 And that's coming through nicely. Good. I put it into, when Kieran was speaking, it was breaking up a little bit for me. I don't know whether that's my Wi-Fi here. I'm in Prague for the EOS symposium. Or whether it's the Wi-Fi there. But please do shout out if anything's not coming through clearly. You can't really come in through nicely and clear Simon. Okay, good. Well, let's, let's press on. So the title that was put on the program, and thank you Kieran for that introduction. I've got nothing more to say about who I am or what I do. The title I was given was World Fair, the World Fair project. So I'll talk about that. And that's part of a larger co-data initiative with the International Science Council on making data work for cross-domain grand challenges. But I'll also start the presentation with a little bit about co-data, or a relationship to our parent organization, the International Science Council, and some of the work and some thinking about the categories, which I hope will be pertinent for this event. So for those of us, I know that some of you in the room are very familiar with co-data, but I'm sure that some of you are not. So co-data is the Committee on Data of the International Science Council. We're called a committee, but we're more than a committee. We're an organization in our own right. We have a legal status and our own financial basis and our own mission. But we were created by the predecessor of the International Science Council, then called the International Council for Scientific Unions in 1966. We've been around for over 50 years. We were created to address issues around data which were emerging in science at that time. I'm sure they'd been around before that, but that was when the International Council for Scientific Unions decide to address them. And that was partly in the aftermath of the International Geophysical Year, which caused or which led to a lot of data collection activities that raised the profile of data collection and issues relating to data in the minds of the leadership of the International Science Council. Now, co-data, as I say, our mission is to connect data from people to advance science and prove our world. We exist to support the mission of the ISC also, which is to advance science as a global public good. And we do so by promoting open science and fair data. And there's more information on that slide about what sort of organization we have. We have national memberships, membership from international scientific unions and from other organizations. We act through a set of working groups, test groups and projects. In our strategy, we have four priority areas, one of which is this decadal program, which I'll speak about a little bit, making data work for cross-domain grant challenges. I'll come on to that in a moment. But we also have three other priority areas. We do work on data policies. So we have an international data policy committee with a very dynamic new chair who here in Prague at the ISC symposium and a couple of weeks ago at the Fair Week organized a workshop on data policy in times of crisis. And he's really hit the ground running. There's a lot of new work that we're doing in the areas of data policy. But for the past few years, we've produced or contributed to a significant report per year, largely through the work of the data policy committee or through the secretariat. So data policy and contributing to global views on open science, on fair data, as Karen said in the introduction to some of the things I've done recently, is one of our contributions. We do work on data science through the Data Science Journal, through conferences, through our test groups and working group. The next significant conference that code data is contributing to International Data Week in Salzburg in October 2023. That's a partnership with the Research Data Alliance and with the World Data System. And I'm sure you're already aware that the International Data Week after that will be in Brisbane in 2025. Also in October, I think I need to check the dates of that. And then the fourth priority area is training and education. We do various activities around data skills in particular, again in partnership with the Research Data Alliance, the Code Data RDA data schools. Now I'm going to spend a couple of slides on some of the other contributions to science and issues around data that Code Data makes. One of our longest standing test groups is this task group on fundamental constants. That's been in existence since 1969. And it's convened by Code Data, but also very much in partnership with the BIPM, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the organization, the Intergovernmental Organization that looks after the META Convention and the SI system. Now that task group historically has reviewed the data coming out of metrology labs around the world and has recommended values for a range of fundamental physical constants. Now importantly, since 2019, the core units of the SI, of the International System of Units, are derived mathematically from the recommended values for the core fundamental constants. So for example, the kilogram rather being based upon a titanium block, which was held in the subterranean vaults of the BIPM, just outside Paris, underneath three bell jars to prevent even one or to retard the effect of even one atom being removed from that block. Rather being based upon that block of titanium, the kilogram is now derived mathematically from Planck's constant and so on. So that all the base units are derived from the code data recommended values of fundamental constants. Now, related to that work is a more recent task group called DRUM, the Task Group on Digital Representation of Units of Measure. And I think Stuart Chalk spoke to you yesterday and I'm sure he will have mentioned some of this work. The mission of DRUM is to encourage a degree of alignment or cooperation and coordination around the various systems for representing units and thereby to increase the fairness and the interoperability of data which references those systems of units. And one of the things, among others, one of