 All right, good morning everyone. My name is James English and I'm happy to be here with Peter Brantley from UC Davis Libraries. And today we're gonna be talking about an update on a project that we're working together along with some other university libraries. It's called Palace Project, but it's for academic use cases. And the particular topic we're gonna talk about is using our partnerships to kind of demystify the complexity of getting ebook access or better ebook access into libraries for academic materials. So just a little bit of a note for those that may not be familiar with who Lyrisis is. Lyrisis is a nonprofit organization that services archives, museums, libraries for digital content, digital content management solutions, open source community programs and projects as well as other type of services that we do that are more in the traditional consortial base around training and materials as such. We are a global organization. We're in all 50 states, 20 different countries and five different continents. So we have a wide reach and a wide area of operation. For the Palace Project in particular, we've had a lot of great success. It's primarily been focused on the public library space where the project and the technology was born. We're in over 450 active libraries with the Palace Project in over 18 states in one territory, American Samoa to provide the ebook access to users of ebooks from libraries. And we're also very excited working with our three academic library partners to make Palace available and explore its use in the academic setting. And I skipped over. So what is the Palace Project? I keep saying that name. It is really at its simplest at e-reading app. It's a mobile e-reading app, but it's very different than what you would traditionally kind of probably use in your day-to-day e-reading activities on a mobile device. You're probably used to tools like Libby or Hoopla, probably from your, or maybe something like Amazon Prime or Kindle or Google Playbooks. This is different in that it is solely for the use by public libraries. Some of those that I mentioned are for use by libraries, but again, we differentiate ourselves in that we are not a conduit for selling you content. We are a content for the content that you have acquired as a public library that you wanna make available to your users. And we don't even differentiate between whether it's content you acquire through some type of commercial process. It could be your digitized works, open access material, public domain material. And the goal is to make any of that material available regardless of what its license, status or commercial value is. That value is actually determined by the library who added that material into the collection. So it's really simple. We just try to simplify that access for your users so they don't have to learn the myriad of the tools that libraries are forced to kind of present to patrons and users in order to access their e-book collections or other digital content. It integrates all of that different content because it is at its back end an integration layer. There's really kind of two methods we can do that. So you can think all the way back to where the content is actually published. We have the ability to work with publishers to get that material, host that material and then make that available. We also can work directly with the different content repositories out there whether they be a commercial provider and aggregator of e-books to an institutional repository or to some of these national or global repositories like OAPN or Knowledge on Latch that are making open access materials available at scale globally. And we try to do all of that, keeping in principle with this concept of open standards, open interoperability as a founding principle of how we build and manage the technology. And that piece of it is what we're gonna talk about today with my colleague Peter Brantley who's actually been involved in this for probably a decade longer than I have been with the same technology helping to develop it and introduce it into the e-book and library space. So who can benefit from Palace? Well, any type of library really. As we look at this, we can see where it was born in public libraries but we also see that there's ability to use this at the state library levels, corporate libraries, special use libraries, some of those public domain and open access repositories but also it could be libraries dedicated for a specific type of user whether that's like a Bookshare or an LS type library. And then your state libraries that may be buying and acquiring content to make available not only to public libraries in their state or territory but also making it available to K through 12 or higher ed libraries at large across the state. So how are we gonna do this in academics? Well, we have to partner because we are a community led organization and as such we run our projects through the community to kind of lead us and guide us in our efforts in these areas especially around technology and the application of technology and the different institutions. So we've been working with some really great partners that represent a spectrum within the academic library and higher ed, the library market that approach eBooks and our leaders in eBooks and their respective rights but they do it in different ways. And so this would give us an ability to understand how we can serve not just one particular type of institutions but be applicable to any type of higher ed institution. Part of that process is also working with content aggregators, content publishers and providers of eBooks and over the last year this has primarily been done in Palace with a great partnership with ProQuest especially around the use of open standards to make this content available. And that's in great part to our partners at NYU who made that possible with ProQuest. I am going to hand it over real quick to one of our latest partners, the University of California and Peter is going to talk about their efforts and how they're approaching this project with us. So I'm going to click and I think your slides are up. Awesome, thank you. Thanks for everybody for coming. So I wanted to just do a mini-deck and share with you some of the experiences that we've had to date. It's very early for the University of California but we've been very excited to partner with Lirisys