So this meeting is now being recorded. Everyone should know that it will be posted to the town of Amherst YouTube channel for viewing by the public. Thanks everyone for being here. Welcome. This is the Jones Library Design Subcommittee. It's Friday, May 13 at 9am. And for call to order I'll just announce who's here. We have Sharon Shari. We have Austin. And we are missing George today. It's my understanding. Okay. And we have Craig to Carlo, our OPM. And of course, are completely always needed Angela so it started just quick administrative thing. We have minutes from the 29th that you would have all received. So sorry, Christine, can we just do a sound check to make sure that you can hear everyone. Sure. Yeah. And talk a little bit about open meeting loss suspension. Oh, I don't have that on. Oh, shoot. I don't have that weird thing that you get. Hold on. So I didn't know we had to do that for subcommittee too. So if you three. I can just say that you yes that you're here and that you hear us and I'm Sharon Sherry and I am here. And I'm Austin Sarah and I'm present. And this is Craig to Carlo with sound check. All right, I don't have a printed version. So, Angela, if you could just help me what a new paraphrase. So this meeting is taking place virtually and we welcome the public to speak public comment later in the meeting. This suspension of meeting face to face was enacted by Governor Baker as a result of the pandemic. And we once again thank everyone for joining us. Exactly what you said is what I need is a printout or an email that would be great. And then I can memorize it and babble it off every time. So great welcome. Welcome everyone. And we'll go to item two minutes. We have from the Friday the 29th, which was the last time we met. I have a motion to approve the minutes. I move that you approve that we prove the minutes. Great. And do I have a second second. Great. Okay. Are there any comments or changes that are adjustments that we saw. And since it's just the two of you, Austin and Sharon just speak out like, so, okay, looks like everybody's good with them. So, to approve our roll call. I'll just say Sharon. Yes, Austin. Yes, and myself three. And that's all we have for today. Great. Thank you. And thank you, Angela. So we will go to item three, which is welcome Craig. And we have three items listed. You can do them in any order however you want Craig. Fantastic. Thank you. May I share my screen. Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. While you're doing that, I just want to announce to everyone, I think we all know, but so the public knows item four with the fine gold Alexander architects, they will not be on the agenda today because they just didn't have enough to come and actually show us and they will be at the next meeting. In two weeks. And they'll have something to present to us. So that will shorten the meeting. Very good. All right. So here's the latest schedule, which is the meeting meeting. Library building committee. Just a real quick recap for folks at home who were not at that, or did not observe that meeting. This is the expanded or modified schedule. I've added some information specifically timeline for the temporary location. Something that we discussed at this meeting at this, which is a little bit more detailed. And then I also added some dates. Approximate dates for the completion, anticipated completion for each one of these items. And that's over here on the left-hand side of the screen. I also made a correction to when we can realistically anticipate move in and occupancy. Previously it was in January. But it was in May. But that wasn't giving the contract a full use of the site for 18 months. So I, we slid that over. So that looks like a delay, but it was actually just a mistake. And I think that was it that I changed about this. So here we are in May. And we are in schematic design. The official start of. The schematic design was on this May 9th date. So they've only met as the reason why they're not ready to present anything today is because they've been only been going at things for a week. They do the report that they'll be ready. As you were mentioning, Christine, at the May 27th meeting to show us some updated plans. Also, we. At the prior version of this meeting, we talked about. We talked about. Gender. Gender inclusivity, specifically as it relates to the bathrooms. And that's something also that they're looking into. And we'll report on at the next meeting. I think that's it for my timeline update unless there are any questions. Great. Next public outreach. So I'll pull up this guy here. I'm going to go to the committee. Alex LeFarve has done a fantastic job at. Converting all the comments that have been received into a format that is usable and trackable. It's currently being hosted on a web platform. So we don't have any issues of versioning, which I think is a great idea. What this is here is a snapshot. I think on. So on May 11th is when I sort of pulled a copy down from, from the live version and quickly went through and identified. In yellow things. Comments that I think the design team would like to have some direction on at this point in the project. Some decision as we've discussed in the past, some decisions are things that won't need to be done until. You know, months from now, others are things that should be talked about right away and everything in between. So quickly going through, I identified. So it might, you know, just. Based on what I was reading and my. Interpretation of the comments, what I thought this committee could talk about now and then feed into the design team. So I'll. So put that off to the side for now, but that's where things stand on that. And then with construction costs, there's no changes. Since our last meeting, things stand at the most recent construction cost estimate. Was at 30.3 million. I'm sorry, 30.8 million, including the CLT, the heavy timber structure, cross laminated timber. So that puts us at $3.9 million over our budget for the, for the project. And currently that budget stands at 36.3 million. So no changes there. Great. So if we can circle back to the. Public. Comments. First shout out to Alex. I'm so excited to be doing that spreadsheet. It's great. And I looked through Craig under the review date column. That you are sort of saying things like to identify today that we should look at. To start. Feeding member, whatever, to the designer. So. You know, we do have frequency and some are like 10 and some are like one. But that doesn't, you know, that's one factor to look at them. But the other one is. You know, do we want to tell the designer. To even consider the comment. So how should we, if you have any insight, how should we do this? Sure.  