 The reimagined descriptive workflows was an OCLC project looking at metadata and collection, description, cultural institutions, and that was the order to better understand and address the harm that was actually being caused. So the project, back in 2122, convened an international group of experts, practitioners and community members to determine ways of improving descriptive practices, tools, infrastructure, workflows in libraries and archives. And actually the roots of the project do go back quite a lot further. And this resulted about 18 months ago in the publication of a community agenda. So I'm sure we'll get the link to that app, but for reimagined descriptive workflows, a community-informed agenda for repressive and inclusive descriptive practice. So that's about about a year and a half on from that. Merrily and Jagon will be reflecting on their report and how it's influenced the community and OCLC more generally. So just to very quickly introduce our speakers, Merrily Profit is the Senior Manager for the OCLC Research Library Partnership, providing community development skills and expert support to institutions who are in that partnership. And Jai Holloway is the Director of End-User Platform Services within the Global Product Management Division at OCLC, and he focuses on the end-to-end user experience from discovery through to delivery. So at that point, I'm going to hand over to Merrily and Jai, who I think have some slides to share, and I'm going to stop talking. So Merrily over to you. Thank you so much Gavin. I'm going to get my slides going here. Hello everybody. Thank you so much. OCLC is delighted to partner with RLUK on this event and to share just a little of some of the work that we've been doing in research and on our product teams. Before I dive in today, I want to start by acknowledging that I live and work on the unceded traditional land of the Chechenualani people, what is now known as Oakland, California. And I am grateful to past and present leaders for their stewardship of this land. As I've learned about these people, I've experienced grief and sadness and learning history that has included violence and displacement for the benefit of others. But I've also been inspired by hope and inspiration through their vision for a future that includes stewardship of land and also care for people and community. Wherever you are, there are people from all over the globe on this call today. Wherever you are, I invite you to reflect on the land that you are on. I also want to add that I'm not an expert in the topic of racism and exclusion and its impacts, but I am witness to it, and I'm always trying to learn and educate myself. So I want to start right up top with the gratitude. I don't want to save the thank yous for the end of the presentation. So first and foremost, thanks to the Mellon Foundation, which provided generous funding for this project. Thanks also to OCLC. This project truly would not be possible without OCLC who has more than matched the funding that the Mellon Foundation put in and has also continued the project and its work on to the present day. And then finally, a thank to the OCLC research library partnership, the organization that I work for that's internal to OCLC. The institutions in the OCLC RLP really helped to inspire this work. Folks from the RLP team were at the core of this, the people who really carried the work forward. So for those of you who are at institutions that are part of the OCLC RLP, thank you for your ongoing support, both financial and otherwise it really makes projects like this entirely possible. And also, I want to thank our amazing advisory board, who were at the heart of this project and essential in helping to establish our goals and to keep us on track with outputs. These were people from all over the globe from Canada, from the UK, from Canada, from Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Stacy Allison-Cassen, Jennifer Baxmeyer, Dorothy Berry, Kimberly Bug, Camille Collison, Lillian Chavez, Trevor Dawes, Jared Drake, Burgess Jules, Celia Jo Olsen, Katrina Tamiara, and Damien Webb. Thank you so much for your help, inspiration and support. So the reimagined descriptive workflows project convened a group of experts, practitioners, community members for a three day convening in 2021, right in the middle of the pandemic. This project was aimed at determining ways of improving descriptive practices, tools, infrastructure and workflows in libraries and archives. And the resulting community agenda, which was published last year, draws together insights from the convening as well as related research and observations from operational work that is ongoing in the field. So this published agenda is not a how to guide, but it is really instructed, it's constructed to instruct a path forward towards reparative and inclusive description. The agenda is divided into two distinct parts. The first is the contextual information regarding the project and the convening, the methods that we used to create the agenda, and details of how we undertook the virtual convening, which included elements of food music and culture. Yes, in the middle of the pandemic. And this can all be found in the report. We've also taken time to document what we feel were design principles that helped us to support a productive meeting. It also frames the historical local and workflow challenges and tensions that are that you should consider when approaching this type of metadata work. The second part offers a framework of guidance that suggests actions and exercises that can help frame institutions, local priorities and areas for change, and also provide examples to help inspire local work. So it is our belief that all institutions have the power to make meaningful change in the space, and all share collective responsibility. And the foundation for this is grounded in the observation that inclusive descriptive data divide drives a more inclusive discovery experience. And that the community of library and archival practitioners and other stores of metadata have really been falling short of our goals to be inclusive and welcoming to all. So this is nicely summarized in the catalog or code of ethics that was