 I suggest we start. What we will do at the start here is give you some information on how to handle Slido, where you can find the slides and where you can find the material of the Tinman report and the responses to the Tinman report, because this is the original document where the definition of the minimum viable EOSC started. We have called this session minimum valuable EOSC in order to play a little bit with words, because the intention is to see what next do we need to develop, build on what the minimum viable EOSC could offer in order to make it more valuable for the ultimate users of EOSC. But we'll come to that in a minute. First, I would like to give the floor to Gerrit, Gerrit O'Neill, who will explain to you the workings of the Slido, who will explain to you that you have to raise your electronic hand if you want to ask questions and a few other things. Gerrit, the floor is yours. Thank you, Carl. I'm going to share the poll screen now one moment. And I will ask you if you can see that on the screen. Yes, we can. Okay, so the first thing is in the chat section of the Zoom room here, I have put three links. The first one is the Carl's presentation. The second one is to the Tinman document from December 2019. And the third one is to the feedback analysis on the Tinman document from the working group sustainability. If you look at the screen, you'll see a QR code. This is for the Slido that we are going to use. So we will ask you to direct all questions through the Slido so that we can collect them and respond to them as we go through the session and also afterwards we can reply there. You can take a picture of the QR code on your phone and go straight to Slido, to this particular Slido questionnaire. Or you can type in Slido.com, as you see on the screen. And in which case then you'll need to add a code. And that is hashtag EOS Hub Week. So I'll give a few seconds for people just to take the picture of the QR or to type in Slido.com and then the hashtag EOS Hub Week. When you go in there, what you will see, you should see a whole list of sessions. I'm not quite sure how many there are with different color codes. And what you are specifically looking for is 18 May addressing the content of a minimum valuable EOSC. So you are looking for the specific session on 18 May addressing the content of the minimum valuable EOSC. If you go there, you won't see anything just at the moment. You will see that there's two options. One for a question and answer session. You can ask a question there. I will show you, for instance, I will put a test question there myself. This is how it will look. So there comes in a test question. And then what you will have is one moment. I will correct this. Here we go. Yep, there it is. Test question. So you should be able to see that the question comes up on the screen there. That's how we're going to operate this basically. Let me just remove this. And what you will also see is a poll. So what we will do is we're going to start with a poll just to get everybody using Slido and to also find out who you are and what you think of EOSC. So Carol, what I will do is I will start the poll now and then you can take people through it. Yes, please share the first question. That's coming up now. I have stopped my video so not to interfere with your screen. And this question is to get a feeling for which group or organization do you come from. And I see a lot of people already understand the question. So do you feel you belong to a research performing organization? Do you feel you belong to a research funding organization? Or do you think you belong to a service provider? This can be, let's say, service providing in a technical sense or can be service providing based on data. So in order to get a feeling for what we have on board in this session, could you please fill this in? There's already 43 that filled it in. That's great. These are, by the way, the same categories as will be in the EOSC Association, so the AISBL we are going to make. Also there we have made four groups for categories, research performing organizations, research funding organizations and service providing organizations. We are 50 out of 96. That's not bad at all. We'll wait for another few seconds. But if I read this correctly, then the majority of the people online are either coming from a service providing organization or a research performing organization unless all the others did not answer the slide though, come from another organization. We'll see. I remind you again that Garrett has put into the chat session the links to the slides as well as the link to the Tinman documents. And I see here that people will need to log in to their account on the site to get access. I see we have about 60 participants filling that in now. Shall we move to the next poll? That's a good idea, Garrett. I suggest we move to the next poll. In this next poll, this is a little bit more personal, so now we're not asking you what type of organization do you come from, but what is your main activity as a person? Is that using data, producing data, handling data, providing compute facilities, providing storage to people, providing connections to people, connect over the internet, or providing other services. It's interesting if we have a lot of research performing organization that we only have so far seven used data produced data. Oh, it's increasing. It's increasing. But in line with the previous poll, most of the organizations were providing organizations. So that's in line with data handling, providing compute, providing storage, and providing