 and answers. So I see that you are there are already some questions in the in the slide though. And as you can see we have some of the EOS Executive Board members online. So I do invite the Executive Board members to feel free to answer any of the questions or to jump in whenever they want. Okay so I'm guessing Jean-François and I all both kind of pick up on Rob's question which is at the top here. So Rob's asking about keeping EOS modular and resisting putting metadata cataloging or AI in a PID system and I think that's a very good idea. I mean we in the last session we had some discussion about sensitive data and obviously not all data can be openly accessible so there will need to be the access control but I think that's to be defined you know in a separate group by the AI task force in the architecture group and that should be referenced then in the PID systems rather than doing things separately in each. So I think you're right about the need to keep things modular. But I don't know if Jean-François wants to pick up on this as well. I agree it's clear that we're in the very early days of the of the design of those functions as we may have seen from the various presentation today and yes paying attention to the modularity and yes what can I say. Maybe Rob has any special idea or is it just related to the metadata cataloging. Rob. Yeah so it was my question was triggered indeed by the PID session that just finished 20 minutes ago but it is very generous general ID that I had that there is it is very easy to be a full prey to a feature creep and to want to integrate functionality very closely but this is a danger I think to the sustainability in the long run of a system as complex as EOSC where I think in the architecture phase that we are in now we really have to make sure that we separate the functionality as well as possible and define the interfaces rather than trying to add functionality to the different components and I am myself a big fan of the functionality of a Unix system designed in the 1970s where really the idea is that each component should do one thing and only one thing and it should do that one thing well. Rob I am the same I am the same generation you are right so I also learn on Unix but and I agree and I think that was one of the reason for my question on the minimum viable EOSC this morning I mean we have to pay attention of what is absolutely necessary and how those it was called mechanism on the slide how those mechanisms are put together I mean the simpler you start and the more you have a chance to keep with this modularity and simplicity we know it will become complex as time goes by right Unix has since you use that example has become complex over time but starting since we are launching this architecture efforts these architecture efforts we should start simple by design right and add complexity only when it's needed you know on our way I agree with you. And then just kind of working down the list to pick up on the second question about the metadata catalog function of EOSC and is there any reason to aggregate metadata at national level of member states or kind of a thematic repository level one of the things I think we need to stress and you'll see this in the rules of participation is that there isn't a single EOSC catalog I mean we have the portal but EOSC should really be a catalog of catalogs it's a federation there's not a single access point and there will be many different catalogs both at national level in some countries or at thematic level so working through the different cluster projects and I think that they're all incredibly useful and communities may have a given place where they go to access data or already that they're using and that that shouldn't change there should be a benefit by aggregating these but you know it's not to say that there shouldn't be thematic catalogs or country-wide ones that definitely should. I don't know if anyone else from the exec board or maybe from one of the projects wants to comment on that. Juan maybe from a rules of participation perspective or somebody from the EOS portal project or? Yes I can comment briefly I think it's written strongly into the rules of participation that there's going to be a kind of subsidiarity approach where individual research infrastructures or infrastructures or projects will have a fair deal of autonomy about how they bring their resources into EOSC they'll be able to set their own terms and conditions of use and things like that however the overarching rules of participation will capture a number of principles or could say could say rules principles guidelines that those extra terms and conditions provided by the participating infrastructures will have to meet when they define their terms and conditions so it's a kind of hierarchical approach that runs throughout the rules of participation. Does anyone else want to comment on this or should we step on to the not so simple question from Sean? Maybe we'll take Sean and Ludex question next so Sean's asking when will average researchers those not in EOSC related projects see the benefit of EOSC and Ludex extending that to say what will those first benefits be and this might be one that it's worth a few of us from the exec board reflecting on. For me the benefit for researchers is that their works easier. They can access different resources, different data sets, different services much more easily because it's facilitated through this kind of federated infrastructure and they can discover resources more because there's an aggregation of different fair data sets coming from all different sources but when that will happen I think is you know until we actually have different services and data sets kind of federated into EOSC you're not going to have that