 It's all come through nicely. Great. And I'm just going to fiddle around. There we go. Just getting my little present of you. Yeah, thanks, Kiran. So this talk is going to be a lot simpler, technically, than the last few talks. But it does follow on quite nicely from some of the talks that you've just seen. In particular, some of the work that Edmund showed. So as the title says, this is a governance talk. I'll mention some technical things, but only as they relate to governance, really. OK, so here's the quick outline of what I'm going to talk about. Just a small history of geo vocabs in Australia. I'm going to talk about the current, it doesn't say it, but current governance arrangements and I guess used to arrangements of those geo vocabs. I'm going to talk about some of the opportunities that we have in front of us now. And then ultimately, I'm going to mention some future plans beyond vocabularies. OK, now that is that. And we progress to the next slide. That doesn't seem to have. There we go. I wonder what's happening there. OK, so this is just a very quick outline, I suppose, of things that have affected where we're at now. And you can see like all good things in geology, we start 4,670,000 million years ago at the start of the Hadian era and we progress through. So in 1850, geological survey, surveyors were appointed. State geological surveyors, there was no Commonwealth then. And then we have various international and national bodies formed, the IUGS, which is the International Union of Geological Sciences, the Australian GGIC, which is the Geo Governance Information Committee, that was formed to coordinate geological information. We have the well-known in the Geosciences, GSIML standard issued in 2003, and that's been very important to the way vocabularies and this sort of structured ordered data in the Geosciences has been shared and delivered. 2012, geological timescale in RDF, thank you, Dr. Cox and friends. And then right through a series of on the right now, more and more semantic versions of the categories lists, bits of standards, and so on. So this is just to give you some idea that there really isn't, to my mind, a time that was before governed and ordered and a time since or during. It's been a continuum for a long time, maybe not quite 4,567 billion years, but certainly the last 150. Now, if you want more information about these things, I'm not the person to ask. You should ask Leslie about the earlier things and Simon and Ollie Raymond about the Geo Vocabularies and IDF. Some of them are in the room there and they really know the stuff better than I do. OK, so the current arrangements between, well, as it says there, between the states and the Commonwealth bodies involved in geoscience in Australia, some states have dedicated vocabulary systems. And you see some screenshots of them over there on the right. There are also several national systems. So Geoscience Australia have their own vocabulary management system, but Geoscience Australia also supports the GGIC Vocabulary Management System. And GA also supports non-vocabulary structured data and codeless sharing systems like the Australian Stratigraphic Units Database, which have lookup tables that are used across the states and Commonwealth jurisdictions. And then, of course, there's the RBA system, also very important for the geosciences. So those are there. And so there are many systems that are available to people using Geo Vocabularies. There are also several international vocab systems. There is this Commission for Geoscience Information Vocabulary Server and System. And then there's also other projects which deliver Geo Vocabularies like the Loop 3D Project, which are in different phases of operationalization. I mean, there are many, many initiatives. But in the particular kind of world that I'm involved in, at least, there's, I'm just pointing out there's quite a lot of systems. We're not just talking about one. And I suppose I should mention that part of the reason for there being so many systems as opposed to just one is that states and territories really do want to be able to publish and control their own data, sort of like a data pod like in the last presentation. But they want to be able to do this and decide whether things are public or not public. They're not, at this stage, quite comfortable handing over everything to a single Commonwealth or COAG or whatever it's called now, entity. In terms of vocabulary management capability, several of the geological survey agencies, Geoscience Australia and the Intergovernmental Committees, are using version control in a manner similar to what Edmund showed us earlier, but I would say in a simpler manner. You can see there on the right, there's a list of turtle fires, as we saw in the last presentation. But those fires are whole vocabularies. So it's really one vocabulary per file in most of these cases. But nevertheless, these are vocabularies that are under version control. Several organizations also have official vocabulary management procedures. So here's the Geological Survey of Queensland. It is what you're seeing is a public document on GitHub. But it is actually a series of procedures and protocols for how they describe, define, and then ultimately create and publish their vocabularies. And they use GitHub-based mechanisms. OK. Now, vocabulary publication channels. OK. So the policies and procedures for the international vocabulary publication system that is available to the geological surveys in Australia and everywhere at so-called CGI, that's actually informal. And what I mean by that is that there are a series of vocabularies that are published. But the exact methods for creating and publishing vocabularies there and the scope within which that system operates is actually informal. It's not very well-defined. The policies and procedures for GGIC, so that's the national overarching body, are even less well-defined. They have a system. And there's the system, well, that page there, that Australian Geological Survey Organizations Network, references their vocabularies. And there's a few vocabularies if we were to click through those links. So they have a technical capability, but they don't actually have well-established procedures for vocabulary publication. Now, some of these organizations have had. So CGI in the past has had a more robust mechanism, but some of these mechanisms are not ticking over happily at the moment. I am involved in a project actually to do this for CGI. We are putting vocabularies from Australian Geological Survey Agencies through to the international system in order to test out their governance and management of those. Okay, now, RVA, and we've heard this from several people yesterday that, in fact, RVA has a quite a, I mean, it has a particular way of operating. And the way in which you publish vocabularies is known. It's not always a way that suits statutory state authorities. So, but nevertheless, in certain circumstances it does. And the way in which it's able to be used is known. Okay, so here's a question. How does an Australian government worker with a Geoscience vocabulary know, or does an Australian government worker know how and where to publish it? So on the how front, I think the answer is yes. If I was Derry Coy who I think is in the