 And I'm going to be pulling up the page and sharing this. I got it. So I'm going to kick off the meeting just with a couple of housekeeping items, Martin, and then we'll hop right into your presentation. As I always do for every meeting, these meetings and all meetings operate underneath the Linux Foundation's anti-trust policy. And so that's something that's very important to kind of keep in mind while sharing the meeting page with you. That's where you can find the, so I just want to pull this up a little quickly. Just trying to do two things at once. Yeah. OK. Don't want to share that. Sure. There. This. OK. Yeah. OK. Right here you can see the anti-trust policy notice. We also operate underneath the hyperledger code of conduct. So for participating within the community, please keep that in mind. Usually like to kick off these calls by very quickly, seeing if there's anybody on the call for the first time. Love to get you to raise your hand. Sure, a little bit who you are, where you're coming from and how you heard about it. Is there anybody new on the call today? New to the SIG. You can raise your hand or just speak freely. Oh, OK. Sounds like we have all old timers here. That's fantastic. Wanted to highlight a couple things. We do have several different non-technical contribution opportunities within the SIG. One of them is just a general marketing and engagement project within the ecosystem to build awareness for the SIG. This provides a really interesting opportunity to kind of engage with different stakeholders in the ecosystem, build awareness of the work that they're doing and share relevant activities that they're doing. And we also have some really interesting research projects around the market or the ecosystem. Lots of different kind of techno economic analysis that we would love to share if there's interest to you. There's a lot of support from the Hyperlegion Foundation for some of the papers we're putting out as well. So I think with any of these, please reach out to the mailing list or better yet. We've also got a Discord channel that I want to get more active. So please just reach out on the Discord channel. We can start a conversation there. Also wanted to kick off with some of the different working group updates. I'll start with the Carbon Accounting Working Group, still making really good progress with the net emissions profile tracker and this kind of that whole climate accounting ecosystem that we're building. For those of you who don't know, the net emission profile tracker, it's the open source prototype we built last year, received several awards for it, the IBM Call for Code, the Hyperledger Award last year as well. And that is a solution to really be able to kind of capture the emissions data as it's being reported in verticals and be able to kind of tokenize that so that we can create emissions profiles that can be reported across supply chains and really work towards creating that open, interoperable layer of information that different stakeholders within the ecosystem can work from. And so I'll pause and invite anybody from the Standards Working Group or the Research Working Group to share any updates on any work that you're doing and any opportunities for others to contribute, please share. Is there anybody? That's my Roomba. You guys hear that? In the background, they're fine. OK, so the other thing I wanted to mention is that the Linux Foundation Sustainability Conference is coming up. We have a call proposal. It's happening May 10th through 12th in Vancouver. I believe David, is that where it is? David's still on the call. Might have had to hop off. OK, there's a link in the meeting on the meeting page. Please share there. It's a call proposal. And yeah, that is it. So with that, I wanted to introduce Martin Pompere. Did I get your last name right, Martin? No, no, it's a difficult pronunciation. But it's OK, Pompeii. It is, but it doesn't matter. Pompeii, Pompeii. OK, Martin Pompere. With the Cine Foundation, I might have gotten that wrong. Is it Cine or Cine? We're just going to do it all at the same time. Cine. You're more complicated, sorry. Yeah, and so this is a really interesting presentation that I'm really excited about. The partnership for carbon transparency, it's definitely something. It's a partnership. It's an initiative that's definitely within our wheelhouse. I'm excited to learn about some of the progress that you guys have made. It's a partnership with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. And really just interested in hearing about that work and the work of Cine and how you're supporting it. So what I'll do, if you'd like me to, did you have a presentation that would allow you to share your screen? Yes, perfect. Yes, I am. Great. But I must say, I really like interactive formats. So we can go through the slides, but we can also go with the flow, so to say, go with the questions. But what I guess might make sense is that I briefly, at least, introduce you to the PAK project and what work we have been doing there and some of our assumptions, et cetera, so that we all have to take a common foundation to then dive deeper into, if that makes sense. Yes, that does make sense. And I just want to make sure, could you also provide a high-level introduction that you might in your presentation of your foundation that you run in the work with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and how that ecosystem came together with? Yes. Yes, yes, I can do that. Give me a second, because that slide I had actually hidden on the Cine Foundation, assuming that it's actually not necessarily necessarily giving me a second. So there we go. All right, perfect. So the Cine Foundation, well, we are a very crude thing, because we haven't really found a good way to explain what we do. But what we generally are about is connecting different stakeholders with each other. Sometimes it's about technology. Sometimes it's about creating forums. And this connection is, let's say, part of the DNA of our nonprofit organization. We are based in Berlin, but we have members from all over the world. Roughly 50% of the members are former startup founders or people with a small like of software background and product background. The other 50% are from academia. And they are especially computer science and economics and cartography. And we try to bring all of these domains together because we have this founding thesis that digitization between companies has yet to start. And we believe that cryptography in general, but not only cryptography, but also other means that should change how information can flow between entities will have a profound impact on the world's economy. And I must say, more out of luck and out of personal connections as founding members, we could in touch with WBCSD on their partnership for common transparency project, which is commonly called just packed or packed. And the work we do there is we support WBCSD, so to say, if I may say so in a very informal way, to go beyond just publishing PDFs, so to say. So WBCSD so far was, and is especially known for being one of the original core sources of the greenhouse gas protocol. And by that they are effectively doing standard setting work, but they have never really reached the realm of taking what they are publishing as technical standards and guidelines and methodologies and so they put that into working software. And this is where we essentially start our work. We help WBCSD in capability building in that regard. We partially steer the project when it comes to writing technical specifications. We will talk more about that in a second. And as I said, to form a digital network around the work that they are normally being doing or that they want to do and why, so to say they generally want to do that and that's why this is of course something I would like to explain in more detail. If I may just, if that's a sufficient answer in terms of what's seen as. Of course, as always feel free to ask questions, right? Like, as I said, I have a lot of slides prepared but I'd rather like to work or directly reply to answers than just doing a full frontal presentation. I would assume everybody knows what scope three means and maybe talk about greenhouse gas emissions, right? Or should I briefly explain what really the challenge here is? Maybe, I think probably a minus of scope three is here, yes. Okay, perfect. As you can see here, this is a slide that I shamefully copied from WBCSD and packed