that mass that you know major collection to see those benefits so I don't think it's not going to be at the end of 2020 I think it's going those real tangible benefits that are going to take a few years down the line but for me that's that's the most important one the actual benefit to research making researchers lives easier. Do others want to comment I don't know if anything came out of the MVE session that Carol ran or Juan I see you've just raised a hand. Yes so again I mean I'll just comment on the way shortest phrase the question about when will the researchers see benefits from EOSC. I mean like many infrastructures it can provide a lot of benefit without it being visible to the user and I do believe that a lot of the participation of the projects the EOSC projects will bring forward new features to their own existing infrastructures which will then benefit their researchers without those researchers actually being directly involved in EOSC themselves so I think a lot of the benefit will come through the existing services and research infrastructures if you're working in a particular field and there is research infrastructure serving your field you may well start gaining benefit from EOSC without really realizing that that's coming from EOSC like many infrastructures I think a lot of the benefits are invisible and the researchers the end researchers shouldn't really have to worry about how they are provided so there may be extra features broader datasets these kind of things available to researchers without them really realizing that that's coming from EOSC. Juan this is Carol I was going to say a very similar thing and sometimes we compare EOSC with Eduron researchers do not really care how Eduron works or how they get access to it they just use it of course Eduron is simpler than EOSC is going to be but in my view a researcher might notice the difference at the moment is her repository which they are usually using or provider they are using becomes part of the EOSC system so it's not the researcher as an individual that becomes part of the system but it's the repository and as Juan and Sara said as soon as that delivers extra possibilities within and through that repository then the researcher might notice but as Juan said I don't think the researcher necessarily needs to notice as long as the benefit is there so it's not about EOSC it's about the benefits. So does this answer the question Juan so I know in the chat you've probed a little bit more on the timeline when will researchers see these benefits oh sorry you need un-muting I'll look to do that. Here we go. Okay can you hear me okay? Yeah we can hear you. Okay yeah I take those points and I appreciate that once EOSC is incorporated then potentially you see some more benefits so it's the question still remains when will the average user see it even if EOSC is integrated and they don't know they're using it when will the when do you expect to see those first benefits and as Ludic said what will those benefits be which I'm guessing will be part of the discussions about what the MVE provides. Yes definitely I was about to say that Jean-François it's it's it's the whole goal of discussing what an MVE should be right is that the MVE is is when it is deployed you know scientists researchers should enjoy the use of it right that's as simple as that as general goal now what is it that we need to deliver that EOS needs to deliver for that to happen that's the whole question of the MVE I totally agree. Okay so we have a number of other questions in here so maybe we should move down now to Matthew's question where would you see commercial providers place in an ideal EOSC? I don't know if if Ru puts on the line but I mean in terms of the Tinman document which you may have seen there's a diagram of you know the core and then the federated datasets and then this notion of the EOSC exchange which is the kind of competitive or you know like the the market where you might have different service providers. I'm just trying to look if Ru puts online or I don't know if somebody else would like to speak to that I don't think Ru put is one one reflection from me well while others are maybe gathering their thoughts I mean I I personally think it's really important that that EOSC is open to competition you know for lots of different services they'll or different functions that a researcher might want to perform there'll be various different service providers and you know they should have a choice there shouldn't just be you know one service that's available within EOSC otherwise I think it won't work for the different the diversity of research practice. I see Juan's put up his hand. Yes I can't answer the question I'm afraid Matthew. I can reiterate that it is a question that's on our agenda in the rules of participation very actively being discussed at the moment. Would the rules for a commercial service being provided through EOSC be different than the rules for a public sector service being provided through EOSC? That's a really fundamental question and we haven't yet come to address it but you have an important question there I don't have an answer though I'm afraid. Well there's no answer so much with where they would come so far there's a discussion when they would come in at least the Commission suggests around 2024 that's what they put in their agenda and it's also what we have put into the let's say KPIs we are trying to work on so that doesn't answer the question where they come in but it gives you an idea on when they come in. Excellent thanks. Okay so maybe if we move down to Yin's question so what is the EOSC position in the overall EUICT development landscape are fair, e-infrastructure, open data, part of EOSC or overlaps from different development areas