 Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the first gathering for the brand new instrument identifiers community of practice. Welcome. Today we have three speakers for you. And again, questions for those speakers can come towards the end of our call today. We have Andrew Mainett, who is associate professor at the Center for Microscopy Characterization and Analysis at the University of Western Australia. And he's going to present on instrument identifiers, the NIF Trusted Data Repositories Project approach. And then we will have Andrew Jenke, associate director of research technology at the University of Sydney, who is going to talk about the RDA instrument identifiers group. And then we will have a quick update from Siobhan McCafferty from the ARDC skills team on activities in Australia. And finally at the end we have some questions and interactive questions session. So we're going to kick off with Andrew Mainett. I have to say which Andrew. Andrew Mainett on instrument identifiers, the NIF Trusted Data Repositories Project approach. Take it away, Andrew. All right. So my name is Andrew Mainett. I'm a joint microscopy Australia and National Imaging Facility Informatics Fellow. I'm based at the Center for Microscopy Characterization and Analysis at the University of Western Australia. So I'll talk about instrument identifiers and I'm going to talk about that from the context of the NIF Trusted Data Repositories Project. So very quickly, just a slide on the National Imaging Facility. This is a $200 million Australia-wide network of characterization facilities. You can see on the map to the right there are a number of nodes around the country. NIF provides state-of-the-art imaging capability to Australian researchers for characterising humans, animals, plants and materials. And its MRI, PET and CT scanners essentially produce vast amounts of valuable research data. In 2017, ANZ and RDS, now of course the ARDC, funded the Trusted Data Repositories Program. And one of the projects funded under this program was the NIF Trusted Data Repositories Project. This was a 12-month project, which completed in December 2017. And broadly, the aim was to enhance the quality and durability of data generated by NIF. By quality, we meant data had to be captured according to a NIF-agreed process. In terms of durability, the data had to be guaranteed for at least 10 years to be available. And reliable researchers, the data had to be useful for researchers in the future, so it had to have sufficient evidential metadata as well as being available in one or more open data formats. The motivation for the project from this point of view was to enhance the quality of the data required across its facilities. And from the ARDC's point of view, it was to help to establish trusted data repository services around the country. There were four NIF nodes involved, UWA, the lead node, UQ, the University of New South Wales and Monash University. Now the project scope was limited to MRI data, but post-funding, the results have been generalized to other instrument modalities. The project had four key outcomes. The first was a document which we call the NIF-agreed process, which outlines what's needed to obtain trusted data from NIF instruments. So this included having quality control standard operating procedures, quality control cross-reference, but also importantly, having an instrument record and an instrument ID for each instrument. The second outcome was another document describing the requirements necessary and sufficient for a NIF trusted data repository service. This was platform-agnostic, and one of the requirements is that it should be possible within the repository service to link a data set to an instrument ID. And then three and four, number three was to have some exemplary repository services across the four participating nodes. In this case, based on different platforms, XNAP and MyTardis, and finally a self-assessment against international core trust seal for trustworthy data repositories. So in a nutshell, if we take a look at the bottom left-hand corner, we can see we define an instrument record for each of our instruments. We have a unique handle, which we use to represent our instrument ID, and we have an instrument description. We park that handle and the description into a record in Research Data Australia, which is a data and service discovery portal hosted by the ARDC. If you look at the top left now at an instrument, and it's associated instrument PC. On that instrument PC, we install an uploader client. So when a user acquires some data, that uploader client pushes the data up to the repository service. So if you look on the right-hand side of the diagram, across the four nodes, we have our four repository services. We log in with the Australian Access Federation. We organise data by projects, and a project can contain one or more data sets, and a data set can contain one or more data files. Now, importantly, a data set is linked to an instrument. So in the repository service itself, in the database, we have a record for that instrument that includes such things as a link to a quality control project. And more importantly, for the purposes of this discussion, a handle which resolves to the record that we've parked in Research Data Australia. So as we go from instrument to repository service, according to the NIF-agreed process, when the user uploads their data, they include NIF minimal metadata, which includes the instrument ID. The native data goes up from the instrument as well as conversions to one or more open data formats. The instrument operator can also upload quality control data to the repository service. So for any data set that is in the repository, we