as you can see at the very bottom of the slide. And these numbers are from CDP McKinsey and others. You can see for most industries, 80% and more of the emissions are in scope three, right? And as you will see, with PACT, we especially have multinationals being represented in this coalition. And they frankly have the problem that they have literally suppliers from all over the world, sometimes 50, 80,000 suppliers of all different sizes and from all different areas of the world that they need their data from in order for the big corporates to do their scope three accounting, right? After all, as you might know in the EU and also in the US starting next year, these companies will have to report on scope three emissions. And these numbers must be correct at least for the companies reporting in the EU. The liability will be essentially the same as for financial numbers. In other words, if you are reporting non-truthful values, you hold your company accountable for almost unlimited liabilities, so to say, and also liability is a personal one, at least here in Europe, meaning if you are a board member, we talk about personal liability here actually, right? So these numbers are very critical now. They haven't been before. This is the business aspect, so to say, of scope three emissions. And because these corporates are working at a global level, of course they're interested in a technical solution that in the best case also works globally, right? So to say that they have one technical standard and one also accounting mechanism that they can employ to do their scope three level accounting and also, of course, have their suppliers use the same methodology because otherwise the bigger corporates will be unable to do their accounting purposes or fulfill their obligations. And of course this does not only apply to bigger corporates. This will be greatly expanding at least in the EU area, economic area. This will also affect much smaller companies as well. So it's no longer just the big corporate game that we're talking about. It's really affecting a major part of the economy in the world basically. But again, I assume that everybody is aware of that challenge in general. So the work we, when we started to work with WPCSD and this is, so to say, one of the research results from some of our founding members said if you want to start with a working community of people who are actually also delivering software, yeah, you really need a common vision statement otherwise you won't get anywhere. You need a North Star, so to say that you work against. And we've... Martin, if you can hear me, I think you've... You put all the effort into that. Screen is frozen, oh wait a second. Our internet connection was unstable, I was just told, can you see it? Yes, we can see now, yes. Can you see my screen again? Get the bottom source, Pucknetwork, versions, et cetera, et cetera. Yes. Okay, perfect, Peter, the last sentence. Yeah, it's kind of, it's good now but it kind of keeps on freezing up and then rapidly running through everything. But I think hopefully it seems like it's okay right now, really frozen again. Martin, maybe if you turn off your video. Can you hear me again? I hope my connection is stabilized now. I can hear you. And if it comes again, maybe you turn off your video that might kind of help. I will restart the screen sharing, maybe that helps. Yeah, yeah. All right. So you can see that now, right? I cannot see your presentation yet. Yep, I can see it now, yes. Yeah, okay, perfect. Okay, nice, perfect. So to make a long story short, we worked along with the community and WBCSD to have a common vision statement. And if you want to understand the project and what we are about to do, it's essentially all in the slide here. So we very much care about in trouble data exchange but here we are really talking about a specific way to exchange data. Not the type of data exchange that would be mediated for instance with a central or quasi-central system like let's say blockchain based system or similar. But really what we are aiming for is the different parties participating in a value chain, meaning say you are a supplier to your customer and et cetera, et cetera. These different parties are supposed to exchange data directly with each other. The analogy here really is more about sort of say enabling a protocol similar to email instead of building a platform. So that was this freedom of platforms was the key aspect for many of the players was in fact because they really care about sovereignty and control over the data. They don't want others to see who their suppliers are for instance. They also want to have control over who sees their emissions data for what purpose, et cetera. So this is why this type of secure peer-to-peer data exchange was very significant and important for them from day one. And when we talk about emission data in the context of the PAC framework right now we are really focused on a very singular thing. It is greenhouse gas emission data at product level. So we are not talking about corporate level data here of course, but we are really talking product level. This is important to understand because of course there are other platforms or other approaches like let's say CDP, et cetera. We are not working at product level emission data but it's obvious of course if you are more into carbon accounting that product level emission data will be really key to decarbonizing the industries because it allows you to understand like where exactly or which product has to say I could concentrate on in terms of my sourcing where I believe that there's the highest potential for CO2 reduction for the least amount of money, right? So that essentially this type of information requires you to have product level information. And of course this information must be of high quality. And I'm pretty sure you- May I ask you, yes. When you envision the kind of data outputs obviously you're thinking about it at the product level but are you also envisioning something where this if you can track it at the product level you can also assess data at potentially the facility level or identify it at the regional level and basically just have this and use it however you need it, right? Yeah, yeah, that's a really good question though. We already have regional scope within the current data model. We will be opening up this for a much higher granularity most likely meaning even down to the factory or maybe even production line if needed and wanted. But that would probably not go into the so to say core data model but into something else which we call data model extension if you'll talk about in a second but yeah, we definitely envision that even down to if needed I mean the data model would already allow for that even down to individual batches or even to a batch of one if needed. But again, this is right now actually not needed or wanted from the community for many reasons but there's the one reason being really that getting data from your suppliers and making sure that the data has a high quality is already such a big challenge. So to say increasing the accuracy or the granularity of the data such a not the biggest concern right now but the protocols in some sense but also the data model is already anticipating that. So it could be done tomorrow but I guess we will talk more about that in a second. The challenges in between are of non-technical nature are much, much bigger than so to say being able to exchange certain data but to have it and to make sure that it is dependable and accurate that's a much, much bigger challenge. I believe. Any questions so far on the vision statement? If not, I would just continue. Sorry, actually I was late. This is Jeff Proge, I was late on. Please put your mind at me. You know the little area there that says primary? Yeah. What's the reason you need to put that up there? I don't know, maybe an elementary question on my part. What's been going on in the past? Especially when we talk about proxies. Yeah, that's a wonderful question and thanks for bringing it up actually, almost forgot it. So as you might know right now, especially when we talk about product level accounting and life cycle analysis, maybe often companies resort to emission factor databases, right? And there are lots of problems with these emission factor databases. One is maybe often they are not complete, meaning they may weigh more products in the world than have been analyzed at all in terms of life cycle data. So