and how we're dealing with that overlap so I mean from my perspective some of these concepts are things like fair and open data they're kind of foundational principles for how we're working within EOSC so I mean initially we'll be focusing on open data use cases but we're talking about all types of data ultimately in terms of EOSC it won't just be open data sets although that's where we're starting we need all data to be fair so that they can be discovered and reused and those data may only be accessible to certain groups of people and then some of these other aspects the e-infrastructure are a core part of EOSC it's part of the delivery the services that are enabling EOSC so I think these are all overlapping effectively it's all part of that EOSC vision I don't know if others have perspectives to offer on this as well. Well maybe I can say the same thing as I said in my session and maybe it's good here to differentiate between again EOSC and the EOSC Association, AI, SBL or Legal Entity this association is going to do work for EOSC but it is not EOSC. EOSC for me is a virtual net of federated data and so you cannot hold EOSC you cannot sell EOSC and EOSC is not belonging to anybody but to everybody so for me it's not part of the ECT development it is part of this connection and of the software based of course running on the internet so as Sara said fair is a thing in itself and important the e-infrastructure are there to make it possible to work with data to compute data to store data to connect data to connect data sets open is a part of fair a certain subgroup you could say and and so yeah these are all overlapping areas that's true and there's many overlapping things in in in the whole spectrum of things but the position is for me very similar to the position of the worldwide web based on the internet as the backbone. Excellent okay so to move then on to Mark's question so some of the things you've heard today in various sessions peered in architecture sound like a natural match of W3C, RDF, semantic web, linked open data but these terms don't actually get mentioned is that intentional I think this is maybe one for Jean-François mainly I think you're right there you know we're talking in those terms but not specifically using them. Yes thanks and thanks Mark this is music to my ears and actually you will find well one I strongly agree with you right two this is connected to what Carl just said I mean this is building a ask on top of the internet the web and the web of data and the semantic web and so forth I mean we should when anybody contributes any any given point in history he or she has to look at what's available and we have you know from UNIX which was mentioned from by Rob earlier to the link data platform which you mentioned Mark all of those technologies that have been developed over the years are available to build EOSC. Now to be more specific and answer your question in the EOSC interoperability framework document that was published yesterday the the 1.0 version and the link data platform is mentioned not as a basis but at least as a possibility so I think it's it's my opinion is a good step in the right direction but but you're totally right I mean at least whatever we develop for EOSC should be able to answer the question you're asking. If I may add to your answer Jean-François as I think this makes this question also makes reference to my presentation earlier this afternoon I don't want to contradict anything here and I also see the linked open data paradigm as actually a good match and perfect use case for the system that we envision here yet I didn't mention that explicitly mainly for the reason that I want those at least the architectural considerations not to not to be confounded at least not too much confounded with the approach that you refer to here as the PID architecture can be a means to link data but it's not only about links and it's actually not only about data so I see this more more generic and more general here it's also not exclusively about open data it's of course also about open data but again there is more and along the same lines it may provide a means to actually add semantics in a well-defined and machine readable way but then again it is not only about semantics but the scope is actually broader that is why I refrain from using those terms but I admit I could highlight these as an important use case and driving example so thanks for that comment sorry I was struggling to find my own mute button then thanks very much for that addition okay so the the next question by Brenna Silva is there any foreseen mechanism to deal with conflicts of interest and to foster multiple developments among onboarding services so I'm not sure I understand the context of this I mean currently the onboarding of services is done through the EOSC portal and there's a process there to and you know fill out a kind of catalog entry for your service so I'm not too sure about the conflicts of interest and waste of foster multiple developments I mean I think that there should be one you know set of clear guidelines of how you federate into EOSC and you know in future that will pick up on the rules of participation so Brenna I don't know if you want to unmute or if anyone else has answers that hopefully would clarify this question I wonder if they are two separate questions one of the conflicts of interest and the other one about resilience through multiple developments and redundancy the conflicts of interest question is very difficult but it's not that difficult from what is already happening in other initiatives and programs so EOSC activities will be funded through many different funding lines each one of those funding lines will have its mechanism for dealing with conflicts of interest and