 Hi, and welcome. My name is Jean-Gabriel Bunkier, and thank you for coming to my CNI session. I'm really excited to be talking today about the Digital Commons Network, which we've been working on for the better part of 2012. We launched version 1.0, the version you're going to be seeing today in November, so a little more than four months ago. Where do we begin? How do we start with what is the Digital Commons Network? Well, basically, we're bringing together the content from hundreds of repositories in a meaningful way to make the materials collected more valuable. I will not say that we were the first to recognize the value of a network of repositories. There's literature that speaks to the benefits of connecting repositories together that predates our work by at least a decade. We are, however, in an interesting position to try something rather unique. You see, B-Press hosts an IR software platform called Digital Commons, and we serve the IR needs of some 300 or so academic institutions. Those institutions have 650,000 works collectively. The fact that this is a single shared platform puts us in a unique position to create a network across these distributed repositories. But let's take a step back and talk about the problem we're looking to address. Libraries. Libraries are making significant investments to build valuable collections in institutional repositories. They are gathering previously published works, checking the rights on those works, and adding them to their repository. They are also publishing original scholarship of both faculty and students. Journals, working papers, monographs, conference proceedings, and other scholarly works. The basic problem is that these valuable collections are just islands. Pockets of research, if you will, not connected to the research taking place at other institutions in any meaningful way. This is not just a problem for the small institutional repositories or the small colleges, if you like. Joan Gisecchi, formerly the Dean of Libraries at the University of Lincoln, Nebraska, expressed a clear need for linking repositories in the conclusion of her 2011 paper titled, Institutional Repositories Keys to Success. What is particularly interesting is that she's associated with one of the most successful IRs in North America. By that I'm talking about digital commons at University of Nebraska-Lincoln. It is the second largest repository in North America behind Michigan's Deep Blue. It has more than 60,000 articles and gets more than 6 million downloads a year. So what's interesting here is that even the largest repositories from the large academic institutions see the need for a network. Many of you may remember this paper. It was written by Davis and Connolly. The title of it is Evaluating the Reasons for Non-Use of Cornell University's Installation of D-Space. I would like to point you to the language that faculty use to describe the IR. They see it as a single island, isolated, and unique. The point is that it's not just libraries that feel isolated. The island problem is a big issue for faculty as well. And faculty, they are needed to participate as contributors in these institutional repository initiatives. So, IRs need to be connected. They need bridges. In January, there was an interesting discussion about the network on the live license listserv. I was most struck by what Robert Pilliker from Columbia University had to contribute. I should note that Columbia does not use digital commons. In defending the value of a network of repositories, he said, cross discovery could enrich small collections and provide additional local incentives to OA for scholars. Shouldn't we seek to leverage the work and success of others? And at the same time, provide better access to the OA scholarship, to the broader community? When it comes to expressing the benefits of a network, I think he's hit the nail on the head. Incentives for faculty to participate. Leverage the work of other IRs and provide better access to scholarship. Pilliker's email serves as an excellent opening to talk about the goals of the digital commons network. What are our goals? You see them here. We want to help expose the hard work that IR managers do and the great scholarship that they gather. Remember that we're talking both about all of the rights-checking and uploading of previously published works, as well as the publishing of original scholarships such as journals, books, and conference proceedings. We also want to create a single resource that makes it easier for scholars to find research in their discipline. We want authors to have the opportunity to have their research found next to other research in their discipline. Notice how the word discipline is becoming central to the goals. Why do we care so much about discipline? Well, really, we could tie that back to our founders who are faculty members from UC Berkeley. And one in particular, Erin Edlin, continually reminds us about how faculty think. They care most about themselves and then they care about their disciplines and only then are they interested in their institution. So if we want the repository to matter more to scholars serving them, then scholarship in their field matters to them, the discipline matters to them. So we started thinking about creating the network in 2007 and we believe strongly that it should be centered around discipline or subject. So we first created a taxonomy, a discipline taxonomy, and that's what you see, a piece of it at least, you see here in front of you. So this taxonomy we created has three tiers to it, has more than a thousand disciplines, and if you count all the sub-disciplines and sub-sub-disciplines, the third tier, you get over a thousand disciplines. We started with something from the Academy of Science, as I might have said, and then added to it. The digital common subscriber community started to use the taxonomy in 2008 and they did so because they could start to build a discipline-based browse experience for visitors to their individual repositories. So each article loaded into an IR individually or by batch for that matter can be tagged with a subject. In this case you're seeing