 So just a couple of notes just on exactly what I'm doing here. So many of the people on this call will know many of the things that I'm about to talk about very well. For instance, Irina and Leslie and others are very much involved with those various organizations, Geoscience, Community Vocabularies, et cetera. What I hope is new or newly discussed, at least as some of you hear today, is just exactly where some of these communities are up to, what the latest steps are that they are doing, and how they are similar and how they are different, and then some thoughts around that. So I hope that even if you are familiar with most of this, the rest is something new and interesting there for you. Yeah. OK. And yes, in case it wasn't very obvious from the logos and the things, I'm changing where I work. And so it's sort of through that new work that I'm representing now, because some of the work that's going on here is through a project that I'm working on through Karawong AI. I'm still also working elsewhere, but this is sort of the work here. All right, so just a small agenda. And exactly as it said in the title, I'm going to talk about some steps with the GGIC and their vocab things, what they're currently doing, a proposal, and some future prospects. Then I'm going to talk about the ICSM and the same thing, what they previously did, currently, and future things, and then mention some other voc governance in this case, a vocab with governance implementers, so the CGI International Geoscience Organization and the actual ISO itself, International Standards Organization. OK, so Meakin has actually over viewed who GGIC is. There's a link there in case people are reading this after the fact. But yes, they're the part of the Australian Geological Survey Organisations Network, which has changed its name, but that's what it's called now. And it's the committee that governs information assets. Now, the current scope of GGIC, it's perhaps not super officially defined. Sorry, let me restate that. The current vocabulary scope of GGIC is probably not officially defined, but in practice, GGIC have a number of vocabularies about four that derive from or are related to standards. And those are the vocabularies that they, in some sense, govern, but certainly present. And now I'm going to see if I can click through to them from here. Now, can someone tell me if you can see a vocabulary screen or still my presentation? Meakin, what do you see on the screen? Oh, yeah, I can see the vocabularies. Oh, great. OK, so there's just this. Sorry, I'm sorry. Nick, I was just trying to work out where the chat was on Teams here. So I can't see a chat. But my apologies. So perhaps raise your hands once the presentation's over with questions. Sorry to interrupt. Thank you. Yeah, so this is just a technical thing we're looking at here. And it's got the old logos on. But these are the four vocabularies that GGIC knows about at the moment. And they've been around for a while. And they don't require very active governance. I mean, two of these were recent. Two of them are older. But they're there. They're used by the community to some extent. They're fairly static. But there's potential for them to be added to and handled. But what's happening now? And that's been the case for some time. But what's happening now is that there's a. So there's no specialized vocab governance, but there is information asset governance in general in the GGIC. So they have meetings and you can go along and talk about governance of assets and make proposals, et cetera. But nothing vocab specific. And that's been known for a while. Now, what's happening newly is that there's a proposal from some of the geological surveys with me assisting to consider the GGIC taking on another vocabulary and then testing out the acceptance of that, the management of that, the governance and delivery of that. And if that all works, what about other vocabularies? Now, the vocabulary in question, the sort of the prime mover here, it's a very standard minerals list vocabulary that's been developed by the Geological Survey of Queensland. And really all they've done is they've copied international standard mineral lists and put them in semantic web form and delivered them online. So that's all it is. Now, there are some people think that that's great and some people think it's not great and that you could improve that vocab list. And so one of the ways to resolve this is just to push that vocab up somewhere else and have it as a target for discussion. So the proposal for the July meeting of the GGIC is for the GGIC to accept that this vocab as a sort of a proposed vocab for the GGIC to deal with and then to appoint a kind of custodian and to make the vocab available for development. So for instance, one of the issues with the vocabulary is just a structural one about the way it's presented. There are groupings of minerals in there which are not themselves minerals. So a grouping of minerals is a grouping of minerals. It's not a mineral, but it's rendered as a concept in the vocabulary and a better construction of the vocabulary might see those groupings as collections rather than actually concepts themselves. So we know that there are these kinds of issues and we know that there are probably multiple different opinions on this. But the goal here is to move that vocabulary out of the Geological Survey of Queensland's kind of personal holdings into the GGIC where it might have a sort of a status that indicates that it's in development or who knows what, but to take on that vocabulary and then request contributions and additions because it's pretty obvious that for the Geological Survey agencies, minerals are a big deal and there are part vocabs and other minerals vocabs at the Geological Survey of South Australia, WA, within GA, et cetera, et cetera. So there's lots of minerals work going here, there and everywhere. Let's take one vocab of minerals and try and improve it and deal with it. So now there's nothing stopping you sending an email to GSQ and saying, hey, like your vocab, but can you do this? And they've always expressed that this was a possibility. So if you wanted to use that vocab and you want it to be fiddled with, you can ask them right now. But that's not