 Registering for this webinar and thank you to clear for supporting our team. Hannah and I are really excited to talk with you today about collections as data part to whole. Specifically, this is the webinar focused on the cohort to component of the overall project, the funding opportunity and the cohort development opportunity. So before I get started, I just want to make sure can everyone hear me okay. Yeah, I'm good. Okay. Thanks, Hannah. And yep, okay, that's pretty enthusiastic. Yes, everyone in the room. So I'm going to get started. And then I'll be handing off to Hannah. To talk in greater detail about the CFP. So I'm launching the presentation. Hey, getting a good to go from Hannah. Okay, so yes. Thank you for joining us today. This is the webinar focused on the cohort to funding and cohort development opportunity of collections is data part to whole Here is a screenshot of the call for proposals that is currently on our website. Now the CFP officially open on August 1, which I hope was not a weekend. But it opened on August 1 closes on October 31. So there's some time to develop proposals. Project overall is, you know, we are very grateful to the Mellon Foundation for supporting this project. We're happy that this work is able to take place because of their support. The project team itself is myself. I'm at, I'm at UNOV or the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Hannah skates Cutler on the call this today at Iowa State University. I almost said Ohio. I'm in Ohio right now. Sorry. I'm not in the Hollywood green screen studio. I'm in Ohio, but Hannah recently moved to Iowa State. Congratulations, Hannah. And then Lori Allen and Stuart Barner, who were not able to be with us today. We have an excellent advisory board for this project. Dan Cohen, Greg Yau, Greg recently moved to the Center for Research Libraries from MIT, Karen Esslin, Burgess Jules, who at some point in this project moved to shift. Trevor Munoz and Barbara Rockenbach. So just a general structure of what we're going to be talking about today. We're hoping to actually not talk that much. We're hoping to hear more from you. But just generally, I'm going to go over sort of a part to whole overview. So overview of this project. I'll hand off to Hannah and Hannah is going to get into some detail about the components of the CFP and what we're looking for. And then we'll just open it up to Q&A. Any questions that you have, we'll try and answer them. No promises that we can answer all of them, but we will definitely try. So part to whole overview. This particular project on collections as data, it comes out of this IMLS supported project called Always Already Computational Collections as Data. It ran roughly 2016 to 2018. It was an effort of myself. Laurie Allen, Stuart Barner, Hannah Frost, Sarah Popfin and Elizabeth Russi Roke. And that project had sort of this one, one of the core claims in that project, at least as it started, and the scope of it kind of changed over time as we learned more from the community. But one of the original claims was essentially that cultural heritage organizations, we've been digitizing stuff for a long time now and we've increasingly, we're dealing with more digital content and that, you know, perhaps some of the ways that we're approaching this project are, you know, perhaps, you know, some of the ways that we're approaching thinking about description and access for these collections might actually kind of create barriers for researchers or students or folks working in other sectors who want to work with our collections as data, who want to use computational methods, who want to think of the collections as something that could be potentially machine actionable. And so we embarked on a two year, two and a half year project. We did a ton of community engagement, you know, traveled over a dozen different conferences, held two national forums, and we had anticipated producing three deliverables in that project and it ended up being closer to seven or eight. So we were very busy. The kinds of things that we produced were things like the Santa Barbara statement on collections as data, which was in turn, we should probably document this. Maybe this will be like a post webinar fix. But our thinking around why Santa Barbara statement on collections as data, part of that it was inspired by the Denton declaration on open access. So we were thinking that it might be useful to have a document that sort of brings together guiding principles for doing collections as data work that are ethically grounded, that are historically contextualized, and are the product of a lot of community feedback. So we put together the Santa Barbara statement on collections as data after form one. And then over the period of two years, we workshopped it and versioned it. And now it exists as a version two document that's meant to sort of articulate a shared set of values that we believe are important in undertaking collections as data work. In addition to that, we did things like create document use cases, create personas, collect position statements, articulate methods, papers, collect different ways to get started in doing collections as data work, and there's even a white paper out there in the world. So we did a lot of stuff. At the end of that project, we felt that there was some work to do still. So this is why we have collections as data parts a whole. That first project that I've been talking about now for the past few minutes was largely focused on the question of implementation. So, you know, what does it take to describe, prepare, and provide access to machine actionable collections as an implementation question? But then if we consider where the other foot drops, say more of a start doing this kind of work, once that other foot drops, like how well are we prepared to sort of sustainably support the use of machine