 Okay, I should have dropped another logo in there for ARDC because they were also sponsors or active supporters of the workshop. As Kieran explained, the workshop that we had, the Australian workshop down under Darkstool, was the follow-on to a couple of workshops that had been held in person in Germany at Schloss-Darkstool in 2018 and 2019. Significant outcome from the second of those, the 2019 workshop, was a small group of the participants there. Myself, Alejandro González-Beltrad-Barbara McGanyan, Maria Cristina Marinescu, had continued, had been part of a team who were at that workshop, who had started to look at the management of controlled vocabularies, which it was understood as a very significant element in cross-domain metadata standards, which is the general topic of those workshops. And we had a humongous sort of flowchart of the ways in which vocabularies are developed, used, refined, retired version and such like, and thrashed around on this for a bit, imagining that we were going to be producing some magnum opus that would describe the whole thing. And thrashed around is very much what happened until it was suggested that we could, we should focus in a bit and that led to us just focusing in on the one piece of the puzzle, which is taking an existing vocabulary and converting it and publishing it in a way that makes it fair as in findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. And we wrote this up in a format which was, has already been used a few times in particular plus computational biology, which is why it ended up being published there, which was the idea of a kind of relatively friendly narrative of how to do something. There's about 100 of these papers, 10 simple rules for one thing or another. This one was towards the technical end of the spectrum of 10 simple rules. And of course, 10 is a pretty arbitrary number. It would have been very easy to write eight simple rules or 15 simple rules, but 10 is the format. So 10 was how we shoehorned it in. But this has been, seems fairly widely appreciated and got a lot of views. This is an old screenshot, got quite a few citations now. But as I said, from where we were coming from with the larger picture of how we develop and manage controlled vocabularies, this we always understood was just one part of a much bigger story. And in the workshop that we, the Australian workshop that we had that Kieran just introduced, we, sorry, I'll just give a little summary of what it means for a vocabulary to be fair. And that's keyed against the keywords there, findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. And those people who've known me for a while would know that I tend to focus on the iBit, which is around encoding and following standards. And so a fair bit of my work has been informed by how you can represent things which are classically published in a book or in a spreadsheet or in a database, and how you can turn them into some more usable web compatible formats. And that builds on focus on standards, which are when it comes down to just community agreements to do things in the same way. This was the 10 rules that I say could easily have been 8, could easily have been 15 or 25. And there have been other pieces of work along these lines, which have been even more technical. And I think one of the things, one of the contributions that we made in this paper was that we didn't actually get to technical implementation issues until about rule five. The first four rules are all about the kind of social organizational context, and this is what will feed into the main topic of what I'm talking about today, which is around governance. And then we kind of left it hanging there with rule number 10, which says implement a process for maintaining the fair vocabulary. Many of the, some of the simplest controlled vocabularies may, you may be able to set and forget, and they're done forever. But in general, as we understand the domain, the discipline, our science area, as we improve our understanding of that, we want to make tweaks and adjustments to vocabularies or add to them or refine them. And so there needs to be a maintenance process, which is particularly not only run but documented so that there's a transparency about the whole process. And you can write it down so people understand how they engage. And so those are the rules for verification, which just listed those 10. And the top, the moving on the topic is how to keep a vocabulary fair. And we started out with basically I threw down and trying to do this follow up work has another set of 10 simple rules. And you'll see that's numbered zero through 10. So clearly already it's 11. And when we started trying to work through it, we found that this sort of workflow approach, which is what we took for the verification rules, was didn't work really for governance because there's more variation and you need to have more paths through the understanding and documented the governance process. There's not just a single pathway. And so this was the kind of original straw man and still sits behind where we had where we got to, which is still very much work in progress, by the way. That original straw man was in one sense too complicated, in another sense too prescriptive. It made certain assumptions about the being just about a single pathway through. So as a consequence of the discussions in the workshop and some ongoing conversations both with the original set of authors and also we've also added Megan and Kiran into our team. We've