I think we can go through them pretty quickly. So if you want, either in this forum or, or offline, if you were to take a look at them, we could pretty quickly put them into different categories of this is something that we like and we are already anticipating incorporating into the design. So that's one thing we like and we're going to recommend, but we're not sure if it can go into the design. So we're going to recommend finding Alexander to take a look at it. And other things that may be a great idea, but aren't necessarily achievable based on what we know now. Can I just ask Craig so. Okay, so I have, I have not looked at your, the yellow, like what, what the design team needs to know now. I absolutely, I trust the process. I trust how you're directing us. My question is, and this is within me, not even reading. So I don't, I don't even know what we're talking about yet. My question is what if we agree to, you know, the first, the first 10 items that, that, that are frequently mentioned, everybody loves, but then by the end dish of this process, we're obviously not going to finish this today. And then we come to things that have even a higher frequency mentioned and we like it even more than is that, is that a problem? So if I understand the question. So you're talking about if there's something that we like the idea. It's mentioned once or twice. So in the future or later, we look at another idea that's got more popularity, let's say, what is contradictory to the first idea. Contradictory or way more expensive. Okay. Like, are the decisions that we're looking at today and then following weeks, is that affecting the budget or is it just affecting space? So in, in general, the ones that I flagged for discussion now are things that would affect the layout. Perhaps things that would affect the building massing. I think those are the two, two big categories I looked at. So kind of putting my mind or putting myself into find go Alexander shoes, you know what they're going through now. These are the types of comments that will maybe help shape the design. So there's, there wasn't a whole lot that was very, there wasn't a whole lot of, there weren't very many comments that were very explicit or very concrete. Like we want such and such a room to be painted blue. It was more like more general ideas. And so those types of things. So if we say, all right, well, we've got these hundred things, we go through them quickly. These are the 25 we want find go Alexander absolutely to, you know, corporate into the design to the extent possible. Here's another 25 that we would like them to look at and see if it's possible. And there might be some contradictions between those two. And then here's another set where just right off the bat, we, you know, you know, some, not that this was a comment, but if someone wanted to put like a water slide indoors, we could say like, you know, that would be really fun. That made us from the dream board, but we know it's not realistic to, to include that in the design. Okay. Thank you. So, um, I agreed with the ones that you highlighted, Craig, there were a couple, and sometimes it's hard to understand like what the comment, you know, because someone puts a comment, but we're trying to get in their head, what that meant, like there's, if you could, there was 172, I think it was comment line 172. Share the screen again. Yeah, if you want to, it was, I'll just read it. It said historic priorities. Um, dash stone exterior, which I assume they're saying they want more stone exterior, but it's hard to tell. But six people actually said, like, yeah, they back that, however they read the comment, they liked it. Um, so that one wasn't highlighted. You know, so I just wanted to ask you again, like, were you able to confirm on what you were highlighting or should we also be like, I don't know, do a second pass or. We can certainly do another pass. I did go through them pretty quickly, but with that particular one, um, the exact, um, material that goes on the exterior of the building is not a decision that final Alexander is working on right now. So they're doing mostly layout and, you know, they're doing a lot of work on the exterior of the building. So I think we're able to get the hands to get everything to fit in and get those adjacencies and relationships. Worked out well. Um, So those are the comments that I was kind of calling and highlighting in yellow. Thank you for saying, excellent. Okay. So we, I also have to remind everyone that this is sort of like a rolling thing. Like we're taking a snapshot right here. In fact. Um, I don't know what you're talking about. Um, But actually when I, you have review date. But we actually have to look at, all right, this date received when it was received, right? So some of these are the first, the 11th. Um, So do we have to, as a design. Team today. Well, obviously we can't get through them all today. When do you think we need to get our first. I think it, I think they, the information can go and sort of a rolling basis. Um, as decisions are made or, uh, the committee decides these are things that you want. Find gold Alexander to either incorporate or look into. I think, you know, The sooner we get that information to find gold Alexander, the better. Um, but I don't think there's a hard and fast date. And I think to sort of address the comment of, um, You know, we won't necessarily be able to get through all these today. Um, I guess maybe we could do like a sample. Say like, all right, let's take a look at just 10 or 20 and then see how long it takes to get through. Cause you're right. And some of them may be. Longer, more involved conversations. And maybe those ones get table. Um, I liked Sharon's idea. If we could sort the table. By ones you've highlighted and then maybe by frequency. Um, and just see where we sit at that point. And then pick. I also, I see Austin. Your hand, Austin. So I just want to thank you, Christina. Thanks. Thanks. Craig and Alex obviously for this. Um, I don't want to get his hang up on conversations about process. But I think we need to talk a little bit about the process. And here I, uh, Sharon or Craig can be helpful. So we, we are a subcommittee of the building committee. So if we want to burn it gallery, move to the front of the building, let's say, is that for us to tell the architects, or is that for us to tell the Jones library building committee and for the building committee to tell the architects. Now I understand that there's a, we need to do this now. But I think we need to make sure that we have a lot of comparative in the next building. The next building committee is in for 10 days from now. But as I've understood our charge, it was to make recommendations to the building committee. But. But maybe that's maybe that's not accurate. That's number one. Number two. I find these comments all helpful. But the help that they give me is they. Help me think about what the Jones library building committee. Should want to do with the design of the library. And when I looked at the spreadsheet, I looked at them. Not so much with frequency because the numbers are going to be small and the numbers are always going to be unrepresentative. We don't know who those 10 people were. So I looked at them from the point of view of G, I hadn't thought of that or G, I thought of that. And this really makes me really want to drill down. So I just want to make sure that we know what we're doing in terms of communicating whatever we think to whom we are communicating it. Austin, I think you first off, I want to say on your second comment, I think you pointed out something that is very important that you're right. I think the comments are really interesting thought provoking at a minimum and need to at least be looked at. And my thinking is that the building committee as a whole needs to read through all these comments, just like we are, because you're right, it gives you insight on. You know, not just what the comment is, but sometimes the opposite of what the comment is saying, like it just gets you thinking. So. And that process, I agree with you. Craig, first off, should we be giving all of these comments? Like, I don't want to overwhelm the designer and then just highlight ones that we want them to act on, which then triggers process because Austin said, like, do we decide like