on this. And in many ways as I go through this short deck of slides you'll see we're apprising many of the same challenge points that libraries have when it comes to automating our features and almost every other area, not my laptop. So the overriding motivation of course is that we feel like higher ed deserves a better eBook experience for our patrons. Finding and reading eBooks on the myriad of platforms that are out there can be really frustrating. And obviously with each of those platforms we often are confronting a different user experience. And also not just for students who are trying to acquire a better understanding of their materials but these multitude of UXs also creates research uncertainty trying to figure out what content exists and what platform and what silo. And then retrieving that and working with that content can be very frustrating. And often as we're seeing our campuses move to mobile we're also discovering that a lot of the eBook platforms that exist out there really were designed for a web desktop experience. And so the mobile experience is a poor cousin to many of those. And it's really important strategically that we keep in mind that we need to support both types of platforms both portable mobile as well as traditional desktop based research activities and reading activities. And I think one of the concerns that we share with Lyrosys and many of our other partners is that today readers haven't really been a strong part of this conversation. We librarians and we platform providers have talked in between ourselves about what kinds of functionality we think our community needs but those who are actually consuming the content have oftentimes been left out. So we really at the University of California and I think our peer partners as well we're really seeking a single user experience for as many UC licensed and available eBooks as possible. So this would include open access or more generally what are called free to read books plus licensed commercial content or provided through platform providers that we've gained access to their corpora through. We're seeking a modern reading experience across most of the devices that we work with on a day to day basis. And this is a point of challenge but we're increasingly trying to remove barriers to access to that content for our users and getting closer to a one click access point of access whenever we can. At the same time as libraries we're also very interested in policy controls that protect the privacy of our users, protect the information that they're accessing, safeguarding that and ensuring that that's not widely available. And I think importantly and increasingly we're aware that user experiences for eBook content and other similar materials have to be ADA compliant and that's something that has been on people's minds for a long time but I think with newer web standards obtaining results here is a little bit easier. So when you see discovered that some of our partners on the East Coast and particularly NYU and Columbia were already starting to explore some of the advantages of adopting the Pallas project or its predecessors simply E and library simplified that emerged out of NYPL where oddly James and I first worked together and met each other. At the University of California we saw an opportunity to partner in that broader community to figure out what Pallas support would mean for us. And so like them we're interested in negotiating with platforms that are providing content across our community. And we're hoping that through our engagement as a consortia as well as the individual institutions of Columbia and NYU we can provide input into lyricists for the Pallas project and further the scope of their development so that a broader range of institutions can be supported. And I think ultimately behind this we shouldn't lose a side of the fact that by making access and the reading experience easier it's more fun, right? And there is always that element of research and learning should be as fun as we can make it and this is one small avenue toward that. So at UC we've convened a working group to march us through the process of exploring the many attributes of Pallas and how we would integrate it in our consortial environment and into our various aspects of acquisition and deployment. So I'm not gonna iterate people's names here but you'll see that we are trying to draw across the system. So there's strong representation from a couple campuses but this is definitely a UC project. There's a lot of skepticism I think an inherent in a university environment for fostering a mobile reading experience which has so often been associated primarily with public libraries and in many ways with consumer content and not professional research content. And those of us who are maintaining access systems can see the user counts marching up on mobile and we feel like it's important to be able to deliver that kind of experience as ubiquitously as possible. And at the same time it's also incumbent on us to be part of this conversation with lyricists and other institutions so that we can all sort of march together and wind up with a common solution set rather than winding up in a world where we have siloed reading experiences that are duplicated on a mobile just as they are in a desktop environment. We're also at UC the beneficiaries of a project that's funded by the Mellon Foundation called Project LIND who's one of whose PIs I see in the audience, Bryce Majors who's an AOL at Davis and Project LIND is an investigation of the forms of digital lending that the university might be able to undertake in the future with a broad range of potentially transformative use cases that might be under review. And because Palace has a lot of depth to it as an architecture it's certainly one of those things that the technical work group of that project is considering as we move forward in that investigation as well. At UC we have a multiple phase project as you would expect as any good library would and we are culminating the first phase of our work which is delivering a preliminary report on the feasibility of adopting Palace in the UC context which goes through March and we're working on the report this month. So the headaches, well as I mentioned nothing is new here. So we're experiencing issues integrating with platforms, with acquisitions, with catalog