenting the recommendations for the project plans to the ARDC board. But until the plan is approved by the board, it is not endorsed by the ARDC. Right, moving right along. So I'd now like to introduce the Trove activity lead and partners who will discuss their project plan. So please join me in welcoming Alison Dellert, the Assistant Director General Collaboration Branch, National Library of Australia, Margarita Marino, Director Trove Data and Platforms, National Library of Australia, Professor Rosalind Smith, Chair of English, Director of the Centre for Early Modern Studies, Australian National University and ARC Future Fellow and Professor Catherine Bode, Professor of Literary and Textual Studies, Australian National University. Thanks and over to Alison and her colleagues. Thanks, I'll start. Can anyone hear me? Yep, nods, good, thank you. I am coming to you today from the lands of the Nunnall and the Nambri peoples and I would like to start by paying my respects to their elders past, present and extending that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who may be listening today, either in person or subsequently to the record. I'm gonna start today and we won't take too much time. We've only obviously got a limited amount of time and the point is for us to hear the feedback. And then I will be handing over to the professors, Smith and Bode. I had such good crib notes on making sure I got all the titles straight and I am so deeply grateful that I didn't have to do that for the record, so that's good. And then we'll be opening up for a broader conversation. As I was here, I think it was a little over a month ago talking to you about the fact that we had heard some early feedback on the Trove plan and we would be bringing back a new proposal and obviously this is the new proposal. The key things that I think I want to draw attention to at this point at the centre of it is that we have gone down a partnership road with an initial institution that being ANU. The National Library and ANU have a strong history of working together and some of the most long-serving and established collaborative projects we've had with Trove have been through ANU, which is part of the reason. We also have some strong links at a senior level within the organisation. And I would say that being co-located made it an easier initial process. So we were very quickly able to establish what our aims and objectives might be and how this might help us to balance some of the areas that the National Library would find it harder to deliver on. I need to make it clear that that's not necessarily the end of the partnership. So we'll be talking more about this as we move forward, but it is a starting point for us to look at how we can balance the various expertise that we need in the sector. The second thing I think we've done is what I would describe as slowing the process down. So we've acknowledged that in an attempt to make sure that we were delivering the most amount of development possible, we had skimped on the consultation process and we had also probably prejudged some of the work that needed to be done without adequate input. So as my colleagues run through a little bit now, that's part of the process is how do we correct that? How do we make sure that the process is ongoing in a transparent way, but also that we're making sure we're building the best outcome possible within the timeframe for the broadest range of researchers that we can. Having said that, we also will be maintaining the original focus we haven't shifted from wanting to ensure that what we're building is a trove researcher platform that can reach humanities and social sciences researchers who need access to that service to answer questions they can't answer through any other mechanism. We believe that's the intent and the thought to it. We've also gone through all of the feedback. Margarita won't be speaking in person. I do need to credit how much of this work this work is hers. She will be coming on as the central contact point for the National Library moving forward. And she may also be answering some of the detailed questions about the feedback processes we got through. Finally, all I'm really going to say is that we are genuinely quite excited about this at the library now. I think it feels to us like the revision has made the whole project a little bit more understandable and I think we're gonna end up with something really good. Over a long period of time it's been a great learning experience from the library so far. I can only imagine how much further we've got to go in that space. And we do want to open and welcome any feedback that we can get. With that, I'm going to throw to Professor Roswell Smith. Thanks, Alison. So for anyone who doesn't know me, yes, I'm Ros Smith. I'm just going to begin by speaking just very briefly to ANU's role in this project plan, in this revised project plan. So really in response to the feedback to the first paper that we've looked at really, really carefully, ANU has joined with the NLA to coordinate the consultation with the HASS researcher community and to contribute towards achieving some of the development goals once they've been determined. I just really like to stress that we are taking this consultation process very seriously and that it will be genuine. It's not window dressing, but we really see it as integral to the project's success. As you'll see from the proposal, we're thinking that the consultation will take place in a three-step process. So we first aim to first consult as widely as possible from the HASS research community, then to form an advisory panel who'll collate feedback and determine our approaches and then