connection. Then we have a very large group that answered provide other services. That's interesting. And we may later on come to that because if we want to move from a minimum viable to a minimum valuable eosk, it's important what type of services need to be coming in. And so it's interesting to see that there are a lot of people on board that also provide other services than the three mentioned here. I see we have again around 60. Shall I move forward to the last one? I see one interesting question in this chat. I'll just pick it up. It says it's HPC. Is that another services? No. For me, that's a compute service. So question of definition, of course, but for me, that would be compute service. Géant offers connect services and serve Dutch organization, but many other organizations, for example, can also offer storage services. Okay, we have 61. That's about the number we had in the previous poll. So please, Garrett, let's move on to the next. This is the word cloud. Yeah. So the question here is, can you put in a single word? And you are allowed to do that three times. So you can use multiple words, but not in one sentence in order to define what for you eosk is. So we get a view on your feeling what eosk is, and then you generate jointly a word cloud with the words you're going to put in. That's interesting. Bureaucratic. It is not even there, and it's already bureaucratic. That's beautiful. An empty box. That's correct. If it's not there, it's by definition an empty box. Tusted. I hope that must be trusted. Confusing. That's correct. It's still very vague and very confusing. Let's wait for another few answers. Okay, we're close to 60 again. And as you can see, there's a lot of people saying it's a federation. That's definitely the intention. It's definitely about data. And it's definitely about offering services based on those data. My personal view is that, and there's only a small thing there called web of data, that ultimately eosk is not something which you can hold, not something which you can sell, not something which belongs to anybody, anybody. But it's like the world wide web, but then a web of fair data where you can offer services based on that web, like you can offer services based on the present web of pages. But this is a matter of discussion, and this is my view. This is what I'm saying. The eosk association is not the same as eosk. Eosk is going to be something out there belonging to all of us and hopefully joining with the rest of the world in order to become a web of fair data worldwide rather than a only European adventure. With that, I'm going to switch on my camera again. So if you want to, you can see me. And I move on to my presentation. That was the intention, wasn't it, Gerrit? Sorry, I unmute myself. Yes, I'm going to stop sharing the screen. I just see one question come in quickly. I'll just throw it out. I'm among those who provide added value data services. I'm surprised that this is not one of the categories of services. Maybe we can come back to that in the following questions that we have. Yeah. Can you keep that up, Gerrit? And people that's interesting, maybe it's good to mention here, people can like a question. And then by that, double the question. And the more people like a certain question, the higher it gets in the ranking of questions to be answered. So if you want a certain question to be answered, please put a like behind the question in the slide. I'm now stopping my screen, Carl, and give it back to you. Thank you. Then I will share my screen. Here we go. This is the screen I would like to share. I go back one slide. Can you see my screen, Gerrit? I can see it, yes. Okay. Then I assume everybody else can see it. And let me remove my own picture here. Okay. As I said, for me, Iosk is a web of fair data. And in her presentation in Davo, Ursula von der Leyen called it a web of scientific insight. In her written text, by the way, it's a web of fair data. So this is the basis on which services can be built. The services directly on the data, services in relation to the data. And we see this as very similar to the services that are offered through the World Wide Web, based on the fact that we do have a web where pages are linked and where people can use the linkage in order to, let's say, buy things or book a hotel or buy a plane, well, at least by booking a plane that you could do in the past. Then it's a federation of existing services and new services to come. And as the third point stresses again, it's a virtual space where science producers and consumers come together in order to produce something and ultimately worldwide as far as we are concerned. So it's an open-ended range of content and services. When the World Wide Web came to be, we all did not have any idea on what was coming, and by now we have a pretty good idea after 30 years, and it's still developing. And in the case of Iosk, where this would then be the European part of such a worldwide web of fair data, we maybe could add especially the quality-marked data made in Europe. So if we can be ahead of the pack in a worldwide development like this, we might be able to sort of use the standards we have in Europe. Okay, let me move on. In my presentation, I often use this picture for the Iosk. Iosk being a twin brother or twin sister of what I call the e-infrastructures. For me, the e-infrastructures are the store, compute, and connect. The same words we used in the poll just a moment ago. And Iosk is, let's say, the supplement of that, the yin or the yang, depending on what you call it, of the