can cross-reference by date to the most relevant quality control information to understand the state of the instrument when the data was acquired. This is one of the services. This is the one at UWA called Trudat at UWA. You can see the landing page here I've logged in in my own account. The service here is based on my TARDIS, which is developed at Monash University, but we've customized it in a particular way for this project. Here, the word experiment, we map to mean project. So wherever you see experiment, just think project. If I look at now one of the projects or experiments, project number five, we can see that on the right hand side, it contains 62 data sets. One of those data sets I've highlighted there. And you can see there's a reference to the instrument from which the data came, a Brooker Biosec 9.4T MRI. There's a little hyperlink to the right of it there called the RDA, which resolves to the record in research data Australia. And we have a little bit of additional information too, the facility to which the instrument belongs at the CMCA. Another view showing data set, data file view within the repository. Again, I've just circled the area that shows that the instrument from which the data comes from and the hyperlink to the record in research data Australia. So in the project, how did we handle or mint instrument identifiers? Well, it was a two step process. Number one, we mint a handle through ARDC's identifying my data handle service. And we ensure that that handle resolved to the URL in step two, the record that we have in research data Australia. So step two, we're actually creating that record in research data Australia, including in the record, the instrument identifier, as well as a detailed description of the instrument and any related websites. Now, I should point out that access to those two services is through the institution, so we didn't do that directly at the CMCA. At UWA, that meant going to UWA library to be able to mint the handle and to create the record in research data Australia. Once we have a record in research data Australia, it's possible to find that record via the advanced search function. So if you go to the main landing page for RDA, you click on advanced search. You then get a pop up. If you look in the bottom left hand corner of this slide, you can see that I've selected here services and tools. Once I've done that, I can enter some search terms. So in this case, I've chosen the organization to be the CMCA where I'm based and the description of the instrument, a bio spec. And then up comes the record. I split the record into two halves on each side of the slide here. So on the left hand side, you can see the description of the instrument, where it's located, contact details. On the right hand side, you can see related organizations and CMCA and related websites. And importantly, on the bottom right hand side, you can see we have the handle, the persistent identifier for that instrument. Now, in the project, we decided to handle updates to instruments in the following way. We decided that what needs to be done is that the RDA record should be updated whenever we make a change to the software and hardware of the instrument. So we simply update the record, but put a date stamp in there so that it's clear when that update occurred. We also decided that should the hardware and software updates be significant enough that that constitutes a change in the system or model number from the point of view of the vendor, then we would deem that the instrument is in fact a new instrument and we'd have to enter new handle as well as create a new record in research data in Australia. Post-NIF, Trusted Data Repository Project at UWA, the UWA Library embarked on a special project to create instrument records for all of our 51 instruments in a local database, a pure database. That involved four steps, bulk import of instrument data into pure via XML, minting of research data in Australia handle identifiers, manual addition of minted identifiers into pure records, and harvest of equipment metadata from pure to research data Australia via custom crosswalk. So the information here was gleaned from the CMCA web pages and also by talking to our individual instrument managers. The custom crosswalk meant taking records in pure and mapping those over to RIFCS schema required for ingestion into research data Australia. So Melanie Barlow at ARDC created the original crosswalk in 2017 for datasets at UWA to park them into research data Australia. And then again in 2018 added capability for equipment or instrument records. And that was in consultation with the UWA library team. And this crosswalk is now being used by other pure users in Australia to harvest into research data Australia. And every time we update pure, we review the crosswalk itself. So I thank here Katima Toofexas who's the research data coordinator at UWA library for this particular information on this slide. This is an example of the Google block that was used to collaborate between UWA and ARDC in order to do the mapping between the pure schema and RIFCS needed for RDA. So if I have a look now at the Brooker BioSpec MRI scanner again, it's an instrument record that I showed earlier. On the left of this slide you can see the record that's in research data Australia. On the right hand side you can see the UWA record, the master record in pure. And what we've done that's a little different to the original project is that the handle now that's in research data Australia actually resolves to the master record in pure rather than to the RDA record itself. All right, some outstanding issues from the project. First of all, how do we standardize instrument records across the