where the entrance is or whatever? Like I don't see us as deciding anything, but more trying to narrow this down to be more feasible for the designer to be able to give options for items that like the entrance, we can use that as an example. So Craig, do you have insight on how process. And what does the FAA actually get from us? Certainly. Okay, so find gold Alexander will benefit most from clear direction from, let's just say, the community of Amherst, whether it's, you know, this, this subcommittee or the library building committee. So to the extent that that message or that package of comments says these are the ones we as community want you to look into. Those two buckets, these are the ones we definitely want to incorporate. These are the ones we want you to look into the feasibility of incorporating. The clearer that direction can be to find gold Alexander, the better because what puts them in a real quandary is if we pass them two comments that are say mutually exclusive or contradictory, then they, you know, it's not their place to say which one is right, which one should be followed, which one is better for the community. They might have an opinion on it. They may say, well, you've given us these two. And that is actually now that I'm saying that that is something that if there are two sort of options and it's like, all right, we want up, we want down. We could, you know, the community could say to find Alexander. Hey, we're considering these two things. We, they seem to be equal. Which one do you think from, you know, in your based on your expertise, which one's going to give us a better product, which one's going to get us a better building. Okay. So how about Sharon Austin, tell me what you think. What if we did sort these and just start with 10 and just see how our discussion goes, you know, how much in the weeds, or is it, you know, and just feel them out as examples on how to handle them as an experiment. And I do, we keep coming back to this. I mean, maybe there's four options. There's one, like it's already being done. Two, we definitely want this included in there. The design two is maybe in the design. I mean, three, that's number three, maybe in the design, and they can give us feedback on it. And then option four is. Well, we don't, which then we, I, there's, let me throw it out to you. But I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. If we all ask three, going back to sort of Austin, like if we determine like, no, we won't send this comment to the designer. Well, what happens to it? We just don't send it to them. Like how should we handle this? Can I, can I say, so what, as I'm briefly reading over the screen, a lot of these things. I'm agreeing with Craig. Yeah, absolutely. That's included. So, but that being said, so, so what I'm asking you guys now is the value of doing this live. Well, everybody's on the zoom screen. Or can we give ourselves this homework assignment? Okay. Everybody take this spreadsheet home, sit down with it and, and decide whether it's a yes, definitely it's a maybe or it's a no way. And then meet again before two weeks. Yeah, that makes sense. That way we're not, I don't want to waste anybody's time. I, I like, I was thinking the same thing, like maybe we should all individually go through them thinking of however, I mean, I just threw out those four options, but maybe we need to just refine that is the process. And then I'd be up for coming back and. Because sometimes I might think, well, maybe in the design and then Sharon, something comes out of your mouth about, and it's like, well, of course it's a definitely in design, you know, I'm just saying we would still have that conversation. So the three of us, four of us, George, we would all come back and we would still discuss, but maybe it would be faster because we would have all looked at the whole burst. And are you talking about the entire spreadsheet? Or just the highlighted ones. Definitely the highlighted. I mean personally, I would do the whole thing. Austin, what do you think Austin. Thank you. This is what I think. I think that we should all look at the whole spreadsheet. We should concentrate on the things that Craig is highlighted because he's given us some help. That's number a number B. Craig, did you highlight the location of the Burnett gallery? Yes, I believe I can. I think that's the first one. Right. All right. So it looks like we've got. Maybe 12 comments. Right. Right. One of them had to do with the location. Did it not. High visibility, easy to find prominent location. Oh, did you spot it already? Yeah. The list. Yep. Okay. That at 10 comments, right? So that's a lot of the people. Who came to the event. Made this comment. Okay. So. Let's think for a minute if we can Christine in a kind of thought experiment. Sharon remind us where the Burnett gallery is located now. Right now on the garden level. Right. What would be the implications of moving the Burnett gallery. From where it presently is imagined to be Sharon is smiling. That's because that's, that's like the million dollar question. FAA would, would roll over and use some swear words at me, I think. Just because it's not simple, like the whole, the whole issue that FAA is having right now is taking all of these pieces that are all these different shapes and sizes and sizes. And then trying to fit them into these very specific holes that are in these locations that cannot be moved because of the 1928, you know, those walls that are there and, and we want to leave as many of those walls there as possible. So it's such a complicated thing. So I feel like we could say to FAA. Yeah, I agree with that. That would be fabulous. And then let FAA say to us. I'm sorry, it's just not happening on the first floor. Or yes, it can happen on the first floor. So I think it's important for us to. Kind of. I want to press back on what you just said, Craig, take down your screen share for a minute, would you. Do you really think it would be fabulous to have the gallery as the first thing that people saw. Or you think that it would really be fabulous if when people came to the library, they had a kind of unimpeded. You know, the Cirque desk. So I just think it's important for us to. Like, try to be real. I mean, it's a wonderful idea to highlight the Bernadette gallery. But we're, we're, we've got to think of the whole thing and how it's going to work. And you want people coming into the library and kind of. Causing through the Bernadette gallery. I mean. So I, I thought, gee, that's a really interesting idea. It would not have been on the top of my list. For redesigning this. The interior spaces to accommodate. Putting the Bernadette gallery in a more. We'd have to talk about what more visible needs. But I look at that when I thought, gee, that's a great idea. I love the Bernadette gallery. It's a treasure for the library, but that's not one that I would put at the top of my list of priorities. Can I just comment on, on the comment we're reading. You know, if you unpack it, it says first, it was high visibility, which is subjective, right? Does that just mean good way faring or signage or really welcoming door? I think it's really easy to find. Same thing is it, you know, I think people are coming from the existing Jones that it can be really hard to find certain rooms right now, like impossible. And then the third was prominent location. I think the library still needs to function as a library is its first purpose and galleries are wonderful. But you know, you can never forget, it's a