 Good afternoon everyone, thank you for joining this open-air provide community call, it's a great pleasure to to run this call number 15, and it's always a great pleasure to have you with us in this call to present some of the novelties that we have in the provide the provide service or in the open-air services or functionalities that are interesting, useful for content providers, for repository managers, pre-system managers, not the repository managers, so it's a it's a it's really a great pleasure. So our focus today will be on on a novelty in fact that we have available currently in beta in the validator for you to test, I will we will also demonstrate that for you to be aware of this adaptation of the fair data maturity model indicate in our in our provide in our open-air validator, I think this will be an interesting facility and there is my calling from Bielefeld University of Bielefeld will detail this but the agenda for today is in fact so to dedicate some time to this work that we have done, mainly our team from Bielefeld University together with some other colleagues, we have done an adaptation of the fair data maturity model indicator that are an output from the research data alliance in our validator and we can have a discussion around around this, so I hope that this will be interesting. Later on I will also present and share with you where it is in the validator in the beta version of the provide service but let's now proceed with this with this presentation just one highlight in fact that is the novelty it's about the fair assessment in beta so now it's available in in validator we were discussing a bit in the provide team if we wanted to have in production we the kind of beta stamp but we decided as we have this workflow now running quite well in open-air infrastructure where we put everything in the beta environment of our services we have decided to do the same for this new functionality of the validator so you can test this in beta I will tell you how and then you can contribute also for with some feedback and test with your own repository etc. I would like also to highlight because every time we have these calls there are some newcomers but we'd like also to highlight that we have them then the last call was dedicated to our open-air services are contributing to the OSC and I know that this is quite relevant for some of you the presentation was done by Paul Umangi the technical director of open-air recordings and slides are available so we can share the links here in the chat and you can check it if you were not able to to join this call I think this is important for you also to clearly understand that your participation in provide will also allow you to be part in a way of fiosk okay two reminders that you are already aware and that we but as this is something sometimes also important for some newcomers one is about the need to subscribe to receive the metadata enrichments you are aware of this but sometimes people don't don't don't catch it so well so we're now we did some in the in the recent months as we did some changes in the in the way that we are exposing metadata enrichments and the broker events are generated we just show present a sample of of 100 events in the in the dashboard in order for you to receive all you need to subscribe you can filter or for what what you want a specific event or with a specific place and then you subscribe and you will receive we are standing quite in a in a in a very good periodicity the the notification so we are running the and the plating the broker events and for sure you we are aware that you have already received every month at least one one notification with the with new with new events of course depending on what you have subscribed and and if there is already if there is if there are new events or not the other thing is that we don't have novelties about the registration process for Cree systems but we we are working on that and for sure we'll allocate time to this activity in the coming months but for you to be aware if you are coming from this area or if you are related with any Cree system be aware that the Cree systems we can register currently in the open air infrastructure but in the near future we will have a process of registration in open air and we will use the the the Dries the directory from Eurocris to to become the alternative source for the registration process so be aware of that so in order to have your Cree system in open air you need to register in in Dries from from from Eurocris so I think this is important for you to to know this is not available now in provide in the registration process but will be available soon as we did a project with Eurocris in order to prepare the directory to communicate let's say to simplify with with open air so we will present this later but related with the first novelty in beta you you will see if you access beta dot provide dot open air dot u you will see this this new box in the in the validator functionality for the fair assessment and you can play with this so let's present this later and now I I will also just because I didn't put it here but I want to say something we are a bit late on that but we don't have I know that some of you are expecting for the multi-user access some of you have already requested that we have a functionality to for you to be able to give permissions to only one login as a manager of the C3 this is not ready yet unfortunately we have some delays but so it's in our in our to-do list every every two weeks we remind ourselves about the need but this is related with other authentication services internally in open air and it's not so easy to to to to solve okay Andreas so now my colleague Andreas so Andreas you can also present yourself but we'll run this presentation about this fair this verification of of your content provided in open air so of what is yours Andreas and many things for your availability to run this presentation thank you Pedro good afternoon also from my side so um yes today we have a topic about the certifications of our guidelines and focus in this community call for the literature guidelines or I will come a little bit later to you with this topic my name is Andreas Czerniak from Bielefeld University Library in Germany and in the face of open air at once we are leading the work package and task for the guidelines not only the guidance that I present now but also the others and under in during this phase we are working on the verification that's our what we call it because our guidelines are come from 10 years