e-infrastructures. Offering services and especially servicing the data and interoperability. So e-infrastructures without data in them do not mean anything. Like data without e-infrastructures, they don't mean anything either. So one needs the other, but one is different than the other. So Iosk is going to be the complement of e-infrastructures. And of course, a lot of data already exist and are in these e-infrastructures. So e-Iosk is not, let's say, the invention of data. What could be the possible core functions for e-Iosk? If we look at that, we find the following. Develop and govern the federating core. And, sorry, I called this e-Iosk, but this I should have called in this slide the e-Iosk ASBL, as we now call it. This is an old slide. And at that time, we did not differentiate clearly between e-Iosk as such and the e-Iosk association, which we are creating. So this slide, I will modify it later, is about the e-Iosk association that could develop and govern this federating core. It could manage the compliance framework or have it managed. It could manage the trusted certification or, again, have it managed. It could manage the AII or have it managed. EPID policies. It will definitely do outreach to stakeholders. This was a question earlier this morning. And, yes, in the Ruppert session there, Hedy addressed it and E also said the association has this as one of the tasks. It will monitor the services and the transactions taking place, and it will take care of the e-Iosk trademarks. Last but not least, it will contribute to a rise in Europe policy, otherwise we cannot make as an association a MOU with the commission. And that's the structure to be. Items we are working on in the Executive and Governance Board at the moment, to give you a feeling for where we stand, is the e-Iosk partnership proposal. We've just finished draft number eight, which will be discussed on Wednesday in the governing board and hopefully accepted. And then it will be out for the world, like all the other partnership proposals will be. We are working and there was a session this morning by Jean-François on the strategic research and innovation agenda. So this will be updated now, today as we will speak. And the consultation will start in June. Again, this also will be out in the open to the whole world in order to give input. Then the e-Iosk work plan is being revised or updated. The rules of participation are being run for consultation that has finished, actually, the consultation round and the landscape analysis report also finished its consultation. So these are documents you should be able to find through the e-Iosk secretariat. The first iteration of e-Iosk by 2020. We are working on a read and test set of rules. These are the rules of participation group, the analysis of existing national infrastructures and policies, the landscape group, a financing model and discussed also this morning, legal entity, we have chosen the ARSBL and the governance structure, both of that are worked on by the sustainability group. The operational federated core, we will mention that word again later on, and that is being worked on by the architectural working group, an initial set of data and services, again, the architectural working group and the interoperability framework, which they do together with the fair working group. Then the fair and architectural working group are working on a persistent identifier policy, not a new one, but look at what is out there and how to combine that and the metrics for fair data and certified services, again, the fair working group. This is work going on that should be finished by the end of the year to such a state that we can include it in what is then the minimum viable e-Iosk. The minimum viable e-Iosk includes three, let's say things you could say, the core, the federated data, if there are no data, it's of no use to build a core, and the exchange with those that offer services on top of the data. Again, the question this morning in the session, I think it was a session of Jean-François, will there be services in the minimum viable e-Iosk? Yes, how much and how many, that depends of course on how far we are with creating this minimum viable e-Iosk, so it starts with zero at this moment because it's not there, and it will grow hopefully rapidly by members of the association that will offer their services through the e-Iosk exchange. It must be enabling thus the Federation of Existing and Planned Research Data Infrastructures, and it should federate the disciplinary clusters and regional projects as a first critical step, as also Rupert mentioned this morning, and we would like to start with simple use cases, so data that are not only fair but that are open as well in order not to work with sensitive and closed data in the very beginning, but very soon after that the step of course should be made to fair data as such, not necessarily being open, but this will be the initial start. Then what are the core functions? The core functions as Rupert also mentioned this morning is to provide means to discover, to share, to assess and to reuse data. It will not, e-Iosk will not as I have let's say set by defining e-Iosk, but also the association will not store transport or process data, definitely not in the beginning but maybe never, and it should be used as widely as possible, so people need to be authenticated to use hopefully promote the system. Then the proposed coverage and we will come back to that in a question in a minute. This is a list not exhaustive list of a number of items that will be in the proposed coverage in this