we'll test their recommendations back into the HASS researcher community. So we're thinking that this process should capture quite a lot of participants and sort of be a check that what we're proposing will be useful, accessible and achievable. There'll also be opportunities to sit on the proposal's governance committees and they'll be active right from the project start. So we wanna make it really clear that although ANU is the institutional lead here, we really do welcome other partners into the project from across the sector and we see our role as coordinating that activity and this isn't a single institutional response by any means, but one that hopes to engage as many other partners as possible. We're really looking forward to this process and the relationships that we'll be able to build as the project develops. Kath and I already know or have collaborated with or have relationships with lots of people in this Zoom room and we really look forward to building on these for the next two years. So I'm just gonna throw to Kath now. Never got things to add, Kath. Yeah, thanks, Rose. So, yeah, I'm Kath Bode. For those of you who don't know me, it might be relevant to what I'm about to say that my main area of research is in sort of computational big data analyzing and visualizing especially trove records. So that's a bit of context. What I wanted to talk a little bit about and just briefly is some of the initial types of consultation we've done within ANU that help to sort of feed into some of the changes made to the current proposal. So when we read the proposal, we went to a group of researchers at ANU who used trove for their research and this was in history, literary studies, museum studies, digital art and design linguistics from all around in fact. And we asked them what they thought about the idea of building tools for visualizing the collections. And there was interest in that for some people but a lot of the sense we got was that there were people who weren't gonna be able to learn much from visualizing because they might be working with smaller collections. Like we don't need to visualize the places of publication of our 10 documents we're looking at because we can just sort of work out what the places are. So what came through as of equal if not greater importance were three things. And of course, these three things as well as the relative emphasis put on analyzing and visualizing they're all up for play. Like how much emphasis do we put on all of them? But the three things that came through were first finding data, finding collection items in particular searching across different zones of trove in particular searching across different types of records. So text records and image records for instance. Another was managing and relating the data. So this was about connecting records together creating your own collections, saving, curating them adding information, annotating them. And there was also the possibility that this could be shared with others. So shared to your collaborators for them to work on or shared publicly so it can form part of the evidence for a published work. A final one, and this might have been because of the projects that were part of this consultation was returning data to Trove. So a lot of our new projects have been involved in what we've called the 360 degree data model which is about enriching records from Troven and pushing them back into the Trove collection. So that was an interest as well to what extent would be possible to take the knowledge that researchers have and contribute to Trove's collection. So those were the three sort of ideas that we began with and we're really interested to continue that consultation project starting from now and hearing whatever you have to say about it. Great, thanks. So does anybody have any questions for Alison, Kath, Rose or even Margarita? Okay, well let's go to the spread the shared documents. So I might start with Anna, Anna Johnston's question. Anna, do you want to bring that up? Sure, yeah, sorry, it's a very specific question so I didn't want to lead with it but I'm interested in the idea of the project spaces and I think they're really important. We used to have list functions and they did kind of get carried over into the new version of Trove although I actually can't do as much with them as I used to be able to do. So I just wanted to hear about how this new plan was going to develop that list function because it seemed that some of that capacity had been there previously around annotation and collection and curation and specifically whether or not we were going to be able to get those operating with APIs to do something beyond just a kind of a catalogue list. We have, I'm going to surface that I might start if Margarita corrects me, she's right and I'm wrong so let's just do the relevant expertise in the room on this. The big question is that that's because what we're doing in that first part like Kath ran through some of what the assumptions would be that we're starting with but we'll be testing that as we move forward. So if what we get back is a sequence of requests that could be solved through enhancing list functionality it's not off the table. That would be my answer. Whether it's the only way to solve the problem or not, I'm not sure at this point. From a Trove perspective, I can say that none of the functionality that we removed from lists was removed because we simply couldn't carry it forward. It's because it wasn't widely used which makes sense because it's a specialist community that was using it. So I wouldn't say that it's technically off the table but what we'd want to do is look at what we could do moving forward. Does