integration, authentication which we have at least 10 of and maybe more discovery and access and of course training and access and there I would nod more to Columbia and NYU who are a little bit ahead of us and already undertaking some of those efforts. So if they're here maybe they'll participate if you have questions about that. So first of all, platforms. So a lot of the platforms out there that are providing you books are not fully ready by our understanding to participate in a world of Palace. And partly that's because platforms often generate only PDFs and mobile reading and adaptive reading and accessible reading all benefit from the use of EPUBs. Some providers can provide EPUBs and some cannot or some are working towards it but this is something that we really want to encourage. Other platforms are highly reliant on streaming content through a browser. So this is technically often JavaScript that's taking pieces of content and then pushing it into a user agent on a desktop. This does not work well in the Palace model which is reliant on a package of content moving from one machine to another machine and being processed there. And it's important for us to be able to provide certainly both modalities at the very least. Sort of a subset of that or similar to that kind of problem some platform providers only provide content to their communities on a segment based a chapter, a section of a book and so forth. So this is better than nothing but again it really sort of cuts up the reading or acquisition experience for the reader or the researcher and it's very frustrating for us to work with technically. Different authentication expectations. I think most of this community is well into supporting SAML based access but there are still some platform providers that trust IP based authentication first or only and obviously that that's a problem when you're trying to create a federated service. So we really need to see uniform support for federated identity management. At the same time we're very cognizant that browser manufacturers are rapidly moving away from the support of technologies such as cookies and iframes that support a lot of the technologies that we're using should be SAML based authentication mechanisms and so we are watching very carefully some of the new technologies that are emerging from the browser manufacturers generally centered around what's known as federated certificate management. There's a talk later today that involves Ken Klingenstein and he'll speak to some of this shift. This is an incredibly important transformation in how we authenticate against accessed material so it's something that everybody should be paying attention to. A lot of platforms don't support direct content access if you do a query and obtain a result on the platform you get an info page about that content which is great maybe if you're thinking with a librarian hat and you wanna see all the metadata around a piece of content not so good if you're actually trying to read the material or to retrieve the material and put it into a reading environment. So again we're having to work with platforms to help them better understand that we need pointers that reference that content directly so that we can retrieve that content and bring it into another user experience. And then finally James will talk a little bit more about this but we utilize a web native stack very lightweight stack for publishing the information of available material and the terms under which it can be accessed called the open publication distribution system and this is new to a lot of publishers and so we often have conversations with them about how to generate OPDS catalogs. Like any good standard we've gone through a couple of iterations but there's a lot of coherence around the most recent version of OPDS and I think it's a very quite mature enough standard for platforms to provide support for. Acquisitions. So when I'm thinking with the UC hat on working with Palace has really underscored the incoherence of our content acquisition and cataloging strategies. There's inevitably gonna be in a large university research environment a little bit of a mismatch between what we understand we have access to and what the platform thinks we have access to and that works in both directions. Sometimes we actually have more access to things than we thought we did. Sometimes we have less and as we worked with OPDS catalogs and other discovery mechanisms some of that fuzziness becomes more apparent. Interestingly too we've been learning that as institutions we might have access to certain types of content through our subscriptions that we just need to calve off. So maybe we actually have access to a wonderful collection of high school materials on geography but we're not utilizing those in our pedagogy or we use alternative intro methods to gain some literacy in those domains so we might exclude those from visibility and application like Palace. UC has this additional complication because we are 10 campuses we have this tiered acquisitions model where we try to acquire material, try to license material across the entire system whenever possible but there may be large subsets of campuses that want their own subscription that other campuses don't also adhere to. So a poster child for this would be all campuses with medical schools or all campuses with law schools and then there's a further delineation of content that's only accessed by a single institution or one or two institutions. So a poster child for this might be Davis which has a veterinary school so there may be content that we subscribe to both journal or e-book collections that other campuses wouldn't. This horrendously complicates how we develop our own Palace experience. It's also mountable but there may be situations where there are small in cases of licensed material that we just can't provide strict authenticated access to. So if there's a special set of five books that only law faculty at Irvine get access to might not be able to get to you right off the bat as we implement Palace. Catalog integration. I know nothing about cataloging so all I know is that this is really hard under the best of circumstances and we are an ex-Libras Alma Primo consortial campus and so the various vagaries of things that get cataloged in institution-based Alma instances versus the institutional and wide Alma instance versus the