initial minimum viable e-Iosk as I said we'll come back to that in a minute. Well the second and third, depending on how many steps we take, will be around 2024 when the public sector and the private sector should be included into this system. And there are one of the discussions taking place, is this going to be one marketplace or is it going to be more marketplaces? Can they be combined into one thing or not? And so these are not completely new users because some of the public sector organizations already are part of the projects in which private the research organizations are involved in as well as some industrial partners will be there already. I see there's a lot of questions appearing in the chat. The intention was to put the questions in the Slido. So with this presentation I would like to enter this moment and we move back Garrett to the Slido. Yeah I'll share that now and I just note that there's this discussion in the chat but there are questions coming in on Slido. Okay great I didn't monitor that because I was giving a presentation. I will bring them up now and you should be able to see the questions that are there. So maybe just to come down to the question there from just that we find it. Per Olof it's a clarification question. Could you please elaborate on your sentence that EOSC rather than just being the EOSC association is something else belonging to all of us. What does this concretely mean? I think that refers to the distinction between the EOSC association and maybe the EOSC ecosystem. Yes that's a good question because we have in many discussions seen the confusion between what we are now organizing as a federation sorry as an association of members that jointly support this idea of creating an EOSC and the EOSC itself. What we like to create is a virtual environment where data can be shared, where data can be found, where data can be let's say combined. We are not creating an association that owns these data, that owns the repository or that is the EOSC. So EOSC and the EOSC association are two distinct things for me. Where the EOSC association is something which is a legal entity in this case and you can phone it up. I don't think you can phone up the EOSC or send a letter to EOSC or maybe you can through the net but for us EOSC is the virtual environment in which these data are shared. Results sometimes refer to it as the EOSC ecosystem. The ecosystem of federated data repositories and the services on top of that. Garrett you have probably a better view over what questions are on top. It's a little bit hard to read so can you go to the next question. If somebody by the way wants to have the microphone unmuted you could raise your hand and ask permission to do so. There is two questions related to the federating or federated core so I'll address them. One was seen as a simple question. So what exactly is the federating core and then that comes back to the question then the follow-on question is the federated core considered to be part of the EOSC valuable product? Yes with the last question simple the EOSC valuable as we are going to discuss in a minute is the minimum viable EOSC plus so the things we build on top of that and the federating core is basically the software that makes it possible to find data to access data to use interoperability possibilities so the EOSC core is going to have to solve the questions like these which many of them are not solved at all at the moment. Then following on there's a question related to your Yin Yang model so the question is aren't the infrastructures part of EOSC? Yeah that's a good question this picture arose before the EOSC ASBL was there. The E-infrastructures definitely in our view are going to be members of the EOSC ESBL but nobody will be part of EOSC if EOSC is this virtual environment like the World Wide Web so yes and no the E-infrastructures are definitely going to be members of the EOSC association and if you would call that EOSC then the answer is yes if you call the EOSC the virtual environment then the answer is no but then nobody is part of it. Okay and that I think that relates to another question that came up the definition of EOSC is still not fully clear and then referring to the Yin Yang model of E-infrastructures and the EOSC the data so I will move on from this one there are questions related to data itself so a comment was EOSC has been more about services than data so far first time that this person was asked about EOSC the main question was well where is the data and then a follow-on question there is from a person who is involved in the added value data services and that they're not surprised that this is not listed in the category of services. I don't know what is meant by added value data services for me this is just one of the services but I have no catalog of services so far. Yes I must agree that before the let's say recent developments in the executive and governance board EOSC has been mainly about services and hardly about data that's why I deliberately put the E-infrastructure which are also services and the data part but the EOSC is all about data ultimately of course except we we don't have EOSC yet so the data still have to be fed the data are out there to a certain extent by the way if we speak about data the emphasis we put is much more on future data than on present data of course those data that are as fair as possible at this moment and those data we have to keep on line of make fair afterwards anyway will be there but most of the data two years from now will be newly generated data in EOSC in my view and