published in 2021. And here I'm quoting cataloging standards and practices are currently in historically characterized by racism, white supremacy colonialism othering and oppression. So putting it pretty plainly there. It was summarized nicely in this report that was published in 2017 from the Canadian Federation of library associations, which was part of Canada's truth and reconciliation process. And this keynote has been really striking to me how Canadian librarians, at least the ones that I have spoken with have engaged around this work, which is really taking place at a national level and I think is really an inspiration to all. And I saw several Canadian folks signing in and thank you so much for for your leadership in this area. This report calls out the Western practices of silencing and mischaracterization indigenous lives and experience. So this work is specifically working on reparations for First Nations Métis and Inuit people of Canada, but echoes what we see elsewhere. We first need to acknowledge that these firms have happened before we can gauge around the next steps, whatever those look like. So with any wonderful efforts, it really does remain true that the libraries and archives profession has a reparative description debt, representing an enormous backlog. In 2017 the OCLC RLP the research library partnership conducted a survey to explore if and how institutions were moving forward with work in equity diversity and inclusion. The snapshot of the survey results to help to document and illuminate something that we already anecdotally knew that institutions were struggling with creative inclusive and anti racist descriptions. As an aside, I presented on this work at the 2018 RLUK conference so I'm be very happy to share with the follow up work with the RLUK community. This need with for dealing with racist and inappropriate metadata became a steady drumbeat driving discussions in the OCLC RLP metadata managers focus group and was also the focus of several webinars and discussions that we had from that time forward. In 2020 we followed up on this topic in order to increase our understanding of the challenges faced by librarians and we conducted a series of semi structured informational interviews focused on the difficulty of cataloging topics related to indigenous peoples in respectful ways. These conversations took place between March right at the very beginning of the global pandemic, going on through June 2020. And we interviewed 41 library staff at 21 institutions in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Most interviewees worked in the context of an academic library, but we also spoke with staff at national libraries independent research libraries and public libraries. These interviews helped us to characterize the problem, not only identifying structural barriers to doing the work, but also the harm caused by not doing the work and I think that that harm part is really important to focus on because if if you're not doing anything the harm is is ongoing. These two pieces of work this research that was situated within the OCLC research library partnership helped to set the stage for the reimagine descriptive workflows project. So the RDW work is, as I said not a how to manual for moving forward with better descriptive practices, rather it outlines the why of the problem space and suggest tactics for the way forward. So part of this is in outlining the tensions that are inherent in anti racist work and makes the case for why this work is needed. The role also identifies key concepts that are so necessary and anti racist work, white supremacy, the role of power holding institutions, the need to relinquish power and to build trust. Finally, the report presents a framework of guidance which can be used within all levels of an organization, from leadership to middle managers to individual contributors. The framework of guidance is as close to a checklist as the report comes readers can ask themselves, which of these conditions are true for me at my institution, and where is growth and learning still needed, and hopefully use that as a basis of a conversation for moving forward as an institution. So now you've heard some background information, what influenced the work, who contributed to it, and we've presented the publication framework so now let's turn to some concrete outcomes. So to share some of these, I'm happy to welcome my colleague Jay Holloway, who will speak to just some of the outcomes we have been able to see within OCLC. So Jay. Great. Thank you so much, Mary Lee. Hello everyone so exciting to see where everyone's tuning in from today so thanks for sharing that in the chat. My name is Jay and we're going to cover in today's in this section, where this work started, where we're starting from with WorldCat Discovery, and a few features that we have implemented to help address some of these issues. I would reimagine descriptive workflows kind of drive this work. I was lucky enough to be part of that convening of the library community, broader than specific products. So in a lot of the work that I do being in product management I work with product communities and discussions very frequently rapidly go to different solutions. What was so exciting about the reimagining descriptive workflows convening was that we basically just talked about the problem said a much better concrete understanding of some of the lenses that we needed to apply to solutions. So a few of my kind of roadmap takeaways being in product it's it's hard not to, while having those discussions think of solutions from those working sessions was one to reduce harm rapidly so reducing harm rapidly is better than waiting for more effective solutions to develop within the library community or the library ecosystem, recognizing that these issues are systemic and not the result of flipping any given toggle or switch. Small incremental steps are more valuable than waiting for the larger piece because we're reducing harm and at scale with any of those small incremental steps, just as much as we might with some of the larger changes yet to come. And the second concept was of multiplicity that global solutions require culturally contextual solutions so a