actionable collections? And that's where collections as data part to whole aims to sort of like pick up the slack. So still address the implementation thing, but really we have a focus in this, the melon phase of the project on, you know, models that support the use of machine actionable collections. So collections as data part to whole, it's a three-year project, 2019 to 2021, and I'm having trouble reading my own. Either way, I can minimize myself. Okay, so collections as data part to whole, kind of the core goal here is we're aiming to foster the development of broadly viable models that support implementation and use of collections as data. Okay, sorry. So over the course of the project, we're going to re-grant $600,000 to 12 projects across two cohorts. Each cohort will be responsible for creating a use model and implementation model and the collections as data. So Hannah will get into more detail about what we mean by each of these things, but just quickly I'll try and gloss them. And then Hannah will re-emphasize and speak more eloquently to it than I will. We want to do it twice. So what we're hoping for is a use model. So a use model is essentially like the collections of descriptions of roles and services and cross-departmental collaborations that you are making an argument for that this is a useful model for supporting collections as data. And then with the implementation model, it's a similar set of things. You know, what are the roles? What are the services? What are the, you know, different kinds of documentation and code that you're using in order to prepare, you know, describe, prepare and provide access to collections as data. And then finally, some kind of collection as data must be produced. And we are encouraging collections as data that speak to underrepresented histories. Just a couple of more things that I want to call out. And again, this is in the language of the CFP, but what we're really hoping to see in proposals are collaborations across an organization that support computational use of collections as data. Of course, I could imagine a proposal that comes out of a digital scholarship group where it's, you know, largely digital scholarship staff. But what we're hoping to see are sort of like reaching across the organization, reaching across different departments in creative ways. We encourage you to think about, you know, using this as an opportunity to kind of form the kinds of collaborations you've been wanting to have that might be a little bit elusive across different silos in your organization. And finally, I would just say that, you know, we believe that there's a place in this work for people throughout an organization. And it's not limited to, you know, liaisonship, teaching and learning, repository development, digital collections, digital scholarship, archives, scholarly communication, that basically, you know, we think that there are ways to be innovative and creative in finding a place for multiple people to contribute to this work. And so we look forward to seeing proposals that kind of think through those dimensions. Cohort teams themselves consist of a senior administrator, a project lead and a disciplinary scholar. Hannah will speak more to why that is the case, why we have this particular focus on a team leadership composition. I will mention briefly that it's probably not lost on most of you that we have already re-granted to the first cohort. It's a nice range of institutions. We have a museum, we have a Weeksville Historical Society, and then we have sort of an admixture of different research universities. And I would just talk sort of briefly about UNC's project, just to kind of give you a sense of one of the projects. If you're not familiar with cohort one, this one comes out of UNC, it's called On the Books, Jim Crow and Algorithms of Resistance. The goal of this project is to make North Carolina legal history accessible as a text corpus. And so there's going to be this production of a text corpus. It's going to be a project website, there's going to be a GitHub repo that makes all of the code available, and there will be white papers and so forth. I would just kind of like call attention quickly to the team composition here. So this is really interesting, right? So we have our senior sort of administrator AUL for Special Collections. And then we have staff, Nathan Kelber, who has since moved on, but Nathan Kelber, Matt Jansen and Amanda Henley, who are organizationally in different parts of the library structure. And then we have a couple of other folks. And then we have William Sturkey, the faculty member of History. I just wanted to call out this project because it's an interesting sort of creative approach to bridging across different parts of the organization to make the legal history of North Carolina available and to support its use. With that said, I do want to also say that while we love our cohort one projects, we encourage you to not read between the lines too much in terms of what we have re-granted to previously. We are not trying to set the signal that we only want to fund projects like this. Quite to the contrary, we want increased diversification of approaches and models and types of content that you might propose to work with. So I just wanted to call that out really quickly. What do you get if you take part in this project? So one, you can apply for up to $50,000. And then as a cohort development activity, you'll also take part in a team lead institute. We're sort of the team leads from all the projects. We'll get together within the first four months of the project. You'll all come together. We will recruit two experts, a disciplinary faculty member and a senior library administrator or cultural heritage administrator to come in and work with us to run sort of a cohort development activity for you all. So you can sort of exchange sort of