the things that the DRUM Task Group has aimed to do is to increase the involvement of international scientific unions with thinking about units. And in due course, I'm sure, not just about units, but the things that those units are measurements of or that those units relate to, the measurements or the quantities in the language of the metrologists or BIPM. So I hope you've further worked. But the important thing to retain from that is the engagement with international scientific unions and other representatives of particular research areas. That task group has produced a manifesto, a call to action and a call to action article in a nature comment article in nature entitled Top Stop, Squandering Data Make Units of Measurement Machine Readable, which really sums up a lot of the issues that that task group hopes to address. In collaboration with the working group of the BIPM, they're also developing a universal metrology data model and a colleague in particular from that task group has developed an API for fundamental constants and various conference sessions and a unit summit and we hope a hackathon next year. Now, why am I talking about this issue around the fundamental constants and the use units of measure? Because I think those are two recent examples in terms of our interest and activity of, if you like, a return to a core mission for code data and in relation to the international science council. International organizations like code data and like the international science council, sometimes we need to step back and ask, what is our role? What can our contribution genuinely be to coordination of data and activities of interoperability and the adoption and endorsement of standards and terminologies? And I think the work on fundamental constants and the work of drum are two good examples of us trying to address that on a global scale. In coordination with other important stakeholders and organizations. So a little bit of history. When we go back to the foundation of the predecessor of the international science council, the predecessor even of IXU, it was called the Global Research Council. That was founded in 1919 alongside the oldest of the international scientific unions, the International Union of Geophysics and Geodesy and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry and some others. And in that movement, just after the First World War, there was a recognition of the need for global scientific cooperation and a certain vision of the role that that should take and prominent, very prominent among those early missions of what became IXU and of the early scientific unions was work on coordinating and establishing nomenclatures on agreed terminologies for scientific phenomenon. And in those early documents, it seems that they didn't quite have this view, which is very much of hours of affair and the importance of terminologies and vocabaries as defining, they had the view of them defining the concepts, but not perhaps quite defining the measure and or the quantity. But it was certainly moving in that direction. And the international, the early activities of the international scientific unions were very much focused on work on, as I say, on nomenclatures. Now, so that's one thing that I think that co-data and related organizations should continue to do. Now, one of our challenges now often we say is not that we're short of standards for metadata specifications or terminologies, but there's often a lack of awareness of which to use. And there's a proliferation almost of terminologies and ontologies. But then again, I would say that there is a role for international scientific unions, for organizations like co-data and the International Science Council, but also for learned societies and journal editorial boards to encourage the, not the creation of yet another new standard, but encourage some coalescence towards the adoption of fewer standards and recommend even the adoption of certain standards and terminologies in particular domains. A recent nature correspondence piece from Marsha Maran and Leslie Wybonher, I'm sure, is there, responded to an argument around the importance of metadata with a call for scientific unions and other representative organizations, other organizations that can claim to represent a particular domain or area of research to take more interest in issues around metadata and terminologies. I'm going to make a brief call for another area of action, which I think relates to something that Kiran was just talking about as well. Now, some colleagues will have heard this call for activity and seen the slide before, but I think it bears repeating. One of the things, we depend upon a number of pieces of infrastructure in the data space, in the data ecosystem. Some of those are data repositories, for example, but one of the pieces of important technology and infrastructure upon which we rely are metadata specifications and terminologies. And some of those which underpin call work in particular domains are maintained on a shoestring. Now, that's not always entirely a bad thing, but I think this XKCD cartoon speaks to some of the risks and some of the concerns that we might have when certain essential parts of our information infrastructure are relatively undervalued. A few years ago, Codata with OECD, for OECD or for the Global Science Forum of OECD produced this report on business models for sustainable research data repositories. And for some time now, I've been thinking that it would be a good thing, resource and effort willing to do a similar study on the information component of our data infrastructures, in particular metadata specifications and or terminologies. And just a brief survey, we can see a variety of governance, sustainability, business models and technical models for metadata specifications and terminologies. And some of those are listed there. I'm not going to go through those in detail. But I think a similar study to understand how are the categories and terminologies governed? How are the widely used ones maintained? How are they resourced? And are there any concerns that we might have about the way in