 So I would ask, well I will read the question and I would ask some of our experts, maybe Paolo, to reply to this question. First question is, does open air envisage to sell its services or will they be free forever? Okay, can you hear me? Yes, yes. So good afternoon everybody, thanks for the question. Yeah, sorry, Paolo is the technical coordinator of open air, that's why he is the best person to reply to this question. Okay, so the idea is the following, of course every service we provide, well every service in the world of open science has a cost, has a price, and somebody has to pay for it. And of course the person who was supposed to pay for it are not the researchers. So we have, we are all taxpayers basically, so we should find a sustainable way to keep the services going on forever, and for a very low price. So the idea is not to be on the market to gain money, of course, but to be on the market to provide the service, as any public service would do. So the services will have a price, but this will not be visible to the researchers of course. So the idea, for example, is to have the member states to provide fees, to have access to their services, or to very specific actors in the range of open air to pay for such services. For example, institutions, if they need, for example, specific monitoring of their outcome or funders, that's the other option that we have. Or at the end of the line also research infrastructures, which are today willing to monitor their activities in terms of scientific production. The idea is to put a price that of course will cover for the operational cost. So in principle, the more we are the less we pay, that's the, of course we proportion to scalability and all these other things. But yeah, that's the idea below. Thanks Paolo. If you have any, if some of the participants have any other comments on this, please don't hesitate to ask. Okay, I'm going to the second question. When are the new research data items from data repositories will open air make a distinction from curated datasets from non-curated ones? I think this is another question from Paolo. And I think this is a question originating from the Q&A session yesterday. Yes, it's a very good question. This is something that we would like to do, of course, but it's today is not really possible. So unless we're going to have, there are initiatives in that direction that are willing somehow to certify the quality of repositories and to make the certification or degree of certification available through registries. And these are very interesting initiatives that are going on. But as far as I know, they're not really mature. So there's nothing that today can officially, and with an authority as an authority, let us express an opinion on the quality of the repositories. What we can do is on the other side make sure the metadata is reaching off. And this is why we have the guidelines, the open air guidelines. The open air guidelines are supposed to align and make sure that participating repositories are somehow compliant to some minimal level of quality. Although even this is quite hard. And frankly, it's really hard for us to say this repository does it better than another. So it's an open issue. Today we're not making such a difference. But this may be well the case in the future, as we hope. Excellent. That was a tricky one. Okay, so I just went in the wrong direction. Next question is a bit long. So are project officers supposed to use open air and the participant portal to check the availability of publications? And are you in contact with project officers to inform them and train them on these matters? Emily, I see you are among the participants. Would you like to say something on this? Okay, I will try to reply to this question. Well, yeah, yeah. Okay, so please go on. Thanks. So in open air we contact rise in 2020 projects. So every note that is our national open access task is in contact with project officers. And we sent information about what you need to do to comply with access requirements and how they can check their applications on a portal. So we contact project officers twice a year. And that was the second part of the question. Yeah, so we informed them and trained them. And of course, we automatically transfer our information to participants portal. So we will see that the information that is on open air will also automatically appear in the participants portal. So that project officers can simply check in the participants portal if all their publications are there. I don't know if you want to say something else about it. Yeah, yeah, that answers the question. Can I add something? Yes, please. It's just not a minor detail from the technical side, but basically when you go to the participant portal, you are prompted with a list of publications suggested by open air. And you can validate and confirm those that you believe belong to your project and those that you believe don't belong to your project or can be related with it. So now we realized that the same person going to the participant portal at different times tends to reject those publications that he has he she has accepted in previous stages. And the reason may be because he she believes to have already reported those publications and that the reason need to do that again. And the the portal in that sense is not very clear. So if you reject it, then this is going to be rejected. So we're going to have a feedback in open air that tells us if our mechanism to associate publications to projects are fine and if they work well. In cases we get back a rejection. Then we go and check and realize that the paper actually declares the project in the knowledge meant so our statement was good. But the project coordinator for some reason, or a person on the he is her BF has rejected it. And we believe this is due to these probably misunderstanding that the portal doesn't really pass through in the proper way. He is accept every time if you are project coordinators and spread the voice around all publications that are associated to your project, even though you think you've