perspectives and approaches really early on in your project. So you have the opportunity to adjust your project plans toward the beginning of the project. And then finally, there will be a public summative forum where you will share your work and your outputs with the broader community. So with that, I am going to stop sharing and I'm going to hand it off to Hannah to walk us through the CFP in greater detail. Okay, so have I successfully shared my screen? Okay, great. And again, you hear me. Obviously you can hear me. So yeah, let's dive right into the CFP. So the CFP is live. I believe Krista has linked that in the chat. And we'll take a look at that here. We've tried to outline the most pertinent information upfront and that is the deadline and how much you will be getting. The deadline for submission is October 31. It is live at any point you can submit a proposal from now until then. The projects will be decided on and announced in January 2020 with the intended end date of all the projects by April 2021. So this is giving you a great background. If you have additional questions about that, we can certainly answer those. But I wanted to get into what exactly we were looking for from the CFP. So you would be getting $50,000 to support the development of a use model and implementation model as well as the collection is data as part of this project. Now this is where we further define what we mean by the use and implementation model specifically. The first example is as Thomas alluded to earlier. A collection of positions or duties or services that is supported throughout the organization through interesting and novel collaborations as it may be to support the creation and long term maintenance of collections as data or collections as data efforts within your institution. The idea of these projects is that we would be funding those that could be sustained long, long term, or at least beyond the project grant cycle. Definitely beyond that. That's something that we do look for. We also look at the implementation models or proposed implementation models as part of the CFP that describe workflows and infrastructure and code. It's much more about the back end things of how this collections data work gets done. And again, how they get done but also sustained beyond the grant cycle or April 2021. So the collections is data, which we have found in our past work and iterations of the cohort. That's not really the hard part. We can definitely answer questions about that as well. We also outline in that section of course what a competitive proposal looks like it looks towards these creative ways of making connections across institutions across organizations and sustainable collaborations. As well as the the mixture of folks that have applied previously or are in this cohort as we pull it together as well. We are also looking for the development of collections is data that that represent typically underrepresented voices within our digital collections or archives, historically, and ethical care of the creation and distribution of these data. So the things that are supported as part of this this grant including buyout staff time or faculty time room rentals fees or training consulting outside of the institution should expertise lie without. So that those are some there are some options and flexibilities and how the $50,000 up to $50,000 can be spent. We did in this round. Do a little bit more explicit documentation of the evaluation criteria, including some additional detail about what we look for in the use and implementation models, as well as the proposed collections is data, you will find that this information is repeated. We thought that that was important, because these are areas that we look for across these different components. So if they are repeated, we are looking for them to be not repeated word for word, at least the values and expectations are repeated in these different sections. So if there are questions about the evaluation criteria that's something that we can definitely talk more about. But we are looking for how these projects can be supported throughout the project. We are not fans of funding contingent labor. It's something that's not made explicit but definitely one of the things that we are concerned with is supporting these again, these projects beyond the grant cycle. And providing a way to to move forward institutional support and infrastructure for this type of work. We are looking for applications of folks who are within the United States or an associated entity. That is something that Mellon requires as part of this grant. So that's something that we have to adhere to pretty closely. Notice we have details of what the submission looks like. This can be a PDF or a DocX or what have you format is less a concern, but these elements should be addressed in your proposal. There are some examples of how long we expect particular sections to be. They can be under that's that's fine. This is not like you must fill 1500 words. But if you can get the point across and less than that that's totally legit. I can't really tell about what these individual sections are but if you as you as you work through your proposals have questions about any of these sections, or would like some clarification we can, we can just talk through that with you one on one, or an additional time scheduled for August 19 I think we have another webinar that we're happy to to address additional questions that you have as you're working through this. You can contact Thomas Padilla directly or we also have a link in in our CFP using a form that will reach all of the members. So Stuart, Lori, Tom, Thomas and I through through that mechanism as well. And I do want to call out that we do have a code of conduct if you would please review that as well. We take these concerns very seriously and these are things that we uphold even within