which certain key terminologies are looked after? And perhaps also that study could make recommendations on how we can increase alignment and coalescence, what mechanisms currently work to encourage the coalescence towards particular terminologies rather than a free-for-all where everyone writes their own list of terms. And we start to find the task focusing more on cross-works rather than adoption. So I'll leave you with that thought and talk briefly about some other work in the relation to terminologies that CoDase is involved with. For a few years, we've been holding workshops at Dagstod and a colleague whose voice I think I heard who I'm sure is there, Simon Cox and led a group as a result of one of those workshops which produced this nice article on 10 simple rules for making a vocabulary fair. That work was picked up specifically by the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population which has established a working group which is at an advanced state now making a set of recommendations for terminologies in population research. There's a pretty complete draft now which is being reviewed by certain stakeholders to that and that's great to see that moving forward. We've also had similar discussions with IUPAC, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry about how to make those terminologies that that organisation looks after fair and those discussions have led directly to activities in the World Fair project. We'd be very keen in either directly or indirectly encouraging similar work with other representative bodies whether International Scientific Unions or otherwise that are concerned with and that look after particular vocabaries. It should be said that IUSSP doesn't look after terminologies itself, but as an International Scientific Union representing that domain it cares if vocabaries exist and they were able to convene input from OECD, from UN stats and from other organisations that care about those vocabaries into that working group and I think that's an important precedent. Codata itself is involved in some terminology work. We're now looking after what was known as the CASRI Research Data Management Glossary now stewarded by Codata. There was a major revision of that as a result of our taking it over. We've cleaned it up or a working group I should say that we convened has cleaned up that terminology a great deal. The public review closed earlier this year and we'll be publishing it as a fair vocabulary with the help of Research for vocabaries Australia before the end of the year and we're trying to shepherd through a similar process for the ISC-UNDRR hazard information profiles which has been prepared over the last few weeks and a few years I should say it's been a number of years work by an expert group convened by ISC and UNDRR and we hope that will be published in a similar way. Now I'm going to change gears a little bit and introduce move on from that discussing Codata activities around vocabaries to introducing the program, the decadal program making data work for the world fair project. So for a few years Codata has been interested in fair of course particularly in the the I and the R affair the interoperability and re-usability of fair but also with the challenges for the implementation of those principles in particular domains but also for cross domain research areas the premise for this is that the major pressing global and scientific human issues of the 21st century things like climate change and climate change adaptation the human side of climate change if you like the human side of the response to climate change the growth of cities and understanding the cities as a mechanism of disaster risk reduction of almost all of the sustainable development goals each of those areas of research requires an interdisciplinary approach and requires data from a number of different sources whether that's modeled together in a complex system or whether indeed it's looked at in series but nevertheless needs to be considered alongside so for a few years we were or a few years ago I should say we were asked by the International Science Council to prepare a plan for a program which would be part of the International Science Council's action plan and that became this this decadal program making data work across the main ground challenges and thanks to funding from the European Commission we now have at the heart of that a project award fair which I'll go on to talk about we kicked off this work with two exploratory workshops in 2017 to look at issues across the main interoperability that led to collaboration with the DDI initiative at the DDI Alliance and a series of dark store workshops and some funded work on DDI CDI CDI standing for cross domain integration and it also involved engagement with a number of case studies in epidemiology and health in disaster risk reduction and that allowed us to identify an approach and a methodology which we think has some value. The funded work on DDI CDI resulted in a report for the European Open Science Cloud I'll just leave that slide there for the reference in case you're interested in that but some of the functions that DDI CDI has to address has really influenced our thinking about a cross domain interoperability framework and the approach that we would take in the World Fair project the World Fair project is a two year project funded by the European Commission there's a lot of work going on in Europe which you may be aware of in relation to the European Open Science Cloud the project contributes to that but it was funded by a parallel piece of funding called the European Research Area and it was really designed to encourage engagement on a global scale and so we were allowed for that project to have beneficiaries to institutions that are funded by the European Commission outside the European Union and therefore partners in two partners in Australia Australian Data Archives and OSCO partners in Brazil in Kenya in New Zealand two partners in the US as well interestingly because of Brexit despite being able to fund partners from other countries outside the European Union we