one size fits all approach which is as working with engineers is frequently the desired case because if you can create a one size fits all it's easier to maintain it's easier to build, but it's not necessarily the most valuable so especially in the situation we needed to consider how to localize the solution to meet different community needs with very similar data. So, where are we starting from. So, thinking about what World Cat Discovery is based on World Cat, we have continuously updated and scalable infrastructure for your globally shared and local bibliographic metadata. So, when these control vocabularies time and speaking specific mostly to subjects in the space, do not encounter multiplicity issues. They scale at the pace of change. So great example of this is OCLC received an updated LCSH vocabulary last November at the end of the month, and implemented changes to about 41,000 World Cat records about two weeks later. And those changes were very impactful they were changes that the library community had been advocating for quite some time. But what's so exciting is it's not only available within World Cat it also means it's available for distribution to any World Cat user so for our members able to quickly get access to that data and bring it down into your local solution so that those changes were rapidly applied globally. But we know that the controlled vocabularies do not necessarily move and at the rate that we need them to for our local communities. So let's take a look at what that World Cat model looks like today. So first we have the global data that leverages the control vocabularies. Of course I'm talking about the data that applies to control vocabularies not everything else. Then you have access to local data that further enriches that global data. And what you see is what you get in the user interface so the library users then presented with the exact data that you input into World Cat and through local data. So let's take a look at an example. So for example, I am searching on the terms homeless persons, and I see the subject terms homeless persons in the search results. And even if I added local bibliographic data let's say I was undertaking a project to enrich this record with some additional local data, it never replaces the global shared data in any way. So the challenge is how can we update language for the user to reduce harm caused by these one size fits all controlled vocabularies, and still maintain the benefit that they offer which is the scalability and quality data, they create quality because they create a way to ensure that you're using the same terms consistently for retrieval within our data within the databases that you search and indexes that we build. After working with our library community, we did several rounds of focus groups with the World Cat discovery community librarians. They had lots of wonderful feedback and ideas to incorporate. We landed on this model to use the global data and the local data first. So first, do all of the indexing and search that we need. And then on top of that, create a configuration layer that adds locally preferred language to replace any of the global or even local terms that you would like to see changed. And that way you can rapidly make that change and change it before the user ever sees it. So you still get the benefits of this scalable data and the global and local side, but you're able to change the view that the user sees within the search results. So let's take a look at what that looks like. So I'm doing the same search that I did before I'm searching on the control heading homeless persons, but instead of seeing that I see people experiencing homelessness, and this is, let's say, I'm undertaking a project, I'm exploring different uses of language and getting feedback from users on whether this language is best reflecting them with almost every example that I've shared in the space. It's exciting to see that librarians look at the example and then see different ways that they've heard that maybe this isn't the right fit. Maybe there's a better way to describe it and suggest improvements. So that is part of what's so exciting about this is that you can take user feedback directly and immediately apply it to your local solution without needing to change any of the global data. So how does this actually work. The first step is we have a local subject remapping template. So a configuration file basically. In this file, you are able to share your work and collaborate. So it's, you know, pretty low tech it's a, it's a Google sheet. And that way, you can see what work have others already done that I could maybe leverage in my space so maybe I'm in a similar region. Maybe I have a similar set of users that I'm looking to ensure the language reflects our shared values. I can filter by region I can filter by OCLC symbol if I just want to see my contributions, and you're able to remap a controlled heading to your preferred local heading. So you're able to benefit from the contribution of others, and you can access this at any time. I also mentioned, you don't have to use this so this is just meant to be a tool to facilitate collaboration. But it's really just a, it's an Excel document that you can use locally, you can store locally if you never want to share it you don't have to. It's, it's all available through your local configuration through WorldCat Discovery. So, going on. So the item detail display. So the I first showed what does it look like in the search results. This is what it looks like on the item details page so anywhere that we're displaying these terms that are replaced. So what happens if I actually want to then search on this changed heading so let's say I click on the people experiencing homelessness heading. What happens then. So we have a two phased approach here so the first phase is a harmful language warning. I've gone to the next slide. So this warning, you can customize this language to warn users before they see any harmful language. So we're not since we're not replacing the actual search terms in the data you still need to search on the original controlled heading so if I searched people experiencing homelessness, I wouldn't get back homeless