ago and we will check the elements that we have in the guidelines and recommendations there this in a moment so my topic topics for the presentation today is to give a short overview about the guidelines and especially for the institutional and thematic guidelines name mostly name called as literature guidelines and some fundamentals here um and what is new in the guidelines in the process in the last phase we are working on some up to updating these guidelines and not only on the fair process but only on something related to the guidelines and I will present this also here and after this I'm presenting the verification process and last but not least the live demo from beta provide an overview so as you know mostly the landscape of the repositories are quite diverse so at the match today we have institutional thematic repositories and during the last years and then there are something more repositories data repositories journal repositories from publishers and also software repositories and other research products and we see a lot of potential in the current research information systems and for all these kinds of repositories we have guidelines in the from open air but these repositories represents also different type of resource types and what we see is resource types in the repositories for literature articles preprints for data sets um also clinical pilots here um software software research products and newly for projects funders organization units instruments and equipment so if we map these repositories to the research output types that we see here or we've found that the institutional and thematic repositories covers mostly all of things in the meantime so not only literature which we started from but also the data sets software and other research products only the chris systems have all entity types in there and additionally to the four research type output types there also information about projects funders persons organization units instruments and all with persistent identifier linked in the if we take a look into the other repositories and the research output there for data repositories they are mostly data sets and literature at the moment for journal publishers mostly literature and so on if we come to our uh actual guidelines that we are focused on today is on the institutional and thematic repository guidelines and this covers all these four sets of research outputs these the guidelines have as I said before an evolution and starts in 2010 in 2010 there was the first version of the literature guidelines published and the work behind is starting in 28-29 and coming from the driver project before Okma starts after two years the first revision of the guidelines was made and um there's also seen that our guidelines for data are important so in 2012 there also published literature guidelines and guidelines for data archive repositories if we see um the years after um there are another version of literature guidelines version three there's also a version for data guidelines and from this evolution we know okay literature is not the only ones in the repositories yet and we should revise our guidelines to an institutional and thematic repository guidelines for institutional and thematic repositories it's called version four and mostly named as literature guidelines version four but that's not really true anymore it's a mix of from these resources that we've seen before and uh in 2018 we open air uh revise the content acquisition policy until 2018 open air covers only open access um articles and uh with the new content acquisition policy um open air collect and harvesting open access content but also non-open access content so it's open the word open here to the wider world in the same year 2018 um it's uh was in the revision of the chris a reef guidelines published and both are uh now the actual ones of guidelines that we have and we end the phase to revise these in the last year and also this year and updating the guidelines for institutional and thematic repositories but also the data archive guidelines and the guidelines for chris managers but we focus today on uh the institutional and thematic repository guidelines these guidelines mostly called as literature guidelines um based on Dublin core and data sites metasema format it's uh just uh describe uh publications in text for text will and for data publications have and have controlled the capularies um and you can see here a screenshot of the application profile which i um don't go into depth now but you can see is in on cenoto or at guidelines dot open air dot who and we are in the face to updating or the latest guideline version for institutional and repository um and we end the states of the release candidate one for the version for one we have made some changes we have some minor changes and the first one is to to namely to include fair and the reference to the 88 fair data majority working group output here to our guidelines so as a scene we are started in 2010 with the guidelines was mostly to um focus on open access on finding articles for accessing articles on open access and so on so uh this is not mentioned yet in the guidelines um but uh we will see we have this in the guidelines um since 2010 roundabout so this is also an adoption uh an adoption of the guidelines to the 88 fair data principles here um i will come back in a minute to this topic this important topic the other one is uh we are hands um something for aggregators in the last years we see um on the or epmh interface some gap um in the identification of repositories and together with our partner um and infrastructure la referencia or we um and develop a proof of concept to identify to identify repositories in the provenance element so if you are familiar with it this or um this is uh the about element the about note from the epmh interface and the provenance element in this go not really in the depth here but we um add some uh two simple elements for repository id and repository name repository id is an important one here um to identify which is the repository that comes that's behind this record and um we choose and discuss here the um identifier for open door or also for re3data um and the uh identifier from these registry also can it enhance this from from other repositories so the first element is a repository id was a registry and uh followed by the identifier of this registry the repository name is nice to have good to have in some cases to identify for human which are the repositories behind this identifier this was one enhancement and