yes if we talk about EOSC we should definitely talk more about data than only the services on top of the data next question just to come back linking again to this the distinction between data and the services sorry one moment data without services are dead and services without interoperable data are empty I don't know if you want to comment that's correct that's correct okay and then I move forward again one moment so I'll ask a question related to interoperability how is it possible to okay this is how is it possible to participate in the interoperability working group with EOSC to contribute towards building the federated core my suggestion would be to approach Jean-François and Jean-François Abramatic and Sarah Jones to see how you can help them with creating this this core and then this interoperability just the interoperability framework came out the first draft of that okay and a final question I think for now is if initially the core and then in inverted commas will not store transport or process data at least initially its function is similar to a search engine what is the added value instead of starting with a minimal but fully functional data plus process plus transport and this is a rather technical question which I must be honest I'm not qualified to answer and we'll take that up and we'll see to it that an answer comes I'm not sure whether it's just a search engine but it is software indeed so it is similar to that the core possibilities on the internet and creating the possibilities of the worldwide web are partially technical because of the standards we have and are partially software because of the operations we can do and this will be the same in this case whether the technical part needs to deviate from the existing internet I'm not sure so whether something technically is needed on top of the present internet or whether this can be only done with software which I think that I'll leave to the architecture working group okay and then I refer just to a comment one of the recent comments that was made in the chat this is an opinion from Mark from the Sonderda EOSC is not about one kind of service or only data the advance of EOSC is that a large variety of services and data can be made available through EOSC and to him EOSC is more a channel towards services and data yeah that's the way you could put it I think so I would agree with that and ultimately it's not only no no I should put it differently for us data is any digital object so we use the word data maybe we should use the words digital objects because that's what you're going to interconnect so it can also be software and it can also be publications in the end so content and some of the questions are now starting to move towards what services should be in the minimum viable or minimum valuable EOSC should we move on to the polls yes let's do that Gerrit one moment okay so question four on the polls should now be available in a slide off for everybody to fill in if you want to explain that Carol yes this is a question about the minimum viable EOSC as you see between the two asterisks and we will come to the minimum valuable EOSC later on by the way both of these terms are not exactly defined that's one of the reasons why we put questions like this the minimum viable is much more defined than the minimum valuable because this is as far as I know the first discussion on the minimum valuable and so we have put out especially through the terminal report what are the services that are definitely needed in order to create a minimum viable EOSC and I see that you all agree that the AI AI AI AI framework is part of that yes the data access framework for fair data etc the PID framework and the help desk and yeah you should be able to call somebody or at least send an email can you put up the screen Gerrit so we can see the underside for a moment yeah there's a little order so that's interesting I leave it for a few more seconds to fill in okay what I learned from this so far is that apparently to several people the services management and access framework is not a clear thing which I can understand and the open metrics framework if they understand it is probably not needed as hard as some of the others we which could be indeed the case because there is discussions on that and we have 52 Gerrit I suggest we well let's wait a few more seconds but it will not really change the thing there is no real competition between two bars so the picture is clear data sticks out here yeah let's move on Gerrit to the next poll yep that should be there now this is an open question and let me remark Mike van der Zander data does not float in midair absolutely that's what I said data without the infrastructures the e-infrastructures doesn't mean anything so therefore the yin yang picture mark so here the question is what services should be in the minimum valuable eosk so what do we not have in the minimum viable eosk in order to create at least the start of what the eosk could be and this will be difficult Gerrit for people to see because it's going to be a long long list maybe we should because people are answering only with one word we should have used the word cloud here yeah I think so now that we look at it good enough for the next one shall I just scroll down as they come in I can always go back the top at the end if you scroll back and up and forth a little bit and and we can pick out the interesting one and start discussing I see several times compute or compute power this is a discussion going on this let's say two groups of people some people think that the