library. And I think it's a lot of different ways to think about it. I think when we unpack this, it had three parts. And I think it had a lot of different ways to think about it. So it did get a lot of checks, but was it all 10 people saying they want it prominent? Like when you walk in the front door, I don't know, we might be reading into that too much. So is it, so there's a comment. What do we do with it? I think is the process. We have a lot of evaluation. Like you said, what do we do with it? Do we forward it? To the designers? We're just saying. You know, it isn't just prominent. We want the gallery to be easily found or welcoming or. So Christine, my view is what we do. The design committee has to have conversations. With the design committee. The design committee then should make recommendations to the building committee. And the building committee will endorse those recommendations and send them on to find old Alexander or not. And they, what you just said, I found it incredibly helpful. You know, we recommend to the building committee that the architects be asked to make sure that there is fill in the blacks, that there is adequate signage, adequate lighting, adequate, whatever. Not that the Burnett gallery be moved from the. Where it is currently, and let's make, let's, let's do the job. Let's make a list of, here's what we recommend. And that's going to come from. Our understanding of the design of what we've got. And are benefiting from. The comments that we've, we've gotten, we're going to get more comments. Public outreach is not over. So I, I, I take Sharon's point. Let's do some homework. Let's look at the thing. Let's come back prepared to discuss. And say, and each one of us could say this is what I'd like to recommend that the Jones library building committee. Convey to the architects. I think that's a really good way of. What you're bringing up, how we should look at these comments, not just look at the comment. And you, on behalf of the design committee can present the recommendations from the design committee. To the Jones library building committee. And again, with the appropriate notion that this is an iterative process. We're going to get more comments. The design is going to. Develop. So how about, how about we, how about we do that. I think that's a really good way of. Yeah. I think we should just look at the comment as the comment. Because it isn't always clear what the intention was. The full suggestion or what people had in their mind when they wrote that or checked it. And maybe some of these can be grouped together. You know, so I guess what Austin saying, like, we kind of just did that one that we just evaluated. Right. We were going to morph our comment a little bit. In response to the comment to send to the designer. So we're going to do that. We're going to do that. We're going to get grouped together. So that's what we should keep in mind as we're going through, maybe make some notes. So our homework will be to go through all the highlighted ones with that in mind with sort of thinking about, is it already in? It definitely needs to be evaluated maybe. Or like just not a, it just doesn't work. Or it's not whatever we can figure that out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. When, how long do you think, and Sharon, can you explain this to either have him watch this or explain to him great. So how quickly do you think we could meet again? It would be great if we could meet next week. Yeah. And to me, it's a meeting, but it's sort of a working meeting. If that makes sense. We're just sort of like, if we were actually at work in a room, it would be great if we could meet next week. I don't know if Austin can hear us, but. Yeah. So would, are we thinking like next. Friday or a different day. Wednesday or Thursday, if possible. Wednesday or Thursday. I would give Angela time to post it. Yeah, that's true. She'll just spray. Wednesday. I'm really open. Thursday is a little harder for me, but Austin. What about you, Craig? Yeah. I don't necessarily need to be there. I don't think this discussion, but when I'll join if I can, but Wednesday, I'm book solid. Thursday, Thursday, I have some openings and then Friday. I have a lot of opening, but don't schedule around me. I'll join if I can. So if Austin's still listening Thursday morning is. Yeah. Yeah. I think I can work that somehow was Thursday morning. Good for you, Sharon. We took. And what did you say Friday, Craig? You had. So are you Friday, not good for you, Sharon? Thursday, I'm wide open. And Friday. Morning. I would only be available after 11. Okay. And that's both fine with me. Sorry about that. What, what day are you talking about now? So we do have Wednesday. We have Thursday morning or Friday after 11. Talk about the 19th. Yes. At what time? Nine. That works for me. And that works for you, Sharon. And Craig, are you available at all? No, Thursday at nine, I'm not. And it's probably fine. I think we can grind through us, like 80% of them. And then we'll just flag ones that were like, yeah. But I make a, I make a contrary suggestion. I think it's important for Craig to be with us when we do this. Because he may say, you know, gee, that's really great. But. If you recommend that it's going to. The building's going to have to be built upside down. So I'd like to find a time if we can. When Craig could be part of that comments. Conversation. Okay. Thank you, Austin.  He totally is. So nine to 10 on Thursday, 19th, nine to 10 is my morning obligation. I've got a meeting. And then I've got another meeting. In the afternoon, but I don't think we're talking about afternoon. So I'm free. Starting at 10 ish. Until 1pm. Can we do 10 on Thursday? Or do you want 1030? I mean, I know you're rolling out of one meeting. 1030 would be ideal. So we've got next Thursday, the 19 at 1030, we will meet.  And sort of rank them and put some comments and we'll see where. We can go with it. Could Craig, for those of us that are. Technology challenge could Craig. Email us as an attachment, the highlighted spreadsheet. Absolutely. Thank you. All right. So we're good with that for Thursday. And Austin, you do have your hand up, but does anyone have any other comments for the OPM or for how to handle these comments? I don't see anything. So. Again, I'll move on to item four. Find Alexander architects. They are not here today because they just started schematic design and they asked for another couple of weeks. To come back with something more significant for us. So great. Okay. So item five benchmarking library visits. Saw your doodle poll, Craig. Thank you. Yes. So unfortunately there's no home run. There's no. That works for everybody. I really have my fingers crossed, but to sort of clue in the, the public. So the idea is we have these three libraries that have been recommended to the community to tour. The public library and Wubram public library. I believe that all, I have not contacted libraries yet. That's something I will do. Once we have a day sort of blocked out, but the idea is I think all three of them can be visited in one long day. Let's see what else did I want to bring up about that. So we've got responses from Alex. I'm going to bring up George. Christine Sharon, Austin and Jenny Hamilton. And like I said, there's no. One day where everyone can do all the tours. I broke up the doodle poll into like a morning session, which is Holyoke and then, or that's early morning and then late morning through evening would be to get to. Medford and Wubram and then get