the data is often missing, often it's very old. The quality sometimes questionable in the sense of that, not that the companies providing these databases were, so they're doing this on purpose, but sometimes data is being accounted for different principles or different ways. And so to say you're comparing apples and oranges, so to say, sometimes with each other. And so the second, and usually this is called secondary data. And then probably is getting more clear about primary data, really means the primary data here means that you have data that is coming directly from your suppliers and your suppliers are talking in the best case also with their suppliers and so to say recursively down to the very beginning of the difference value change. The different companies are supposed to directly interact with each other. And in the best case only use data that they have received directly. And then use that data for their own internal life cycle analysis. This is the rough explanation of what primary means. Underlying this whole network, I mentioned that WBCST is especially active in the greenhouse gas protocol and it's one of the co-authors there. Of course, first of all, there is a methodology which is called Pathfinder Framework. I will come to that in a second, which is defining what primary data here really means and what accurate data means, meaning how are you supposed to calculate these numbers, right? How are you supposed to calculate how much of the data is actually primary data, so to say, and so that you can report on what is called the primary data share, meaning as I'd say, relative to the absolute emissions reported to your product, how much of that emission reported is based on primary data, right? In other words, let's say the impact of a product was that they want on for each ton of your product, meaning one ton of greenhouse gas to be emitted as part of the production, et cetera. If there was, let's say, a primary data share of 50%, it would mean that for 50% of these emissions, so to say, you have primary data. So it's weighted by the emissions and the relative primary data share that you get there. So it's a weighted sum over all the inputs that you got, basically, whether they were primary data or not. And so this primary data share is actually a statement of the whole supply chain. It goes literally end-to-end how you calculate it, which is really nice because primary data share gives you a KPI, of course, that you can take a look at and, let's say, what margins should you add on the values reported, meaning, let's say, what imprecision should you assume here? And on the other hand, of course, also, it's a nice KPI to understand to which extent your supply chain is digitized in terms of the product level carbon, what you might, because you cannot have a high primary data share, obviously, unless a big share of your supply chain is reporting to values in a digital way, at least in relative to the overall greenhouse gas emissions. Go ahead, please. There's another question I see. Well, the moment just made green, but yeah, thanks for the explanation. Okay, welcome. Any other question on this slide? Otherwise, we'll just continue. I see no one asking. So again, just to bring home the point that this is about peer-to-peer data exchange, here is a very simplified explanation of what's actually happening. Let's say, imagine, there's, so to say, a tier one producer, let's say, I don't know, plastic scramble that you need to produce a certain packaging. This was tier two. They are running their own in-house solution or a solution on the market. And then the tier one company, meaning turning that granular stuff and turn it into a real package, would, so to say, go to the system of tier two, ask it for the product footprint that they got and then use it for the internal calculation. The same, of course, happens with the tier zero. So player, they again, having their in-house solution going to the tier one company asking for the product carbon footprints and then do their internal carbon accounting. Actually, very simple, right? In other words, similarly to how the products are flowing literally from company to company, it is assumed that the data is also flowing, right? That's what I meant was peer-to-peer direct data exchange. So tier zero talks with tier one and the only detail that, so to say, tier zero has who's tier one and what are the products that we get from them. But of course, tier zero doesn't know anything about tier two from a data model perspective but also from a data flow perspective. And we can talk more about that later, maybe in a second, but what I tried to highlight here is that, again, this peer-to-peer nature and that there is, so to say, no third party involved here at all, at least at the conceptual level. There's no data being stored in the immediate storage facility or network service whatsoever or any other approach that you can think of. That's how the current network works. And again, if there are questions, just please raise your hand or ask. Otherwise, I would just continue with the slides. You're still at the introduction, I'm sorry. That was a really good way of doing it. I think you did a good job of highlighting the scribe and the issue there. Thank you. I just have a really quick question. Please. Yes. Sorry, you mentioned there's no data stored on any standard centralized servers. What do you mean by that? How does the transfer of information, how does the transfer information occur without the storage of the data somewhere? I mean, of course, if we stay with that, that's a great question. Of course, if we stay with that example, of course, let's say the tier zero company accessing data from the tier one company, of course, they must be able to store certain product level carbon information from tier one for the internal accounting, for sure. But they have no further visibility into, so to say, the supply chain of the tier one company. That's what I was trying to say. And also no other party theoretically has this type of insight. Only tier one would have that. That's what I'm trying to say. So the data that is being exchanged and stored is more like, as I was trying to say, there was email, right, you have two email servers talking with each other, sending data from system to system, but there's the assumption that there's no shared storage or shared network service in place where eventually all of the data would reside, the assumption is that this doesn't happen. And I mean, and of course, one type of radiation of such a system could be a blockchain-based system. I mean, you could also say that first, you need to put product level carbon footprints on a blockchain. And then so to say, tier zero can access that from tier one. I mean, that's one way how you could do that, but that's not what we are doing. And since I'm talking with this SIG here, of course, which is also related to blockchain, I wanted to highlight that to be not engaging in any of that. And I'm sure we can talk more about that, why we don't do that and what so to say is the focus in terms of what we try to standardize and why we have this singular focus and leave out, so to say, various other things and leave that for the market to decide upon that. So this is more than a concept. This is not just the methodology, there's actually an implementation of this. Yes, yes, serious. And then I will talk more about it. We have already commitments from various bigger companies. For instance, like SAP, they have openly committed to that standard. They are actually already offering that part of their carbon footprinting solution and there are a lot of other companies and et cetera, et cetera. What you also have or something that I would like to highlight here, and I was saying that in either case, be it tier two or tier zero, it is supposed that companies are also building in-house solutions and we actually see that. So it's 50% right now of the, like literally 50% and the last time we did that type of market assessment, 50% of the members of the PAK community were saying that they either consider building an in-house solution or have already started doing so. In the latest real world, let's say piloting that we did a couple of months ago, we actually had two companies participating with their own in-house solution. So we really actually optimize for that. That has many reasons that I don't want to go into that yet, but yeah, we really strive to optimize for that and we think