engineering as a top discipline, aerospace engineering as a second discipline, and then the third discipline aerospace with aerodynamics and fluid mechanics. So it's pretty simple to use. A submitter just clicks to tag a submission, an article submission, with a discipline, and most of the scholarship in the repositories are tagged with discipline now. I often get a good question when I talk about the network. Excuse me. Sorry about that. I often get a good question when I talk about the network. So disciplines are changing and they're always new disciplines, so who decides? Well, for the moment there's a committee of B-Press that considers and implements requests to add or remove disciplines to the network. We're looking for members of the community to take over ownership, and once that community has been formed we'll hand off ownership once they're up and running. All right. So in 2012, early 2012, with half a million repository articles collectively tagged by discipline, we finally decided that it was time to build a network for cross-discipline discovery. And the top disciplines, well essentially the top tier has 10 disciplines and you'll see them there on the right, architecture down through social and behavioral science. Now if you look at the colorful graphic on the left, what is that? Well, formally this kind of graphic is called a sunburst, but we refer to it as a discipline wheel. And it allows for graphical browsing. But before I jump in and browse it with you, let me explain a little what you're looking at. So there are 10 colors that make up the ring and each color represents a different top level discipline, or discipline. For example, law is the peach colored one, engineering is the green, and that little sliver there of brown, that would be architecture. We chose to give each of the disciplines independence from each other, so each could be or would be more relevant to its individual community. The inner ring, you'll see that there's three bands. The innermost ring is a top discipline. The middle ring represents the second tier of disciplines. And the third tier, or the last outer ring, is the third tier of discipline. So you'll see, for example, law only has two disciplines. That's just the way it is. Alright, so I'm ready to give you a quick tour. So we'll jump off the presentation and we'll go to the live site now. Alright, so this should look sort of familiar from the screenshot. Here we have the discipline wheel. So I talked about the color and I talked about the three rings. There's also another organizational principle to the discipline wheel. The disciplines are ordered clockwise by size, or more precisely by the number of articles within that discipline. So the law commons, the peach one, has the most articles today, and therefore it comes first. And the smallest one, the architectural commons, the brown one, has the fewest and comes last. You see, as I hover here, I can be invited to explore. I can also click down. So let me show you what happens when I navigate on the wheel. So I clicked on the peach color there. And you'll notice what happened was that I'm now in peach. I'm fully in peach. And those sub-disciplines are now more easily navigable. I can go around. Some of these really little ones over here are tricky to get to still. But it's certainly a lot easier than when I was looking at the wheel of all of the disciplines. So let me jump down now. I will go explore constitutional law. I will leave the graphical browse and enter what we call the commons or one of the individual commons. In this case, we're at a commons called constitutional law commons. Now, before I dive into all the things on this page, what I'd like to do is just describe a little more about how the navigation works between the commons and hierarchically in between the graphical browse and the actual commons of the content here. So I'm going to open up this view here. And the default is to have this view open. It was closed because I closed it earlier, but the default is to have it open. And you'll see there's a list of the related disciplines here that I can jump to. I can also use the cookie crumb to go up to law, the law discipline itself, which is up one level and we'll see. Now we see the sub-disciplines on the left. And you'll see there's the number of articles within each discipline here. It's ordered by largest to smallest. I can jump down to international law. And now I'm in the international law commons. I can jump to accounting law. I can hierarchically climb back up to the law commons. All right, so that's a little bit of how you navigate between the disciplines within a larger discipline. Now, how do you get back to that graphic? Well, that graphic lives right here, the graphical browse or the discipline wheels, we call it. So I click that button and it took me back to the graph and it took me back to the view that I came from, which was looking graphically at everything that's in law. If I want to go back to where we started when we started this view of the digital commons network, I would click here in the center and now I'm getting this wider view of all of the 10 disciplines. I can come over here, this is the green one for engineering and I can explore engineering the same way. All right, so I showed you law, now we're looking at engineering. I showed you a little bit how the navigation works. I'm going to close this window to limit a little bit what we're looking at. And the idea behind closing and opening that window is that we imagine that folks will have interests on different levels. Some may be interested in engineering while others may be interested just in computer engineering. If computer engineering is the thing that you're interested about or if you're interested in robotics, I'm going down another level here, then the idea is this is the page you care about and you might not care about the other pages. So you close that window to only look at what's going on in the box. All right, so I'm going to climb back up to engineering, which is the top discipline for engineering and describe a little bit about what's going on now on the page. Not the navigation, but