very visible and it's not perhaps the easiest and best way to do it. A better way is to put it into a community governance kind of mode. So this is the proposal for July. We don't know all the details yet. Will GSQ remain as the kind of main custodian of that thing? Does GGIC have people that could act as GGIC custodians? We don't really know the answers to all of those questions yet, but we'll try with this vocab and see how we go. Okay, so that's the proposal. Let's see what's coming next. So future prospects. So it's likely that if we get success here, then more vocabaries could be delivered in this way. And when you've got more than one vocab kind of being dealt with actively rather than just sort of sitting there and especially when the vocabaries are at different stages of maturity and development, we're going to need to have a better handling of roles and responsibilities. And so for this, the proposal, which will only really be a formal proposal after this minerals vocabulary has been assessed, is just to reuse the roles and statuses and so on from ISO 19135. So that's the standard that talks about elements in registries, IT registries and the status and management of them. And you can see there on the right of the slide, there's a workflow. That workflow is a 19135 based workflow for the approval of persistent identifiers by the linked data working group. So what's it got to do with vocabaries? Well, items in vocabaries could follow a very similar kind of workflow. And I'm just going to zoom in on that for a second and show you what this looks like in a bit more detail. So replace the word PID or the acronym PID for persistent identifier with vocabulary concept and we're in the same sort of territory. So a submitter submits a concept to a vocabulary or submits a whole vocabulary to an organization. That would be equivalent and it's given the status of submitted. Now, there has to be an assessment done is the submitter actually eligible to submit things to this register? I mean, you might have automatically given them the status but you might discover that actually that they're not allowed for some reason. They're not a member of GGIC, for instance, in which case we would have to say, look, sorry that that request is invalid. We can't really handle those requests unless S can become eligible. So maybe it's, I don't know, the Geological Survey of Norfolk Island which is not currently a GGIC member. And they say, hang on, we can be and we should be and they become valid. Okay, fine. They say valid then we can accept the request. Now, there are certain groups that have certain roles and responsibilities according to this standard. And so there's a control body. That's one of the groups within these role sets. They're the ones who do reviews of things. So the register manager, the overall organization, GGIC in this case would assign somebody to review this vocabulary. Now, it's up to communities to implement what they mean by review. But where you've got a domain organization, you would imagine that they'd be doing two kinds of reviews. So sort of a technical review is this vocab structurally valid and then kind of a domain review is that scientifically or in some domain sense worthy and valid. And then they can say no, and it's invalid or they can say yes and it's accepted. And if it's accepted, it might go through sort of mechanisms. Now, again, this is talking about pistice nut and fires but it would be the same for vocabaries. Once a vocabulary has been accepted, you might then press a button to publish it. And then once it's published, now it might become stable. Okay, so that's the kind of very general workflow and this is the proposal for at least GGIC and elsewhere which you'll see in a second. Okay, so I'll come back to those kind of things in a second. Next thing is that a likely follow on proposal for the GGIC is to implement that kind of workflow and roles and responsibilities and governance structures which by the way is what geological survey of Queensland users internally. They already use this kind of structure. And so we're talking about replicating it maybe a variant of it but replicating some form of it at that GGIC level. Now, geological survey of Queensland and elsewhere already have automated tooling to do some of this. And here I'm gonna click on a link for the GGIC vocabaries as they currently are. It's over at Geoscience Australia. So what you see here, it's a technical screen. It's a set of workflows built into a code repository. And when you submit a vocabulary to this code repository, so I'll just go to the top level and show you. You'll see there's a number of vocabaries in here. What the four that we've seen before. When you submit a vocabulary to this system, this technical system, it will trigger a couple of actions. And one of the actions that it's gonna trigger is this vocab structurally valid. And it will actually do that assessment at a technical level. And if it's not, it'll give you a red cross and you can't proceed. If it is, you'll get a green tick. And so you can see that a few months ago, some of these vocabs were fiddled with and that's what we have here. But essentially, a mechanism like this checks the technical validity of the vocab. Yes, it's able to be published in this technical form. Obviously it has nothing to say about the scientific or other content of it, but it certainly ticks off the technical. So some of these steps in this workflow then can be handled with the automated tooling. The publication step two. So if you think that the vocab is technically valid because the workflow tells you and your scientists or others have said, yep, the content is good. Then there's a kind of a green button. You just press that button and it publishes. So really we're getting the reviews to focus on the content, not so much the structures. A couple of other things to say about the future prospects for GGIC. One is that the intended or expected flow is from geological surveys or members of GGIC up to GGIC. So if you're the Geological Survey of South Australia and you've got your U-Bute vocabulary about rocks or whatever it's about, maybe you publish that thing, maybe you don't, maybe you have never published it, but you suggest that this would