National Imaging Facility and in the other increased capabilities. So in this particular project, we had three instruments, three sites I should say that had the same instrument. And when you look at their records in RDA, the descriptions are slightly different between sites and websites included are slightly different. So how do we standardize that? How do we best accommodate instrument updates? So as I said, the approach we took was simply to update the records with date stamp changes. Who's actually responsible for maintaining these records? Is research data Australia itself a suitable place to host these records long term? Is the handle a suitable process and identify to use for instruments? And finally, how do we encourage our researchers to actually cite instrument identifiers in papers they publish? So one thing we can do is to say that by doing so that simplifies the description of the instrument in the paper. They can simply include the handle. Doing that then of course enables NIF to be able to track publication outcomes. We can do searches in papers to find who cited our particular instruments. And with that, I say thank you. Right, thank you very much Andrew. If we have any questions beyond a couple of technical glitches in the middle of that. And I can see some thanks rolling in for you, Andrew. We might just move straight on to Andrew Jenke presenting on the instrument identifiers group from the Research Data Alliance. Okay, so hi everyone. I'm Andrew Jenke from the University of Sydney now. When I did a lot of this work, I was working at UQ. And I was also seconded to at the time to one of the ARDC subsidiaries. So here we go anyway. So instruments at the time, when I decided to join this group, there was no consistency in the way instruments were referred to. There was some consistency in how the records were entered into things like Research Data Australia, but how the instrument itself was recognized was not consistent. So I figured that was something I wanted to have a go at. It just sort of happened out of a group here called the Persistent Interpretation of Instruments Working Group, which is one of the subgroups of Research Data Alliance with the URL on the top. And these slides understand it was made available towards the end of this. They had a remit, so quite early on in the group, in the formation of the group, Research Data Alliance has got a process around how these groups are formalized and how they're recognized and how they're endorsed, which I'll step through a little of the detail of. And this sort of describes that the journey towards piddings, as we're calling it. I was presenting in a DMP, an RDA DMP group, and Marcus happened to turn up, which I think is one of the strengths of the RDA conference or the plenaries as they're called, in that you see a wide attendance of people across all the areas, as opposed to just in my own narrow area that I was looking for. He invited me, Marcus Schlockert, to be part of this group. At the time, there was fairly north, well actually northern Europe dominated, and they were interested in having a Southern Hemisphere chair as well. So I joined at that stage and I submitted a NIF, National Music Facility user case, to the group. Turns out that our NIF user case was quite different to most of the other user cases within the working group, which was a good thing in that for most of them, they were more concerned of problems around multiple instruments and multiple IDs to make up a group. So for example, they were looking at thousands of instruments being towed across the top of the Atlantic Ocean, in one case, and how all those identifiers in a mesh would come back together towards the single data set and where the data would come from. Others were interested in things like how a long-term instrument attached to an ID attached to a telescope, how that might change over time and follow the images, which is probably the closest to what we were doing, but there were a lot of other use cases which were completely different to what I was used to. So for that use case, it was very interesting for me to try and develop an instrument ID that was different to just my own local use case. So I joined as the chair. It meant that a lot of the work we did because the geographic distance was predominantly around GitHub and Google Docs, and it also meant we turned out running alternate meetings because there was no good time zone. So this group still runs. I've since stood down as a chair since taking up my position as UCIB, and there's now a new group which I'll show you towards the end of this. And at the moment we're back to monthly telecoms which I still join, but as the time gets closer to the RDA plenary, they tend to be more consistent. So what I'm sort of saying to all you listening there from our local community is get involved in groups like this. You can get much further reach and you'll get a lot of support quite quickly from people in these groups. So just to give you an example, this shows, for example, one of the agendas that we would typically work through and how we go through towards getting an endorsement of a particular ID in this case it ends. An interesting thing to note too is just because you're part of these groups, you don't have to join, sorry, you don't have to attend an RDA meet. I'm yet to attend an RDA meet and still have participated in a large number of these. I think it's a conference which is very successfully makes use of teleconferencing and video conferencing and I've presented a number of these without being in attendance so it's not mandatory. So what came out of this is what I was discussing before is we had a large number of use cases submitted and if you look at the