back. So there are some, some options. I'm going to go back to the public library. So it looks like the two days and I, and I did, I looked at May 18th, which would be next Wednesday. Same as we were talking about earlier, give Angela time to post it as a public meeting. Just make sure our bases are covered. May 18th all the way through June 11th, basically every day that those three libraries are open, which is. Monday through Saturday, with the exception of Memorial Day. Most promising are June 8th and June 10th. Unfortunately, George is not available either side. So Austin and George have kind of opposing availability. Austin was available more in June. George is available more in May. But we can get everybody except George on the eighth. So I'm going to ask about the 10th with a caveat that Christine, your schedule indicated you were not available in the morning. On those days, and I wanted to ask about the 10th. Well, you're not available because that is the day that, that we have this meeting scheduled or was there something. I'm actually on vacation. Those two weeks of June, but it's near Boston. So that's why I was like, Oh, I can do the. The afternoon session too, but I won't be out here. I also knew that the Holy oak one is close enough. I'm like, well, I could go do that on my own worst case. Or I didn't know if I know you're trying to do it all in one day. I didn't know if it was an option. If you would then split it and do. One day that is to try to capture more people. You know what I'm going to say. Yes. That's actually there's potential there for sure.  Who shouldn't. I believe everyone who has submitted information to the poll can see. Everyone else's availability. So. Yes. I would ask that somebody other than me go through and look and say, okay, this is what we want to do. Okay. So I would like to add the idea is Christina, you came up with about maybe doing the Holy oak one one day. Maximize the number of people who do that.  That should be no problem to set up. But so yes, I would look, I would look to someone on the Amherst side to tell me which days they want. And I'll make the calls and schedule. Yeah. Craig again, I'm sorry to be the technology one. Can you resend the link so that those of us. Have it right in front of us can. Can look. Yep. And I have it here. If you want me to pull it up on the screen, if you want to take a quick peek now, but otherwise I'll forward it to everyone. You guys want to look at it now. Okay. So our building committee meeting is looking at it right now on the Doodle from your previous email. How do Sharon and. Austin right off the bat. How do you feel about splitting the days? Is that an option? They would be great to split it. But I, what was I going to say? Oh, so the building committee we meet as a whole on the 24th. So it doesn't make sense for us to decide. What we're going to do. We're going to have a meeting with everybody else. So why don't we, we'll come back with a recommendation for you, Craig. How does that sound? Okay. Yeah. So the 24th. So we. You want to wait till then to finalize all this or. The dates. I'm not sure how else to. Do it without chatting with the full committee. I don't know. So thinking out loud, how many of them really want to go? And I don't know. Craig, how many people were, I'm sorry. How many people responded to the Doodle? Six, I believe in addition to me. And to be fair, I did. In the email invitation said, Hey, please have us, your comments by the end of the day, Friday. So there may be someone else who's going to look at it today. And add their availability. I don't know if it's okay. I think we should operate on the basis of who responds to this Doodle poll. Craig, you should send a reminder to people. That they need to get their things in by the, by the end of the day. Once we know what the things are, we're going to pick some dates. And the people who can make it can make it. If they can't make it, they can't make it. They're free to go to these libraries. They're open to the public. At any point that they like. I think the idea of splitting the visit, going to Holyoke one day, and then going East. For the others makes a lot, makes a lot of sense. But let's just send a reminder to people. If you're really interested in doing this, we're going to be, you know, scheduling it. And then let's, let's schedule it. And then we're going to, we're going to, we're going to, we're going to, we're going to schedule it. And some people are going to make it and some people are not going to make it and things are going to come up. People say they're going to make it or going to end up having to have surgery or something like that. So. Right. It's from COVID. We know it's all about plan B. So Craig, that's great. If you could send out an email reminding everyone to do it, but also just put a line in there to say that we might split it up in their head because I know I was evaluating them pretty much just like a whole day thing, but I'd have more flexibility. I might even go back in there again and give it a hard look if we're trying to split it. And then we could maybe next Thursday at that meeting. When we're meeting for the comments, we could also finalize the dates then. How's that? So if that's the case, then a few of these earlier dates, Craig, that you set up are obviously not going to happen. And you could probably remove those. So it wouldn't really start until. So if we decided on Tuesday, I don't know. Thursday, the 26th. Then we really, I mean, what would be the soonest option? Because we have to, we have to post this, right? Angela. Like. Yeah. So it wouldn't start until the next, like the Tuesday, the 31st. So 30, whatever dates we had. And if we can't make that work, if we split it, then. Then we'll just have to put a camera on your head, Craig. And you'll have to do a video for us. All right. So we're good with that. By the way, I'm sorry, Craig. I actually think that was a, that quip was a very smart. Idea. Sorry. But I wonder if. One could, you know, FaceTime or whatever it is with, with people. I mean, this is, this is like second nature to real estate agents. So. Right, Craig.  You know, this is what the. It's what it looks like. And the room. You got to go pro, Craig. My daughter does. Or my old file does. So yeah. We put it on our cat, but yeah, I could take it off. All right. We'll give that some thought off. I mean, you're right. It would be interesting to hear, because that's part of why we're going. We want to hear. Sort of the tour, what that representative from the library is going to do. I'm going to move on to item six. I don't have any. We'll move to item seven, which is the public comment. And at this time, public, hello, attendees out there. If you have something to say, we'd like to speak. Please raise your hand. Yeah. Okay. We'll see if we can high-tech this. If there's no other comments, I'm going to move on to item six topics. Not anticipated. I don't have any. We'll move to item seven, which is the public comment. I'm going to move on to item eight. So, please raise your hand now. And we will. Give you that time. I see five people. I'm not seeing any hands. I'll give it another minute. So our next meeting is I'm just still giving that a sec. We'll be next Thursday at 10 30. Thank you, Angela. I'll get you. Agenda to put up for that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So I don't see any hands. So I'm going to move on to adjournment and I'll see you all next Thursday. Happy weekend and have fun with your homework. Thank you.