what's going on on the page itself. So here we are at the engineering commons. As I mentioned before, each of these subject repository views is called a commons. So in this case, it's engineering commons. And each commons has a default browse view. So while we support text search and faceted search, we decided that the default should be on browse. And I'll show you what I mean. So if I come up here and type in a search term, I'm now in an area where I can search or do faceted search. I'm now interacting differently with the commons. I can go back to the graphical here and I can graphical browse here, or I can go back to the browsing experience, the page browsing experience by simply clicking on that header. So what is in here? Well, I should start off by saying this is only full text articles. We decided not to include anything that was a metadata-only entry or that had restricted access for one reason or another. And for the moment, we're also not including images, audio, or video files or data sets for that matter in this version of the network. And our thought behind this is at least for why we decided not to include metadata-only or restricted access is because we wanted readers to have the experience where if they found something they're interested in, they would always have access to it. So that's kind of the philosophy behind this. And you'll see this in the header here, open access. We want to make sure this is all open access material, full text material, powered by scholars. So this is always a scholarship or stuff created by scholars, faculty, and students, and then powered by university. This is an important theme that we are collecting the materials that universities have themselves collected. So they're the ones that decided that vetted and decided to include this particular object or this article in their own repository. So when we are bringing it all together, these have been curated. They've been vetted by the library. Now, the other point to take away from published by universities is this is the university scholarship. It's not the press of scholarship. It's published by the university. They own it. They control it. They can take it and do what they will with it. It's theirs. All right. So what do we have just under that heading? We show you the number of full text articles. In this case, just about 31,000 in engineering. The number of authors, 35,000. And the number of downloads to date, which is about 6.5 million. If you scroll a little further over, you will see that there's a link here with the number of institutions. So I've told you there are about 300 institutions that use digital commons. 100 native them have content in this commons called engineering. So if we take a look here, we can click on it and it will open up a window and it will tell us which institutions in fact are participating in this engineering commons. And if you hover here, it will show you the number of objects and of course we could click here and we would go to, in this case, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's repository to check out their 5,000-plus articles in engineering. Hit the back button and it's a little slow on going back. All right, here we are. So what else should I tell you about the layout and the design and how we built it and why we built it like this? What you'll see on this browsing view of the commons is frankly a lot of lists. So in the middle, you'll see recent articles in engineering. I'm on the right-hand side, you'll see the popular institutions followed by popular authors and then even a list of popular articles. So you have four lists here and if you add to it the 108 institutions link to explore the institutions, that way there's essentially lots of ways to find out what's going on in engineering with the participating digital commons universities. Why did we do it this way? Well, because we want to make the content easy and interesting to explorers. And when I say explorers, what do I mean? Well, one of our most important audiences is the author or the potential author. These folks are not coming to the network with a known item search. Rather, they are looking around to see what authors are here or what institutions are involved. They want to see what kind of papers they might find and they want to know what the network's all about. This is not something who's deterministic, they're exploratory. So that's an important thing to understand about what we were doing. The next thing to understand is that there's an awful lot of branding. So you'll see in new papers, we have a number of new papers from Nebraska, some from University of Wollongong and Carnegie Mellon is there too on the recent articles in engineering. Popular institutions, you'll see Purdue, Kentucky, University of South Florida, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Ustall State University, Western University, University of Iowa, working way up Cal Poly. Why are we doing this? Well, we want to give credit to the participating institutions for the work that they have done in building a valuable collection of materials. That's very, very important to us. The other thing you might have noticed is that every list includes links to participating repositories or to the full text of articles that are living in those repositories. There are no full texts anywhere in the Digital Commons Network. All the full texts live, continue to live, will always live in the individual repositories of the Digital Commons community. We wanted to take the explorers to the participant EIRs as quickly as possible so that they could interact with the great materials that the library have been collecting. And so far it seems to be working really nicely. I'm happy to say that 43% of all visitors to the Digital Commons Network go on to a Digital Commons repository site itself. All right. So that was the first part of the tour. I'm now going to take you back to the presentation. So we built the network with really three audiences in mind. So first we had the author and the potential author, and we wanted to give them an interesting way to explore research in their discipline so they would choose