that answer the question? But it's neither in nor out. Part of the point is we're trying to go back a little bit take that step back and have a longer process to assess what it is that people would have the most bang for the buck in the space. Okay. All right now the questions are coming thick and fast now. Okay. I'll go to Ian McCrabb's question. Can you unpack what is anticipated in deliverable five annotating and saving research projects? I think this is quite similar to Anna's question. Do you anticipate researchers being able to annotate individual records with research specific ontologies? I'm going to make a stab and say does Kath want to have a go at that one? Yeah. So I mean again similar to the answer to the other question is the idea that if this is something that comes through the consultation is really, really important then more emphasis will be placed on it. But yeah, we are anticipating that there will be the capacity to annotate individual records. That researchers can describe those records and they can relate them to other records. In terms of creating ontologies, I guess that's a more specific question about how we categorize those underlying records. That would have to be something that we looked into about whether it was something that was felt relevant. I mean certainly I'm into data ontologies, but how widespread is that interest? Thank you. All right, let's start at the top now. So how will other universities be involved in a substantive way if only in kind time if ANU is counted as per the project plan? Shall I have a go at that one? I think, I mean our in kind contributions are kind of our contributions in time to the project, but they're not as you'll see they're not quantified in the document. And I mean we could easily add in kind contributions from other researchers from across the sector as one of the modifications to the document. And I would agree that that would be a good response. So can I fill up on that question? I know it sounds a bit pointed, but I'm not trying to be pointed. With ARDC projects, with all the other ones, when research is involved, it counts as co-investment. And it sounds like in this plan, the whole research sector is just gonna do it for free. So I think if you want something substantive rather than just people answering surveys or that kind of thing, that would be something to think about. So that's what I was trying to get at because the other three projects actually count the time of researchers in a substantive way. It's different, I understand it's different, but yeah, that will be my feedback. Yep, great, heard. Thanks, Michael. Okay, I have to go there. How does this work fit with or build on the existing Glamwork bench? Ask SNCC, T-Burger, and that has been plus one 11 times. So I think we have to answer that question. I will come in. We haven't predetermined that, right? I wanna be clear, this isn't a project about the Glamwork bench. That isn't what we've proposed. There's no hostility between Trove and the Glamwork bench, but what we're looking at is a wider range of functionality that is currently provided within that and what we are looking at is a wider community that is currently using Trove work bench. But when I say that, it makes it sound as if we started from the Glamwork bench and we haven't done that. What we've done is looked at what requests we're getting coming into both Trove and then the work that Kath has talked about in terms of the development on the way forward. So I will go back to, our focus here is to work out what functionality we can provide to researchers to answer research questions and how we can do that in the most accessible way to the broadest range of the community. So that at the moment would be the answer to that question. Deb's asked a slightly broader version of it that I might tackle while I'm here too, which is that we will be looking as we move forward in how we can leverage the work from all of the tools that exist in the space, which is certainly more than one. That's part of the process as to how we can bring it forward and do it. But we think if what this was about was if there was no broader need then we wouldn't be getting the questions and the processes in. So we're not looking to replace existing functionality. We are looking to build on existing functionality but we're very clear on who our audience is and what sorts of functions we wanna provide. So it's not, we may end up having no level of crossover with existing tools. We may end up doing some serving a different community with existing tools. We don't know that at this stage, but that's where we sit. Thanks. I just would like to ask Nick if you feel that your question has been answered. Yeah, Deb. That was a very diplomatic answer, which I'm not necessarily convinced by, but thank you for at least attempting to answer it. I just think that some of the functionality that's been discussed has been tackled by Glam Workbench and by Honey and by many other initiatives in this space. And these are all now platforms and initiatives that are starved of funds and often blocked from seeking them for reasons that are inexplicable to those of us that work on them. So what we wanna see is either that we're brought into the fold and we're actually, you know, the value of the work that's been done over a 10 year period on all of these initiatives is somehow taken into consideration and taken advantage of or exploited. Or what I think the sector really needs, which is a model closer to the American model, where all these amazing initiatives that are coming from the bottom up are actually enabled and supported and made interoperable with some of the kind of more