compute should be offered through eosk I'm not sure I'm not sure whether that will add something with respect to having compute possibilities online now you can also access high performance computing facilities or you can access other compute facilities why should it go through eosk I don't see directly the added value of course the compute facilities can use eosk and the data that are available through eosk but I'm not sure whether you should go to eosk through eosk in order to get a compute facility so I'm not sure whether a compute facility or computing or high performance computing should be a service offered through eosk but of course if an organization is very creative and intimately links the excess of data to the compute facility sure I'm sure organizations will be able to manage that can you scroll slowly from the top to the bottom Gerrit to see if there's other things we should command on yeah I'm back at the top now so starting with small distributed compute and I'll go slow I'll go slowly through the words monitoring yeah that depends on what we have to monitor accounting yes federated repose I don't know what that is uh reproduction repositories repositories yeah sure that but that's in the minimum variable eosk already several times compute processing for service requests that depends with the provider that's maybe a good stop here for a minute and that's also an interesting discussion is eosk combining the possibilities for providers responsible for what the providers offer in my view not it's like with the worldwide web if you offer a service through the worldwide web either connecting your to the worldwide web so having a provider to enter your home with the internet connection or having a provider that offers the possibility to book a hotel room like booking.com etc then I think these providers are responsible for the services they offer and I do not see any difference here I do not see eosk or the eosk association uh becoming responsible for the services offered by service providers on the system the core services is a different story so depending on on where the hardware but most likely the software for the core services belongs also there the responsibility lies and there's some responsibility maybe with the ASBL AI SBL sorry resources catalogs yes personalized dashboard interesting that's a discussion as well should we have one portal or one dashboard for eosk I don't think so I think eosk is a pervasive thing so there's many if many portals many dashboards and again depending on the provider offering services based on the eosk you can have a dashboard or you can have a portal secure transactions yeah training compute storage networking uh access to scale yeah well I've said a lot of things HPC I think I've discussed user friendly catalog interfaces provide friendly harvesting yeah make it as user friendly as possible absolutely training yeah again training can be offered through eosk of course and training can be offered based on what is needed in order to use data to work with data whether the eosk association should start offering training is again a question I'm not sure of but the minimum valuable eosk will of course lead you to training facilities same for research data management yeah then there's a few that are already in the core core and in the minimum value one one okay maybe Garrett we should stop this and go to the open questions again unless we have another active poll here I don't think we have no this was the final poll okay we have 15 minutes left for open questions or if people want to speak as I said they can raise their hand and either Garrett or Rob will point me at raised hands and we can offer the floor to somebody to come in just waiting for the questions to come up this seems to so if you have questions please please put them in the slido again and if you want to say something please raise your hand I'm not seeing any at least that I see at the moment I'm not sorry there's a raised hand from Fawkes I am unmuting him okay Fawkes you may now speak you should unmute yourself yeah yes hi hi Karol thanks yeah I was the one making the comment about the personalized dashboard yes so but this is is actually the the vision for the for the end let's say a tool for for researchers and I think in between there should be multiple views you know for example besides the european there should be national views of the porter or regional but I think that the personalized dashboard is indeed thousands of different views it's different for each researcher so it's not like you are saying it is one it is it is you know multiple ones and this is let's say serving the needs of each individual researcher and getting to learn also with you know artificial intelligent tools and so on and being really useful gathering all data or services or workflows relevant to the user yeah I agree with you then if it's not one thing but then who's going to offer it it will be the providers I assume offering a personalized dashboard for whatever user they are addressing to or do you see this as a task of the AOS AISBL the association yeah I see it as a as a central thing as a centralized thing who does it maybe you know it's a it's part of a project already in the AOSC 03 call there are features like this which is in the right direction I think so maybe some prototype will appear already after this project the follow-up of AOSCUB but I think it's a central thing and it should be provided either by the legal entity or by a project follow-up project yeah well if it's provided by a project then this project if