this is actually important for the well-being of the community. Any other question on that slide or may I just continue? I'm sorry that the introduction takes so long, but it's actually, there's a lot to explain first. I'm afraid it's a bit of a more complex. Project right now. So when we think of PAK as a project, we actually think about three different tiers which are important to distinguish because as I said, like we are not trying to run this as a sort of say project with a limited lifetime, but we really want this to be a sustainable project in the sense of that we hope that without Sine or without any of the original members, this project will go on and will continue to deliver value and there will be continuously companies and other stakeholders participating and interacting with that bigger project to move it forward. So right now we are primarily talking about a hundred core stakeholders that are being engaged. This number is actually growing quite a bit as we speak and might actually already be no longer correct. Right now when we talk about core stakeholders, we also talk about other industry initiatives. For instance, one is Katina X. Katina X, this is a big part of the European car manufacturing industry. They alone have, if I remember it correctly, more than a hundred different companies as participating member companies. So Katina X is a member and sort of say stakeholder of the pass finder ecosystem. And this is why we get sort of say from 100 stakeholders to more than 2,500 represented companies because sort of say we have these multipliers in the bigger ecosystem. As I said, we already did several pilots. We also now have uptake of the technical specifications independent of the packed ecosystem in that sense. For instance, there's one large Japan-based business initiative that has implemented our technical specifications and during their testing, for instance, 15 different independent software solutions implemented our technical specification and ran that during the test. And several of these 15, I don't know yet how many are also committing towards building actual product out of that. And the same goes for our initiatives as well. So we really try to grow that and this is what we mean with pass finder ecosystem. It's more like a loose ecosystem, which you want which we are still in the build up but it's growing and so far the feedback was actually pretty great from the different members and non-members or non-directly participating members. The pass finder framework I just mentioned this is a methodology meaning it's explaining how you're supposed to do product level carbon accounting referencing to the relevant ISO standard and the greenhouse gas protocol as well with the aim of harmonizing the different approaches that exist so that eventually it's the hope for the pass finder framework eventually that they worldwide one principle way of doing the accounting is being used so that you can do actual scope three accounting. So this whole ecosystem, the whole pass finder pass finder work stream, et cetera. Of course, as I mentioned really focusing on enabling companies to do truthful scope three mission accounting and the pass finder framework obviously was very and still is very important. Actually, tomorrow the version two of that framework will be published which will also be a major milestone for the overarching community. And with the version two we also expect things to be settled a lot more meaning the last release was I think in March last year of the pass finder framework and now we are making some gradual changes to the data model with framework version two but with version two now things to be settled for hopefully settled for the next few years. So things are also stabilizing so to say on the accounting methodology and things with pass finder framework and then we'll just present. Go ahead. May I ask you, is this information open and available but this is something that I think, okay, great. Yeah, yeah, it is, it is, I can send the link. Also the ecosystem, that's also partially publicly available already. We have a website, let me briefly share that in the chat if you find some details too boring just you can at least take a look at the website there is carbon transparency.com that's the website for the initiative. Okay. As I mentioned, yeah, so the framework is the methodology meaning the so to say the accounting principles but this is really just a larger PDF that's nicely written. I think that's what my work is why I can say it is super nicely written, very approachable and even if you're not an ACA expert you can go through it, you can understand what's going on, you understand how to apply it. It's really, really approachable work and as I said it will be also released in public. Likewise, the technical specifications and everything that we've presented so far all of that is available in the public domain meaning it's an open technical standard everybody can implement it in a royalty free manner. I mean, the copyright is on WBCSD but we have open source MIT license demo implementations of the technical specification and whatnot. So we really strive for everything that you see here to be as open and approachable and freely usable free also as in beer to be freely as freely usable and implementable as possible. As I mentioned, like you can only tackle the scope free problem if everybody's able to participate in exchanging the necessary data and this is why we make everything as open as possible. The Pathfinder network is what you just saw meaning it's a realization of the Pathfinder framework if you want it to software plus additional specifications needed to drive forward interoperability. This is the ecosystem that I just mentioned but it's actually outdated. I must say there are no even way more companies participating directly and indirectly but to make a long story short, we try to connect and align with as many different players that are relevant in the market as possible especially also NGOs obviously other standard setting organizations that you see on the very top like ISO and to be no scarce protocol and a lot of others. Likewise, we also well connected with the EU these days also with the White House as a shortly and a couple of others. We do have a pretty rich as we call it solution provider ecosystem that you see at the lower right that you can for instance see Microsoft but also SAP and IBM. They are participating as a matter of fact, we have also onboarded eight startups recently. Martin, what question were you who? Because IBM is definitely involved heavily involved in our ecosystem. I'm curious on the IBM side who what function or what group with an IBM is really been the most involved. I mean, this is a bit embarrassing. I don't know exactly how that group is called but as far as I know, they're using the technical standard for their supplier management tool but I forgot the name. I'm sorry but I can look that up afterwards and provide that. So SAP as I mentioned, they openly committed to that. Sage is a particularly interesting one because they are, of course, targeting a completely different group of companies more like a smaller end of things, a long tail, literally. Sage, that's very interesting. I point to say life cycle analysis company from Germany and I know that circular tree has presented here in the past, I think in the mid, beginning or mid of last year, I believe. So it's probably the first time that you hear about PACT but they're also active and we are super happy about them or having them, et cetera, et cetera. Well, that just as an overview, the big, yeah. So what are our, so to say, resources and deliverables that we have so far? We really try to not over complicate things. So if you take a look at the current specifications, you have a version two upcoming line with the past kind of frame of version two release. This will be released to the public in February, the updated technical specifications. They are really about defining the data model, how it's encoded. It's adjacent, very simple and it's super, super, super simple, HTTP REST API. So again, we try to not be super advanced here in what we do. If you take a look at it at the first time, you might even be surprised that it's so minimal and that there's probably a lot of things that you would expect to see from the technical specification. But that's on purpose because there's one thing that we optimize for and realize where we're in the beginning is