persons. So this is a completely customizable message. Choose what what the content of the message says, and the user also has the option to back out so if they don't want to continue then they just stop we don't just automatically run the search. But we'd like to make this more seamless. So the second phase of this work is to introduce. I'm sorry here's an example but that looks like so I search homeless person. After I click through the the warning, and the search box does not change so it still says homeless persons instead of saying people experiencing homelessness. So phase two is using local search expansions. So we developed a feature to expand users from the variant terms within the subject vocabularies. My favorite example is heart attack so if I search heart attack in the search box, we now have a feature that will expand the user search to include myocardial infarction which is the controlled heading. Using that same technology, we're adding on to that a local search expansion. So you can actually replace terms that are controlled headings and replace them with the local locally preferred terms. So in this example, now I'm clicking the same exact thing I was in the first example. I'm clicking the people experiencing homelessness. And when I click that go on the next slide. I now see in the search box those same terms so I no longer see the original heading I only see the locally preferred heading, and I'm still getting back the expected search results because under the hood. We're still searching homeless persons, but we don't display that to the user unless they go through a couple clicks to validate exactly what was searched under the hood. So it's really only through their choice that they're ever seeing that original language so you can completely control what the search experience looks and feels like for users. So the second phase is coming very soon. We're targeting December and are wrapping up some of the last testing to make sure that we can meet December. So on our future development roadmap, we are considering optimizations to support large scale efforts. For example, if you're trying to replace hundreds of terms, the use of regular expressions would be useful. So for people that are comfortable with those we're looking at how to incorporate regular expressions into the configuration files so into the local remappings files. So our research is complete we have a good idea of what we want to do, we just need to figure out kind of how it slates in, and when we might be able to deliver that. The second one research has not started yet on this but we are considering how to help provide sensitive content warnings. So how can we look at the material itself not not the descriptive language but the, the content of them of the material, and the warning to the user that they're about to see something that relates to some, either trigger or sensitivity warning. And then finally, we're always looking for new ideas in all spaces of world cat discovery but especially in this one to further improve and make discovery more inclusive for your user so if you have any ideas we're always looking for those as well to consider. Wow, with that hand it back over to Mary Lee. Thanks Jay. Okay, so I was. So now I want to talk about some other impacts of the project that we've been able to see. And I look forward to hearing your own reflections on how this work has has has helped you along the way. So we were really pleased to see reimagined descriptive workflows cited in this article challenging legacies at the British Library, which was published in art libraries journal. In July 2020 Liz Jolly the BL's chief librarian directed the British Library to quote, make recommendations in terms of immediate action and longer term proposals that we will integrate into our strategy and our culture to make us a truly racist organization in a wide ranging and sustainable way. So this article documents a pilot project that has resulted from recommendations made by a cataloging and metadata subgroup, as well as recommendations from the collections and curation subgroup. Next for the project is on the South Asian collection and the Caribbean collection, which represent opportunities to work with quite heterogeneous group of material types, which are of importance to in the UK and beyond. I look forward to the outcomes from this project but was especially pleased to see in the context of today's talk that the rdw report is being used to benchmark the scope of activities, specifically in the three areas of focus those organizational shifts, operational workflows, and professional and personal development. So this was a very pleasing outcome to see the project discussed in this way. It was also really great to hear that at the August if la satellite conference empire indigeneity, indigeneity and colonial heritage collections, confronting did difficult pasts and enabling just futures which was organized by the if la rare books and the special collection section together with the indigenous matters section at this conference the rdw report was cited by several presenters and also provided a through line for discussions at the meeting. My colleague Tizia Vanderwerf blogged about the conference and noted that the recommendation from the report that gain traction was also noted as being the most challenging is to address systemic changes to transform the profession at its core. She also noted this quote that resonated with her and with me during the conference is think of disruption as caring. In the 2017 survey I referenced earlier, institutions were asked what areas they had changed or plan to address due to institutional goals and principles around diversity, equity and inclusion. And nearly three quarters of the responding institutions indicated that collection building was an area where they were working to expand their capabilities in discussions with institutions. And more recently, we found that this is still an area where libraries are are are seeking to grow and are in fact quite challenged. And this is echoed in a recent report from Ithaca SNR, leading by diversifying collections, which helps to illuminate some of these challenges which include prioritizing