our evaluation of course of the proposal so that is the CFP broadly speaking. Thomas did also mentioned the makeup of the teams that should have at least three roles represented the senior administrator, the disciplinary scholar as well as the project lead. The senior administrator is there specifically to create real buy-in from an administrative level. Some of the things that we were seeing in the earlier iterations of this project in the IMLS funded portion of collections was that there was a lot of interest and a lot of even expertise available to draw on. One of the things that we were seeing was the support at a higher level or across institutional was lacking or at the very least understated. And so we called senior administrator out specifically as part of this grant so that they are made aware and have I mean honestly have to be involved in the grant writing process so that they're part of the team. And that can be defined as allow the buyer institution. It's going to be different. We left that kind of open so that different types of roles could be represented in that area but someone who basically makes decisions or has input on where funding and resources and staff time go. The disciplinary scholar is there to speak to the significance of the collection that is being created so that they can articulate the use and applicability in their discipline in their local context and teaching and learning community engagement but also broadly. So that's why that's why they are there also to be helpful in developing a more well rounded collection as data that might otherwise not be possible. And then the project lead. And this is really the person who gets all the stuff done. And in some cases there is one person who's the, for example, the senior administrative person tasks with doing all of the work. And so we wanted to make that labor explicit and also put put that work at the same level as any disciplinary scholar or someone who was controlling the purse strings. So it was the, so this makeup is a folks who are all in the same level in terms of this these projects are concerned. And they can look differently based on the institution that you are coming from. And we can talk about what that looks like on an individual level as well. If it's if it's not clear. The makeup of the teams. Is there anything I'm missing Thomas from the CFP. Okay, great. Let me jump back over to our presentation then. Can you still say it or is it stopped sharing. Okay, I thought it stopped sharing. Let's do this again. Are we back on. Are we live. All right, so the timeline mentioned this already but the CFP is open now. Yay. That's why you guys are here. It is open until October. I think that we will initiate the successful projects in January 2020, the public forum for the these these projects is January 2021, which will be in Las Vegas. Right. Well, let's go. Let's go to Las Vegas in January. Yeah, that sounds great. I'm from Iowa. So it's not happening here. So then we will release the models and collections in April 2021. And these the models and the collections are those that are created by you all in consult and collaboration with each other of course. So that's the shakedown of the CFP and the project as we've developed over the last few years and we would like to open it up for your questions or concerns or what have you. I think it can be as broad as do what kinds of projects do you think you might want to have because we certainly have thoughts of that but or as detailed as MIA project lead. All right. All right. Oh, I can stop sharing my screen too. Oh yes and we should say the recording of today's session will be made available from the collections as data website for reviewing. Hey Thomas, how about I read the questions and then you can respond to them. Does that sound good. Okay. Great. Apologies if I miss any of them. Let's see. Does a cross institutional team. Consisting of two universities qualify. Yes. I don't know what else to say. Yes, it does. I think, Rebecca, if that's, okay, that's another question. But yeah, cross institutional teams of two universities do qualify. This question has come up a couple of different times in interactions with potential applicants where they might say like, oh, you know, we have this particular collection but the disciplinary scholar that who's like the primary expert that we would want to work with is actually at a different university. Then that's that that's totally cool if there's going to be some sort of like cross institutional collaboration there. Or how about I take how about I take a couple and then and then I'll like hand off to you. So can you elaborate on what a use model with. And this is from Alexandra on how it's different from the implementation model. Okay, so the description of them is really similar. One, so we acknowledge that that's we're trying to be as clear as possible but you know, we're still trying to learn. But essentially, you know, as we think about collections as data we're thinking about how do you prepare and make accessible the collections. How do you create machine actionable subsets or derivatives out of the existing collections. So that people can use them so think of that as an implementation question. And as an implementation question. If you're thinking about a model that you want to share with the rest of the community. Part of that model is going to be a description of why like, who are the people who did that, who made the collections available. How did they work together. What kind of code did they develop what what is their infrastructure look like. And so we think of that collection of things as the implementation model with the use model, we're thinking about basically the same set of considerations. But how does a library or an archive or a museum then support the use of the data, say by a digital humanist, or a computational