that, as I mentioned, this challenge is so big in terms of scopes we are mission accounting. Like as I said, imagine you are a company and you have 80,000 different suppliers. How do you make them report data in a certain way if they never did that before? That's a huge challenge. And we think that lowering the barrier for companies to do this type of data exchange is the most important thing we can do right now. And lowering the barrier means the effort that existing software providers must put into supporting what we do. Also the technical assumptions, of course, that we make. But also, of course, the tooling. We'd like to talk more about that in a second. But essentially, we do think in a very minimal way and that's also why there are effectively no real network services there at this point because we think it's more important to people to really try this out, to work with it, work with their suppliers, educate them, et cetera, et cetera. So this is our current singular focus. But again, with a very interoperability focused lens, meaning you want to enable that type of data to flow irrespective of where you are and what you do or to give an example there. For instance, some networks were using blockchain as an underlying substrate to maybe exchange product output with data. But what do you do if you want to exchange data with companies who are not part of that network yet? This is where we kick in with our technical specification. This is also where many projects are looking into us, so to say, to connect with the rest of the world because no matter, I would argue, no matter how big your network or your group of companies is, there will probably always be more companies not on boarded to your network that you still want or need to exchange data with. This is where our technical specification kicks in. So you can see here we have tried to write some kind of developer focused introduction material. You can find it at GitHub. You can also find the technical specifications at GitHub. You see them linked over here. And what we recently also published is, so to say, as a more like a request for comments, literally type of way, what you call data model extensions. In this data model extensions, we describe how to say, so to say, extend the current data model we have but we hope that it still enables interoperability. So it's again a very minimal definition, but with data model extensions, we're actually making the first step towards extending the footprint of what we do. We already have several initiatives committing to creating data model extensions. Let me briefly give an example of what I mean with that. Right now we have, as I said, we are focused on product level, you know, scarce emissions. I hope that in a couple of months, we might have a data model extension related to, let's say, a water footprint of a product, right? Certain product categories which are very water intensive. It's interesting to understand what the water usage is. Or let's say logistics industry, we are working with them to create a data model extension so that you can, based on our current data model, can also use it to exchange logistics related emissions. Because there are various products where logistics emissions are actually major factor, sometimes 60 or 70% of the overall carbon emissions make or come directly from logistics. So they, again, are so, of course, very interested in getting primary data from the logistics industry. And again, you're focusing on interoperability, we believe is key because it means that even though there might be the case that the logistics industry is deciding on using a different data model or different data exchange protocol for them within their specific industry, it will still be a way for them to report logistics emissions towards their customers, towards their shippers, in a way that they can understand it. And the shippers, meaning for instance, the companies that are participating in the PAK community, they then have, can use essentially the same capabilities that they have right now to exchange data with their suppliers. Or with the logistics industry, that's the whole idea of specific interoperability here, of course. In terms of the roadmap, come ahead. Yeah, just a quick question. So I'm just trying to understand conceptually, I mean, what PAK to change and since there's no really underlying network, which makes it really easy for anyone to adopt it, I think that makes a lot of sense. Would it be fair to characterize what you're talking about as like a messaging language or sort of a messaging language framework? Yeah, I mean, yeah, yeah. Yeah, it's more like a combination of, let's say the NRFC that explains how you can exchange emails and the second RFC explaining what should be in an email and what it means. This is what we mean, this data model and semantics. And actually we published it at once, but of course you can also just take the data model and use it in a completely different context. Go ahead. Yeah, no thanks. I'm going to be reading through the documentation or detail to it, but there was just one follow-up question regarding you showed your stakeholders and I didn't look at it in detail, but are you aware of any engagement with an institution called Carbon Finance Labs, specifically a project called CarbonML or CARML, which is called Carbon Markup Language? Yes, so CarbonML, we stumbled upon a couple of weeks ago I haven't really looked much into it yet. At first sight it looked interesting, I must say, but I have no deeper insight into that. I think we had a meeting with them last week, that's why I brought it up and we're actually sharing some of the work we've done on actually building a blockchain network that's similar to what we're talking about, but I'm not going to dive into that now for sake of time. But yeah, I think there will be a lot of interest from that team and that we could help us out or coordinate an introduction on incorporating the work that you guys are doing into what Carbon, CarbonML is setting up, because I think there are a lot of similarities and a lot of interest there. But again, I want to distract from the call, so maybe another we can address that later. No, that's perfect. I mean, you're almost getting ahead of the very end of my talk because at the type of information you just gave and the type of connect you want to make, it's exactly why I'm here today. So to say one of my hope and principles of why I'd like to present here today what we do because I really believe in that if we want to nail this general challenge of getting towards a more sustainable economy, we must talk more with each other and come to common terms literally. And it always starts with talking and exchanging thoughts and so I'm super happy about any of these interventions like before just keep them coming. Just a brief roadmap also in terms of connecting people. This is one of the themes that we will be focusing on very much this year. I mean, we want more initiatives, companies, etc. to know about the work that we did and the status of it, hoping of course that it's being adopted in one way or the other. But to go a little bit more into the details, as I said, like Martin, I'm sorry, Martin, I'm sorry to interrupt. I've got two additional questions. I just want to make sure we didn't get too far down the pipeline. Demetrius and Alex, but they need to meet you. Do you have a question? Yes. Hello. Question to our speaker. You mentioned you're working with. Some stakeholders in the logistics space. Is this the global logistics admissions council? Yes. Yes, it is. But specifically, it's a smart trade center. So I'm not entirely sure because I'm new to the topic. What's the relationship between GLEC and SFC? But I believe GLEC is part of SFC, right? They seem to know more about it. Okay. Okay, thank you. One more thing on your resources page. There is a publication, a link to a publication and to end greenhouse gas reporting of logistics operations, which was just published on the 18th of January. But the download link is not available. So it looks like. And SFC. Okay. I mean, that's funny, but it's okay. I mean, okay. I cannot comment on that. But unfortunately, but what I can say is that. That there's essentially the work that they have released recently and also will be releasing more. And this one I believe we will essentially pick up from there and integrate their work. Hopefully into the PAC network generally speaking. So I was referring