diversity, equity and inclusion in staffing, a lack of criteria for evaluating diverse collections and overall downward pressure on collection budgets. So library staff here the OCLC RLP stepped in again. We interviewed library staff from eight institutions that participated and structured interviews that took place between December 2022 and January 2023. And findings from these interviews are summarized in a blog post. And these findings include what do diversifying collections look like who is undertaking this work. What does this work look like now. What might this look like in the future and what barriers are doing to doing this work. And not surprisingly, many of the things that we found really directly relate to findings in the reimagined descriptive workflows project such as involvement of communities, a hard look at who you are and the skills that you have. But this research really helps to illuminate current practice and libraries and helps to inform the library community, as well as OCLC's product strategy so how can we support libraries and their efforts to include more voices in their collections. So part of the disruption that is caring is really addressing these key deficits in the profession in a frank and honest way. And much of this work is really addressed through through partnerships. So in closing, I want to offer a few personal reflections on this journey of partnerships, derived from report findings and considering the nature of partnerships, especially where your organization needs a boost in terms of representation or expertise. So I would say if you're looking at a project where you are seeking to diversify your, your, your collections, your description. You really need that community consultation. And this begins with an honest assessment of what it is that your organization brings to this effort. You are going to need potential partners to help you address these deficits. So this begins I think with an honest reflection of who those partners are and what their current stance is towards your institution, which may not be entirely positive. You need to step into that uncomfortable space and establish and then cultivate those relationships by asking yourself, how can these relationships be non extractive and mutually beneficial. So what is it that you want from this relationship and what is it that you are offering a partner or individuals in this in this relationship and see it as a true relationship, not, not something that's transactional. Then once you have built and established that relationship, how do you steward it, if you have build trust, if you're fortunate enough to build trust, how do you not lose that. And finally, in closing, I want to close with a slide drawing that was provided by Dorothy Barry, who was a member of our advisors on the reimagine descriptive workflows project was part of the convening and also a speaker in this series from from RL UK. And for those of you who know Dorothy she's an amazing thinker and also just capable of putting things into very, very clear terms. So thank you to this better workflows map. This was also shared at the, at the IFLA pre conference as as an exemplar, which and the principle here is to stop and learn. So there are many points in our current workflows where we're plowing along being efficient, but really what we need to do is to stop and learn. And I would like to thank you today for spending some time with myself and Jay and stopping and learning, and I will stop sharing here and return to see all of you. Thank you, Marilyn. Thank you, Jay. That was really, really interesting. I can see there's some stuff going on in the chat and some questions that we can, that we can get to. So, if I may, I might take the privilege of being chair to ask a question first, and then I will pick up some of the, some of the things from the chat and from the Q&A. So you sort of talked about quite a long, you know, quite a long period for this work. So some of it going back to sort of 2016, 2017. So it's always been going on for a while and that was, you know, actually in many ways quite a different time. It's pre-COVID, you know, it was pre a lot of things. What do you think has sort of changed in the environment since that work has started and how have you found the sort of reception that this sort of work has been getting? You're muted. Of course I am. Of course you are. It wouldn't be a webinar if we couldn't be asked to unmute. Thank you so much for that question. For me, I think that sadly not, I'll start by saying sadly not enough has changed and not enough has changed rapidly. But I will say that one thing that is, that from my perspective has changed and I would be curious, Gavin, Jay, what you think is that there is more of a frank acknowledgement of the problem. I think that we have stopped describing this language as being, I think before we were a little coy about things and describing things as sort of problematic language or potentially offensive language, or, and I think that for the most part, we have stopped describing this language as problematic or couching it in sort of nicer terms and calling it what it is, which is, which is racist or calling it, you know, and calling out our systems as the product of white supremacy, colonialization, etc. And that being able to talk about things in frank terms like that is really honestly going to get us further, because I think if it's only problematic language or worse potentially offensive language it's really hard to motivate change if you're talking about it in much softer terms like that so for me that that has been a really positive thing is being able to get closer to talking about the problem which I think spurs people to want to act and take take some action. I love that example in the case of this feature development I think being able to describe the language as harmful was helpful to not be in a role of victimhood and to instead be empowered to then help prevent harm. It's much more empathetic as well. So, thank you. That's really helpful. So, looking at some of the questions the questions are actually starting to come thinking fast now so I did actually notice there was one from Sarah Corvine asking if