proof of concept for aggregators and the other enhancements that we are have done in the last month are for contributor routes we are um rely on the credit uh attack ceremony um to add more rules of contributors here um this is in line also in line with other um initiative like orchard orchard is also integrate the credit taxonomy here for the rules we also extend and refine the descriptions uh from of the elements and attributes and also um have more and hopefully better examples for the elements here and we see also that we should update links um that we have in the guidelines um like for crosser funders the domains change and links change and so on this was updated also in uh this revision so um I will share afterwards the linked for the guidelines there will in the presentation too I see the chat here with the question so first of all I've come to the verification process um verification our guidelines um that we have it's based on the ADA fair data majority model specification in guidelines it's published in June 2020 and um it covers the findable the accessible interverbal and the reusable and the specification and guidelines um share an excellent feed or the identification how fair is the elements that we have and here in the overview on the right side you see we are the overview of our analysis that we are done and that I present in the moment in detail um findable uh it's very grateful accessible that we have something to do or um that we are on a discussion at the moment interverbal and reusable reusable so in detail findable um the ADA share an excel sheet with um identical identify fair identity identity indicator and um we go through these sheet and um map this uh to the elements that we have are in the guidelines version four um or um you see here this is important also for the validator um here the identity identifier on the left column and the description and priorities met in the guidelines or not and um what we have done here we do this for all of these identifiers in the streets and we see oh very fine we can we have this all one in we are fit the findable with our guidelines um with resource identifiers or implicit via or e p m h interface identifiers and so on so if you have if we harvesting your data source your repository via or e p m h and um you have these identifiers regarding our guidelines version four you are um hundred percent findable perfect so these um analysis and evaluation uh if we done for all the fair elements and it's the same procedure um for accessible um you see here the identifier of the description of the identifier priorities and fits in the guidelines or not and um it is the scope of our guidelines or not and the result is presented on the right side so there are some gaps that we have in the guidelines and we discuss these gaps how can we um mention this in the guidelines something is not directly under control of the guidelines um something is in the control of open air but not really in the guidelines so we are in the discussion phase at the moment um for uh on the one end for better understanding these fair principles for the guidelines as I see here the the challenge is to have these um to to adapt these guidelines uh from the data for a fair data majority model from the area to the literature part or not only literature not only um so institutional and thematic repositories this is a challenge then we have not only um data in it we have also articles we have also software as we seen before so this is um that we um map would like to map in our analysis and see some gaps here um it's something like mostly isn't are the gaps in the guidelines not mentioned um regarding the the data um here's an example um day for the data that we see here the gap is not available for the guidelines data is accessible through an access protocol that supports authentication and authorization so this is not really in um under control of the guidelines we cannot check these ones through the guidelines and um at the moment we think that this uh not should not part of the guidelines and uh could not be mentioned here but we have this in the principles and um this we have done this analysis and evaluation for yeah something that we are discussed at the moment for for the elements uh for i um you see uh you see this analysis here and um the last one is reusable same thing here um that we have said we fit a lot of for of the reusable for like license and so on uh metadata is machine readable we are now standable but not all not all is mentioned here um and we are in under discussion to make it more fair and make it and describe this more on the element um level the conclusion that we have from this verification process is um that um it is that is possible to make an adoption adaptation of the guidelines to the ADA data fair data principles um and we see that the guidelines that we have at the moment are primarily fair so um it's not overall because on the uh the the sections of data and um accessible access of data sets and um but in most cases we fit to the fair principles for um from the ADA and um as i seen in the slides as you seen in the slides before the evolution of the guidelines was key so uh we are under at the moment under the discussion um to go forward on the guidelines regarding the fair and other um sections that we have and um for this this is important to um modify the guidelines over the years and fit it to the reality of the repository of all the information system brought here the references um the new guidelines oh the latest version that we are working on is um at the read the docs you see the link and i see the link is also shared by paolo thank you and examples and schemas are available at github at github there's also an issue checker that we use for um feedback channels you can make a feedback on our guidelines that we have directly on read the docs it's um there isn't this is possible but uh this requires also um look in in the annotation service of read the of read the docs and you can make the annotations and comments directly on the latest guideline pages here the other thing is to create an issue at github under the guidelines repository for this you need also a github login the last one is to um comment our google document without any credentials um and um there you in the google document you see also some discussions and links to um really related issues in github and so on so um you have here an overview about a discussion about the new version of the guidelines here so um peter would you like to take over and give you the