be useful for the community. And so you propose that to GGIC. We don't know how regular that would be, but there's already GGIC meetings. And so one could, and we are in July, proposing a vocabulary and maybe each meeting every few months, three months, however often it is, more vocabaries get proposed. Certainly my hope that, and it's the hope of the Geological Survey of Queensland and others that anything that's useful for the community should be pushed up to that community level. Why would it be held at a individual survey level if it's of generic utility? And now the next logical step from that is, where to from GGIC? Well, if there's a vocab in GGIC that's of potentially international utility and a minerals vocab could be it, why doesn't that get pushed up to CGI? Now CGI is a global commission for geoscience information. So it's really like GGIC. What GGIC is for Australia, CGI is for the world. And so within the domain of geoscience and so on, if the GGIC has a vocab that's generally useful, why not propose it up and I'll come to CGI in just a minute. I should note here that this minerals vocab is reasonably, I don't know about controversial, but lots of people want minerals vocabs and people on this call have been involved in minerals, minerals lists, minerals vocabs. There's no clear, fantastic international minerals vocabs in the technical form that these communities want them to be. And so these proposals could, it could be that a minerals vocab is proposed to GGIC and maybe proposed upwards to CGI and other international players come along and say, we've got a better offer for you. Well, we welcome those offers. We would love to see them. But for the moment, this is the process of pushing the minerals vocab but then also other vocabulary sort of up the chain. Okay, ICSM. So ICSM has introduced, they are a committee on surveying and mapping and they have working groups that deal with issues like addressing cadastra, et cetera for Australia and sometimes New Zealand. And in the past, there have been several requests made to ICSM to manage certain vocabaries. For instance, within the geocoded national address file, which is an address database of all Australian addresses, there are a series of codelists that are, that could be and have been turned into vocabaries. And the requests have been made to ICSM over the years. Hey, could ICSM actively manage those rather than just sort of having them appear in this data set? And the answer from ICSM is it sounds like a good idea but it hasn't quite happened yet for a number of reasons. One of the reasons for this is a lack of technical capability to actually deliver these things. And then another one has been a lack of kind of governance and so on to, even if you had the technical capacity to actually do what GGIC is planning on doing, which is actually manage these things effectively. So that's the previous state is that the bin proposals but nothing's been delivered yet. The current state is that there is a demonstration organizational tooling, which is the vocab server there and I'll just click on the link. Many of you have seen this, I'm sure. It's a test server in no way is it official. And it's got a series of vocabaries here which are ICSM or ICSM relevant vocabaries. So address types, a bunch of foundational spatial data framework vocabaries, place name categories, et cetera. So like the GGIC work and elsewhere, the technical capability to store and deliver vocabaries, that's kind of done. And then the question comes down to governance and appropriateness and so on. So there is certainly a renewed desire for vocabulary management, coming from a couple of the committee. So for instance, this example of place name categories, people on this call and others are involved in updating that place name categories vocabulary and the desire is that of course, as soon as it's updated that it's actually pushed through and published and made available. So when new place name types are added, that they're available for use. So there's a renewed desire for vocabs like this address types vocabulary, not just from the people who manage the Geocoded National Address Fire, but in fact the work that's in some sense sponsoring what I'm doing right now is actually with the Queensland government working on an updated address model. And that address model is dependent on those address vocabaries. And so there's a renewed desire to see those published. Okay. So what does the July plus state look like for ICSM? And again, this is potential. I'm not claiming that this will definitely happen. This is proposed. So there are a series of vocabaries now that have been submitted to that test machine with a request to ICSM. Do ICSM, these are vocabs that we, some members of your community would love to see published. Would you consider publishing them and let us know how you go? And again, just like GGIC, if those procedures, if procedures are implemented to review, maybe reject, but hopefully approve and publish those vocabaries, then those should sort of pave a way for more vocabulary publication. So just looking at some of the vocabs that have been submitted here, again, it's very similar to what we saw before. We see the GNAF codelists as have been proposed previously. And I know this is very technical and so on, but essentially you've got 16 vocabulary files here. And they are very, very standard codelists that are extracted entirely from the GNAF database. So let's just look at one of these. What's this one? This is address alias type. So in what ways can an address be an alias of another one? Well, it's a flat number, no first suffix correlation. I'm not fully across these details, but this is one way in which an address might be an alias of another. Let's just choose one other one. Flat prefix suffix deduplication. So you could have two addresses which are only differentiated by the types of suffixes being used in flat types and one is actually an alias of another and this code tells you that. So nevertheless, these are fairly standard. They're very well known and the submission here has put these 18 vocab, or 16, 17 vocabaries to ICSM and said, please review these. They passed their technical steps. So they are technically valid. Another question is