 The Entity on Knowledge Coalition started a few years back with the idea that's been touched upon in many of the presentations this morning that we work together better and more efficiently than we work separately. So the notion would be to look at all types of scholarly media and allow this interoperable collaboration layer for discovery for researchers and readers and the like around the globe. And the idea being that it's open source, federated, and based on open standards. So many of the topics that have been touched upon earlier today. So with that in mind, the notion behind the coalition is to have a big partnership between everyone who's really in the ecosystem. So that could be platform hosts, that could be publishers, librarians certainly, and more technology companies in the space to help curate this annotation layer atop of the research. As most of you probably know in February of this year, the W3C did approve annotation as a web standard. Very excited to see that happen and it should become a lot easier for this interoperable layer to be developed as a result. So it's kind of like an eye chart at this point, but we do have the logos represented here of the folks who signed on in the early days to help the coalition. And we're certainly wanting to work over the next few years to grow this membership even further. So there's certain key principles that we kind of ask you to ascribe to as part of the coalition. Open source, we believe that's really critical for sustainability and for community collaboration. Standards based for all the reasons that you've heard so far. We want to make sure that all of the formats that people are using can be accurately annotated and depicted throughout this infrastructure and to expand as more formats come online. And again, it's a perfect timing to remind folks of this coalition, given some of the questions that came up at the end of the earlier session. No one wants to have to reorient themselves everywhere they go and think, okay, can I do something here? How will I do it? I want to be able to take my tools with me and I think you do as well. And we want to also support the notion of the clean page. So if you decide you don't want to see annotations or you only want to see certain annotations, that should be within the grasp of the user. So it kind of points back to William's my browser, my choice, but I think it's really key to give people that flexibility. So there's no cost to join AAK. We're looking for kindred spirits and fellow travelers. We just sort of talk about four principles. Together we share the benefit that this kind of an effort will improve scholarship. Together we'll explore how to incorporate annotations into our, et cetera, workflow. In this process, we're open to collaborating with others who share the same vision. And that, you know, if you do join the coalition that you're okay with that being mentioned publicly in the space. The timeline of the activities to date, do you want to do this, Marianne? Marianne's been around for the first part. I'm new to it. So I'm going to hand off to her. Okay. Most of you probably know Marianne Morton already from UCSD. So I know a lot of you are familiar with the coalition, but I also, for those who aren't, just wanted to review where we started, what we've done so far. So the coalition actually launched in December of 2015 and with about 40 members. There actually I think was an article in Nature that heralded the launch of the coalition. A steering committee was formed of members of many of the organizations and we meet roughly on a quarterly basis. But we started the process of surveying members, so there's a questionnaire that goes out to members about what it is that they're interested in, what do they need from a coalition. We utilized the collaborative workspace at Force 11, the Future of Research Communications at East Scholarship that helps support working groups. And so we formed a working group there that led us gather our thoughts and, you know, mail people to create email lists and et cetera. But we also used the Force 2016 meeting, which was held in Portland, as a place where a lot of the players were all going to be coming together. And so we had a kickoff meeting that had roughly about 70 people there. And we did things like discuss definitions of interoperability use cases. All of those notes, materials are currently on the Force 11 website. There's a pointer from the AAK website that we have and there is a plan to launch a more fully configured AAK website sometime in the future. Last year at Iannotate in Berlin, we presented a little bit about that and then we actually held a conference breakout session in the afternoon where people could come together and decide what it is that they wanted to do, how we wanted to get started. And we probably will propose that as a topic for this afternoon. But one of the overall sentiments when we brought people together, both in Portland and also in Berlin, was that this was not an overarching, coordinated activity. This was an organization that we put up so that people could share experiences and start to explore this issue of interoperability. And there was a very strong sense that what it really was is we just need to go and do it. Where it makes sense for us to be able to share annotations, we should pair off, do these small explorations of what interoperability really means, and then share those experiences openly with the rest of the community. Some of those will be at a deeply technical level, but you heard also a lot here about just the user experience in general, right? What is the user experience of annotations and interoperability? So our colleagues at Pundit, Julia was still here, he gave a presentation yesterday, which is an annotation tool that works very similarly to hypothesis. Pundit and Hypothesis actually got together to start to do some of these