the local subject remapping template was system specific. That's more a question I guess for Jay. Yes. The remappings are completely localized so for each WorldCat discovery instance that you have access to it would be customized for that. So that question around the content warning that would really be completely up to the library to come up with one. I've seen some really interesting examples for example. One institution says you've clicked on a subject hitting heading that has been camouflaged because it contains disrespectful words. If you click continue the disrespectful words will appear in the search box to stop, then click X. So very transparent about what the what the issue is and how to get out of it. That sort of answer our first question as well around sort of asking how it currently works in the WorldCat. I think you probably have to answer that, haven't you Jay? Yes. Okay, great. I think that's an interesting question as well. You know how would you either sort of a couple of questions around language and how much sort of work around diversity and inclusion might be limited by sort of state or local governments or within institutions? So I suppose I'm merging a couple of questions here really. It's just sort of any thoughts on how people can navigate that more political landscape. Sort of wanting to take forward some of this work and seeing the value of it, but also perhaps not getting support within your institution or where you're regulated a little bit more. Yeah, I would that's a that's a very difficult question. Unfortunately, I don't, you know, OCLC has been so supportive of this work. It's, but I do recognize that people are challenged in that way. I think that as hard as it is, I think that you can always look at your own. What what is your capacity to change things in your current environment? And that may be, you know, simply networking and supporting yourself through what sounds like a really difficult time at your institution or within your local environment. And just considering what it what is your capacity to support people who need that support most within within your organization. So I think that there's always learning to be done. But since this isn't my particular area of expertise, I don't, I don't know other than to, you know, continue. You know, when one of the things that we did within our project is to be sure that everything was very grounded in research, right, so that we weren't using terms that were not grounded within within research so we leaned heavily on library literature for example to demonstrate that, you know, that that harm harm is real. So I would say, you know, do you lean lean on the shoulders of others do do your research and and move forward within within your own power as an individual. And I think that's really interesting. The other thing I add to that is this sounds to me like a change management problem. So identify what stakeholders you need to get on board to help move the problem forward. And also, you know, hearing that much of this is coming from direct feedback from users, you know users being concerned about language used and their systems that you're serving them. But you can offer to help influence those stakeholders I think is also always a powerful tactic to help influence change. I suppose as well as some of this work is because it's so hard to influence change with where it comes to the sort of providers of control of recovery worries. Because in many ways there wouldn't need to be the sort of systems interventions if, if that was possible but then it's not but then there are local contexts as well aren't there so you know what will be perfectly acceptable here in London may well not be elsewhere so there's always going to be something isn't there. Yeah, I think that's a great point is like it's it's both. There are some things that have consensus but others that even across groups, there will not be consensus so how do we provide tools to help those groups as well. Yeah. And in our I'll just highlight in the research that we did in 2020 one of the things that we found was that is the communities that have have been harmed by harmful language don't necessarily want that language erased. They don't want for the, the harm to be eased for it not to slap them in the face but they don't necessarily want for the, the marks of that harm to be erased they don't want to feel like somebody's pulling a fast one. You know just kind of like making it like this language never appeared we were never described to this way. And, you know, in individual responses to that will will vary but I think that having having systems that that kind of show the that I want to say, maintain that language but that that don't hide it in a way that these that these are harms that have been in fact inflicted upon communities, and that that's not that that you're not trying to hide that harm. If I'm if I'm saying that that correctly so there's. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. Thank you and that leads into sort of perhaps another couple of questions around sort of content notices and sort of if Jay question about to you about any of the preliminary ideas that you've been working on around content notices and then also around conversations you know how do what other conversations determine what might actually need a content warning and how that would work. Yeah, sure. So, this idea is still very much in an infancy so I don't yet have a good understanding of what even what I don't know, I think in the space. So we haven't yet gone through, you know, the discussion groups and panels to understand what the scope of the problem is. But from what I've heard preliminarily, I think there's an idea that we could use a given mark field to then present that field as a label, or to provide some warning before the content is reached. A few kind of ideas that I want to be sure are preserved as we consider this idea is one, when we were developing the local subject terms, a challenge is knowing that the same terms used for the motivations that are described in your imagine descriptive workflows and why our library communities are largely interested in this could also be used by other political