hopefully that will actually cover any financial conflict of interest a little bit tied to the funding whether there are more general conflicts of interest out there that need to be covered at the sort of central level probably are I haven't seen any work on that yet possibly there has been in the sustainability group. Excellent so hopefully this answers Brenna if not I don't know if you want to raise your hand or if you're able to unmute if that if that hasn't answered. Okay so the the next question from anchor how is a researcher going to use the services within EOSC if he or she doesn't know about EOSC at this goes to a comment we were making earlier on about EOSC being invisible I mean from my perspective we don't we don't need people to come to one central catalog or place to discover EOSC services because that's the benefit of federation you know people can use our existing repositories and get the added benefit of EOSC without having to learn you know a new system to go and work with or to go to a new place so that's that's I think how the research is going to discover and benefit from the services because their existing services are actually integrated into it. Then if others have comments or observations to add here no okay so we move on to Sophie's question at the very beginning Catherine reminded us that that COVID's accelerating digitization and do we have a concrete example for EOSC so within the the work plan that should be coming out shortly we've been giving an example of the the embal platform and I don't think Rupert's on the line but I don't know if anyone else if Jessica maybe is and would like to speak about that or anyone from one of the the kind of life science examples that wants to talk about. Sarah maybe I can help you yeah yeah well as it refers to me I feel a little bit responsible of having said that yes so I mean we've very clearly seen with the European Commission Emberly VI COVID-19 research platform which refers to EOSC more than once in its description that the very basic EOSC model is is followed in that research platform and I think that's that is a very good sort of immediate use case and of course the hope is that we don't need a pandemic you know to find other areas of scientific disciplines that can follow this global collaboration but equally I mean there have been very many other activities where COVID really accelerated anything related to EOSC and open science I mean just look at the RDA global working group on COVID-19 with the guidelines that came out the European Commission published guidelines for researchers along COVID-19 we've got the code data RDA data together initiative so I think yes what we have clearly seen and what I always think is that open science really needs rewards and incentives and I would like these to be positive but I think COVID-19 has shown that even if we don't have positive rewards and incentives a pandemic a threat to humanity makes us all collaborate so now we need to turn that around and say okay we can do that in an emergency we should be doing this on a daily basis this is how we should be doing science in the future thanks thanks very much Katwin so the next question from Yuri de la Mar do any of us have an opinion on how EOSC could benefit from the cloud federation initiative in the Commission so it builds on the French German Gaia X project and has innovation at the core oh Carlos yeah I just see in chat you could say a few words on the platform if you'd like can you unmute yourself or shall we just unmute you not here we go I'll unmute or maybe I don't have permissions to unmute you can somebody who's maybe a host do you hear me now yeah can hear you now yeah okay then maybe I'll say a two words about this data sharing platform that embal is leading so this actually represents one of the ten key areas under the era versus Corona action plan that the Commission launched on April 7th this one priority consisted in setting up a research data sharing platform as a real implementation case for EOSC and the objective of course was to speed up and improve the sharing that we use the processing of research data and method data related to SARS-CoV-2 and and COVID so the Commission has called on active EOSC stakeholders in the life sciences such as Emily VI elixir and other partners and the idea is to create an open trusted and scalable environment as a blueprint on which EOSC can then build on so this was actually conceived as an important part of building the European Open Science Club and it's a thematic priority pilot to realize this vision excellent thanks very much Carlos so in terms of your these questions does anyone have a view on the cloud Federation initiative perhaps some of our current cloud providers or or we can mull it over and come back to it maybe if we move on to Fortis's question and the Federation of thematic infrastructures is key for EOSC but oh hang on that's just jumped it's a level of federal if the level of Federation is high then its added value will be higher and the cluster projects have a major role in this but they don't need to stay at just verifying their data they could also federate their services and tools and workflows I completely agree I think it's really important that you know we we address EOSC in a very kind of comprehensive way it's not just the data it's all of the services and tools and it might you know for different communities it might be different you know different aspects of those cluster projects and different tools that are the priority to federate initially or certain data sets which have high reuse value or a lot of cross-discipline use that are important to federate initially do others from the exec board have views I'd like to give on this I'm happy to comment on this too and I