consolidated institutional initiatives like the one proposed in this document. Thanks Deb. I'll venture a, I wouldn't say less diplomatic, but a more direct answer to Deb on that front. I think I understand the frustration in the sector about the lack of financial resources to exactly what Deb's just outlined. That's not gonna be solved by an institutional partner. Like, I think we both understand that. We're open to involvement of anyone who wants to come in at this point and talk about how to do the situation. But I don't think this project is going to solve all of the issues that need to be solved around the sustainability of long-term. And I understand that there's many people who would rather that the funding had gone to a project that would solve that. This isn't it. Okay. All right. I'm gonna skip down to Jill's question. Is it envisaged that the functionality that might be developed be only available to researchers? And if so, what is the definition of researchers? It strikes me that some of the functionality that might be developed at least based on the initial consultation with ANU would be of interest to all Trove users. The answer to that one is short. No, it is not envisaged that it would be restricted to researchers. We would only do that if we end up with a requirement from some element of the funding on the sector that we just signed. Thanks, Alison. I imagine though that if there are curated data sets that researchers are working on, they may wish to have a layer of authentication to be able to access those. Kath, would you like to talk to that? Yeah. Well, I mean, as part of the exploratory process in I think work plan two or three, I don't know, Margarita, maybe be able to tell me. Two, there is a stage of looking into what type of levels or what type of process of authentication will be included in this, including drawing on existing institutional systems or the Trove existing authentication platform. So that would be something to explore. Okay. And that probably leads us to Ron's question, first question at least. Why do you provide the option that results cannot be shared and how does that relate to fair principles? And that's in section nine as the proposal. Margarita, do you want to take it on? Sorry. I don't think we're, well, if we've been that clear and say that results cannot be shared, it's not our intent. The aim is to try and build something that allows researchers to collaborate with colleagues and at some point make it publicly available if that is their choice. Ultimately, it would be, our expectation is that the functionality would be at the individual researchers or the researcher community to decide whether that material is publicly available or not. I can't see that we would dictate to them that it would if they're compiled a data set that they're working on and wish to make it public. That's fine. Not, no, it wouldn't. Ron, are you happy with that? Sorry, I was muted. Thank you. Okay, for now. No, no more questions. Okay. Another one from Ron. The project space is built in the Trove environment. Can researchers bring and add their own data? In general, what is the added value of having the project space within Trove? Otherwise, would a project space facility outside Trove be more general, allowing the to use project space for any data, so confidential data from the other ARDC and HASS projects? So I guess that's kind of the cloud space versus the dedicated Trove space. Alison, would you like me to comment? At this stage, we haven't made a determination about how it's going to be implemented. The first phase of consultation will highlight the areas that we need to implement. Once we've done that, we will see what technology we want to and how we want to implement the technology. We're not making an assumption that we have all the answers about how we develop the services in Trove at this point. What I would say, though, is that developed within Trove, it means that it is within a system that is maintained and developed, cared for, et cetera, et cetera. And therefore, it makes it easier if it's within Trove for the system to be maintained and accessible to not just the HASS community or the research community, but also to the citizen scientists for want of a description. So if we're looking to make it available for a broader audience, it really needs to be in a broad, accessible environment. Whether it's cloud-based or whether it's within Trove itself, what we would like is for it to be accessible through our Trove researcher platform. Thank you. Len Smith asks, is there a document available outlining Trove's strategic plan as context for the ARDC proposal? It is an excellent question. And it is a little to my shame that I will say no. We are working on one and we anticipate that the library will be releasing one early next year, but we currently have no Trove strategic plan. Thanks, Alison. I'm just going to bounce back up because I've missed a question from Catherine Dan relating to Deliverable 5. She's interested to hear if this includes feedback on metadata to the Trove content contributors. Do you want me to answer that one? Yes, please. Yeah, so if I'm understanding correctly that the part that you're talking about, you're talking about whether it's going to go from Trove back to the different stakeholders that Trove draws its records from. And I guess I would say that's probably a Trove question, but I would imagine that the harvesting works not that way. But yeah, so I think that's more of a Margarita question. So I'll have a stab at it and see if Margarita corrects me. But we don't have an automated way of feeding metadata back. We do on occasion manage it. But we have some