floor to you to better provide to present or like go forward to and you present better provide and the fair assessments um afterwards yes yes thank you andreas many thanks so i can proceed just in order to allow people then to to test and to run some tests and to for sure they will have doubts i think this is a a lot of information i understand that some of the the participants of this call are have already very good knowledge about the the the fair maturity indicators some others don't have so i think it's important to have some time all this presentation is available for you you can check the details of them of the fair indicators but let's um um i was giving some time some wording in order to follow make me presenter uh but um so i will just uh check with you so um if you don't have access to beta so just go to to better uh dot provide dot open air dot you and and you may have access to to better if you if you don't have you can you can put it in the shot and we will make sure that you can have access to this to this version okay um you will see in the in the validator this new box here to perform a fair assessment on your metadata um and you will be allowed to do to do that i was running some tests just before this this is something new so i was running some tests so here is where you have this functionality functionality available you can run some tests uh you put here the the the OIP imagine um URL for for your the interface of your repository uh and run the the the test so i'm just performing some tests i have already here some in the validation history so but you can you can run this test what you will be able to see here in this fair assessment is the mainly the rules that uh we that um Andreas have presented uh that we are able to test as as as you saw some of the um of some of the fair indicators as we are not possible for us to to to check so you can you can run this um you can select or just have them all selected as this is the same for the other for the other guidelines and then here you can perform in all records or just select the number of records just to have a kind of example uh and you or you can also check if you want to to check some of the specific sets that you have in your repository and perform the the validation so like for like for all the other validations so you receive an email i was doing now tests during the presentation of Andreas just for you to see you receive an email saying that one email saying that the validation started and another email that the validation uh finish and you can then browse in the history the the the validation so you will see it in the validation history if it's already there so as you can see we have several um validations here so all jobs that i have submitted some of them are unsuccessful others are successful some failed so um i have so you can then you can check the status here in the in the steps so the ongoing those that have failed and those that are successful and then from the successful is like the other the for the other situations you can you can test you can test so you can check the where are the the errors so we have here first kind of overview of the results for the for the 100 i i did a test of for a sample of 100 records and then you can identify clearly the where we have where you you may have errors okay and then the errors are identified in specific records and you can check the records of course here is where it comes the the dots that we can clarify and that you you we may need to to provide you some support or you may need to understand better what we have in the indicators here we have some errors about um licenses if licenses is explicitly in the in the metadata record or not um if if there is a specific representation of a standardized format this there are some errors that you can see and that you can go to the to the record like for the other situations i understand that then you may have some some dots but this is the way that it works and it's the the way that the other validator also works i think it's now what is interesting so we are in a better environment we are in this phase of receiving your feedback as andrea stated i think what is relevant here for us is that we are um so we just want to stop sharing and what we really want here is to to provide a service i think it's an edit value service uh to assess this um the fairness uh of your your data source of your repository against well established uh indicators from from rda um and then you we can also collect your feedback and make it useful make it really useful receive your feedback so i think all the links to to contribute uh directly in in so we have andrea is just for clarification we have one google document where people can comment and but they can also directly in the guidelines comment make comment yes there are three feedback tunnels so um you can give us feedback through the read of docs functionality of annotations um but we see this um this requires look in and um then we set up feedback document on google directly so with our credentials you can give us uh your suggestions and um for topics in the guidelines so and um we share this information on the fair assessment and the functionalities of the validator that we have uh first with you um today so to see also how fits the validator and the roots that we that we have in the last years um our needs regarding fair and um how can we um use this functional functionalities for the continuous validation of repositories also so if we um have this functionality established in beta provide and um you see here uh only five or six rules that we implement at the moment and we implement more um then we can also um have these functional functionalities in the continuous validation of data sources and use all the features that open air and provide have so um yes so we just wanted to share this with you in this community call in order for you to be aware of this work we'll be aware of this added value functionality from from from open air provides if you have questions you can you can ask i'm sorry peter that's a question in the in the minutes so i'll just i'll just put it for andrea so if you want i can read it so john asked regarding the european commission because for horizon europe deposit in a trusted repository um so um that's a very good question so um i think also peter for um yes yeah so we can consider so when we we talk about trusted repositories um so there is um there is we can have a discussion about that for sure repositories that are part of for the time being i think