weren't allowed to give money to the British and it's probably their own damn fault so that project has a number of case studies and a central methodology and one of the things that it aims to do is to respond directly to recommendation 4 from Turning Fair in reality that recommendation argues that we need to encourage and facilitate the process whereby research communities in particular domains or in cross-domain research areas can develop interoperability or fair frameworks for their research area and that covers things like the practices for data sharing what data formats are used what metadata standards are adopted etc etc and it additionally the recommendation says to support interdisciplinary or cross-domain research those frameworks should be articulated in common ways and adopt global standards and that's something that we really seek to address as I say through the World Fair project similar recommendations for interoperability frameworks are also made in the UNESCO recommendation and the ISC Action Plan and a point for discussion that I would like to know more about is is that recommendation does that speak to priorities also in Australia and for the ARDC so as I said the World Fair project is based around a set of 11 specific and concrete case studies and I think this is a real virtue of the project and the way that we've tried to design it and that we're very closely engaged with those case studies and they range through a number of research areas and grouped into clusters as well to encourage cross-fertilization so there's three relating in various ways to chemistry one on IUPAC assets one on nanomaterials one on geochemistry led by OSCOPE then there's a social science cluster one on social surveys data which is a collaboration between the Australian data archive which hosts the Australian social survey and the Norwegian data archive which hosts the European social survey related to that on population health looking at a project which combines population health data with clinical outcome data relating first to HIV and then to COVID. Interesting project also on urban health looking at the data harmonization activities of a large welcome trust funded project called Salo Bow looking at urban health data in Latin America two projects relating to biodiversity one led by GBIF which is obviously a leading institute in biodiversity data looking at pollinator data with a large or at least I should say a diverse set of partners including Embraer from Brazil and Cal Road from Kenya as well as HiveTrax which is an American SME looking at pollinator data and the Mesa in Platanica Garden in Belgium two looking at environmental data of various sorts so the ocean science the architects of Odis the ocean data information system and disaster risk reduction led by Tomkin and Taylor in New Zealand and then finally last but but not least a work package and case study on cultural heritage really largely focusing on image data led by the digital repository of Ireland. So there you can see a very diverse set of case studies but case studies often with significant leaders a number of organizations that can genuinely be claimed to be authoritative in relation to the data in those particular case studies or that are involved in significant global collaborations so with a high degree of possibility or probability therefore that the findings of those case studies will be adopted and then at the center of this diagram which you can see is the coordinating work package which is addressing three things we're looking at fair implementation profiles across domain interoperability framework and recommendations for more domain sensitive fair assessment and I'll run through those in the interest of time so fair implementation profiles is a methodology which developed by the go fair initiative and it's really simply a set of questions about how do you make the metadata and data that you're concerned with fair in relation to each of the fair principles so in its conception it's a relatively simple thing but I think it's fair to say that the case studies have found it a particularly useful process to go through of almost not quite self-assessment but a process of self-query if you like what is our current practice in relation to fair and therefore where might that practice be improved the questions ask you in their jargon to identify for each of the questions or fair principles a fair enabling resource that you use to make to respond to that particular fair principle that could be an identifier it could be a service, it could be a metadata specification it could be an ontology, it could be a terminology and that allows you to identify a set of fair enabling resources which potentially can be reused by other communities and the methodology consists both of these set of questions and our case studies filled them out in a spreadsheet and then it also consists of this fit wizard which is an online tool which creates a nano what they call a nano publication which is really the expression of the fair enabling resource in RDF and the benefit of that although it's a bit clunky to do, the benefit of that is that that creates the FER the fair enabling resource as a nano publication in RDF and allows other communities to reference it and in time we hope that that might give us when visualizing that graph of FERs that are used by different communities might give us some insight into what FERs are showing themselves to be particularly well adopted and patterns of usage across and among particular domains I think it also creates this typology of FERs and a functional breakdown of the fair principles which is useful for our insight into the next step which is the cross domain interoperability framework the FIPS, the fair implementation profiles is being performed early in the project really as an initial exploration into practice and it will be conducted later in the project and at that stage we're going to ask the case studies really to look forward beyond the life of the project and say okay what have you learned from the project and what would you see as a not necessarily an ideal