Primo Discovery interface makes my head hurt even looking at it and there's just simply no good workflow in place that's common across all content providers and as we start to think about how to provide direct access through Palace for e-book acquisition and similar acquisitions we have to think about where are we providing the indexed access mechanism. Is that in Primo? Is that in a separate webpage? Where does that get highlighted for the user? So there's some really significant questions there. Authentication, I mentioned this already. UC is 10 campuses plus we have the University Office of the President, agricultural natural resources, we have agreements with labs, DOE labs and we have no single comprehensive authentication system. Why would we? So for now in hard cases where we all have common HR systems for example we use simple SAML to redirect to each instance of campus authentication but as I mentioned, this is under some technology that has a technology threat horizon and so we all have to be cognizant of keeping track with that as that moves forward. Discovery and access, Palace is mobile-based that's where it came from, that's its heritage. For now, there's a significant amount of interest in moving Palace into support for a browser-based content consumption as well and there's some early experiments and early prototypes for how to do that with open-source code and so watch that space. On the flip side, ebook discovery for the platforms at least is heavily biased toward web-based discovery and again part of the work that we're partnering with our colleagues at other institutions and with Lyrisis on is trying to figure out a better way to do that on a mobile interface. And we, I suspect, will wind up trying to pursue multiple points of entry to these types of content so supporting catalog discovery, having a standalone web interface and then mobile interface as well for supporting the access and discovery of that content and if we can do a good job with how we catalog information, how we describe information that will be a repurposing of information and not having to support entirely different or distinct workflows. But the truth is, for now, the integration of mobile and web is difficult and so it's a point of much research. I also mentioned linking the authentication states which is often web-based. If you are asked to authenticate to a campus-provided resource or gateway resource, you are using a web-based SAML or CAS login procedure at some level. Even if it's on a mobile, you're utilizing a web-driven experience and integrating the authentication state and that's originating in a web environment into a mobile environment also has certain challenges which I leave to James and his good colleagues to solve for us mostly. And that's all I have. I did mention outreach and training and we aren't there yet. Just beginning to think about it and we will be leaning heavily on our colleagues at NYU in Columbia for lessons learned and with that, I will hand it back to my colleague. If you need it. Sure. So, hopefully you're not scared off from doing this. I think as Peter rightly laid out for you, eBooks are just horrifically complex but when you step back from it and we look at the worldwide web, is it really that hard to take a digital piece of material and distribute that at large? The web does it to millions of documents every day. So, what is it about eBooks that have made this kind of a challenge and especially for libraries? So, we tried to kind of take a step back and a lot of what I'm going to present to you was also we presented it recently at Code for Lib and it was done by some great research about the standards that kind of underlie all of this metadata management and the development of the open web by Ben Arminter at Columbia University. So, when we looked at these standards we kind of came back to the very standard that we were using already called open publication distribution. Or OPDES is the acronym we use. So, when it comes to doing any type of web integration for digital content you got to go with web services. And so there was really two paths we could take. Path one, which is actually kind of two paths because the industry was not sure which one it wanted to take so they took both. There were web services done in XML, lightweight web services, clients, syndication type feeds like Adam RSS and they're the first draft of OPDES. And then you had more of your enterprise B2B web services XML, SOAP and ONIX. So, you know, you saw one of those standards and you saw what I think the publication industry ended up on with ONIX. There was PATH2, which is lightweight web client services based around JSON. And so what was happening in that was the definition and the use of JSON was coming on and then the Redium Foundation, which is a group that tries to build reference technologies for the development of eBooks and the use of eBooks for the industry at large was developing on that standard and arriving at what they call the Redium Web Publication Manifest. Think of it as a TOC for the web for what constitutes a book. Again, post ONIX, publishing, what did that leave libraries to deal with? Well, they had file management. They got to deal with open URLs, which was great. We could link to resources, but then we needed to track and report back to publishers what that usage was within our systems. And how did we communicate our holdings and information in that? Well, we had the thing that's been around since before Christ, which was the CSV file. And so what that means is it's literally human management of metadata versus machine management of metadata to get materials from what is defined by the publisher describing what it is into your cataloging systems, your systems that do ILL, your systems that do authentication into platforms, your systems that do discovery that may not be your cataloging system. And so there was a university, United Kingdom Serials Group that did a report on this to kind of see where things were going and how that could be improved. And they arrived at a standard called K-BART, which would allow you to basically get a report from your publishers or your platform providers, what the different resource links would be available, the identifiers that it may be referenced by so that you could try to reconcile some of this. But again, instead of a CSV, we went it to a different