table here what's important to note is that whilst there are a large number of submitted use cases, it doesn't actually mean that they all go on to ratification. So you'll see that from the plan yes and no and whether they're tabled yes and no. So the MIFF use case yes was in the text and we submitted one and it was tabled and it didn't actually turn into the plan because it turned out some of the other use cases were overlapping with it. So we've absorbed some details in there but it is included in the final specification. So there's a number of other planned ones as you see further down who we're yet to see a submission from it'll give you an idea of the interest in instrument identifiers across a whole wide range of area of research. It's not just confined to the characterization area for people interested in doing things. It's largely characterization but not only characterization. So from there where do we go? The user story sort of looks like this and this is a template for the sort of things you have to achieve to get endorsement as such of these things. And it tends to be a lot more as you see from the comments and this talk about so that. So it's not just I need an instrument identifiers. I need an instrument identifiers so that I can track my research outputs at the university. I need an instrument identifiers so that I can understand whether my data came from and I'm surprised in this match is a lot of what Andrew Maynard was saying. But it's always about what you want to achieve, how you're going to do it and why. So being as specific as possible is important when you're part of this group. So what comes out of this is a schema and I'll share what that looks like in a second. And then in time, once you've gone through the process, this you'll find from is over a year, just over a year and a half ago, where we gained endorsement. So this means we've gone through the process of building the use cases, presenting it at RDA plenary, getting sufficient buy-in from the community at which stage the preliminary schema is endorsed or from any use cases endorsed. And from there, this is what comes out. This is the schema that is the current RDA-bless schema for persistent identifiers of instruments. Important things to point out here is that the unique identifier is not specified. At the moment, it seemed more useful to allow the individuals to specify whether it's a handle or a pearl or a DOI, whatever works for them, because there's a lot of discussion around the correct type of identifier. So Maynard will go for ratification of that at a later date around a type of identifier. The owner, which is a very consistent thing across all of the use cases, contact details, manufacturer and all the standard things. So you'll see this is not much more beyond what you would normally think to be in. The difference is this is now part of the schema. It will map into schema.org. So meaning if you use this structure for your persistent identifiers and your instrument metadata, it will automatically now be harvested by all of the areas within schema.org. That's the purpose of the ratification. So that's the effect of the where we're at now. And that's it. And I have to quote Natasha saying, if you want it, then you better put a pit on it. I think that's one of the best lines you've ever heard. And I'm going to keep sticking with it. So that's all from me. I don't know if I'll press stop now. Right. Thank you, Andrew. And so the final bit that we have presentation wise is just a brief update from Siobhan McCafferty. Now on current and slightly future work within the Australian context in instrument identifiers. Take it away. Cool. Thank you, Tom. This is really brief, but just to give you an idea of what's going on. So there's currently discussions going on about PIDs instruments at that slightly higher level than ARDC are involved. And we're keen to make sure everyone knows what's going on. There'll be a meeting organized for, I think it's Wednesday, the 11th with Joe Shapt is organizing it in Duncan, Natasha Simon will be there. And they're organizing the agenda and we're talking about that. So we'll hopefully report back to that next time this community meets. And there's also discussion going on about NCRS, across NCRS and all of the facilities there. And we're hoping for more movement on that in the new year. So myself and Natasha will be organizing a meeting early in the new year and we'll be happy to report back on that also. And that's it. Right. Thank you. Andrew Maynard, if you could join us again. We have one question in the forum for you. Do you know if the instrument identifiers used by NIF that those handles, that is, are being referenced in NIF research publications. Is that a goal in terms of tracking impact? Or is that not so important to me? Okay. I think you can hear me now. So at present, that's a goal we'd like to have is that all our users are citing the instrument identifiers. But at present, I'm not aware of even a single case where we've done that. So, yeah, we definitely have to find out a good way to encourage our users to do so. And yes, it is an ultimate goal that as a user site instrument identifiers and papers, that means it gives us a way of tracking within NIF and indeed, my cross could be Australia, usage of instruments and getting attribution for that. I think we had another question about, I think that was actually directed at you Andrew Maynard, why a handle wouldn't be valid in the future. And I think it specifically related to, I think Natasha, you did respond to that by saying that, because it resolves to the pure record, or did you have some more detail to add to that? So the handle, I guess, needs to resolve to the definitive