this which should should be the approach i think we all aim to have in the future um seals that clearly state the how trustful is that the specific repository but i think we can understand now that for sure the commission will follow an orientation that is all repositories that are part of the directories accepted by the communities and part of open air are considered uh trustful repositories this is uh my understanding this is the understanding from from open air things are evolving um currently it's not mandatory to have specific seal for example um but maybe in the future that currently we don't have it and for sure to jordan i think and you are part of the community you may have also an opinion repositories that are part of mainly of the main directories that we have we can say a way through that the open door for sharing for sure they are repositories that are trustful repositories repositories that are part of open air are validated by open air and part of the open air infrastructure are repositories that the commission can consider trustful to to to have the outputs from the funded projects this is uh what we can say things are evolving and for sure we will learn more details even the mandate from the commission need some more guidance for some specifications i'm not sure if they will provide more guidance on this level of trustfulness but for the time being i think this is quite difficult what we need to have so and to have some more information to jordan if we don't have any other question so this is a journey the verification this this compliance with fair indicators fair metrics uh improving the probability of of of of repositories it's a journey and for some it's a long journey for others it's a short journey it's a journey that needs to be inclusive so if we start to have kind of of a clear orientation what is considered a trusted repository we will not be part we are we are not contributing to a good journey and we are not being inclusive so the principles that at least i was part of the a osc fair working group that have contributed with the recommendations about the certification of of of yosc service providers and the osc repositories etc and one of the recommendations was that because this is a journey we need to be inclusive so there is a journey to to ensure that everyone improves the interoperability everyone improve the the fairness of of the repository the fairness of the digital objects etc so let's stay calm this is my my clear opinion let's stay calm and then trust in some of the tools that are part of the community like the directories and then do the do our best i hope that this is a good answer for you jordan and partially my opinion in partially also the the view of open you have another question in the shot yeah julian thank you for your best and then yes it was a good suggestion from from alessandra so if the repository has a good fair assessment in all mail it would be received for batch yeah very good very good very good suggestion i think this is but but for that we need to be confident i think this is a very good suggestion at center but we need to be confident of what we are offering and to be confident it must be from from our team and must be also from the the feedback that we receive from you but but many things and i think it's something that we for sure we can follow and it's julian as i didn't saw the comment from alexander previous but it's julian i have a question but it's not related to the topic okay but we can reply so every every so do we have news about the new user interface for provider interface i'm thinking about the ability to decline the septic nor the enrichment suggested will it come for this place okay okay thank you the for this place for for this is for this place for this place crease it's available for this place seven will be made available the same approach can be done for this space version six but someone from the community need to to integrate this i can say that you know in portugal we are thinking to contribute as we are going to to to to give some some as we are going to update versions of this space that we asked in our national network of repositories we may be available available to work on this at least we are pushing for that let's see if we can use it on okay so and there's a question for milan um this is good question thank you um yes we uh the question was to um will you combine guidelines for literature and data repositories into one guideline uh we export our metadata currently to both yes that is what we see in the last uh years um that uh we have we collect metadata from the literature where you end point and also from data site or data where you end point and we're thinking about to have umbrella for our guidelines not especially for literature or data so also for uh software and other research products um to fit the needs and to to generalize these guidelines into one and have special parts for if you like literature if you like data repositories and so on so yes we are thinking about this and to have your view to on the guidelines so that you don't choose uh one of the guidelines in the validator also um or in the registration process so as I present before in the in the in one slide in institutional arithmetic repository there are a lot of research output at the moment and I think we can combine and have an umbrella for this okay anything so we need to we need to close this this community call so I think we can we can give more some more minutes but Andreas like I leave the floor to you and to Paula to close the meeting I need to move to another webinar that I'm in fact managing and they have already opened which is not easy so we can close the if you have any comments I think what what we mentioned here is quite relevant so this is a process Paula I leave the floor to you to close the the community calling for Andreas to reply to any other questions but usually we close it on time so feel free to close it whenever you want but I just need to leave many things for joining this call we have some more time to to to close thank you thank you Peter also the last was to request for comments on our latest guideline version um and also um we want to hear from your side your ideas or your talks about this and please until 20 of June so afterwards we would like to go forward to make a final version on these guidelines thank you thank you thank you very much for joining today and I would like also thank you my colleague Jörgen Schierwagen is done a lot of work on these fair assessments thank you very much