 The metadata store has given us a way of exposing our research data and collections. I guess previously they've been hidden, they haven't been that well exposed to the wider world. We have internal systems which describe the grants and projects that people are working on, but they're internal and they haven't been exposed to, you know, outside of getting that message out there and getting collections. That's the hard part. We chose the Redbox Mint software because it gives us workflows that we didn't have previously, so it gives us workflows for dealing with data coming in from the official data sources at Latrobe and externally, and then massaging that data and putting it into the right format, having a workflow to deal with the different stages of curation of that information and then pushing it through to our own infrastructure. And it's well designed to integrate with our current Vital Fedora research online repository. At the beginning we really relied quite heavily on what University of Newcastle has done, and in particular their configuration files, their project object module file and associated files that they've got in the repositories. We've based our builds upon that configuration. Duncan and Greg, both the technical competency but also really good communication skills. So Greg Pendlebreed did fantastic documentation for Redbox. When we were looking at the Redbox Mint system, specifically the Mint system, it had a particular way of handling the creation of an identifier for a researcher. That identifier was specific to that software system, in fact specific to that implementation of it. It took the identifier that had been created in the Research Master System, which is our research management system at Latrobe, and in order to make them hopefully unique in the world, we used our ISO code. Our thinking is that with the structure of the identifiers that we've got, even if the Redbox Mint system were to be superseded by some other system, if our records were to be migrated into a completely different platform, we still have identifiers that will make sense. There's been a lot of talk about metadata storage projects being more about cultural change than about being software development. And I think that has been more true than we could ever have imagined. It's cultural change for people in a library who have to think about being the originators of material, the first people to essentially publish a data collection, rather than dealing with material where publishers have already handled this material, have made lots of decisions about how it would be described. We are making a lot of those decisions for the very first time. So we are working with researchers who now have to think about their research data as something that can be published, as something that other people will actually be looking at, which is something that many of them have never considered before. Talk to people about research data and the default thinking is, yes, we can put in your system, but of course it won't be publicly available, will it? And we've asked the question, why not? What is the issue with making this material publicly available? It makes sense to us at this point that putting your work out there is a way of claiming and a way of asserting the work you've done, whereas a lot of the default thinking we're coming across assumes that it's the opposite, that exposing your material makes you vulnerable, as we see it as actually claiming the territory, claiming the work you've done and actually as having great potential advantages. So the Mentor Data Stores program gave us some momentum because it brought attention to the project. So the funding, getting the steering committee together, getting attention from the university was made a lot easier just by having this as a project at La Trove and it has really exposed a whole lot of work that we need to do and given us momentum for that actual process of engaging with researchers and getting collections and exposing research at La Trove.