Počke. OK. Ja. Hvala, vse. Čakaj do organizacijs, za organizacijs vse večne konference in za njihoj posledanje, da se tukaj počkati na spontenstvenosti možnosti v Milingu, in v biti začal. Čakaj? OK. Video. OK. Miling je več vsočen pattern of collective motion. It's a collective circular motion around the common centre, which has been often observed in fist schools, but also in other animal species, like, for example, ants. So there are many theoretical models of collective motion which show milling and most of these include avoidance, alignment and attraction between individuals, among individuals. Though the mechanisms which are underlying milling formation are still unclear, Arevoidance, alignment, and attraction, all necessary? Can simpler models generate patterns like milling? Well, the answer to this last question is yes. There is, for example, a model by Strombom of 2011, which has only attraction, which does show milling, for example. Though, how important is the alignment interaction? Is milling with only alignment possible? There is the Vitzert model, which has been mentioned already a few times today also, which is a model with only alignment, and does not show any milling. Or actually, it does show some milling if you confine particles in circular geometry, and if you add also some excluded volume interactions between the particles. So, I'm here interested in the minimal modifications, which we have to do on the Vitzert model in order to obtain milling without any walls, so in bulk. So, as most of you indeed already know, the Vitzert model is a two-dimensional model of point particles, which are characterized by position and orientation, which have all the same constant speed. There is only alignment, no avoidance and no attraction, and the particles align to the average orientation of neighbors, including themselves, in a certain interaction range, which can be chosen as unit of length. So, for example, that yellow particle there will interact with the neighboring particles, and the next time step go directly to the average orientation of the neighbors. On top of that, there is a random noise, and indeed the phase transition from disorder to order, but as said, no milling. So, how can we get milling from the Vitzert models? What can we modify? Let's consider an idealized case, indeed of four particles on a circle of radius r without any noise, which move at constant speed b and with a certain angular velocity. So, the first thing that we may not can say is that we actually need a limitation on the field of view. Why that? Because if the field of view is complete, as in the original Vitzert model, then the particle there will interact with the particle in front and with the particle in the back, and this orientation cancel each other out, and therefore this particle will then simply continue to move straight. But now if we introduce a limitation on the field of view and find angle in the back, then this particle here will interact only with this particle here, for example, and not anymore with the particle in the back, and therefore will tend to rotate counterclockwise in this case. On top of that, we note that that condition has to be satisfied, which is actually just the definition of any circular motion, which means so the speed has to be not too high, not too large compared to the angular velocity, a bit like a satellite around the Earth. If it's too fast, then it simply flies away, and if it's too slow, it crashes into the Earth. On top of that, we notice that the interaction range is here in this case the radius times square root of 2. The radius is therefore smaller than the interaction range divided by square root of 2, and that means that the radius is of the order of magnitude of the interaction range, which is what we will observe in the milling, which I will show you. So therefore we modify the Bitzek model, introducing indeed limitation on the field of view with a blind angle in the back, and a limited maximal angular velocity, which means that a particle cannot anymore instantaneously let's say go to the average orientation of the neighbors, but can only rotate towards it by indeed a maximal angular velocity. Implementing this, and indeed starting from a random starting configuration in a quadratic box with periodic boundary conditions, we see that indeed milling spontaneously emerged, and actually here we have also multiple mills and counter rotating mills. So actually varying with the few parameters of the model we not only obtain mills, but also other patterns of collective motion like flocks, lines, bands, fronts. Therefore we need a way to identify and measure, quantify and measure indeed milling. We can use the average velocity, so the polar order parameter, which is 1 when particles are ordered, and 0 when particles are disordered, and we can use the average absolute value of the normalized angular momentum, which is 1 when particles are milling, though where rcm is the distance of particle i from the center of mass of the group, it is belonging to, and where group is a set of particles, where the distance between particles is smaller than half of the interaction range. And this works well for identifying also multiple and counter rotating mills indeed. But indeed the angular momentum alone is not sufficient to identify milling, because there are cases like for example the case of the band pattern, where this quantity is actually high. And therefore it turns out that a good condition for identifying milling is that the average velocity has to be lower than a certain threshold, as well as the average momentum has to be higher than a certain threshold. So performing 100 simulations of 2,000 times steps in the quadratic box of size 20 in units of interaction range with periodic boundary conditions, as we have already seen, we can measure time averages of the average velocity and average momentum in the last 500 steps, where the system is already in the steady state. For each of the runs, we get either milling state or not, and then we can compute a milling proportion, so just the number of runs where we have milling divided by the total number of runs. So the three parameters of the model are indeed the ratio of speed to maximum angular velocity, the field of view, the noise and the particle density. We see where indeed we can get some milling. As we have seen milling in these mergers, we have seen it in the video, and here we see a bit more in detail where. So we need some intermediate field of views, so about 200 degrees, and the ratio of speed to angular velocity has to be around one, which was indeed also what we expected. A bit more in detail here, where we can see the dependence on the ratio of speed to angular velocity in empty circles and the dependence on the field of view in full circles. Varing also the particle density and the noise, we get a bigger picture, and from which we can conclude that indeed we need not too high noise, obviously we can say, and also the density has to be high enough in order to get milling. Again a bit more in detail, we see here the milling proportion as a function of noise and as a function of particle density, and indeed we see the milling to no milling transition by either increasing noise or decreasing density, which is a bit similar to the, which reminds at least to the order, disorder transition in the Vitzek model by increasing noise or decreasing density. We observe only milling, but also flux, lines, bands and fronts. We studied a bit where they happen, for which values of the different parameters and for example we see that these lines happen at low noise and low field of view. Increasing the noise, we have first fronts here emerging and then bands here emerging, milling is already almost disappeared and increasing the noise further of course at certain points the disorder state will invade the entire phase space. So, let's consider now two types of particles. So, one type is in this case too slow in order to get milling, so it is indeed flocking and one other type which has the right set of parameters values in order to get milling. What happens if we put them together in the same box? Will they mill all together? Will nobody mill? Will they segregate? So, running simulation in this particular case we see that actually the milling particles are still milling here and you see that they have kind of trapped the non-milling particles inside their mills and they have kind of induced this rotational motion also to the non-milling particles. So, actually varying the speeds of the non-milling particles we can get not only the case as we have already just seen of milling induction with the non-milling particles inside the mill but we can also get milling induction with the non-milling particles outside the mill if the speed of the non-milling particles is higher than the speed of the milling particles and actually not only milling induction but we can get also milling destruction if the speed of the non-milling particles is too slow or too high in that case they simply get out of the milling particles because they are either too too slow and they are kind of obstacles to this, they cannot really follow the rotational motion or they are too fast and they wash away the rotational motion. Yeah, actually that's what is it was already this. So, we have seen that this modified Vitzek model milling for intermediate field of use and when the ratio between speed and angular velocity is about one for low noise and for high enough density and this is indeed a case of milling using only alignment which is the first model studying this. We also have seen the existence of milling induction and milling destruction effect and all these are important insights for the understanding of milling formation maybe also in real animal schools. Thank you.