to participate more. For IOR managers, we wanted to give their work greater exposure. And then finally for readers, we wanted to make sure that they would find the network rewarding with every exploration or search ending in the opportunity to read the full text article without requiring any kind of login. That has been the reactions to the network from the scholarly community. I've plucked a few of the tweets that we found to share with you. The reactions are very positive. The comment on the top here is my favorite. I love the phrase, feels like the world was just giving me on a platter. This was exactly what we were hoping to accomplish. Also notice that the author understands that the network is a way to access the great content that the IOR community is uploading in their institutional repository. The author gets that the network is just a gateway to all the cool stuff that has been uploaded by libraries in the Digital Commons repositories. So the work of the IOR community is becoming, with the help of the network, a valuable resource for other libraries. Now they have access to a database full of vetted, open access, full text scholarly articles. Temple, which is not a Digital Commons subscriber, blogged and tweeted about the network, as well as did a handful of other libraries in the U.S. They like this new resource. The content that the community of IORs collected got attention from the library communities in Canada, Mexico, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, excuse me, Estonia, and Turkey. Pretty cool, I think. The Galileo Consortium, also not a customer, added the network as a resource. OhioLink, also not a customer, did the same thing. We've even been contacted by Serial Solutions because they have been receiving requests from members of their library community to have the network available through summons as well. So bringing together all of the scholarship seems on the way towards creating a critical mass of content and thus a real resource. So I wonder, would any single IOR be a resource in Galileo or OhioLink on its own? We were tickled pink that Little Ashworth Community College, also not a customer, decided to invest the resources not only to put up the network and point to the network, but to create a video tutorial for their patrons on how to use the network. And at a time when many of the community colleges and other small institutions cannot afford expensive licenses to databases, they are able to make this resource available to their local community. We got a call from a community college, not Ashworth, and they wanted to know what was the cost for using the Digital Commons Network, and when we told them that it was free, they just couldn't believe it. So we'd love to see the network shared by libraries as a resource for patrons. As the network is built upon a discovery taxonomy, we also get excited when specific disciplines are recognized as valuable by scholars in their discipline. So here's an example of the Commons getting called out as a resource. In this case, it's a second tier discipline in education called Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons. In this case, and this right in front of you, the Arts and Humanities Commons is included by the library at Pacific University in Oregon in a list of resource for patrons in its English department. Pretty cool, we think. So I'm going to take a step back now. I've talked about the network and how the network leverages the work of IRs and how it provides better access to scholarship. I've talked about how the organization of the network by discipline has an appeal to authors and potential authors. I've also tried to show how the design of the network into lots of lists encourages browsing and is particularly well tailored for folks who are exploring and deciding whether or not to participate as authors. There is, however, an important piece still missing. If the network truly intends to create real incentives for authors to participate, how does the network become known to authors and potential authors in the first place? Going back to the island and bridge metaphor, the island problem only gets solved for authors when they, when they're standing on the island, know that there's a bridge. They need to know that they will not be isolated. And from their perspective, the bridge is invisible or it's a one-way bridge as my son drew. We need to make it explicit to authors that their contribution is a contribution to their discipline and not just their repository. We need a real network. We need integration. We need connections. We need cross-linking. So I'm going to show you what I mean when I say integrated and cross-linking because we did that. Our starting point will be an article within an author's selected work site at Cal Poly's engineering school. All right. You notice that there's a box right in the middle with a little nice image that is our icon for the digital comments network that says included in mechanical engineering comments. So that means this author or another author who's curious about this author sees that and says, huh, what is that? Follows the link very quickly, super quickly. There we go. Jumps to mechanical engineering comments. This potential author might look at this page, think it's interesting, look at the number of papers and say, wow, popular authors, let me check out David Kennedy who's at Dublin Institute of Technology. Here are his papers within their repository. Want to go look at a PDF itself, open the PDF. What I want to show you is on the stamp cover page that the stamp, we create automatically stamped cover pages for all articles that are uploaded into the repository, which allows you to put branding and links to the network and to the repository. But in addition to links to the repository, I want to take you down here, even the PDF cover page has links to the commons in which the paper belongs. So in this case, I click there and it takes me back to the comments. In this case, a subset of mechanical engineering because they're being more precise, biomechanical engineering commons is now the discipline where we are. We have landed. The point being