also agree with Fortis's point which is not really a question it is a point but I agree with I do think there's a balance to be struck as well though the more broadly we're just in standardization generally the more broad you want to make a standard the more difficult it is to get agreement on that standard so we have to balance the the breadth of standardization against the speed with which we can do it so hierarchical approach where research infrastructures federate into clusters and those clusters federate into the EOSC is a way to kind of try and address that balancing so yes Fortis I agree with you as well okay excellent if we move down then to Ignacio's question I think that services are highly forgotten when talking about EOSC I believe EOSC goes beyond data sharing and processing services a key to avoid users downloading tons of data without any means for processing them we do in the strategic implementation plan we talk about EOSC being a platform a place where researchers can bring together you know the data with all of the different tools to to do that analysis I don't know if that's maybe something that isn't always understood that it's it's an environment for doing work as well yes again I agree I think there is a slight risk that you will get researchers downloading data without more data than they really have the ability to use for me this is an acceptable risk as long as it doesn't impact on the bandwidth enough to limit other people's use of EOSC but it is something that we could monitor through the monitoring and accounting system in the core and just note if there are any particularly high users you could perhaps inquire as to why they are making huge downloads I think something else is meant here if I understand correctly I don't know if Ignacio can take the floor him or herself but I think it's meant here that without computing power there's nothing you can do with the data yes of course if the data sets are large and if you need to compute on them you need computing power but that is not EOSC that is computing power that exists and that you can use either you have it yourself or you get it from somewhere else through the internet or remote or whatever but EOSC is not computing power so a service service offering computing power can of course be given by a service provider so I unless I misunderstand what EOSC is or this question but I don't see it yeah there's a bit more in the chat here is also Matt Mattage has said he's surprised about the this concept of highly forgotten he thought everything in EOSC is you know a service so platform service everything as a service and that it would be brokering computing services yeah so he doesn't understand either Jean-François as one of the co-authors of the SIP do you want to come in on this as well well it's a little bit like we've had this conversation many times the problem is what is so I'm referring to the web right so some people say the web is HTT URL HTTP HTML well those are the components that were miss when it started of course it's much more now but when he started but again this were the components that were necessary to get the web started but immediately you had a web server and and a minimum browser right so and you were offering services on top of it so it's almost a matter of vocabulary definition there is one thing which is what is it that what are the components the mechanism as we mentioned them this morning that needs to be developed in order for us to take off and then thousands of flowers we blossom there will be so many services developed any webs web server today there are millions and hundreds of millions of them today they're all services they have been developed on top of a set of elements the documents that have started to exist and then were deployed so I don't think this debate is as depth right it's it's a misunderstanding on the vocabulary right that is eos could not exist if data are not fair are not available openly and and they are not the mechanisms to name them identify them discover them and so on and so forth as we said this morning but then it will have a value for scientists for example as was asking in earlier questions you know if scientists use eos without knowing it it will be because there are so many services that scientists will know that they will use on top of eos right so I think it's it's clear that eos will be a success when thousands of flowers with a blossom meaning thousands of services would have developed on top of them excellent thanks very much on France cloud so the next question down from yin again will eos actively adopt AI approach and the mood to AI based eos this may be one for the architecture group no again eos will not adopt I approach eos will allow AI based applications to be developed on top of the web of fair data so it my question what does adopt means right it will enable again thousands of AI approaches on top of it right and the sky will be the limit I mean that the the limit of the imagination of the scientists or the you know will be the the limit of the use of eos right I very much agree with John Francois so AI could benefit from having eos having more easy and in a more standardized way and and more data available but so eos does not have to adapt AI exists in itself and can make use of eos like euro HPC can or high performance computing or computing in general sure they can use more and more easily data but it's not a matter of adopting by eos and then if we jump down there's one from from Joan and what's the role of citizen science citizens in general and citizen science in particular in eos can citizens contribute data and more yeah maybe maybe this this is same as the public sector and the private sector in a later stage let's say starting 2024 around that time