it becomes more than a project and if it remains it can be the provider but that if the AOSC legal entity or the association has to take on board everything organized by the projects then we get a very very large association in order to handle all that remember through the projects we have spent something like 350 million euro and created a lot of things these cannot be maintained by an association which has five to ten people employed how do you think this is being done yeah okay it may be part of the projects that will be funded sure you know and then then then we'll become a provider and then I agree with you providers of course can offer that yeah I'll come to some questions that are coming in now on the zoom before we can go to EGI who has a raised hand so a comment that came in from Shandavit the concept of multiple dashboards will just add to the existing chaos can you explain why you think this is a good idea yeah maybe you should just discuss this with Fortis I didn't come up with it he came up with it so I leave this to a discussion between the two of you they can carry that on perhaps in the chat then I come to a question from Tiziana will the minimum viable EOSC proposal be validated with consultations with research communities wait a minute can I read that somewhere will the minimum viable EOSC proposal be validated with consultation with research communities yes what is the minimum viable EOSC proposal is that the proposal made by the sustainability working group and what do you mean by consultation with research communities so this is not clear to me Tiziana maybe you can take the floor and ask your question hello everyone thanks for hi thanks for this opportunity so the question is about the definition of the minimum viable EOSC that you presented I hope I'm using the right terminology you use the viable versus the variable I think yeah well what I'm trying may sorry to interrupt you but what I'm trying in this session is to come from what has been defined in the Tinman report as the minimum viable and I don't see why that needs to be validated because this is just a definition given by the Tinman report and how to validate that that depends on what you view as minimum viable but that's a definition we adapted as the executive board and I deliberately introduced the word valuable because with the minimum viable which can survive we're not there we want to create more and this is also what is shown by Rupert in the second and the third phases so I wanted to move to these second and third phases for later on what is additional on top of the minimum viable EOSC that could be of value sure so what the question is in your function of the EB chair will the research communities be consulted the polls to make sure that these MVE is meeting their expectations and requirements is there a process for that to plan are you talking about the definition so that has been consulted to everybody including the research communities by the consultation of the Timman report or are you talking about the minimum viable EOSC if it's out there let's say in 2021 2022 consultation with prospective end users like a market analysis not the definition but the content what it should provide but that's the definition so you're talking about the consultation next year or the year after that no I'm just asking what is the process to consult with users and if there is a process in the plan to be implemented for that not that I know there is no further consultation process taking place that was done on the Timman report that included the definition there consultation took place to a large audience including research communities with respect to the text maybe later on if it exists a consultation should take place or a poll should take place what is this what we understand it to be and is this what we would like so if this is with respect to the definition I think my answer would be no can we move on with the next question Gerrit I go on to the next question from Katrina does EOSC intend to lead for example in defining and promoting certain standards or to follow what their contributors use or promote push push if by EOSC is meant here the EOSC AISPL the legal entity or the association and then the intention is of course listening to the world and getting certain standards being pushed and seeing what is being pushed and seeing what contributors bring in to make choices definitely but preferably in my view not choices one over the other but in cases where this is possible for example with a PID this I think is often possible choices that includes as many of the possible standards or definitions so let's let's take PIDs as an example there are a lot of existing PIDs out there the attention of course is not to put them out of work or to put them out of service and replace it by something else so what we should come up with is something that encompasses this again Katrina I don't know her but if you want to reflect to that raise your hand and you'll get the floor so there comes more discussion and I refer to a comment that I see in the chat section from Bob Jones the Tinman document states that the minimum viable EOSC will be considered operational when key data sets and services provided by EOSC implementation projects including the cluster projects are accessible by end users who are external to these projects sorry I missed that can I read it somewhere it's in the chat section so what it says is again slowly it's a couple of comments up the tinman document states that the minimum viable EOSC will be considered operational when key data