explorations. What does it mean if I have two clients and I annotate the same web page? And actually just by accident, I was browsing a force page and because I have both extensions on my web browser, I saw that there were annotations from both tools by people who use Pundit versus people who use Hypothesis. And I also wanted to point out what the top of my web browser currently looks like. I've got about eight or nine different extensions. I've actually had to de-install some tools because I found out that they interfered with other tools. So we thought that this would just be a very interesting and simple thing. What happens if you use two tools to annotate the same page? So we did some explorations with Julio and Francesca Di Donato. John Udell, as usual, wrote us a little widget that said, well, I could very easily say I've detected two sets of annotations on this page. And so it's hard to read, but it says there's four Pundit annotations and there's three Hypothesis annotations on this web page. What happens if you actually come across this? Well, needless to say, I've got two clients open. They interfere with each other because they're both on the sidebar. But if you read this little blog that we posted, it actually gets a little bit deeper than that, that annotating in one client actually influences and interferes with annotating in another. And again, I've already mentioned that I have to de-install some extensions coming from other tools because they interfere with each other. So we've kind of laid out this very simple roadmap that says, if we think of interoperability, incompatible conflicting being the worst and full client equivalence being the best, where are we? I kind of said about 0.7, right? You can actually make both tools work on the same page, but they're not entirely compatible with each other. And this idea that says I should have multiple ones, what's really interesting I think in this space is that I find that I use multiple clients right now because they're specialized for different things. Pundit is really deep semantic annotation, very important in the scientific realm. And if I'm doing this sort of deep knowledge extraction, I like to use Pundit because Pundit is really designed to do that. If I'm using other types of annotation, I actually switch over to another client because it's better for that. How all those functionalities should be represented in one or even if that's possible, I think is really the work of the coalition. What is the user experience with these different annotation modes? If I come to science in the classroom and they have their specialized annotation, which is very nice, how do these other clients interoperate? I think the only way to figure this out is for people to start doing it and start to share these experiences so those who are in charge with the development can think about them. But I think another theme that's really been emerging, not just here at this conference, but also around scholarly communications in general, finally this idea of ecosystem and what ecosystem really means. And what is really nice is that there's been a flowering of new technologies and new tools that have come all over the place. But still, as we hear over and over again, if you try to use these together, the experience is not always pleasant. So what does interoperability mean? Is it that one client does everything or do they play nicely together so that for whatever it is that I wish to accomplish where annotation is part of that, I can smoothly go and transition from one to the next. So I think a lot more of these types of explorations of where annotation is important in the scholarly workflow and what happens when you actually try to cross over from paper pile to Mendeley to Google Docs and what have you, as somebody might do in a workflow, what is that user experience, where is the pain points. So again, we've started these explorations. John mentioned some of them yesterday. This is a very simple integration with Mendeley where I said to John, I use Google Docs for writing. I use Hypothesis for note-taking. I use Mendeley for full referencing in a paper. And so he wrote something by the API that lets me see my hypothesis, annotations linked inside of the article metadata. These things are all possible, but again, I think we need to start working on it. And as Julia said, annotation should be part of this big push for fair, findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. So what are the next steps? Certainly there's a large technical component to it and people will be working through that on the technical side. But I think what everyone here can do, and I hope people will find a partner to say, let's do some usability user analysis of existing tools. Let's think about what it would look like if we know how is it that the user is going to take advantage of annotation. And just do it. Do these pilots, share that experience, just write up a little blog and post it so that we can start to collect some of these user stories. Hopefully many of them pleasant. Some of them will be unpleasant so that we can move forward. Thank you. So if you want to learn more, find any of us from hypothesis. Talk to the folks at your table and see if they're part of the coalition already. And we look forward to speaking with you further. Are we taking questions or are we moving? Are you two taking questions? I think we're good, right? I think we should just be right on. OK. We're moving along. OK, so there's no break right now. So we are moving into a panel on the way that different platforms and enterprises are working in post-publication annotation. So we heard in the previous session how annotation can incorporate in different parts of the workflow. Now we're going to actually take you into some demos and show you how it's working or soon to be working in the wild. Can we ask a panelist to take their seats?