Hi everybody, we did it. Happy holidays, Merry Christmas and all that jazz We did we filled up the St. Nick promo here on a Thursday December 23rd 2021 with over $25,000 in prizes being given away So you saw that every break that had St. Nick in the title if you bought full spots, we randomize your names Top two names will be part of the promo and And you're guaranteed something we had to do 32 breaks for 64 prizes Now good news is you're guaranteed something you're already a winner. So thank you very much Now we're gonna see who's gonna win that grand prize. That's gonna be pretty huge. We've been keeping track everyone Has seen this and has been looking at this and making sure that we got this list, right? There has been no objections It's all looks good So we did 32 breaks you can see count 32 right here and these are your 64 names. Thanks everybody for making it happen We really appreciate it Brian Frank and Stephen Kay with the final two St. Nick spots. Thanks that mosaic basketball full-caser. All right There's the dice Here's the list and let's see who gets that grand prize So remember we're just randomizing your names not the prizes All right, let's roll it randomize it two and a five Lucky seven times here we go one two three Four five six and Seventh and final time after seven Once again two and a five seven times everyone's a winner Everyone's getting something But who's gonna get the big thing I need a drumroll sound effect here Here we go name on top is gonna be Tim Congrats Tim. Wow Tim starting today and Starting today and 11 more times after that Tim you'll get a thousand dollars of break credit Every 23rd 12 times Congrats, man. Thank you for joining all of our breaks and and Getting it going and all that sort of stuff. I appreciate it and we'll be looking forward to For to you joining our breaks for the next year to come. Thank you Happy holidays Steven flat is pumped up. Let's go. He says yeah, he's fired up because guess what you got a 12 box case of 2020 2021 flux basketball. We're gonna ship it to you sealed Good life you choose to rip it you can sell it if you want to it's yours You can sell it if you want to but if you choose to rip it and if you get something awesome Definitely, let us know. Hey, there you go Tim Merry Christmas Nico you got a hobby box of 2021 Spectre football ship sealed those are pretty expensive boxes same with you Monty a Box of 2019 2020 contenders basketball ship sealed. That's pretty cool Nico you get a thousand dollar Jaspy mystery pack. I don't know what it's gonna be But there you go Tim Jason Gale Matthew you're getting $500 Jaspy mystery packs. What is it gonna be? Singles break credit boxes multiple items per pack. I have no idea. There are gonna be multiple items per pack I don't know what it's gonna be though. Enjoy Jesse all the way down to Steve Wright. So Jesse Michael Kurt Josh Jesse again Brody Logan And Steve Wright a $200 mystery pack What's gonna be in there? It's a mystery. I don't know but hopefully there'll be some cool stuff Be sure to share with us once you get them Nick. I think I Don't know what his status is on on these mystery packs, but I think he said that they're gonna be shipped He's actually on that's right because he's on vacation He'll do it in the new year. So very early in the new year next week. Basically, we'll get those shipped out to you So be patient with that, but they'll be on their way Okay, so this group right here Robert Eric K Stephen Terry Adam Brian Louis Rick Jason Chad Sean Adam Carlos Peter Darren Brandon Jeremy Adam Brittany Adam Jared Oliver Kurt Jonathan Eric Joe Patrick Tim Robert Stephen K Russ Will and Stephen $100 Jaspy mystery packs Who knows what is it was it gonna be? I don't know and the rest of you Still winners $50 of break credit going your way Dan Aaron Ron Hans Christopher Sean Jay Graggs Eric Daniel Brian Ryan Chime Chad and Miko There you go gang big thanks to everybody once again not only for helping fill up this break But just in general thanks for the whole year. We really appreciate you because The collector you are making all of this work, you know, and so in fingers crossed Hopefully will be we pulled you some nice stuff this year and we look forward to hopefully pulling you some more nice stuff For years to come Merry Christmas. Happy holidays. Happy new year. Thanks again everybody. I'll see you next time for the next promo. Bye. Bye


Take a look at the relationships you form with other people. Are they healthy? Our social connections with other people are not only vital to our mental and emotional well-being, but also our survival. However, sometimes relationships and friendships may end up becoming toxic and unhealthy. But what's worse is it can be hard to recognize the signs that it's all gone bad. So to help you become more aware, here are seven behaviors you should never tolerate in a relationship. Number one, physical, verbal or emotional abuse. Controlling behaviors, including physical, emotional or verbal abuse is a big red flag.  There are some things that are unacceptable for a relationship and these are some of them. Number two, they want to change you. Have they asked you to dress differently or to completely change the way you look, act or feel? It's inappropriate if someone makes you give up your interests, certain personality traits or other crucial areas of your life for them.  Ultimately, someone who truly loves you will encourage you to pursue your interests and relationships and they will push you to do so because they want to see you happy. Number three, overly critical. Do you feel judged by them all the time? If so, it's a clear indicator that they aren't treating you with the respect and care that you deserve. A healthy relationship or friendship can help you become the finest version of yourself. So if a partner or family member or friend continuously tells you what's wrong with you, that's a huge red flag. They may regularly criticize aspects of your personality or blame you for your appearance, both of which are brutal, immature and deceitful tactics to exert control in a relationship. Number four, crossing boundaries. Do they joke about things that you don't appreciate? Maybe they talk about things that you don't want to talk about. Cross physical boundaries without your consent, try to force you to let go of your boundaries or share things about your private life with others despite your protest. These are only a few examples of when someone crosses your boundaries and it's an indication that they don't care to prioritize your emotional wellbeing over themselves or others. Number five, gaslighting. Manipulation in any form, including gaslighting is on the list of things that should never be tolerated in a relationship. Examples of gaslighting include denying doing anything wrong and distorting reality to the point where you begin to doubt your own thoughts and feelings. Number six, lack of communication. Voicing your concerns is an important and vital aspect of maintaining a healthy relationship. Both active listening and speaking are important as you may find that a lack of communication can quickly derail a relationship. So if you notice that they become hesitant to tell you what bothers them or what they need and want from you, then it may be a sign that your relationship has become an unhealthy one. Ultimately, everyone requires an outlet. Failing to communicate may result in things being bottled up, which never ends well. And number seven, manipulation and control. Do they tell you what you should wear or whom you can and can't talk to? Do you feel like your life entirely revolves around them? Perhaps everything you do now is to please them because you don't ever wanna risk upsetting them. This need to have all the power and control in the relationship is a big red flag and something you should never tolerate. Do you think your relationship has gone south? Let us know in the comments below. If you found this video helpful, be sure to like, subscribe and share this video with those who might benefit from it. And don't forget to hit the notification bell icon to get notified whenever Psych2Go posts a new video. As always, the references and studies used in this video are added in the description below. Thanks so much for watching and see you soon.