record at UWA. We've chosen that to be our pure database within UWA, but every time we add an instrument to that database, the metadata is then harvested into Research Shader Australia. So for anybody around the world, they can just go to Research Shader Australia, search on the instrument, they'll get the record coming up there in Research Shader Australia. But if you click on the handle itself, it'll resolve back to the master record. I mean, that's just a matter of preference, I guess. Okay, Andrew, while we're sticking with you, where do the state damp changes to instrument metadata appear on the front end in the description field or in a dedicated field? So any changes to the instrument itself? I don't think we have an example amongst any of our instruments that we have records for where we've included any changes to date. And that's part of what we need to do as NIF and increased facilities to the future is to find what's the best way to do that. So the suggestion we have in our Trusted Data Repositories documentation is we simply include a date stamp in the description. So we just simply edit the description to reflect changes in terms of hardware and software. That's not ideal and open to any suggestions for how to do better to the future. Sounds like an excellent rabbit hole to go down for a community of practice. So, Andrew, Genki, can you say who is using the schema currently? Or is it just too new? No, no one's using it officially just yet. People are welcome to adopt it, but it's not an officially endorsed... Sorry, the group is endorsed. The schema itself is up for comment right now. There will be some who are using it but it's obvious the path that it's going down. But it's not an official schema of RDA yet, as I understand. Terrific. Can I bring in Paula Martin as National Characterization Training Coordinator at NIF? You're missing from our panel right now. But now would be a great moment to... We're going to now turn this back on the audience unless we have any more questions for either of the Andrews. Okay. Maybe we go through the questions that were sent through the registration form and I'd like to any of the speakers to answer what about the timeline in Australia and what specifically do increased facilities are planning to do around assisting identifiers for instruments? I'll speak first. Andrew. So I guess we don't have an official timeline to get this done. ASAP is, I guess, the appropriate answer. And part of the problem there is funding such activities and making sure that we can achieve this. And ARDC has just been a new platforms call and that's an opportunity for us to look at this particular problem of instrument identifiers, instrument records. So, yeah, as soon as possible. So it really requires funding and cooperation, collaboration to make it happen. Yeah, and maybe we need to highlight that this opportunity that we are putting up now with the webinar is to collect people feedback about how to move forward. So this is the first initial activity but then we want to meet in person and set the goals and the timelines together. Do you want to add something to that, Tom? I just note that we have some more questions rolling in, some of them related to this point anyway. Natasha is asking you, Andrew Jenke, has there been any analysis done on the most common identifiers used for instruments? I would think it would be DOIs and handles. You also mentioned pearls, though. Is anyone using those? We had all three. The analysis of that is on the GitHub site where you can dig in the use cases and they do show that. Obviously, the largest use case is the one with the most instrument which is the oceanographers who have one instrument ID per trailing thing and they have thousands of them floating around in oceans. So how do you measure what's the most used? A question for anyone on the panel. Have publishers recognized persistent instrument identifiers? I would say they don't have to. I don't know if somehow. What I do know is that publishers recognize Schema.org and this was discussed specifically in the piddance group and the approach taken was, well, there's a lot of effort in getting published to update a new one. If we publish what we're doing in Schema.org, if it's compliant with that, we don't have to do any work. It's already there. And not only that, we get Google Scholar, whether you like it or not, and a whole bunch of other things for free by doing it that way. So is piddance taken up by publishers? Yes, because it uses Schema.org. I think that we have another question in here. Does NIF as a facility have a unique persistent identifier? Now, I think just to clarify the parsing on that sentence, we might be merging identifiers for facilities there, or is the question relating to the approach taken by NIF or the preferred identifier for its instruments rather than the facility itself? But I think in the second case, part of that discussion is actually happening right now. So the meeting that Siobhan mentioned will actually have follow-on activities with increased facilities as well, trying to coordinate around this. Siobhan, did you want to mention the data site activity at all? How so? There's a few things going on there. Yeah, okay. Happy to talk about that in probably a different context, because there's some stuff going on with the OIs that we'll probably have a chat about later. Right, okay. I think more to the point, ARDC is looking at a more unified plan across PIDs, and we want to have some kind of road mapping and possibly advisory material around this in the next year, even at just a higher level. So watch this space. All right, we're getting more into the weeds here. Does the schema cater for a grouping of individual