to the carbon transparency.com website. Oh, there's one link. Okay. There's the resources page. Anyways, I'll also do the link. Okay. I see, I see what you mean. I will, I think, thanks for letting me know. I can, I can, I can actually provide a link probably towards the end to that, to that framework. That's actually the end to end greenhouse gas reporting report. It's actually coming from SFC. So it's curious that this download link doesn't work. Thanks for reporting. I didn't even know that they put it online. So, so that's, that's really appreciated. Thank you. No, no, I get you. Alex. Thank you. Yeah. I haven't looked at your resources yet. So maybe the ones who will be in there, but I just thought I'd like to ask at the standards working group. This is a working group of this special interest group. We are looking at exactly the semantics and the data models that different methodologies and accounting paradigms use. And I was wondering, do you guys perhaps have an ontology that sets out the entities that you understand to operate in this space, the properties and the relationships between those entities? Because I mean, to be able to come up with a data model, you have to have a certain understanding of the market and how it functions. So do you perhaps have like an ontology diagram somewhere? We don't have yet, but we're actually working on that. Oh, that would be interesting. Meaning not just a diagram, but we are really working towards more like a full-fledged ontology based on what we do. So like with an owl file, for example. Yeah. Oh, that would be sweet. I would really love to see that. Okay, thank you. Yeah, yeah. No, no, I think, I think I know where you're coming from. And yeah, we are definitely thinking in the same direction. Oh, perfect. Thank you. Yeah, more than Alex's part of our standards working group. And they've been, they've been kind of working on this problem for a little while now. So I think it would be great for y'all to be able to kind of connect and share your ideas. Also, I'm only now looking at the, at the chat. And what Elizabeth was just saying. Thank you a little bit. I will ask the colleagues running the website. It's an interesting question. So guys, the cookies, I don't know. But thanks for letting me know. I much appreciate it. Just a piece of note on the roadmap. Like, as I said, like, we really want to connect more and want to, I was striving to have this, so to say this open forum if you want, as much as possible so that the different initiatives working on different aspects can come together and learn from each other. This is what we mean, this catalog. This more like, more like a more like an index of what's going on right now, meaning which, what are the different working groups? What, what are they working on if they haven't published anything yet? What has been published, especially in terms of data models, data model extensions, meaning all sorts of technical specifications that are needed to build the solutions, but also to have space where the solutions were known to be interoperable and have been tested by the community can be found. So that there's literally a marketplace to it. This marketplace, I don't mean there's a buy button, but there's more like a link that you can click on where you can find more information, but there will be a neutral index on solutions, meaning software implementations could also be open source of implementation by the way that has been tested by, by the community in a very straightforward way and it's known to work basically and that you can put there. It's a question from, from James, I believe is the first name, I guess, regarding the pharmaceutical industry. Yes and no, I mean, there's together for this, for sustainability participating, we have lots of pharmaceutical companies with intact, but I'm not entirely sure of what's going on this together for sustainability, which is very much active in the pharmaceutical and chemistry industry space in terms of methodology, but what I know is that at least from together for sustainability, there's a common aim to align, say the methodology and also the techniques standards with PACT, but it's always very complicated to talk generally about whole industries because maybe often they are several initiatives in parallel and it's really hard to say like who's representing whom here. So I don't want to talk about the whole industry, but I can tell that some pretty big pharmaceutical companies are participating in PACT for sure. The alignment with ISSP, well, honestly, the ISSP work I'm not so much involved with and I cannot tell, but so far my understanding is that ISSP is mostly working a corporate level reporting. We're sort of say working at the different scope and level, but there's something I cannot possibly comment on at that point. I'm sorry. James has to answer that question. Is there any other question? Otherwise, I would just continue with the roadmap. Is that fine? Okay, nobody waiting their hand. We'll just continue. We're also working on more like network level services right now, which are related to network identities. As I said, right now we do point-to-point integration. There's actually another update. Right now we are doing point-to-point integration, as some call it. I mean, it's really like one party exchanging the details, look in details, et cetera, with each other, and then doing the data exchange. Of course, this doesn't really scale on the long run. And we are working on the technical foundations and specifications related to what we call network identities, or we could also call it company identities, meaning cryptographic key material and information that can be used for authentication with each other, et cetera. And also one core pillar for the roadmap will be that we really also want to provide companies implementing our technical specifications with the mean to automatically test for conformance of the solution and the implementation. They're very much similar to what W3C does, for instance, in the HTML and CSS space. They have test suites that you can run against your browser implementation, for instance. And something like that we also aim to build in this year so that whenever you're building something in the house, so say you don't need to resort to other vendors to do durability testing, but you can. So they do 80%, 90% of the test work in automated fashion. So during your product development, in other words, you want to really lower the cost for companies to build conforming solutions so that especially also companies building in our solutions can do that in a hopefully most, like in a really cost efficient way. That's just some of the highlights of what we are going to work on. On the more technical front, of course, there will be much more alignment with various standard setting bodies, for instance, with the ISSP initiatives, et cetera. But that sort of tastes more like community work that I actually haven't presented or I haven't prepared any slides of. Just a brief wrap up of the project and sort of say what we have achieved so far. We ran several POCs and pilots. As I mentioned, even one was run without PAK being involved at all in Japan. Pretty big pilot testing, actually. Real-world data has been exchanged. This is a surprisingly huge stuff. If you ever did that in a larger multi-stake multi-stakeholder project, I mean, it's easy to exchange, sort of say fake or made up data with each other. But it's a different world of people are exchanging actual data. This is like a step from 1 to 100 in terms of complexity and what it means to do that. At least it's to our experience. This is why I'm highlighting that actual data was exchanged during the piloting testing as well. It was actually in September this year already since then a lot of more tests have been conducted. Also, several of the biggest, let's say, rating companies like Equivalence, for instance, is also going to implement. You saw the logo before. This will be implementing our data specification as well again to use that for their rating and other purposes, etc. We assume that a lot more real-world data will be exchanged based on our data specifications. I mentioned that there are 17-plus solutions being implemented already or committed to. It's actually more these days because more and more companies are reporting to us that they have started doing this. The number is actually outdated already. What is really important, as I mentioned, companies are