hopefully more and more let's say possible uses of eos can and will be there the private sector the public sector and the citizens which I would see in the same category for the time being as the public sector so yeah the role of citizen and citizen science then can grow that's the way I see it yeah agree other reflections on this or we good to move on we're slowly getting through all of your questions I think we way we've just got a few left now so so one from Kurt about the n-rends how to bring the n-rends initiative together in in eos sharing research data and integrating data repositories I'm not familiar with those initiatives so forgive me I couldn't say what about the ontologies standards API so their plans for a for a minimal metadata set I think that's that's actually a really important point you know we've talked already about many different catalogs being within eos we do need to you know kind of allow cross search or integrate so we do need to define a minimal set of metadata there and I think there are like there are things we'd we'd recommended in the turning fair into reality report that can be looked at I think I encourage her to engage into the discussion about the eos interoperability framework especially at the semantic layer yeah remember this morning we explained there is the technical layer semantic layer organization organizational layer and legal there the the question relates to the semantic layer which is recognized in the eos interoperability framework and in the in the next version of the document there will be more depth in in addressing the semantic layer and what is it that should be provided by eos meaning federating existing initiatives in this in this domain and so the answer is yes of course there is a need to understand what the federation that eos is will do with regard to the semantic layer definitely yeah and I noticed one thing in chat and people haven't always known who's speaking so so just to clarify for people and most of us answering questions are from the exec board so I'm Sarah Jones from the digital curation center who chairs the fair working group Jean-François from the architecture group and Carol who's the chair of the exec board overall and also Juan have been answering questions and catch when he's the vice chair of the board and so we just have a couple more and then I think Sara Garavelli has some closing remarks as well so so maybe if we take Sean's question about in order for communities to integrate their services into eos community service managers will need an understanding of the benefits and the rules of participation and training do you think the eos projects are currently providing the correct level of support and my personal take on this I think it's incredibly difficult for the projects at the moment because everything's a little bit of a moving target so we you know we have this executive board and governance stretcher set up running in parallel so as those rules of participation are being agreed you know they will then once they've been validated need to be implemented by the project so at the moment the two things are kind of going on in parallel but I think you know this is in all the project plans and the forthcoming in for eos projects will continue that service onboarding as with everything I'm sure there's always scope for improvement and I think that's one of the real benefits of having consultations like this because we need to understand what's not working and improve on that. Other members of the board are involved in the projects as well I don't know if you've got comments here around how we help people integrate into eos. Yeah I'm not sure whether Sean's question is asking whether the projects are providing enough communication within the projects or whether they're communicating with their user communities outside the projects. In either case I think what you said Sarah is neither I answer this is a very difficult area we have to consult as widely as we can cope with but the ambitions of eos are to address such a wide community that it's almost impossible to communicate widely enough so again it's a question of balancing resourcing and ambition. If there are Sean if you do have specific suggestions for ways to improve communication please get in such through one means or another because it is something that needs to be carefully addressed. I don't know if Catherine is still there maybe she has something to say about communication. Oh yeah sorry go ahead Catherine. Sorry no I mean from the communication I mean one of the things that I think Sarah you also noticed that the eos liaison platform from the secretariat is a little underused and I think this is this is a very good way of communicating with stakeholders directly which is one of the focus we give at the moment to any of the eos communications very much the how not necessarily the why but the how of the eos and communications around that I think I would always point everybody to the eos secretariat website then the eos liaison platform otherwise the on the why of eos the communications working group is quite engaged at this point in time as we are very clear that we need to also you know increase our wider communications on why we are having the eos in addition to to the how and the what so yeah watch the space thanks. So my one comment is I think the eos liaison platform is great however I don't think that the stakeholders necessarily know that they are stakeholders and that I think is part of the problem it's not clear who eos is aimed at. I think that's a very very good point and obviously the communications team of the eos secretariat is listening to that and I think we will we will be looking into that so thanks for making that point. Yeah and we discussed this a