 I'll just go ahead. I put together a few overview slides here and then specifically about the data quality element within the core trust seal requirements. I'm the, I guess you'd call me the coordinator of the Australian Trusted Data Repository Community that's sponsored by the ARDC. And I'll talk a little bit about what that community does and how it works over the next few minutes. These slides are all online, means put the link in the notes or you can go to my Twitter at value management. I've put a, we did a link to them there and you can find them there on SlideShare. You can, if you're on your phone or device, you can access them through SlideShare, but the links won't work until you download them. So if you're on your computer, you'll have to download the PDF and then you can access the links. All right, the, the community has a website you can access tiny.cc slash tbr for trusted data repositories. And most of this material comes from the website. And also the one page summary introduction we have to the community, which will also going to share as a bof at the upcoming research conference. All right, so just let me know if you have any trouble accessing those slides. So then you can browse through them at your own pace. So just one outline to ARDC is hopefully that's no mystery to anyone here, but we're about competitive advantage through data, retention of high quality data assets. So trusted data repositories. Obviously, once you've got the data assets, you've got to put them somewhere. And that's where the trusted element comes in that we want to be able to trust where those data assets are being held. So that's who I acknowledge and celebrate the first Australians on his traditional lands with me pay our respects to their not as past prison and emerging. I'm here in Melbourne on the lands of the laundry people in the Kulin nation. Welcome you sharing whose lands you're on around the country. So, what is called trust seal so you can go and have a look at the website. It's a bit of background. It's a spin off from the research data reliance where those group of academics and government said how can we determine what is a trustworthy place to put our data. So the core trust seal was a spin off organization that came from that working group that tried to define what should be the requirements of a trustworthy repository. We have a funding model where when you apply for a certification pay a thousand euros as an application fee, and then that triggers a peer review of the application, the application. Then become once you certified becomes a public document. So if you click on the link, you can get a map of the world that shows all the repositories are just have to stop share change. So here you can quickly you can see that map of the world and you can see Australia. The repository is certified. You can see the CSIRO data access portal and Australian data. Steve. So if we click here on CSIRO, then you can call up their application or call trust seal and see how they responded to the requirements. So for the say a hundred repositories around the world that are certified, you can see what they've written against the core trust. Okay, so another important part of core trust seal is that there's a designated community that's the users and the requirements relate to how do you interact with those users having their needs. So here's a diagram that we have on the community website, which provides an overview of the current 16 requirements. You see there it's in three kind of layers organization infrastructure, digital object management and then kind of technical technology layer. And the quality one there is considered a lit number 11. So about management of digital objects, praise or quality discovery in use, we're going to dig into that 11 quality but it was also touched on praise. The whole structure of the 16 requirements comes from something called the reference model. It's a national standard. And you can find a link to it on our community website. I'm not a repository specialist. There are probably people in this call who understand much more about that but it's a way of breaking down the processes of a repository. And the requirements follow that model. A couple of other things here on the slide. The certifications are valid for three years once you certify. So Australian data archive is about to witness the recertification process. And the other part of that is that core trust seal regularly reviews the requirements and changes them every two or three years. The next slide is about. So this is about, we're just about to enter a new version of the requirements. And this is the closest we've seen to a change log about how the requirements are changing from 2022 to 2023. And we have several organizations in the community working towards the last submission day is the 30th of October 31st of October. Over the next few weeks they were trying to get in with the 2022 requirements so they don't have to update their applications for the 2023 requirements. Which come into a force from 15 January next year. A kind of shut down period from November to January so they're trying to get into the 2022 requirements. I'll give you a list of the people who are doing that at the moment so you can see. So there's slight changing of the titles. So, for instance, R2 is changing from licenses to rights, R3 from continuity of access to continuity of service, R4 from confidential ethics to ethical and ethical. And R11 you see the quality is unchanged. Okay, so let's have a look at R11. So this is the full text of R11. It's spread over two slides. And I will open the requirements themselves so you can see the format of them because that tells tell you a little bit about how