mechanisms to do it, but it's complicated. There is great desire from partners to do that. So it's that's there's no limitation other than our technical capacity. If we're also asking for feedback as in we could contact partners and say this metadata is not meeting the needs of this community for those reasons, we can absolutely include that. But I just add here too that this is exactly the kind of question that we would like to sort of solicit from the consultation process and think about as part of our process. Katharine, are you happy with that? Yeah, thank you that that does answer the question. And yes, I thought it would be technically difficult, but it seems to me that this is a potentially untapped area that we should at least think about. Thank you. All right, moving one along. Jill Ben asks if it was found that there was existing technology that does meet researcher needs, for example, from the Glenwork bench. Is there an opportunity to incorporate this within the Trove platform and ensure it is sustainable and able to be adopted for extensive use? I'll answer that in the answer. Yes, absolutely. There is it has to be manageable within, you know, a cost framework and secondly, there's a set of agreements between the owner and the creators of those data sets and and Trove itself that would have to be resolved. I think some of but that that would be a fantastic outcome and it is absolutely not out of Scott. Thank you. OK, I'm going to move down the page now to the heading of the research community needs being met. And Sandra Silcott asks, is the NLA committed to maintaining, sustaining and modernizing the Trove API as a sound based on which services can be built, for example, easy to use web interfaces for both the general public and researchers which drive the API. I'll handle that one again. The the library is committed and to maintaining and ensuring the suitability of the API for various audiences. I've said this before and it remains the library's position that extra work and et cetera for particular sectors, including the research sector requires extra funding. So the API as is is part of our set that we maintain. But we know that we could do a great deal more with APIs. We know that this community could use a new API as well as variations on what we've currently done. I don't want to downgrade that and we have no immediate plans to do that. It's a funding issue for us in terms of the scale of the work that would need to occur. But the library is not moving away from APIs as a fundamental aspect of how we engage. Almost all the API users at the moment are, in fact, from the research sector. We have very few outside. Sandra, did you have anything you wanted to add to that? Yeah, I guess the point of that question is to explore to what extent the library understand that the API could be a basis on which their tools and capabilities for the general public can be delivered. That by having a really strong API that not only, I'm not saying the API should be seen as just something for the advanced users. I'm saying this is a very basic separation of concerns matter. By the API exposing the underlying data, one can then separate out the problem of building nice, easy to use, well-branded interfaces to that, that meet a whole range of different needs. So I guess the point of that is that, it's a separation of, it's not an either or in my mind. It's a separation of concerns matter in terms of how you can develop services. And it does tie back to Deb Verhoeven's point earlier too about a stable API becomes a basis on which additional tools and functionality that's already been developed could probably be very easily adapted. And then you can put nice, easy to use interfaces on that where people don't have to have expert knowledge to use it. So I guess you can take that as a comment as much as a question. Thanks. Sandra. Okay, Connell asks, does this mean that API development is, hang on, just missed that. Does this mean that API development is specifically outside the scope of the project? Yes. When I say that, I'm not, there's a much bigger conversation going on at this point. I'll point out that API is pretty fundamental to Trove's underlying architecture. So it isn't, I'm not saying we're not touching any API because we can't do that without everything we do in Trove to some extent interacts and deals with various APIs. But we are not, this is not an outcome based on changes to the API in the scope that we have put forward. That has not changed from the last program project. So it's not the purpose of the project. Okay. Connell, did you want to say anything? Okay. Oh dear. Ros Smith is having a power outage with a big storm in Newcastle in case you didn't see that in the chat. I'll just come back on. I'll just disappear for a minute, but I'm back. Okay. Nothing like an electrical storm in the middle of a zoom. Okay. I'm going to move down now to Kylie. Kylie Brass says, can, I think I've missed something, but I'll go back. Can we be sure to capture the needs and gaps regarding platform reuse and sustainability? That is what the project is not doing. It's really simply a question. I mean, obviously we're going to be doing some of that. That's part of what you're seeking to do anyway through the other projects by kind of having that capability register. But I guess what you're going to find, I must, I'd imagine Alison and Co in going out with consultation is a whole shopping list of things that need to happen. And I guess how do we manage the weight of that expectation? Make sure, yeah, what's able to be done within the sort of parameters of the project and deliver something. I mean, I really appreciate where you've