say we went into a bunch of tests which Kiran summarized on the one hand about the verification and then also about the governance process. And this led us to reformulate it a bit rather than as a set of rules, as a set of concerns. And breaking those out, we have the concerns, which is what you need to think about in order to establish your governance process and with different answers to these different questions, you may end up taking a different route towards governance and always sort of front and centre is what's the scope of the vocabulary, what's the context in which it's being developed and published and used, who are the stakeholders who are involved. That's not just and I'll go into more detail about that particular aspect in a moment. How the content, how the semantics, the actual, the terms and their definitions are managed and whether they have dependencies on other existing or other vocabulary which are being developed alongside the one that you're focusing on at the moment. How you manage change requests, who's authorized to submit change requests, how they're resolved, how they're discussed. Change requests is terminology that sort of comes from software engineering or collaborative software engineering, particularly with version control systems, but everybody will have encountered ticketing systems for managing lists of tasks and really change requests are just a special case of those. And then when you're releasing or issuing changes, how those are embodied in versions or releases of a vocabulary, some of the cabularies are updated essentially dynamically all the time other vocabularies need stability and have a process that maybe means that if they're revised at all, it may be just once every 10 years. So that whole spectrum needs to be considered. And last but very much not least is what is the sustainability plan? What is the plan for ensuring that this good work that you're doing is not lost, that it's maintained into the future, that the hosting is done, that the owners face up to their responsibilities is actually one of the most difficult things because very often it's just an exercise in frustration. What getting organizations to commit to long term sustainability of the order of years is very hard. And of course, a vocabulary which is used in the context of data needs to be available for the lifetime of the data which refers to it. And perhaps that's the case for printing them in books, but so it can be put on a shelf and archived. But of course, it's very difficult to point to items in books in a very reusable way. So that's a link to the details of the concerns I'll provide this slide deck to be shared with the group after we've finished. So the other piece of it, which is perhaps the most well worked out is really splitting out some of the issues around the stakeholders and what the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders in relation to the maintenance of a vocabulary and at the top of the list has to be the users who's using it, why do they need it, what do they want to use it for. It's going to govern the scope and it provides the context of a vocabulary. Basically there will be some usually an organization that if you like has the legal authority or copyright or for the for the content of a vocabulary, you know, often that's actually at arms length from the technical people who are really interested and engaged in management of it. But for example, CSIRO publishing is the publisher of a bunch of the books like the one I was just waving. Some government agencies have issue vocabularies like the Bureau of Statistics or Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment. And then separate from that owner with legal responsibility, we use the word steward, sorry, to refer to the person or committee who is responsible for the content. That's the semantics within the of a vocabulary. This will be the domain, primarily would need to be a domain expert would need to understand the subject material and separate from that or possibly overlapping with it. But it's a different role would be the technical manager of a vocabulary that basically is responsible for managing its conversion and its management as a fair artifact, you know, whether it's according to the ten simple rules that we just dropped before. These are the four key stakeholders and then there's some sort of subsidiary stakeholders like contributors, reviewers, it's very much very important to have some kind of transparent review process, which again will likely involve subject matter experts to do with change management. The administrator of the service that hosts that that is that is hosting a fair vocabulary as well as the owner of that service, maybe a sponsor for the vocabulary, maybe contribute resources, but not necessarily separate from the owner. So this is just that's basically the material that I wanted to present the moment about the governance and maintenance issues around fair vocabulary and just comment that there actually is a report on the down under Dougstall workshop which is hosted on the DDI confluence site or their their website DDI being the data description initiative who was one of the primary sponsors of the series of workshops. This one underneath this is a link which will take you through to that. So when I share the slides afterwards you'll all have access to this. I think that's my last slide there so I'll shut up now and I've gone on for more than five minutes haven't I or ten minutes whatever sorry Natalia.