this works. So our requirement has like a one sentence summary. This is it here. So it's title data quality short summary is the repository is appropriate expertise reduce data and metadata quality and ensures that sufficient information is available for end users to make quality related evaluations. So this is a theme all through what I see all that it's about the repository making declarations to the users so the users can make an assessment about what data they're getting from the repository. Can the user trust the repository. So you have three participants who have the data depositors repository and you have the users. So it's about the relationship between the first of the second and second to the third. So we just have a browse through statement. Maybe I'll just give you a quick read of it. So basically what they're saying is that when someone deposits their data they must provide sufficient description so that a user can understand what they're looking at that there's enough information in the description for a user to be able to assess the quality of the data. It's not telling you whether it's good science or not, but it's up to the repository to make sure that the date that the users can assess the quality of the data. So the next second half of the requirement what people who submit an application to the course I see what do they have to describe. Approach the data and metadata quality taken by the repository, any automated assessment around a schema. So you have the community to comment on and write the data and metadata where the citations or links to citation indexes are provided. I'll put a link there to how CSIRO has written an answer to that. This is actually the whole application. So if you click on the link, you'll be able to read what CSI wrote in response to this. So I had a look at it just before it was basically saying I have a repository staff who have a look at the data and make sure there's sufficient description. There is also an extended guidance document which adds a little bit more color to the requirement. It should make clear on the response that they understand the quality levels that can be reasonably expected from the depositors. Evidence to describe how quality will be assessed during curation and quality expectations of the designated community. So this is where the community is important. You're trying to meet the needs of the community so different communities might have different needs. So if you have a clear view of who's using the data, then you're more likely to have a clear review about what they need in order to assess the quality. Repository and depositors are expected to document in areas in which the data or metadata quality falls below expected standard. So I was also going to show you R8 here on appraisal which also touches on quality and R12. So I'll stop the share so I can share. So this is the actual requirements. So I'm just going to go down to R11. In fact, first I might go to R11 to the format. So R11 has a title, a short description, and then this text which I've just pasted into the slides. Please refer to R8 appraisal. So we're going back and look at R8. R8 is about appraisal, i.e. what does the repository do when it accepts data? How do they check that it's sufficiently appropriate to go into depository? So just reading here, appraisal function is critical in determining whether data meet criteria for inclusion, collection, establish, appropriate management of preservation. Does the repository use a collection development policy to guide selection of data? Does the repository have quality control checks to ensure completeness and understandability of data that are not deposited? So provide references to control standards and reporting mechanisms, including how issues are resolved. This is a repository of this list of calling controls, place, usual data producers, and here it says it contrasts with data quality, which addresses metadata at the quality point of view of the designated community playing the users. So since I don't write these applications, how you actually respond to these is really a question of the community and perhaps Steve can talk about how the Australian data archive might respond to these kind of requests for clarification. I've just got one more slide now, the community itself. I'll tell you a little bit about the Core Trust CEO community in Australia. So we have monthly meetings of a broader community and we have writing workshops with those groups who are actively drafting documents and there are six who are actively working at the moment. So I must submit their application towards the end of the year and they're replying to the review comments. GA, Geoscience Australia has recently in the last few weeks submitted their application and we have four others. AIMS, UWA, TUNE and OSCOPE who are looking to submit their Core Trust CEO applications over the next few weeks before the 1 November deadline. And yes, maybe I'll just give you a quick look at our website. Here's our website and the list of resources including those two diagrams I just showed you. There's some lists of videos, some comparison documents, a list of the requirements and one page summary reviews for the conference. And then you can see the list of meetings and writing workshops that we've had, like the street so to speak. All right, I think that was about all, just my last slide is a contact us slide. And thank you for the opportunity to let me know about our community. We are interested in other repositories and maybe interested to work towards Core Trust CEO. So feel free to reach out to me in my details on the first slide or contact us. We'll be invited to our regular meetings or my contact details and so on.