that there are links in lots and lots and lots of places within every digital commonsite taking them to the network and bringing them back from the network. If I go back up to the top of engineering I can show you a little more of those. So I'll dive into Cal Poly here as a popular institution and you see when I've done that, give me just a second. There we go. Here we are, works in engineering from Cal Poly. There we are, part of the digital commons network. It even says there are 30,960 works. And as I sort of navigate around and explore the sub-disciplines of engineering within Cal Poly, let's say I look at the authors who are in biomedical engineering and I see the number of works, I'm still invited always to go back to the broader community no matter how I navigate. So I might decide to look at the works instead of the authors, hear their works and I'm still invited to come back here. So we see this integration as key for authors because it tells them that a contribution is a contribution to their discipline. But it's also very valuable for readers because it means that they don't have to use the back button or open a new window and the experience of browsing within their discipline is fluid. They can go down to the content, around the content, back to the network. There are no dead-end for readers and this is true in two senses. In the first sense, they will have free access to the full text of any article at the end of their exploration and then every page has some interesting links to the pages that they might like. All right. Jump back now to the presentation. So I'm returning to the island and bridge metaphor for the last time to make a critical point. By integrating or cross-linking the network as widely as possible with each of the Digital Commons repositories we have created a user experience where the people seen and clicking on the links from Digital Commons to the network have made the connection between the two explicitly. The connection is key, remember, because otherwise many authors and potential authors wouldn't know that a contribution to their IR is also a contribution to their discipline. They wouldn't know that the network existed. They would continue to see their repository as just an island. Links from the Digital Commons site account for a quarter of all traffic to the network. That's the stat. I have 24%, I'm going to call it 25%. So the linking is clearly working. A good percentage of visitors to Digital Commons sites, the islands, are making a connection, that explicit connection with the Digital Commons network, and thus seeing that what they thought was an island is not an island, it is connected. There's a little note towards the bottom of the slide that deserves some explanation. We sampled the referral. Excuse me. Excuse me. We sampled the referral traffic data for several dozen Digital Commons sites and found that in every case there was more traffic going to the site from the network than the other way around. On average, there was twice the volume of traffic going to individual Digital Commons repositories than away from it, from the network, I should say. All right. The Digital Commons network creates incentives for faculty to participate by placing individual pieces of scholarship in the larger context of its discipline or demonstrating that a contribution to the IR is also a meaningful contribution to the discipline. So it really rewards authors for participating by connecting them to their discipline. And all of this is done explicitly because the very visible links in the repository to the network at every single place possible. So what more can I tell you about the visitors who come to the network from one of the distributed Digital Commons repositories? Well, here's an interesting fact. Visitors who come from the community not only have an understanding of the connection between the IR and the network, they are also significantly more engaged than visitors from search results. So as you see, folks who come from Google don't stay on the page very long, for a minute and 16 seconds, and don't visit as many pages, little less than two. Folks that come from other digital Commons sites, they stay much longer, almost three minutes, and visit more pages. I will leave it to you to think about why this might be the case. So now I'm ready to talk about how the Digital Commons network has fared in terms of creating additional incentives for faculty to participate. It has only been a couple months, but we have a few stories that demonstrate that the network is already having an impact with faculty. We've got tweets and blogs from authors, or their spouses in one case, sharing the good news that they are the top author, or have a top paper in one of the discipline Commons. So here's a fun example that I'll read to you. So apparently I'm trending, I'm a trending author on the Digital Commons for Electrical and Computer Engineering, writes one author, M.D. Schmidt. For my graduate thesis on unmanned quadro-rotor control, over 5,100 total downloads and over 500 in the last month. Maybe I should dig up my notes and get the useless hunk of parts in my garage flying. So I like that one. Anyway, this is a little more academic. Here's a quote from the local paper in Australia. I'll let you read it. But my takeaway from this is, do you think Dr. Wilson will contribute more to the IR and sees the network as valuable? I should do. The Dean of the Graduate College of Marshall certainly knows about the network. He believes it will help him to recruit students. This is a great story here. Marilyn Bueller, the IR administrator at UNLV, was talking to her associate dean of research and graduate studies at the College of Engineering. She managed to get that discussion because she'd been sending along emails showing how the school was performing in the Digital Commons network. After the second month of getting these emails, the associate dean asked her to come be with him and the dean of the college to talk about how to better demonstrate the quality of the college in the network. She was invited to present to the department and to the executive board of the department, and