gotten to with this piece of work. And I think it's brilliant that he's going to be underway. I guess it's not the answer to everything that's needed. And so how do we make sure that we've got some of that? I mean, so that you may adapt as you go. I mean, if you said the API stuff out of scope at the moment, so be it. But yeah, I guess some of those other issues that are coming up for the sector with large, but also I guess within the projects. So I would say Eldak has probably got, there's a strategic conversation between that part of the project and Trove as well. So how that might be managed in this process and so that we're capturing that. Should I try? Yeah. So yeah, I mean, I think that there is a commitment in this proposal for sustainability of the infrastructure that is built as actually completely foundational to all of the choices that have been made and that have been discussed. And sustainability itself leads to choices that aren't necessarily good for everyone, to make things sustainable. In terms of the relationships between the different projects, between the different AIBC HASS I projects, we think firstly that it's built into the project plan that there will be ongoing meetings with all of those projects. We also think that it makes ANU a relevant partner with Trove in this respect in that ANU is involved in all of the four projects and that we already meet weekly, all four of those groups to discuss relationships between the projects. So yeah, an important issue if I'm answering what you're asking, Kylie. You are, but it also goes to the point of what we've talked about before, Jenny, around the fact that social media and real-time data came up in some of the earlier conversations and it's sort of a bridge too far with I guess the Steve's project and Michael's project, but what phase two look like? What, so bearing in mind that as Deb mentioned, as Teeberg has mentioned, there are existing kind of platforms, datasets, activity, infrastructure. And so it's a matter of, yeah, just making sure that we're capturing I guess what some of those opportunities and might be for the later stages of work. So when I started by saying I was excited, one of the things that's exciting is the library hasn't engaged this deeply with the community. The partnership with ANU and it may lead to others is part of, will give us some oomph here that we haven't had. And actually, I think Kylie, a lot of it will be about that. It will give us, if we're not using this to better understand the needs of this sector and what we can do into the future, both for the sector and also for the institutions involved. And we've really wasted what is an incredible opportunity. So we'll work through how, but I think that's gonna be really important. It's also just, yeah, it's part of the excitement piece. Kylie, can I also add that as part of work package too, we're looking at doing a gap analysis of our technology, but also an environmental scan. As has been commented earlier, there are other tools out there and we really need to have a good understanding from people who are using these tools to bring forward ideas about what's there, what's the gap, how do we make it work? And my expectation is that as a result of that work package too, there will be, we will be documenting some of this sort of where the gaps are and what we can't do and be able to feed that also into the roadmap going forward. So I think that's gonna be a really critical component in part of the discussion with colleagues about where do we take it? I hear the frustration in terms of the API coming through and I understand it. It's, what do we mean by the API? Because I mean, from the infrastructure perspective, our databases are multiple and varied and it's a tricky business. So like we can just say, we just do one thing and it's gonna work perfectly because our structure behind the scenes is complex. Thank you. I'd like to go back to a question from Ron Decker. What happens after the project? Will project spaces continue? What will be the running costs and who will take care of them? The library, this was the fun bit. The library will commit to maintaining what is built through the project for the duration of the life of the code base, the trove. I'll make that point. And obviously that we anticipate that that will be quite a while at this stage. So that's the commit that if we have project spaces that people have data sets, et cetera in, there will need to be the conversation about how those are maintained. That's an ongoing issue for any institution that we have regulations and requirements that need to be met for the maintenance of any space which are largely driven these days by cybersecurity and patches and processes. So if we ended up with an initiative that no longer had active maintenance from an owner that was in the space, then we'd have to negotiate around it. And I will say that, yes, we're working to quite strict requirements on that front at the moment. It's a much bigger deal than it is today. But within that constraint, the library will maintain. We're not going to do enhancements or more work on that. We're not committing to it, but maintaining what is being built is a reasonable request and we can do that. Thanks, Alison. Okay, I'll turn to Len now. Len has said the original case for humanities infrastructure emphasised the need for collaborative national digitisation capability comparable to the WA facility. MLA is the obvious lead agency for this and hope this will be included in the new Encriss map. I'm glad you added that bit, Len, but I think that digitisation falls outside of the scope of Encriss and perhaps Rosie Hicks could say something to