social scientist, or a journalist who's interested in doing data driven journalism. What are the kinds of collaborations that might happen between different parts of the library to sustainably support the use of collections as data in an organization. So similar set of considerations in terms of their proposed model. Who are the people that are involved, what percentage of their time is being allocated. What are the actual duties that are sort of coming into play. And then, you know, sort of like, how are they going to support that kind of activity over time. And I'll just add. Yeah, so the models themselves are intended to be used beyond the institution. So the idea is that other like institutions can look at these models and adapt them for their own local use, if that makes sense. Yeah, that's it. That's a great point. So I'm going to hand off, and I'll hand off to you for maybe the next couple. So I think it's the Rebecca's question about sustainability. So how do you define project sustainability. Do you mean matching funds or infrastructural support. So that's, that's a little bit of both, actually. When what we're looking for in terms of what might be sustainable is one, are the necessary people involved necessary skill sets there to help or support these types of projects long term. And so that I mean, and that is also that that's about infrastructure, right. And it also includes are those, you know, relationships there that are necessary to, to support this kind of work as well. It may not necessarily be within a particular institution as Thomas alluded to. But can those kinds of, can that kind of network be maintained over time. And this in a lot of cases looks like, is, is this something that the institution can afford to do, right. Is this something that can be done within a particular budget that they've outlined over multiple years sustained over multiple years for for different projects, if they would like to do to do more of this right. So, though we are looking at, you know, a single collections as data. We are looking at can this be this this kind of work be maintained beyond this, this, this funding cycle and this particular project. And the idea of being that we want to continue to develop collections as data because this is how people access them, and being able to support or sustain that kind of work long term is something that we're that we're looking for. I hope that answers your question Rebecca. I just add like a little bit to that is that and kind of like would turn it back that you know we're also relying upon upon you to make a case for, for what sustainable means like in your particular context. To me it kind of like, it's kind of runs again in my mind to how we have discussions about scalability a lot in libraries, but sometimes perhaps there's not a super critical engagement with what that means. And I think that there's like a range of what of arguments that could be made about like what is sustainable and what is not sustainable. In particular, if I think about, you know, the idea of scale. There was a project at, I believe it was at Duke, where they had these experimental humanities labs. And I think they only supported a certain number per year, and then they were meant to end like they were meant to be experimental. They had a very, you know, clear beginning a very clear, you know, shared understanding that they were going to end and then they ended. And so the scaling there was really, I think only like three or four projects at a time for a couple years and then they ended and then there was like a new set of things so it's like a different articulation of like what sustainability and what scale means and I think, as you're developing these models, I think there's something there to be said about an argument for a certain kind of sustainability that's particular to the kind of institution that you're at. And, you know, as we're looking at proposals from different institutions, we are open to a range of definitions for what that means, right, like sustainability may look different for a historical society, you know, versus a very large public R one. It looks like the next is kind of spending or prohibited. Okay. Yeah, so what kinds of spending is prohibited technology infrastructure. So, really what we're targeting here is is supporting supporting people's time to contribute to this kind of work I don't. Fund anyone with tech requirements I think that was something that we're not funding is buying technology. I'm not sure what you mean by infrastructure exactly, but in terms of supporting people's training, certainly supporting people's time. Yes, supporting their travel. Yes, and space. Yes. Very small organizations, fulfilling all the participant parts of the grant application how broadly defining cross departmental. So, this, again, is something that we are looking to you to define. This can be interfacing with the one IT person that you know, and that can be enter or cross departmental as your institution may get. What we're really just looking for is that there is sufficient work across particular silos that are required to do this type of work so that people are, you know, just working within the organization curator circle. I'm not entirely sure what your organization looks like but the idea is really just to get at are the necessary collaborations there to support this work broadly at your institution. In some cases it looks like I'm going to reach out to so and so from, you know, research services as well as library archives IT and someone who's, you know, in some cases outside of my institution that has disciplinary expertise so it's pretty broad. It's really just talking about, you know, collaboration across people who might not necessarily collaborate otherwise. So I'll take I'll take the next ones is from Matthew battles. Can you talk a bit about the