whether the ICSM wants to actually govern them or not. So these have been generated, these vocabaries, even though they have existed before in vocabulary form, the current form of them and another vocabulary, which is bureau statistics, mesh block categories, these have been generated through a current project with Geoscience Australia to build a semantic baseline set of data sets for the digital Atlas of Australia. So that's the technical work that's actually produced these and it's expected that that work will produce another five, 10 vocabaries still in the next few weeks and all of those vocabaries could be delivered online in a couple of different places, but clearly in our minds, the best place for that would be via ICSM or some body like that. And we hope that ICSM will publish them and therefore the technical platform can rely on that publication as the point of truth for those vocabs. A couple of other notes on the July plus states, the technical vocabulary support is growing in the sense that the test vocabulary publication service that you've seen, the foundational spatial data framework project at GA is building a new version of those systems and it's integrated with other infrastructure within GA systems with operational support. So the vocabulary service should be rock solid, it's not gonna go away anytime soon and therefore as to what it can publish is a governance question, not a technical question and it's got very large capacity. You could publish thousands of vocabaries there if you wanted, but we haven't got a review and approvals process yet. So that's what we need July plus and we hope that this current submission will sort of trigger that process. Okay, so just a couple of notes on other vocabulary governance implementations and implementors that are currently underway. So one is the uphill from the GGIC and I've already mentioned it, which is Commissioned for Geoscience Information, CGI internationally. In theory, GGIC could propose a vocab to them to manage, but there's no current proposal there, but there is a current proposal from the ICS, which is another acronym, but it's the International Commission on Stratigraphy. So they're the people who maintain the geologic timescale. Now we already have a geologic timescale, I'm gonna use sort of air quotes, vocabulary at CGI, but it's a complex vocabulary. It's a very powerful but complex technical artifact and there's a proposal coming along for a simplified form of that vocabulary. It's related, it uses much of the same content, but it is technically a different artifact and it would need additional governance. And so there's a proposal then to CGI to do with that what the GGIC would do with minerals. So here's a vocab, please can you publish it? You already have some vocabs, here's a new one, how will this be managed and governed, et cetera. And in the same way that the Geological Survey of Queensland proposing to GGIC as a member submission, the International Commission on Stratigraphy is a member and therefore it would be a member submission up to CGI. Same procedures, same proposal for governance review process, the same technical tooling, et cetera. And so it's wheels within wheels. Now the last thing to mention here is the International Standards Organization. So yes, I chair a co-chair, a little working group within that that is aiming to push the technical committee 211. So these are the people who maintain essentially geospatial and geological standards to push them to using more semantic web-friendly vocabularies. There are a couple of vocabulary projects going on within that space. So there's a thing called Geolexica which is a standard vocabulary of terms and definitions. But the one we're concerned with is to publish standards codelists in the kind of SCOS vocabularies that many of you are familiar with. And essentially we have many of these codelists, there's sort of in principle approval to publish them in this way. And now what we're doing is we're working through some of the technical elements of publication. So how will they be updated? Where will they be? Who will manage them? What information is needed? And something that I'm just gonna show a couple of links in all of a minute here which will just highlight a property that's been added to these vocabularies that will be very useful for all of the situations that I've just talked through. So CGI, GGIC, et cetera. So let's just have a look at one of these terms. So this is just term valid in the register item status codes vocabulary. And it's got preferred labels and it's got a definition and all the kind of normal vocabulary things but it also has the status. And you can see that valid says it has the status original. And what that means in this context is that original as per the standard that delivered this codelist as opposed to being sort of an approved member submission. So this allows us to have a codelist of terms with stable or valid terms in them all original and then new terms to be added. And if approved by the community to also be valid but to be valid in a different way valid through member submission and approval. And in a very self-referential way the codelist that allows us to talk about this being original is in fact this codelist. And this codelist again in a referential way has two additional terms. It has the additional term of addition and the additional term of original. The original codelist here didn't have those terms and so things were either essentially submitted or valid and now we're nuancing valid and saying that there is valid additional and there's valid original. So if we look at original we'll see it's valid additional. If you see what I mean, it's very confusing there but the point is that we needed a codelist that gave us the descriptive power to talk about terms that were originally valid sort of grandfathered in and then new terms. And with this status marker here and governance procedures we can now have live codelist, codelist that retain all the information about what was originally delivered in the original standard form but that can be extended by member submissions. And that will be true of all of the codelists in GGIC and CGI, et cetera. Thank you. That's all specifically on this. I hope I'm to time.