that. Please. Thanks, Jenny. Yes, the current Encriss guidelines would have digitisation of collections as out of scope. That scene is the creation of the data. So that's been out of scope more broadly since the 2016 roadmap. Certainly for the ARTC at the moment, the creation of the data, whether it's through digitisation or acquisition from a microscope or a telescope would fall outside our remit. What the new roadmap has, which we are very much eagerly anticipating any day now, I just don't know. I know that whilst the HASS RDC sits within the ARDC, it will remain out of scope, but I really feel so much optimism that the importance of this research and this community is now being recognised by the expert working group. I don't know how far it will go in the roadmap, but I have a sense of optimism that I would like to share with you this afternoon. Thank you, Rosie. Optimism is always best, I think. All right. Well, I think we've just about exhausted all of the questions that have appeared in the document. Sorry, Jenny, can I say one last thing? Certainly. I'm just raising the comments that are appearing after that original question on digitisation to then say preservation. Now, that's an entirely different thing in that once the digital collection has been created, the national conversation around repositories and archives is very much front of mind. Again, I don't know what the roadmap's going to be saying for that, but for example, the ARDC's own data retention programme, we're speaking of the WA facility that has been funded through the ARC for the digitalisation component, but the data retention programme where we seek to ensure that a minimum set of 13 metadata criteria are satisfied would then be absolutely in scope for other ARDC programmes. So I'm being really specific about differentiating between the generation of the data collection and the longer term analysis and retention of that data. Thanks, Rosie. Okay, so as I said, I think we've exhausted the questions in the document, but I'll just throw it open to the Zoom room, as it were, and see if there's any other comments or questions from anybody. I just wanted to say, maybe not everyone in the room is satisfied, but I'd like to congratulate Trove for doing you on the revised plan. I think it's really impressive. Thanks for the work you're doing, looking forward to seeing how it develops. Thanks, Michael. One plus one on that, Jenny. Great. Thanks, Rosie. Thanks, Michael. Like I said, we're feeling much more positively about the proposal. Great. It's inevitably not going to be all things to all people, and I will say, I think it's a good thing. One of the things that can be refreshing working here in this sector is that disagreement. We all actually have to agree on everything. It's okay to have disagreement and to work out how we move forward in that context. It would not be reasonable if we didn't, which I'm not using to trivialise the level of concern about what we're doing with this project, and some people would be doing different things with it. I get that, but we are open to working through what we can do into the future. I'll make a final, which is actually slightly off topic, but I can't help it with digitisation. The other thing is actually it isn't just WA that's funded quite wide-scale digitisation. It's also happened in New South Wales and in Queensland, but in those two states, it's happened largely without the involvement of the research sector. So it is worth looking at. State governments are quite sensitive to preserving national heritage for cultural reasons as opposed to that, and I think a little bit more intersection, none of which downgrades the need and the desire of the library to recognise it as a genuine infrastructure activity, which it currently doesn't, but there is actually quite a lot of activity going on in that space. And if you are keen to get collections digitised, I would encourage researchers to think beyond the research sector in having those conversations. Thanks, Alison. OK, so no further questions from anybody? All right. Well, we've got about three minutes left, so I will fill that by asking you please to go to the feedback facility and put any feedback that you have for Alison, Margarita, Roz and Cap into a document and send that through to us so that we can ensure that your voice is heard and that we can incorporate that feedback where possible, and if not, add it to that ongoing needs listing that a few of us are working on. So we'd love to have your feedback. Any other comments, questions? Rosie, would you like to farewell us and send us on our way for the rest of our day? Certainly. Thank you, everyone, for your contributions this afternoon. Thank you for the very rich discussions. Particularly, thank you to the MLA. I think there are some really significant milestones. We have been able to address through this very careful process that's exposed a project, identified concerns, and those include concerns from the ARDC around the longevity of the effort, the collaboration, the matching funding. And I am very grateful for the experiences I've had working with Alison and her team as we've really sought to get a win-win situation through this. Now, we're not over the finish line yet. And we've certainly got new information coming through this afternoon. But as a really positive collaborative experience that the ARDC has had working with the MLA team over the last month, I offer my sincere thanks. And I look forward to the next stage with all of you on the journey with us. So sending the feedback. Continue doing wonderful things. Have a great afternoon. Thanks, Rosie. Thanks everyone for joining us. See you soon.