 Thank you, Keith. Okay, so I'm David Fitzgerald, the data manager for ELSCH. How do I pronounce it? It's the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health, and I'll be talking about the accessibility issues for this. So I'm going to, first of all, explain and give background to our study and then talk about the accessibility issues and try and relate them to the fed data principles, which I've just listed here, and these are the exact ones which Keith showed earlier. So I won't go through them in detail, but I'll try and relate these to our study. Okay, so what is the ELSCH study? It's a collaborative effort project from the two universities of Newcastle and Queensland, and in fact the two universities are sort of there, sort of related to keeping the sensitive data, which I'll talk about briefly. It's one of Australia's longest running longitudinal epidemiological studies. So it's been going since 1996 and is ongoing, and we hope to go further into the future. It's funded by the Australian government. So we started off with over 40,000 women, and a few years ago we got a new cohort of 17,000 women, and I'll show you the four cohorts we work with. Here they are. So the four cohorts are aged based, and we define them in the years of birth. So you can see this one, the oldest one born 1991 to 26, and there's three other ones of various ages. And as you can imagine, each cohort has their own health issues, and that's what we're interested in, and indeed the Australian government is interested in. So what are we collecting and our methodology? So health issues, in particular mental, physical, reproductive, social health, there's more. And also life transitions, so the different ages of women, obviously going through different life transitions, life events, and things which are related to health employment, health service use, and more. And I'll just mention a bit of data linkage. I don't want to stress this because it's a big area with lots of issues, but we have actually linked our survey data with some administrative data sets. In fact, they're listed there, the MBS, PBS, and Cancer Registries and Immitted Patient Hospital. The linkage can be particularly sensitive, and we treat them quite differently in how we make the data accessible. So the data is used extensively, and particularly more than 680 peer reviewed papers have been published using our data. And also we report back to the government frequently and national health policies have been informed by reports and use of our data. Okay, so I'll go on to the sort of aspects of accessibility and see how it relates to our data. So that one there about being retrieval by an identifier using the standard communications protocol. So all the data sets from our survey which are analysed and used have an identifier, the same identifier, and I just stress it's de-identified but with a consistent new identifier, and that's across all surveys. So anyone using our survey data, I'll just put the caveat as long as it's not part of the linked data, but anyone using this survey data has one and only one identifier for use. And we say this has been de-identified because there are no personal names on the data, no addresses, no post codes, no dates of birth, although the year and month of birth are actually given. So obviously to do things like age analysis and any other main ones, but any other data which is deemed to be identifiable is stripped off. The identifier is, we call it the ID alias, it's actually not the administrative ID which a respondent would see or somebody working in an office in Newcastle who's communicating with our respondents, they would not know what the identifier, the analysable identifier is, they would have a different administrative ID. And just on this point, any small cell sizes which we think are identifiable, are sort of grouped into larger groups and for example country of birth, we sort of group into broad sort of continental geographical areas to avoid particular countries of birth coming up. And anyone using the data has to, along with a number of other conditions, they must not identify respondents which although we go to lengths to sort of make that very difficult, it's conceivable that something could come up, they promise and sign that they will not identify respondents if they ever had that possibility. So I was also just sort of asked to sort of look at legal and ethical issues. So we do have a legal contract with the Australian Government Department of Health and the fact that this is ongoing and we didn't get a 20-year one, we regularly updated and short-term contracts. And also the ethics committees from the two universities there have approved our usage and in fact every time we do a new survey, because it's longitudinal, every year we're actually going back to at least one of the cohorts to survey them. Each new survey which is not identical to previous surveys is subject to ethics committee oversight and approval. So we do have extensive legal and ethical issues there. So I want to talk about how actually an investigator or a re-user would get access to our survey data. And as we explained, this is all on the website, but they must first complete an expression of interest form. And in particular they'd say who they are, why they are a sort of serious researcher, what they want to find out from the data. And that would be reviewed by our Publications Sub-Studies, that's the PSA committee. And then if their EOI expression of interest is approved, they will sign confidentiality data use documents statements before receiving the identified data. And they also must report back to us about their progress. And we expect some sort of immediate work on the data and for them to continue with that access. But if their expression of interest is successful, the data are actually sent to them. And this is an area which I'm directly involved in. And so we do it before sending the data encrypted. We use 7Z software and that compresses it as well. We use the AIRnet cloud source system to send data to the approved researchers, re-users, and an email was sent to them as well with passwords, but also to Sybridge Contact with the management here. So for future correspondence. And I'll just put a note there about we have linked data, but we never send this out actually. And anyone using this has to actually come to our offices or actually there's the SACS Institute shore facility, which also can have it. But we don't own the linked data and we've agreed not to send it anyway. So public metadata, so this refers back to protocol being open. So we have a website which lists the above procedure in fact that I went through, but also has a lot of metadata on it, including a data dictionary, which lists all the variables and the many data sets we have. A data dictionary supplement, which is a description of the frequently used variables with some detail. A data map that shows how the variables are used across the different surveys and cohorts. We're not saying different surveys, the longitudinal. We have up to eight surveys for some of our cohorts and so each one is deemed a different survey and has slight differences from other surveys. We have a list of all the variables used in spreadsheets for easy access. We also have data books, which list essentially the frequency summaries for the variables. The question is that the respondents filled in. Technical reports, which we produce should go into detail on many of our reports. And a frequently asked question page on exactly that. And so making metadata accessible, in fact we make data. Although a data is not completely open, we do want to make it accessible. And we do archive both metadata and the data. And we do that annually and with the Australian Data Archives. And although they are not releasing it yet, the plan is for the future for them to take over release of our data, perhaps when we're not doing it ourselves. And that will be a role to keep our data useful and used in the long term. And yeah, so that's what I've got to say. I'd just like to acknowledge the women in our study who fill in the surveys across the Government Department of Health for Fundingness and the Universities of Queensland and New South Wales for doing the job. So thank you. That's what I have to say.