audience or some other Australian Geological Sciences worker who's created a vocab, I mean, or adding to an existing one, but that's a bit more obvious, but creating a new one, I would know how to publish it. I would know probably that, look, almost everybody is using SCOS. We have technical capability at many different points to publish it, but I don't yet know where and what criteria I would use to select a publication point. So here is a proposed review. Oh, I think I've got me slightly in a different order. Let me think about this. No, so I'll do this workflow first. So this is a review and publication procedure that's in place at a couple of Geological Agencies. And then after this, I'll look at a workflow to decide how you might decide where to publish the vocabulary. But just in brief, if I was Derek or another vocabulary proponent, I would propose my vocabulary. And there are automated tools now to ensure that the vocabulary meets the technical requirements for publication. It doesn't have certain metadata and is structured correctly for the system to be able to publish it. So those things are in place and that can be automatically assessed. If it's not valid, then I will get an error message and I can deal with that. And I don't need to be a particularly technical person to do that, although I would have to have a technical person to assist me if I, for instance, didn't understand the error message. Once the vocabulary is technically valid, at least in a couple of Geological Surveys cases, they then have a kind of next step, which is for subject matter experts to review the vocabulary, approve or not approve the vocabulary. Of course, they could request changes. And then ultimately they might go and hit publish on that vocabulary. And when they do, in some cases, it really is a matter of, well, if we're happy with the content, we know that the structure and the syntax is valid because the tool tells us it really is a matter of pressing a green button and that's it. There's no other steps. The automated system will publish that. And potentially in the bottom right, on publish to RVA as well. And that's something Edmund mentioned that Turn is also doing. Okay, so some opportunities that arise in this network. The coordinating national body could support a publication policy that's perhaps decision tree based that assists Geological Surveys to go and publish their vocabulary to decide where. Not how, we talked about the how but where. The Commission for Geoscience Information could grow its scope. But as we heard yesterday, there are also other groups such as international geochemistry that we need to be aware of as well. So we need to look at what scope these different organizations have and summarize that for geological vocabulary holders. And specialist bodies in Geoscience might also be involved like the Stratigraphic Commission, which I'm the webmaster. Now, all of this may seem, you might think I don't really care about Geoscience. I'm an ecologist or something like that. Well, I think that the things that we see here in play for this community could be in play in other communities and ultimately across communities. But for a variety of reasons, the Geological Surveys are just a couple, I think a couple of steps ahead of most other organizations in terms of coordination here. So even though this is we're not fully coordinated, there's perhaps better than other communities, not all, but some, okay. And just one other point, some of the vocabulary systems in play for the Geological Survey agencies can actually share vocabaries at a technical level between them. And so there's an opportunity to actually reuse vocabaries at that technical level, not just conceptually. And there are some requirements to that that are not always present in vocabaries. We have to have things like notes on where the vocabulary originally comes from. You might be able to work that out if you're a technical person, but we need upfront notes on who created it, when and so on in order to know in a system that contains multiple organizations of vocabaries exactly where they all come from. And here you see just a small screenshot of the new South Australian vocabulary system that's at least got the status code in there, tells you whether they think that from their point of view, the vocabulary is valid or invalid or proposed. And then soon we'll see other metadata such as, where this vocabulary comes from, who, et cetera, maybe some top level domains. So here's a workflow that we are aiming towards. And it's either a decision tree or a workflow. And there are a series of questions here. And the answers to the questions will determine where and how, not how, we talked about how before, but where the vocabulary will be published. So I'm not gonna read through it all, but just for instance, is this vocabulary about some international scientific content, in which case it probably should be submitted to CGI or another international geoscience body with vocabulary publication capability. Is it accepted? Yes, then sort of publish it and maybe co-publish it in RVA. If it's not accepted by CGI, maybe it should be submitted to GGIC. Maybe they say, look, yours is a sort of Australian specific thing. And then we can go down and you can see, is the vocabulary about local systems? If it is, then that probably should be self-published by the organization, not by an overarching body. But this workflow is, the diagram you see is sort of under test now for the Geological Survey of South Australia. And hopefully it'll roll that across a few others as well. Okay, so future plans, it's to formalize that GGIC process. So across Australia, we can have a better sense of how to propose vocabaries and how they will get updated and delivered and reviewed and so on in Australia. There's work internationally to shore up the scope of CGI, especially given that other international geoscience organizations with scopes such as geochemistry are now dealing with vocabaries. We want to upflow these vocabaries. So rather than publish a scientific vocabulary of mineral types at the Geological Survey of Queensland, we'd rather put that at the Australian level or the international level, even if it's relevant. We'd like to replace local vocabaries with extended versions of standard ones. So rather than South Australia and Queensland having a minerals vocabulary, they can both have extended versions of a international minerals vocabulary. We also want to talk to demonstrate more downstream systems that use vocabaries. All of this work for many, many years, not all of it, but a lot of it has been about making machine-readable vocabs. And yet so far, we've mostly got humans reading the vocabulary still. So we need to evidence that they can actually be machine-read and what use cases that's useful for. 15 minutes, Nick, 15 minutes. Okay, thanks, Brian. Last slide, I think. Ultimately, we want to progress beyond SCOS vocabaries and as I promised my last slide here, future plans is to work with more spatial vocabulary publishers. I'll add one more slide, but here it is, the last one. And we want to extend ourselves beyond vocabaries into special reference datasets, which look a lot like vocabaries, but just have spatiality involved. That's it, those are all of my slides.