sets and services provided by EOSC implementation projects including the cluster projects are accessible by end users who are external to these projects yeah I know this definition I think this is a correct one whether all the EOSC cluster projects need to be in or all the cluster project needs to be in I put a question Mike but yeah basically this is the intention okay I see a question from Francois who has her hand up so I lower her hand if she wants to take the floor yes it was more or less a comment to Bob Jones comment which was maybe a comment to one of my comments which is that I was pushing the fact that it would be very indispensable that the the data and the services which are in EOSC can be accessed by different points of entry which means not by the top a top point of entry at the top of EOSC but by the sides by below and so on yeah that people are able to compose services as they wish and do not have to follow the top down approach to a services I don't think we intend to have a top down approach at least me we as executive board not so you're completely right they should be accessible from different sides and services that can also be accessed without accessing EOSC or without so in my view if a service provider becomes a member of the EOSC association and puts his or her services through the network of EOSC that service provider can also be approached directly and that's not I don't think in terms of top down if you if you use the worldwide web you also not work top down okay then I see we have a few minutes left I come to a question slash comment from Jean Claude reading the replies going in all directions imagine we would start the MVE as a company tomorrow and with our own money wouldn't we be more precise and to the point yes Jean Claude we would definitely more precise and to the point because then we would start from our own initiative with our own money coming from our own thinking but here we try to create something which is in line with the thinking of 40 countries and of a pletitude of organizations that have been stimulated by the commission in the past and in the present time and we try to bring all of that together especially all those projects and organizations that have EOSC in their name in some sort of form so with all respect the commission hasn't made life easy for the present governance structure we're trying to combine everything as much as possible but if you have a bag of money I'll be happy to start a company tomorrow and create this okay then I come to a question in the chat section from Bert Mirman will the minimum valuable EOSC support data visiting where sensitive private data will be visited by smart algorithms or queries and not very initially I think because we start with open data remember only so that is not sensitive data but yes Bert very soon after that if we see that the call works in my view we should switch from fair and open to fair only and then we have to be able to handle sensitive data also with machine action ability basically this is one of the main tasks in order to create a web of fair data that it can be handled and approached by the machine in the partnership proposal I put it as follow the machine should be able to find it so it should be able to find data or better the metadata belonging to a data set the machine should be able to access it to access the metadata in order to be able to determine what can be done with the data set and in these metadata there also should be the information on what the machine is allowed to do with that data set so yeah the intention is absolutely to create machine action ability when we reach this stage and then in a broad sense that that has to be seen some of the let's say domains disciplines already have this possibility within their own discipline to do this type of approaches but in a broad sense at this moment this is not possible if you look at the partnership proposal we have as a KPI this this should become we hope available around 2024 2025 and the final question that I see in the in the in the Slido what about the metadata catalog function of EOSC is there any reason to aggregate metadata also at national level of member states that will be federated towards European meta catalog together with thematic based repositories and I am not again the expert to be able to handle this but in order to find metadata with a machine I think some sort of catalog is needed whether the national level member states have a role here to play or whether the owners or let's say procurement people of the data the people that take care of the data have a role to play here I'm not sure may be different from data set to data set but for those that can be federated into a European system I think we should do so okay I think we should stop there the questions just a comment I see in the chat so thank you for the good presentation and question and answer session do you want to finish off I think we're now hitting the moment to go to break and I think everybody comes back at four o'clock yeah I would like to finish off thank you very much Garrett I would like to thank the organization for offering the technical facilities to run this very smooth as far as I'm concerned session I would like to thank the participants and what we will do is we will look at the chat later on to see if there's additional questions that need to be answered and the same thing we will do with the Slido questions they are resourced by definition I wish you all a good afternoon and a good rest of the EOS Cup week thank you very much thank you goodbye everyone