instruments? Andrew. Yes, it does. And that's one of the... Yes, this was debated back and forth a long time. Myself and NIF, I didn't really care about so much. But then we got down the wormhole of what's an instrument. Or a set of coils in an MRI machine. An instrument is the instrument. An instrument is the... I tried to stay away from that, but in the end we ended up with a schema where you can have a sub-instrument ID. So the answer is yes. Well, I think getting back into that tricky bit straight away, the clarification on the question about NIF as a facility was that it was about the facility itself. And I believe that's in the context of Siro being interested in doing identifiers for facilities at the moment. Andrew Jenke, would you be able to comment on that and it's what relevant mapping there might be to the RDA group there? I went in with the use case that an instrument is an MRI machine. I wasn't talking that when I was at UQ at the time, the CAI, I didn't go in asking for an instrument, I don't like the CAI. I could have, and it would match to the schema and the way it had sub-instrument IDs. It was more around that there was already a reasonably good way within the University I was at to identify outputs of a centre based upon orchard, based upon the people. So it was more about trying to get an identifier for the instrument than the centre. Your use case might differ. This schema would be able to handle it, but it wasn't something that was the focus of mine. Natasha has jumped in to clarify that data site have said that they will adapt their DOI metadata to the identifier schema of the RDA group. So people can better describe instruments with DOIs. So there's an update on the status of using DOIs as instrument identifiers. I have a fragmentary question about unified PIDs. I might let a revised version of that question roll in before we go. And while I'm waiting to see if any more questions roll in, I would say this is the idea behind this community of practice is that we continue to meet and we can pick up more specific activities as we go along. So your registration for this webinar is we're taking as an indication of interest in future activities. So we will email you after this webinar to talk about follow-up activities, which is likely in the new year at this stage. This is a great time for you to throw questions in the question box that we cannot answer today, but that we would like to put on the agenda for future meetings. So if you have any suggestions about future activities, then feel free to chuck those in the question box as well. And I cannot promise that I will be able to answer them in the next five minutes. Okay. We have a question about Wednesday's meeting. I think, Siobhan, are you able to contextualize that meeting at all? I can give a little bit more context. So there's been discussion about instrument PIDs for data management kind of records and that kind of thing at different universities and institutions, and it's become pretty apparent that we need something. So this is an opening discussion about what ARDC can do in that space and what are the needs around that space at the moment. I'm sure Natasha could probably give you a lot more in-depth answer, but I'm not sure quite how much details needed at this point as well for the community. I think we all know that there's a need for an instrumentation per door agreement across it. The scheme is a great start, but we need to look at how an institution is going to use it. Why would they want to use it? Can we get wide agreement on this as well and what kind of drivers there are there? And there's definitely business cases. Andrew, so many Andrews mentioned about being able to look at who's using your instrumentation and how you can put some kind of value on that and maybe recoup costs or look at funding cases. So when the meeting happens, we'll definitely come back to you guys with a lot more information on that. Sorry, I can't be more useful in this space at the moment. But that's okay because Natasha is now unmuted and can add any more detail. Thank you, Tom. Thanks, Shabon covered most of it. So Joe Schapter is the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Infrastructure at the University of Queensland. And he's also the new head of the Australian Orchid Consortium Governance Group. So he's becoming a little bit of a PIDS champion now, Joe. He's also on the ARDC board. Anyway, he organised a meeting here at UQ with myself and Neanne Duncan, who's also from ARDC and a bunch of UQ people to talk about the need for persistent identifiers for instruments here within the UQ system because they're installing new systems here and trying to sort of get it right from the start, really. And so Joe has started this research infrastructure group among really senior people at institutions of his kind of level. And so this is the first meeting of that group. So I think there's multi-layer discussions happening around the PIDS for instruments. And as long as we can all tie them together and we're all sort of along the same lines, then it will be successful. But basically that level that he is at is really the decision-making level about what, for example, to decide what schema to adopt in research infrastructure within an institution. This group is more about the practical implementation of how we do it. And we need another discussion, although this one leads right into it, between the NCRISC facilities and how to get it right across the NCRISC facilities, which is what Paul is talking about. I think we actually just need a meeting around that as well, specifically with the NCRISC facilities. So we'll sort of attack this on multi-layers. But I think it's really exciting space