end state but an improvement on your current practice beyond the life cycle of the project we will also we hope be able to feed the findings of those fair implementation profiles into recommendations for more domain sensitive fair assessment particularly in Europe I think the fair principles has given rise to a set of online tools which are intended to assess the fairness of data coming out of particular domains or of fair infrastructure data infrastructures now I think those tools are worthy and they're potentially useful but I think they remain relatively one size fits all and a little bit a few years ago there was some work by Science Europe to make recommendations for how data management plans could better address the needs of particular domains and include within them more targeted questions and recommendations for good practice in particular research areas to do something similar for fair assessment and that would be empirically guided by the findings from the fair implementation profiles and from what we find from these 11 case studies so that's something which we think will be useful coming out of the project and then finally and almost what I personally think see as the most important contribution to the project outputs from Work Package 2 will be a set of recommendations for a cross domain interoperability framework now this is some work that we've been thinking about for some time and lies at the heart of this of the World Fair project and of the programme for making data work for cross domain research areas and that's the idea that there's a need to identify a functional list of issues that need to be addressed for interoperability as such and in particular for interoperability across domains for the sort of case studies and examples or at least some of the case studies examples that we've listed here in World Fair all domains need to have definitions of the object study whether they call that the quantities they need to have those definitions what is it that's being measured or observed they need to have definitions of the units which are being used to quantify or even in some instances to qualify those observations they need to have ways of expressing the terminologies the vocabaries and ontologies that are involved in this taking things that we've learnt from the collaboration with the data documentation initiative and relating to cross domain integration we also think it's very useful to have almost as essential to have the data description what in the in DDI-CDIs called the variable cascade the mechanism that links those concepts to the variables to the data in the way that the data is described and represented also in DDI-CDIs there is a modelling of various types of data structure and the idea there being that being to make machine manipulation or transformation of data sets easier to automate we also need to carry in the metadata information about provenance and the processing the data has undergone about the data types what can be done technically to these types of data licenses what can be done legally if you like to these types of data both by humans and by their machines and the protection and programmatic access and that's just an ad hoc list and a specific list in some of the preliminary documentation there but I hope you see what we're edging towards there is a typology a functional typology of the issues that need to be addressed in interoperability as such and in cross domain interoperability and in relation to each of those functional areas it's possible to identify candidate specifications or standards which we are used to either across most domains or in a number of domains and which we can then point to as good practice for addressing the functional requirements of that particular part of the cross domain interoperability framework we've been thinking about this for a while since some of this earlier work and since the collaboration with DDI-CDI we've had presentations and sessions that we've organized to explore these ideas and a discussion paper which was presented at the Darkstall workshop earlier this year we're now setting up a working group and advisory group to take that work forward in the context of the World Fair project and at the very least by the end of the project we'll have a set of recommendations about what that cross domain interoperability framework is and we'll have a set of recommendations about whether or not some more detailed specifications for certain parts of it. As I said we've been exploring that at the Darkstall workshop which also looked at again three concrete case studies related to the World Fair work and there's a report on that workshop there so I think this is the slide to close the World Fair project as part of the program Making Data Work for Cross-Domain Grand Challenges it's a two-year kickstart for a set of domain and cross-domain research areas. We think there's a useful methodology there looking at that recommendation from Turning Fair into reality for how you promote domain or cross-domain interoperability frameworks applying the FIPS methodology usefully we hope to certain case studies and bringing out of that domain sensitive fair assessment and we hope recommendations and specifications for a cross-domain interoperability framework so we think that methodology is useful things are going well so far I think the methodology and approach is being validated and therefore we want to explore a number of opportunities to build on this work to expand the number of case studies and how to take forward some of that methodology how to refine that further how to improve the FIPS process for example how to get more input into the cross-domain interoperability framework and so we'd be very keen to explore what a cross-domain interoperability framework is and how to develop a fair type approach could be pursued in Australia or with more Australian partners with ARDC and other partners in the domain commons which are being established by ARDC so very keen to answer questions on that project on the programme and our interest in the cabris and I hope that's been of interest to you