building in-house solutions. This is really crucial because actually I will talk about that in more detail in a second. There are various industry-specific initiatives committed to the part-taking specifications, SmartFace and there being one of them, etc. What is unique about the project, apart from that we are really focusing mostly on interoperable data exchange at a technical level, it is, so to say, that this whole initiative is industry and geography agnostic. It's actually a big win. As I mentioned before, there is this initiative called Katena X. Together for sustainability, they are working in a specific industry domain. But they all know that all of these domain have suppliers or customers who are not immediately part of that business initiative. If you are producing chemistry for the car industry, in which initiative should you engage now the chemistry initiative and the car initiative? Quite a challenge, right? Or if you are producing cars and chemistry products, which we kind of have in Japan, are active in five different industry initiatives, but really clear yet, but to make a long story short, so to say, for these companies committing to PACT, so to say, it's in a certain business interest because it means that no matter which initiatives they will end up being in or being using software from, being able to exchange information that they need with all the other initiatives and companies, it's actually a big win for them from an operational perspective. The key industry is that we are getting traction and that's really complicated to say because we did end-to-end testing. But what I can say is that really significant traction seems to be in the tier ones, in the tier one companies and tier zero companies like for instance the big multinationals like say we never P&G and others, but they are not industry specific in that sense, unless you say that MCG is an industry. So that's really hard to say right now where I think that would be most successful and that's something that we will find out I guess in the next years. And then there's a question again from James whether PACT specification can be adapted for organization-wide GHT measurement. For that you mean corporate level GHT accounting. James, is it correct? Is James even here? Yes, colleague. Sorry about that. How are you there? Yeah, I didn't want to interrupt your flow. It's just that we potentially would like to apply it by someone like this. So project in terms of using it as a template for creating or enhancing existing applications that we have. So I just wanted to be adapted towards company-wide GHT measurement. I mean, this is a complicated question because I'm not sure are you talking about methodology here now meaning can you use the data for corporate level reporting or do you mean you want to exchange corporate level reporting data with each other? Yes. The lettering. Like corporate level. Yeah. I mean, yes. I mean that you would need to derive a different data model and basically integrate it into the current technical specification that we have. But of course, conceptually we want to grow in that regard. And I just mentioned the online catalog as a derivative for this year. We want that type of data models and also API definitions to become part of the catalog so that eventually the community can implement, adopt it and that other entities be it regulators or other standard setters or companies can find out like who is implementing that who is endorsing that so to say and why more or less, right? So that we are working so we are right now working at a more meta level to enable that type of thing to happen. But right now we are not working a corporate level but of course we could support you and going to that direction. We also see a lot of actually need in that regard to have these type of data models available. As a matter of fact, there's also already standardization work being done at least by the EU as part of the corporate sustainability directive that there shall be an interoperative data format for corporate level account and reporting purposes. So if you're interested in that I'm super happy to connect on that after a while because as I said, it's a very relevant topic but we are not really engaging yet because we are really just focusing on product level so far. So let's hear you put it in the chat. Yeah, cheers. Yeah, thank you. So, and then there's, maybe if you come to the question. So there's a question if I may repeat that does the reporting of supply chain data require data transparency for all parties of the supply chain? No, it doesn't. And the data model also doesn't disclose to say deeper supply chain model which is only reporting absolute values and no further details so to say down the line at least in the standard data model. In other words, a company receiving data at tier zero will not be able to add visibility into what exactly happens at tier two or three to answer directly to your question stem. That is right now not possible and not so to say not wanted by the different parties. But to really answer the question that would take a little bit longer because it's not such a black and white situation as I just said. All right. All right. I will continue. If I, if I may, I mean, I have lots of slides. So I can, I cannot, because I completely skipped the channel section and directly go to the outlook or what, so to say what my more personal two cents would be. I'm not sure how late it is already and then take a look. It's actually pretty late, right? So yeah, whatever. I mean, I think that people are on the calls. Some will drop off. I'll be, I'll be staying to the end. So what do you think works? Yeah, a couple more hours will be fine. Yeah. So, I mean, there's, there's, there's one thing that I wanted to, that I really get to want to get across on that section. And this is, this is not a very abbreviated way to put it. It may be also not very motivated and proper, but if there's, I mean, I'm a software person and for a large part of my life, I thought that software can actually solve a lot of issues. Maybe this is more like an old white man's opinion now and feel free to ignore it. But the more, the older I guess, I get, the more I believe that the problems are almost always not a technical problem at all. They are more like people and organizational issues. And that people should be very cautious and claiming that technology can solve something. I, I, I tend to believe that almost nothing can be solved with technology. It can only be an abler for having something resolved, but it's eventually the people and organizations and making that happen. And the institutions and all the different stakeholders that I understand that admiration. The biggest thing that everybody keeps talking about being carbon or any other data factor in the sustainability space is data quality. We have some ideas with how we can maybe improve that quality in a technology driven way, but at best maybe let's say that's the 15% of that overall problem. I guess it's more like in the single digit space, but really nailing data quality is like that's the big elephant in the room. That's why we care so much about primary data and the current project because it's, it's not a solution to the challenge, but it's the first step to getting to higher quality data, right? Have a high primary data share, but every data that you get is not, not correct. It doesn't get you anything, right? But it's driving for more direct directions in the supply chain and because of fashion to get more direct data that is hopefully measured in a more dependable way will get you there, right? But again, not an ultimate solution, but a step further. But to get there you need people to change their behavior. So that's the actual challenge, right? You must change how companies work internally. That's probably the biggest challenge you can possibly have. And that on a worldwide scale, even though you'll not have direct access to all the different tiers in the supply chain that you're affected with, right? That's a huge challenge. We also believe that availability of software right now is a great challenge. Everything related to LCA is, requires a lot of knowledge right now that most people just don't have and most companies don't have and probably also cannot really afford right now. So we need software for that regard. And here maybe the situation is 50-50, but again, it's more like a guess. And I would like to talk more about where I