accepted them or validated them before. That's very important. There's a comment from Moica on this and that project officer might refer to the project officer. So project officers sitting in Brussels that are responsible for monitoring how the project is going. To my knowledge, we don't have training specifically for project officers at EC. But if this is a need, I think we can easily set up a training program to enable the European Commission to fully exploit what open air can offer to them to make their life easier. Okay, let me see if I remember. Okay, that was the right way to go. I think this is another. Okay, so sorry, related to the previous question. There's a comment from Marian regarding training. It says that DCC and through the foster project provides training for the project officer. So it's just a matter of maybe better circulation of information and we can definitely promote these training courses from foster on the open air portal better than we are actually doing. Okay, there's another question that's for Paolo. A lot of technical questions for you today. They need to be sent by open air to the new participant portal cannot be modified on the portal, though they are always not clean. Could you allow for modification? And I think this relates partially to your comment before. Yeah, this is in the road map. So today what you can do is to add project information. What you can do is when you claim so that there is a distinction between the metadata that we collect from external data sources like repositories. For this information, you as a user, you find it on the portal on the open air portal and you can only add links from these objects to other objects. Then you have the records that you are claiming. That's what we say. So basically, you're going to the portal and you're providing a DOI and through the DOI we fetch the metadata from crossref data site or whatever. And there you can modify the metadata because this is metadata that you are as a user inserting. So if there is any change you would like to apply, this may be a way to go. So even though the publication is already in open air, then you, if the publication has a DOI, you can claim it and complete the metadata. So our duplication process basically will take that into account and try to gather as much information as possible. The trend is to give more trust to the information provided by the user. And so this may be the right solution. In the future, we are trying, we are willing to, it's in the roadmap to allow changes of any kind to any information that we have in the portal. This means that user can add claims again. So overrides basically of information whenever they believe this is doable or worth doing. For that we need to introduce the research community dashboard and of course experts that are able to inspect these updates of the records and validate them. So allow them or not allow them. At the moment this is not done because we alone cannot handle, let's say the wave of possible updates that would be provided. We don't have, we need to distribute this and monitoring this supervision job. And this is what we are applying, what we are thinking of doing with the research communities when they use the research community dashboard. Thanks Paolo, I think it was pretty clear. Let's go to the following question, which is another question related to EURTC and SPORTAL. On the portal, one cannot tick both boxes on green and gold open access. Are you in touch with them to have this change so that it complies with EU obligations and open access? How are these again for you if you have the answer to this? We are in touch with them so we can certainly provide feedbacks, feedback of that kind. I'm not sure I understand the question. So why being able to tick both green and gold, we would be flying, otherwise we wouldn't? I'm just guessing because I'm not the person who asked you for this question. But I think that one research project could have multiple versions. For example, one deposited in a repository and the full one published in an open access journal. So this might be the case. So you basically want to say that you have two versions of the same article published on the green or gold open access? Yeah, and if open-air artists both versions, so one coming from the repository and the other coming from the cross-referred metadata, for example, then you should be able to see both of them in the EURTC portal and also be able to submit both of them because they are different versions of the same thing. That's it. Yes or no? That explains, I can clearly see the issue. Okay, thank you. That's good feedback. I will definitely write an email for that. Okay, we've finished the questions that have been asked through 19-metre, but I got an offline question about the number of repositories now compliant to the latest version of the guidelines that have been released earlier this year. Do we already know some figures about it? You mean the 4.0 guidelines? Yeah, exactly. Because they're not yet, let's say, official. Okay. No, well, they will be responsible, I think. So there is no repository out there that has been published twice, I suppose. Because it's not officially released yet, so... Yes. That's a good explanation. Let's talk. Okay, but all resources about the new guidelines, webinars and description pieces are available on the EURTC portal for whoever asked me this question. Just let me read off the page in case something happened in the meanwhile. No, they're just fine. Does anyone of the participants have other questions for either the networking team or the technical team? Don't be shy, this is a unique opportunity to directly talk to the people that are building open air. Okay, if no other questions are arising from the participants, I would like to thank you for attending. For asking your questions, I hope that we were able to reply to them in a satisfying way for you. And the recordings of this Q&A session will be made available next week on the open air portal. Thank you all for joining, and have a nice rest of the afternoon. Bye-bye, thanks.