nature of the collections in question. Is there a sweet spot when it comes to the tangibility materiality cohesiveness hybridity of collections. I would say that at the beginning of the CFP we do try and call out. We're encouraging additional content types in collections for this round. We love text and we love metadata and we will continue to love text and metadata. Our cohort one is a lot of text and metadata. We'll be super excited to see more of those proposals in this round, but we would also be excited to see some proposals related to different kinds of different kinds of content, either digitized or born digital. In terms of types, you know, moving image audio 3D, which, you know, you know, yeah, Hannah is doing a thumbs up. I would say, like, we're going to love all of them equally. But we do want to encourage perhaps, you know, additional kinds of content to be submitted in this round. The really important part with respect to the collection is that is that it does speak to, you know, the history of underrepresented groups. And we detail that within the CFP. Okay, so next question. Besides the users, Tom is listed. Could another user be an institute within my university, but not within the library. My first thought, I haven't seen the first side is I haven't seen this kind of question before so so I'm like a little slow. My first thought is sure. I don't know how to what do you think. Yeah, I think if you can define them as an active user. I think that that's that's fine. The thing I would really highlight though then is how your particular project or model models are more broadly applicable beyond your institution. It could be that because I think it's perfectly legitimate to consider a user of the collections as data as someone who's local. I think that's fine. And relevant I think there's a lot of context where that would be the case. And so articulating how that looks more broadly, I think might be helpful but I think that makes total sense. Yeah, I would just add to that a little bit that the, you know, one of the, one of the aspects that's going to become important is through your disciplinary scholar role. Because you know, a big part of the reason why, while while they are there, why, why they are there. It's just like vouch for the potential disciplinary impact of the sort of work that you're proposing to do with the collection. So that seems to me like it could be. That would be pretty core part of a proposal like that. I'll lead into the next question it's kind of talking about the scholarly role. Okay, so this is could you clarify a little bit more about the scholar role. Would this be limited to scholars or experts in the content of the collection, or would scholars who are experts in computational methods to be used to process the collections is data be acceptable for example data science or computer science. Sure. Yeah, I mean I think that they would be acceptable to you know especially if there's a case to be made about like the extent to which like their methodological expertise, you know, putting it at work in this project would allow for some disciplinary innovation for them. Right so if they're working in computer science and they have some kind of a computer vision approach that they're developing and they want to test it with the collection and then to me it's like they're they're almost like it's like a two for like they're doing both at once. So I would say yes I don't handle what you think. Yeah, no I think that would be cool. Okay. Anna do you want to take the next one. Okay. Library. Where collections is already necessary and common. Yeah, okay. That might not have been the question I'm sorry if I read it as such anyway so can we pull in individuals from another organization or library. Yes. It can be in what we've seen mainly as as disciplinary scholars I think is where we've seen it. There's also been some collaboration outside of the institution for technological support to to create the infrastructure needed for this. This kind of work so yes, you can pull individuals from outside the organization or the library. The project that Thomas showed you already. You may have noticed that the project team was like was six people. Something like that. Yeah. And we identify three. So there must be three members of the of the team at a bare minimum. And then you can add and remix as you see fit for the needs of the project in so far as those three roles are fulfilled. If that makes sense. So that that too can be an area where you add or pull in people from outside the organization as your auxiliary members to help support the project. I find contingent labor does that include hiring graduate student to do some of the work. So you want to take this or do you want me to take her. I think we can both take it because this is one of the things that that we, you know, are dealing with with some of these projects. We are adamant in that we support the development of the institutional capacity for these for this for this work. And the projects may run into an issue when say a graduate student graduates right and then what do you do with their their knowledge of the project and their contribution. As well as their continued work once they graduate. That might not be applicable to to you or or your project but that's something to consider. So the idea is that we're building institutional capacity for the the people who support these projects. And so we we've been putting our foot down on not hiring you know term appointments and things like that to make sure that that kind of work can be supported at that institution in the long term. But you can certainly feel free to hire graduate students as part of your project. You know, one of the the core things to think about is that, you know, part of our intention with this work and the development of these models is to help you change local