and it's great to see the developments in this area both across Australia and internationally as well. Thanks, Natasha. I think we'll leave you unmuted because you might be able to jump in. We have a clarification of the question from earlier, but I think it was directed at Andrew Jenke and we seem to have lost him at this point. No, still in. Oh, okay. He's just disembodied. Disembodied, yeah. Yeah, okay. So with the strategy or work of unified or unifying PIDs, is this to control the proliferation of PIDs and control legacy due to poor design and so on? Yeah, exactly. Part of the work or sort of the group is to figure how we crosswalk, I think, is the word existing PIDs in this area into the PID in space. I would say it's kind of focused and it's more about having a engaged user from that area. But yes, it is part of the goal to be as compatible as possible. We have another question. So with instrument PIDs, do you think, and I think this might be more broadly put, do you think the ARC would be keen on this for the leaf-funded instruments around the country? It would be very nice to have a PID for each instrument funded so that there is a unified approach to what has been funded and how you can access it, how it has been used and so on. Anyone want to grab that one? I think it would be very nice. I think I can just say that. That's my answer. Yes, please. From all my hats of war and guests, I've needed from all areas as a user, as a facility manager, and now in research infrastructure and or research in a major organization, absolutely because we, how do you calculate the value of these things one term? So my answer is absolutely, I want someone else comment. Siobhan? Yeah, they absolutely want this kind of thing. But given the nature of PIDs, there's a need for there to be a decision within the community about what we're using and how we use it first before it gets adopted by folks like ARC. So the job of communities like this is to get that agreement and get upscale our use of something that we agree on. So it becomes just an, of course, of course we're going to use this identifier for those folks as well. So it's interesting to see that while there's a desire from all areas, there's quite a lot of us watching each other and seeing who's going to do what first. And I think being definite in this space is going to help advance folks like ARC picking up and should have been identifiers. Andrew Menett or Paula, do you have anything to add? I think we're all thoroughly nodding yes. No, nothing to add. I agree with all those comments. Okay, terrific. Well, at this point, unless we get some... Oh, I keep on having to scroll down and the questions keep coming. So to both Andrews, that's finally it's easy to say. Do you have any examples of the pdint linking to ethics applications and protocols? For instance, through protocols.io for given data set or project, or is it through the project? So speaking from the UWA point of view, we have a project ID to which data is uploaded from instruments and it's that project ID that can then be linked to but not in a manual way to ethics approvals at the institutional level. But this could be done in a much nicer way. Maybe Andrew, the other Andrew could comment here on perhaps the research activity identifier and Chaborn as well. Ray, because I think that probably goes some way to answering the solvents. I'm with Andrew one or two, but we wanted to couch himself. It wasn't a focus of the pdint's group because oceans don't need ethics. I rapidly discovered that in the area of instrument identifiers, human or ethics related research is actually in the minority, which was a surprise to me. So I would argue it should be at the project level. Conceptually, in any case, and while I'm not a part of Ray, I'm still a believer in it. So I'll let Chaborn comment there. Yeah, it's good to have a few true believers around. So yeah, they would absolutely be the place to do it, but we're yet to see a full integration. There's a few people looking at using it in that way. Can we connect it up to Research Master or some nice source of truth around ethics and permissions? I would love to see someone do this if anyone's keen to do a little bit of work connecting up Ray to one of their ethics platforms. Drop me an email. That would be cool. But yeah, it's definitely a good thing to do. It would be nice if someone did it. But as of yet, haven't quite ticked that box. Okay, terrific. For those that missed the one... I see no more questions rolling in. I'll just mention a comment way back up at the beginning. So there are appear to be crosswalks for pure and for symplectic rolling around out there. If you are interested, then please shoot me an email in the interim while we get up our website and other mechanisms for sharing information out of this group. Unless we have any more questions rolling in the next 30 seconds while I'm finishing up, I'd like to thank our presenters for kicking off this community of practice. I hope to see many of you at future community of practice events for this group. We need to come up with some catchy acronym, I think, because that's where it all starts. So please look out for us in the ARDC newsletter or via NIF and MA newsletters as well. If you are a representative of another increased facility and are interested in having a greater involvement in this activity, please shoot us an email. We're very open to bringing in other people from other instrument-based facilities and otherwise, again, let's see. Apart from thanks and applause, I think we are ready to wrap up. So thank you, everyone, for coming along. And again, I hope to see you at a future meeting. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.