believe that scaling LCA experience is actually one of the biggest problems right after data quality. But again, if I mean the scaling up or when I talk about scaling up LCA expertise, I mean, we only have a very limited supply of LCA experts, but you have too many products that they should be analyzing. So we need to scale that expertise up, so to say, in one way or the other. That's a huge challenge, which might partially be solved by software, but only so far. It still means that you are very much depending on LCA experts and et cetera, et cetera. And there's one thing that I am super concerned about the more I am reading into other product categories is that the explosion of the rule ecosystem. Today I was participating in a workshop on digital product passes related to batteries in the EU. So a super specific niche topic and you wouldn't believe how the complexity is exploding right now in that space. How many different bodies are producing methodologies and standards and what the plethora of standard there is. It's unbelievable. You probably need a team of LCA experts just to keep track of what's going on there just for that single thing. And that applies to a lot of domains right now, right? The more scrutiny regulators put on certain areas of the economy in terms of LCA analysis general, probably the more of that explosion will happen. And there's a negative and they are sort of say negative externalities of course, right? The more complex these rules are the higher the cost will be to implement them but it also means that smaller producers are effectively excluded from certain markets, right? So it's more than just LCA costs it's also a way how markets develop. So this complexity explosion seems to be getting completely out of hand and of course people talk about it and more in terms of like what's the regulatory cost for LCA and similar and reporting or generally corporate level reporting needs but this is really a big issue that I think also tech industry should be working on I believe but of course it's just so much they can do here. And then there's a continuously huge challenge that we see with every company almost of any size like let's say 500 people plus we have these huge data integration issues internally to do any sorts of reporting duties especially at product level. So the bigger the company is the more diverse the data silos they are the harder they are to integrate that's an unbelievable big challenge and even the big companies are really, really struggling with that right now. And again the 30% is probably a bit too high as a guess maybe it's actually a way bigger people problem than I assume but this is a really tough challenge right if you cannot collect the data internally that you need for product level accounting I mean the best technical standard in the world doesn't help you to move any further if you don't really know like what's going on within your company basically right. So this actually a problem that we are very much concerned with where I believe there's also lots of opportunities for the overall ecosystem to do meaningful work. But again as I said like the punchline from my understanding is that we are really mostly talking about people and organization and consensus problems and not talking about tech issues so much which is really funny but sometimes at least in the bubble I am in the technological focus seems to be a bit too much and just to repeat the data quality challenge really is like the big elephant in the room I'm pretty sure you also talked about that in the past in that special interest group here multiple times we are super concerned about that and because every project that is out there blockchain based or not be attacked or not we are all affected by that right and the best infrastructure in the world won't save us if the data quality isn't there right if there's garbage entering the system there will only be garbage coming out no matter how sophisticated simple as that. This is why so to say I even didn't talk about so much about blockchains or whatever because I believe that the problems exist way earlier so to say in the toll space one or two things we are really focusing on this year as I said which I believe is super relevant and important is to have cross initiative exchange and alignment I'm speaking here today is basically my as a way first of all not to align but to show what we've been working on and requesting for more exchange in the future with your community is this famous converse law which is as you probably know saying that to say the architecture of the system is or references the way you with how you communicate in other words if you have two different communities not communicating with each other most likely they will come up with two different independent taking the specifications or approaches in other words they will most likely not be interoperability between these two communities whatsoever so if we want interoperability or data flowing between different communities we really must work on or we must connect first that's what I meant with a technical problem in most cases not even a technical problem it's more like a people problem so the people problem with regards to interoperability is we must first speak with each other and that's sometimes already pretty hard so today I'm here to speak or to say that we are interested in speaking with kind of everyone who is active in that space because we want this type of convergence to happen and as I said it will only happen if we talk with each other simple as that it's a prerequisite so that's a theme for us for this year and the second theme that I can only invite everyone else to join in is to make LCA expertise more accessible and especially for the smaller companies the cost, the LCA cost is so high that I believe most companies cannot afford it right now simple as that but they can't but they must be equipped doing that so we must lower the cost by at least a factor of 100 and probably more than that and of course lowering cost by a factor of 100 doesn't go easily but I'm pretty sure it definitely involves software but it involves more than just software definitely we need to automate that knowledge just for sure and similarly to making LCA expertise accessible so the flip side would be that to have ready to use software that works for the long term so we like to look at this we say that the WordPress moment for our industry hasn't yet happened I mean I learned that I think 60 or 70% of the WordPress website run on WordPress simply because there are so many of course but also because it's so accessible and you can run it everywhere and you can buy it for cheap sorry not buy it but of course but have it serviced to get it as a service for you almost for free so we need that type of WordPress as well or let's say for everything LCA and carbon counting this has yet to happen so we're really calling out to the community to build that please and of course what we also think is important at least from our PAK perspective is to extend to other sustainability related dimensions I will leave it as that and of course let me say everything that we do eventually will be an open technical specification everybody can implement in the technical specifications today and can become part of our community and all I can say is that please if you have some time and you're working in the space take a look at what we did consider implementing or integrating with what we are doing and if you have questions of course feel free to get in touch with us and that's it thank you Martin I've just got to thank you for everything that you shared the work that you've been doing is definitely aligned with a lot of the work of the different people within this and it's very remarkable and encouraging to see the progress that you've made so I think that many people on the call will be following up with you I've got a couple of different kind of initiatives that I think you might be interested in and I'd love to explore how I and how this thing might support the work that you're doing get involved and start kind of bringing together the different initiatives in the networks because I think you're exactly right and it's just very encouraged I want to thank you very much for presenting and yeah thank you everybody this has been a great presentation thank you I hope to hear that and it was a pleasure and hope to talk more with you soon absolutely alright thank everybody thank you thank you