little bit in one of the fair sessions earlier on today about ways to reach out to the community as well so I think there's things we can improve there. So Per I saw in the comments can speak to the GAIA-X question and I think you've been unmuted now Per. Okay hello hello everybody now so I am not an expert on GAIA-X probably you know more about it than me but with my I have my I can I can pretend that I have my eos hub shut on now since you can't see me but I have. So I think it is a very relevant question here though GAIA-X is a like an eos for industry we could say and comes from its I mean keywords like data sovereignty independent Europe and so on being independent of the big American aggregators and so on and but and it's mainly say industry and and government governments behind this but I think it's very important to make the connection here and making sure that use of standards architecture and so doesn't diverge because through the GAIA X initiative that could be a very good or enabling the industry to make use of the open data if we make sure that it's open in the sense that that also they fits the GAIA-X architecture and they can make efficient use of it and then if we may can prove that we can get a much more positive attitude from industry and much more a lot of positive things could follow out of that I think so it is a very important thing here that Yuri brings up that should be looked into really because the the architecture now is of GAIA-X is taking form I mean when talking about the service mesh a federated service mesh a federated data mesh a real-time service mesh and things like this and it should be studied really. Excellent thank you very much Per. So just to kind of draw this to a close some of the comments in here some of the final kind of questions are more kind of recommendations like about the citizen science initiative or agreeing on the communication to stakeholders to help them realize their importance in EOS. There are two that I think I'd like to pass on to the secretariat project so one from Fotis around the engagement from end-users so researchers I know the EOS secretariat project specifically has a work package where they're looking at the engagement and researchers are one of those and also Tiziana's question about the interest groups announced earlier in 2020 whether they'll be kicking off in the coming months I think it's the secretariat project who are coordinating those so I don't know if somebody can speak to these two questions and then we should hand over for a wrap-up to Sara Garavelli. If you hear me Andrea from the EOS secretariat hello hello everybody so I start from the the question of Tiziana yes interest groups are actually being kicked off we are reaching at this moment some grounds of where to start from so you will you will receive in the next 10 days an announcement about interest groups especially the first one being the one on the glossary that will present its first activities and indeed the the first grounds of common action from all the EOS related projects and the first one the other question sorry I don't see it anymore if someone can repeat it for me. So the other question was about the engagement of researchers so I think TUV and have been working on that stakeholder group specifically. Yes indeed TUV was the pioneer that has been dealing so far and will continue dealing with the researchers in the stakeholder engagement work package and several workshops have been and have been already done in quarter one of this of this year and others are going to come of course the format as it happened already in the EOS Cup week is one good example is going to be changed and but this is indeed an activity this is continuously being developed. Excellent thank you very much Andrea okay so well we've come through to the end of the questions as well so thank you from me for all of you staying on so late in the day and continuing to ask the questions and from the rest of the exec board for getting involved in the consultation event and giving us feedback a reminder that there are various documents out there to feedback on and also that you know we we're relying on on you to shape those directions for EOS so do give us feedback on what we're releasing but also how you want us to engage with you and I'll just hand over now to Sara Garavelli I think you've got some closing remarks maybe instructions for people yes thank you very much Sara so first of all I would like to thank all the participants for staying online for the full day but in particular I would like to thank all the members of the EOS Executive Board and the working group co-chairs and also the colleagues from the EOS Secretariat project for the support provided today so thank you very much I think it was a very an excellent event and all the presentations of today are already online on the EOSCUB website and the recordings will be published as they are available on the website I remind you all that tomorrow there is the first day of the EOSCUB project now you can see on the screen the agenda so we start tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. like today so please connect at least 10 minutes before the start of the event we start with an opening plenary chaired by Titiana Federari from the EGI Foundation and the EOSCUB coordinator and then we have a series of breakout sessions and so avoid the issues that we had this morning with the zone breakout rooms also tomorrow we will be using different zoom links so I will send you an email right after the end of this meeting with all the details so you will have all the information on how to join the sessions tomorrow and with that thank you very much I wish you all a nice evening. Thanks Sarah thanks for everything you put into a range at all.