the decision was made to capture and expose more of what the department had been producing. Marianne will take this experience and work with her liaison librarians to engage other colleges in the exact same manner. When she told me the story, she said, it's contagious. Once one comes on board, all the other colleges follow. Here's a similar story. Harrison Inifuku told me a great story recently, and he's the administrator at Iowa State University. In December, he presented the network to Steve Mickelson, the chairman of the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, and others as well in that department. He showed them how their rival, Nebraska, also a peer land-grant institution, was showing up more strongly in the network. One faculty member came up to Harrison and told him that he liked how Harrison was using competition to engage them. Iowa State created the first ever Agricultural Engineering Department in 1905, Harrison told me, and today it's like sixth or fifth in the country. Department chairman Mickelson and others were persuaded to act to capture and share more of their articles in their repository and through the network. Harrison began to collect CVs and post articles written by the faculty. When he returned to present again to the faculty on March 8th, he could show them the before and after slides. I have those in front of you. Before Nebraska accounted for more than 50% of the pie, and by the time Harrison returned to present in March, three months later, Iowa State accounted for more than 50% of the pie. Harrison said he's talking to other departments too now, and he is simply overwhelmed by the number of CVs he has. So why are we not just another cross-repository search tool? I'm really taking you back to the beginning, the title of the presentation here. Well, because of BROWS, because of our decision to work with BROWS as the essential discovery mechanism. Because of discipline, this taxonomy, this three-tiered 1,000 subject to discipline taxonomy. Because it's only open access and full tax. Because it's integrated with distributed repositories at multiple levels. And because of the branding, it's designed to give credit to the institutions for their hard work. And we did all this to make IRs more successful. So one question I sometimes get is, well, how is this different from academia.edu or research gate? I'm not that familiar with those solutions. But I can tell you that in this case, the library plays a central role. So the content has been vetted, and the metadata are likely better than when faculty do this on their own. We know that when faculty do their own metadata that makes lots of mistakes. And so I believe that the metadata is better. The other thing that's important is that the content is owned by the institution for the communities that they serve. And that's an important distinction. We did a random sampling of several dozen sites to compare referral traffic to repositories. And we found that none of the places where IR managers spend time trying to be indexed matter very much. If you add all those places up that you think of, Open Door, Roar, WorldCats, Primo summons, you don't get close to the amount of traffic that the digital commons delivers. So we're setting our sites higher. We're looking at Google Scholar. Wouldn't it be cool if a network of repositories could match Google Scholar in terms of visibility? There were 600,000 objects in the network on January 1st, 2012. By April 1st, there were 650,000 objects, an almost 10% increase, or if you like, 50,000 objects in the quarter. We think that the digital commons network will have a million pieces of open access scholarship by the end of the year. Why? Well, it's growing at a rate of 50,000 a quarter today, but we see that rate increasing as the 35 institutions that have signed but have not yet to go live begin to add their content. And this includes schools like Clemson, Portland State, Kent State, and Yale. A few of these institutions have many of these space collections that they will be bringing over. When I arrived as important as Google by 2013, I mean in terms of traffic referrals. We want the network to bring as much traffic to digital commons institutions as Google Scholar does. And finally, we think that there are a few places, or a few commons, that will serve as destination sites for researchers, a place where readers will find experts and authors will find collaborators. Which disciplines? Well, it's a little hard to tell. We're still really, really early here, but this is kind of a fun chart that might provide perhaps a hint. It shows the relative rank of the disciplines over time. See how a few of them seem to be outperforming the others. We are keeping an eye on law and business for now, as it seems like they have an unusually high volume of traffic. Remember also how this is a chart that shows only the top level disciplines, those top 10. So it's possible that a discipline, a destination site emerges at a sub-discipline, such as economics, rather than at its top discipline. So finally, we have heard that there's interest in the digital commons network from the wider IR community. We are in fact in preliminary talks with a fedora site right now that seems to be going well. If you run a fedora, more a d-space repository, and you would like to be part of the network, please do get in touch with us. Here's a quick snapshot of what we might need to do to work together. So you would have to adopt our taxonomy, that three-tier 1,000 controlled taxonomy, and tag your content. You would have to give us access to readership logs and to email addresses for authors, to notify them when they are at the top of a particular commons. And we would need to both create reciprocal links so that we would link to articles in your repository and you would link back to the network. And then finally, we would need a means to share what to include and what to exclude. There are probably some documents or some collections that you would not want to have in the network, but we would need to know which those are. So there we are. I'm done with the presentation. I want to thank you so much.