level. It's a tab separated file. So you get to manage that one on top of the other three. So what I call that is kind of the challenge of out-of-band processes. And the report also had and been found this was they kind of quietly identified the problem with that approach is that there wasn't a way that a subscription agent could take part in this process. In short, that's just a convoluted way of saying, wouldn't it be great if the publisher could syndicate that data and you could just subscribe to it with your web services as opposed to handing files around via email boxes or FTP sites and trying to upload them into different systems. Let the machines take that information, subscribe to it, update themselves. So how did all of this affect our library partners as Peter pointed out in their research? We're looking at all the different workflows that apply to this. Columbia University showed me their process for managing it. He stopped at number 50 for each place they acquire content. That meant 50 different workflows that they have to manage just to record materials that they've acquired into their cataloging systems. All bespoke, all different, all manual. And that's just to get discovery. This doesn't even approach the level of what we actually need, which is access to the material. That's just getting it from purchasing into cataloging. You go through another group, Enterprise IT, when you wanna talk to platform access. So part of this, we said, well, we need to work on some of these open standards that actually do address this, that does bring the subscription agent into the play and OPDs does do that. So how can we take that standard and engage with the community, get the drafts moving and get it codified so that people and platform providers have a reference standard that they can use to guide their implementation of this better interoperability of content from the publisher to the aggregator down to the actual user. And so the things that we're trying to codify in there is around authorization mechanisms, acknowledging the use of SAML, SAML Waiflifts URLs. These are prevalent in the university set. So let's just make them part of the reference to the standard so that the standard supports that. Replace out-of-band vendor knowledge, although that file management I alluded to earlier, to take the minimum set of data and be able to communicate that all the way through in-band to the user so that you don't have to have humans in between there trying to manipulate data, extraction, transport, load processes just to get discovery, let alone access. And then offer some other mechanisms where web developers aren't really versed in SAML or these other type of authentication mechanisms that are prevalent in libraries. And you use some of the things they're doing every day on the web like token-based transaction protection. So what we're discovering current tools, Adam and Capehart, even in their application of this new kind of paradigm that we're imagining, built around OPDS. There's this kind of a challenge of expressing deletions and a syndication. So when does something actually get removed from a catalog that you have subscribed to? This is a difficult process manually. It's also in a machine learning standpoint. There's a machine interface, also a challenge that we need to come up with a solution. And we're working on that as part of the draft too. Authorization mechanisms may be difficult to communicate in Adam or Capehart because they're just not part of it. Neither along with deletions not being a part of those specs. And even what is that minimum baseline and metadata that is required actually from a publisher to actually be relevant, not only just for access and discovery in a mobile app or a context, but for the library itself. And those, these previous tools like Capehart and Adam are just are difficult to syndicate. So the current processes we also discovered, as I mentioned, out of band file complexity. And again, I wanna really highlight that bottom piece about platform access, doesn't necessarily mean resource access. So you've gotten the material into catalog, but then there's another work ticket put into Enterprise IT that says, hey, connect up to ProQuest or hey, connect up to this vendor. Great, you now can go under the website and log in or they get redirected to your log in. Doesn't mean you're gonna get access to the book that you found on their platform. If you find that platform in their holdings that you have, because it may be governed or it may not be actually included for the download terms or the rights that you have. So it's a misnomer to say, hey, we've integrated, we have SAML with the platform. Doesn't mean you have actual, you can actually get that book all the way down to your user. And I think Peter alluded to this and that sometimes you will land on the nice resource webpage, but you're not gonna get any access to the material itself. So we believe there is a solution already in place and in practice and we think it's JSON, the OPS2 version built around JSON. Why? Well, it's native to the modern web. Everyone's building web access platforms using JSON. It's like the go-to tool for describing data by web developers. These other things that are built around SAML or even these Enterprise interfaces, developers and engineers are not that familiar with them. They're very heavyweight, they're complex. There's a lot of technical overhead to just understand and try to implement them and they're brittle when they break. OPDs can actually make that a lot simpler and it's flexible enough to express your catalog, discovery and all these other type of things that you wanna do. And there's a means to do syndication. It can be easily automated into workflows. And so as you look at all those manual processes and this ongoing effort to try to automate all of that, JSON is a nice tool for doing that because people can understand it, they can write to it and they can connect in. And then the other nice piece of it is loosely coupling systems. It's not a tight integration, it's just providing context and guidance to the paradigm of communicating what your digital holdings are and how to access them via this web standards. And it's a very different prospect than doing a transaction by transaction API-based type of integration. So we are doing publisher engagement in this process and we