practice. So, it is sustainable like over time. Right. So, you know, I think that there is an argument to be made for having graduate students be like a core part of that. And that that argument can definitely be made and was made in in the cohort one projects. I also want to be thinking about this as an opportunity to like you know for our people that are like here, and then are like going to be here. Right. What can we do to help them. You know how could this be an opportunity to think creatively about like what we can do together the folks that are like going to be here, you know, hopefully for the long term. What's the last one are there requirements for open accessibility or copyright considerations regarding the data. Yeah, I don't think these made it into our second version of the CFP. I feel like in the first version of the CFP we required releasing under an open license. So this could be an oversight on our part in terms of like not carrying it over into the second CFP. But I believe the general expectation is that we want the, you know, the collections that are produced in the course of the project, as well as the code that is produced in the course of the project to be openly available. Of course, like if there are particular ethical questions that arise in the course of your project where it's where it's not appropriate for particular aspects of your collections work to be made available more widely than definitely we're open to an argument to like not release those things. In fact, we would not want you to release them. So we do harp on the ethical considerations of creating these collections as data and if as part of that project you consider certain parts to be not or shouldn't be openly available then make the argument and that's, that's fine. Yeah, and I would also say it's interesting that it's coming up through this route but I guess it makes sense that the, you know within your proposal like how you were proposing to address the sort of like ethical implications of the proposed work is so, so important. And, you know, if it's, if it's not addressed, then, or if it's if it's not clear, then that's, that's really, really, really going to weaken the proposal. So it's an opportunity. You know, especially in thinking about like increased awareness in our communities of some of the ethical missteps that we have had. It's an opportunity to really model. You know how you think we should be doing this kind of work and we're super interested in seeing you make that case. Yeah, I just got goosebumps thinking about it. I'm so excited. Do you have any applications from cohort one that we're working with images metadata representing historical artifacts three day. And do you have any caveats advice proposals related to material culture. No. I think it's the short answers of that right. I think so I think we can't really go into detail about applications from the prior cohort pool. I think we may have had one or two. In terms of advice for proposals related to material culture. I think really it would just be being aware of where the material culture came from potential ownership copyright issues that might be around those artifacts. And honestly acknowledging those. And if you can address them as part of the project proposal. It would be cool. They're loaded right there. They're that would be a loaded collection and I think that's that's great and I think that's something that we'd like to see as part of a cohort. Development sorts of AV proposal proposals would you be excited to receive. I think I'm going to kick I'm think I'm going to kick it back to our CFP on maybe on that. I don't know how specific we could be about that. I don't know Hannah do you have do you have specific thoughts or I can't. I think it would be cool to receive some AV proposals but I don't know how specific we can be about what we'd be excited about. What do you think. Yeah it's kind of hard to say just because there are four of us looking at these. And we all have very different tastes. So I know that's not very helpful but there are tastes span a lot of broad interest so I think it would be the world is your oyster. And we will be you know adhering to the evaluation criteria. And we'll likely seek feedback from our advisory group as well on the on the proposals. And honestly if you think it's cool. That comes through in the proposal writing and we get excited about people who are excited. It's true. We have three minutes left any any remaining questions out there. Yeah there's another module right Q&A. Thank you. The morning Q&A box. Okay so maybe. Oh, very helpful. Oh, thanks Sean. We appreciate that. So maybe we will end a couple of minutes early and so that will give you some breathing room between this meeting and your next meeting. And I guess we just quickly say that we do have a whole nother session supported by clear on August 19th that is wholly devoted to Q&A. The whole thing. There's no presentation. It's just like everyone can just come in and like ask all the questions that they want. That's August 19th. It's at the same time. The link is on the project site. And maybe we'll do some tweeting of it as well. You can always reach out to the team and ask us a question throughout the proposal development process. If you want to contact us whenever you want. We haven't reached a limit yet in terms of how many questions people are asking us. Maybe you want to push that limit. And thank you so much for registering today. It was really fun to talk with you all. Yes, it's great. And I should say you should, you'll probably be as you're asking questions and requesting calls or what have you might get a mixture of us so it might not just be me and Thomas all the time. I think that the chlorine steward involves in various combinations of project team and the advisors as well. We're looking at people with the advisory group. True