motivators. And we want to be sure that we're not providing tools that will make it challenging for libraries to ensure all of their users are well represented. So for example, we wouldn't want this functionality to make it more challenging to discover the content available within our data and available through library collections, our mission is to make what is known shared. So we aim to ensure that, you know, we're something that was very important for the local search expansions was you can always search on the original terms. So even if terms are completely replaced or masked in some way, the user can always go back to the original terms that are in the data to retrieve that content. So even if the even and that could even prevent someone you know if you were accidentally putting terms in that didn't make any sense for some reason or if there's a defect or a bug you know it could be for all sorts of reasons. We know that users could always search and the example that I use today was you could always search homeless persons and get the results back. So that ensures that you know if there's some reason to be used to mask that content even further that that that won't that won't prohibit the user from finding the content. So I think that's kind of the key issue that I want to understand better going into this into these warnings is that it doesn't become more challenging for users with good intent to find a content that they need for their research for their work for their life. So we've got another question from from roles actually realize I haven't been naming any of the question and I'm not sure if the wider audience can actually he's been asking the question so I do apologize but some from Ross Evans we've got a question in terms of content warnings and how can you know for every single I can you know every item that has harmful content. You know, and how is the impact sort of reduced or negative if it's not sort of completely reliable. So how can we sort of ensure that how does this sort of project in this work ensure that things are actually being identified. Yeah, so I think the question here is, if it's not comprehensive is it still valuable. Is that kind of idea. Yeah, I think so or is, is the is the value reduced, at least. Perhaps the value is reduced I guess I think of a quote from an author I really admire her name's Colleen Patrick Goodrow and she frequently will say, if you can't do everything do something, anything with the idea being that intent and moving direction is more powerful than being frozen by not being able to solve everything all at once. And I think that's, you know, an approach that we take with development as well is it's too challenging to solve every problem all at once. But if you can pick off a part and can identify that this will create a tangible improvement. That's better than waiting for everything to get solved. And enough of those steps, you know, eventually we will get to a more comprehensive solution. So I would deal with more as a process than as a meeting to do everything. All at once. Thank you. Okay. I suppose what question another question for me would be has sort of OCLC started to work with other organizations who are doing sort of related work in this field I'm thinking, particularly about something like the local contexts work which you might be aware of. Is that something where there started to be sort of any indication of partnership or, or other other organizations. So thank you for that Gavin the local contexts work is is very interesting so the as I understand it the the TK labels or traditional knowledge labels are something that would be provided by by a community about their own history heritage and culture. And it's unclear to me how data like that would even aggregate in something like world cat. I think what is more interesting with tradition with the with the local contexts work, and where I do think that there's an appetite is for catalogers to be able to add the notices. So those notices indicate I am interested in in in collaborating with communities around. I know I have materials in my collection, where, you know, where they may not belong to me, you know, I've I've learned about, I've learned about something and, and, and, and I know that I may have things in my collection that that should not be made as accessible as I've made them and I want to have an earnest partnership with somebody so I think that that where I see real potential is with institutions on board those, those notices. But again I'm not sure how those aggregate in a system like world cat. So I think that this is a great conversation to to take forward. I know that our content DM team has looked at integrating the TK labels so that content DM could be used as a system within communities. I can't really comment any any further than that but I think this is a really important conversation to go forward because it really is at that at that boundary of, you know, not all collections or for are for all people at all times. And that that's a challenge for a community that has seen the goodness in open. Right. Yeah. So, yeah, I think that kind of holding all of those multiplicities is really important for us going forward. Thank you. Thank you. I think we have just about got time for one final question and we've got a question from Beth asking about how this sort of subject remapping work fits alongside other schemes so introducing things like homosaurus and you know well terms and what capabilities be introduced. Yeah. So that the relationship between something like homosaurus and just to take LCSH LCSH if those terms that homosaurus is trying to change our present LCSH that is still presented to the end user through WorldCat Discovery so we would display both homosaurus and LCSH headings. So the benefit of this remapping is that you could you could rely on something like homosaurus to identify terms that are used in LCSH and replace them with homosaurus terms if you wanted to do that. So you could use some of these vocabularies that have been built to solve some specific cultural problems and apply those across other vocabularies that have not. So you could replace those terms to the user with within our display.