have actually several folks that we're working with that are already looking at the standard because it gives them guidance because otherwise they would have to invent something that ourselves, create a whole new API infrastructure, build more enterprise apps. But if there's a guidance in our architecture and a context they can reference and it's using something that is native to what their engineers would be using, it's a good fit and we're getting some success and traction in both our conversations and the actual implementation of the specification by these partners. Even when it's not even in full draft format. So as we codify it in draft, we feel that will bring in more people. The model is really simple and it's consistent, right? You have metadata inlinks, metadata inlinks. But what's interesting is the context goes from all the way down to describing the resources within a book to the resources that make up a collection and the collections that make up a catalog. But the model is pretty consistent between all of them with only the nuances changing around licenses or what other type of resource links you may have in there. So as you go to your, talk to your enterprise engineering or your software developers in your systems trying to automate processes, they will find themselves in a lot of this. Publishers can find their workflows and their needs for metadata in these models of this protocol. So in summary, what we want to help evolve is the practice through standards, collaboration first, not just say, hey, build to our API and then kind of move things from out of band, from platform access to resource access, out of band metadata workflows to in-band syndication, fragmented identifiers, because we all talk something different and then identify our standards and then get rid of the ETL process and move that into consumable JSON web services. So that's kind of it. And I think our call to action is, hey, OPS is not about building to Palace or building to our APIs, it's really about sharing a common context of implementing web services to one another can improve interoperability instead of sustainability for metadata exchange. Join us, we're open, it's all on GitHub if you have engineers or yourself are curious about it. And I got a, I'm getting the time note there, it's 10.39 so I'm gonna end it there. So we can, I think we have still time for questions if people are interested. Well, if there are no questions, we'll be around for the rest of the day if you have any. And some of our partners are here that we're presenting and you can always just see what their experience is like. Ah, great, go ahead. Hi, it's a question of a little bit. Is it the note beyond either of the group? To me, like speaking. Yeah, I mean for us, I think us together, this part of what James was alluding to towards the end of the talk, but I think if we can move to a place where publishers and consumers have published information, whatever that happens to be, and not just e-books, I mean this is really the longer term strategic vision, right? But any form of content can move to an environment where we can exchange information about availability and whatever policy terms affect that availability through lightweight web based standards, we'll be able to build a wider range of systems to support the users and the researchers that are our community. And I think importantly for publishers, the ability to automate workflows in a way that ensures far greater interoperability than we see today without nearly as much hand touch would be greatly facilitated. So I think we share this vision that utilizing lightweight standards like OPDS, if we can keep them flexible and fairly clean, enables a wide range of dialogues that are difficult to have now and ensures a more rapid exchange of information. So that's the longer term strategic vision. We feel like the current state of play right now in the industry is not sustainable. And even as we explore these new technologies like AI and how does that incorporate into scholarship, we're struggling just to maintain file distribution, which is what the web does every day because it's kind of been left to individual players in the supply chain to come up with a standard in the system and then it stops at their door. Then it's handed over to libraries and you're left with giving it to a person to try to figure out and they figure that out with spreadsheets and different type of file formats and processes that you are then left to invest millions of dollars in to try to tie that all between your systems. We don't feel that as a sustainable and scalable approach in the industry. So long-term strategic vision is that we can provide some guidance to help get web services adopted into that, address that workflow, those needs and get back to the business of scholarship, advancing human knowledge, acquiring great collections that our researchers can rely on as opposed to just managing them. Logistics of e-books, which is just really terrible right now. Any other questions? Yeah. Yeah. What are the questions really exciting to you? Probably above analogy, are there open web standards equivalent to that and is there not one? Do you feel like the right kind of work strategy? I think that's very close to it because there's not a win or take all situation in where there's one central platform. This is about platforms being able to interoperate because the reality of business agreements and business preference is that certain content that they own governance to, they're gonna keep on their systems. But if they can facilitate the larger industry being able to access it within those terms, then we can have a distributed system much like the worldwide web is today. If no one understood HTTP, HTML, JavaScript, any of that and we didn't have browsers, we wouldn't have a worldwide web. So we just need some fundamentals there so that we can go forward. That's it. One more? Yeah, I'm just wondering in your discussions with publishers, are they seeing the same thing that their model is unsustainable? I mean, we know that they've built these really complex, difficult to use systems because they think that they're protecting their intellectual property from piracy or being too easily distributed. So I mean, are they actually coming around to what you're doing or are they being very resistant to it? No, short answer is yes.