So, first, a big thank you to Zürnke and Martin from Akasha who invited me here. I'd like to talk about digital content-based identification today, and especially similarity hashing, and a little bit of background about me. I'm not from the scientific background community, so I'm a little bit, I'm not part of this community, and we are actually, it's the first time that we present this to the scientific community, and I'm very eager to see what people think about this. I'm an entrepreneur, was focused on media technologies, a founder, CEO of Kraft, a very small little company from Freiburg, we do e-book production and distribution and trade publishing, and I'm also a techno-creative software developer, basically I started from the business side and I went more into the engineering side in the later years, and I'm also one co-initiator of the content blockchain project and the ISCC, which is what we call the International Standard Content Code. So I have a short history about where all this comes from. The thing started with a project in 2016 where we got funding for a project to check out what blockchain and this new environments and technologies will bring to journalism and the content industry as a whole. So we did a one and a half year project and we had quite some developers hands on. So this was basically the thing, the idea that we are moving, the internet is moving from a basic communication or information sharing platform to a platform where you can move value natively. So what we did there, it was quite extensive and very hands on. So we just took what was out there. We have been looking at very different blockchain platforms that were available at that time and we are working together with the journalists and people from that community and built prototypes, simple little applications like we launched a custom small blockchain based on Bitcoin source code. We built a wallet and tried to do licensing stuff. We built some developer libraries. It's all a prototype. One thing that came out of all this research is the ISCC identifier, which I will be talking about today. So the major outcome of what we have been doing there and while getting our hands dirty was that really the content community, so it's the larger, your scientists are basically part of this community, but the larger content community should develop open standards and technologies and applications that establish content as the subject of transactions on blockchains. So basically the name of the project was content blockchain and the first thing you have to tell the people you won't put content on a blockchain because blockchain is really not the technology to put content there. So this is basically what we came up. This is the big view that we had at the end of the project that we have the blockchain protocol layer services which we currently actually see as public infrastructure like what the internet gave us in a different way to transfer, trustlessly transfer value and what we need on that layer to make content, the content industry work. Then in this new environment, we will need new tools and we have some here like problems that we want to solve as attribution smart licenses and especially content identification and only above that comes the new applications. So we are in between the infrastructure and the application layer with this stuff. So the thing is that we have been of course looking what is there if you want to have content be what we talk about in our transactions, how do we reference content? So of course there are many content identifiers out there, but really it turns out they are not working.  What's the identifier to reference this image? So actually the existing standard identifiers are basically they are usually centrally issued so you have to send a fax somewhere and register a number. They are often over-specialized in different communities. They are curated by humans. They have mostly no coprographic features. They have high management costs, high barriers of entry and they are really not made for the blockchain world. And the goals of the identifier that we've been working on are decentralized issuance. Basically you don't have to issue them. They are generic content identifiers so they are not just for one sector of content identification. They support algorithmic deduplication, proof of data procession and they want to make management costs and barriers lower barriers and they are designed for the blockchain ecosystem. So decentralized content-based identification. The first thing that we need to understand which many people really don't get is that if we are talking about a multi-sided ecosystem then anybody may have a legitimate interest to generate, look up, register and identify for some digital content because it's a means of communication. So authorship or copyright should not be a requirement to get an identifier. The identifier might be used to communicate authorship and copyright but it is not a requirement to get an identifier. And the authoritative linking of identifier and content, what we call the binding between the two, can be done, of course, by algorithm. We know that. So this is one precordition. You have seen this slide today on multiple times. Hashing is basically a very simple thing. So you take some arbitrary length data input and you put it into a function and you get something of a fixed length short which is deterministic. So every time you do it you get the same if you put in the same data and you cannot refer back to the data from the hash value that you created. This is the principle of all hash functions but they are very, very different ones. So hash values are natural identifiers for data widely used in IT systems like databases, file systems, version control systems, network protocols in cryptography. So the benefits of hashing, there are many. They are used for verifying integrity of files, password protection for comparing files for equality, generation of pseudo random bits widely used in file and data identifiers like JIT version control system, I PFS is using them. And actually it's also used as a universal clock because proof of work is based on that. So we also have non-cryptographic hash functions which are like checksum, hash tables used for data deduplication and similarity measurement. There's a very big difference because cryptographic hash functions are correlation resistant. So if you change anything in the data then the hash you get is not correlated to the hash you would get to the unchanged data. So that's a feature of cryptographic hash functions but we also have hash functions that do quite the opposite. Another point that we went to is if you look at the identifier systems that are out there there's a lot of confusion about what is being identified. So we went into it in a more philosophical manner and checked what can be identified in the area of digital content and we found basically six layers of identification. So on the first more most abstract layer we can identify any collection of information so it could be a journal which we want to identify and all its issues. Then we have a second layer which is more concrete where we try to identify meaning. This is a very interesting part because in science we have made major leaps in there. For example we can today identify meaning by machine learning systems and we could have for example there are cross-lingual sentence embeddings by now so we can have an identifier for a sentence and it would be the same for the sentence in different languages. So you have let's say ten languages and you convey the same meaning in ten different languages but you can calculate the same identifier from it or like the same vector. So this is what we have at layer two. On layer three we talk about a generic manifestation which is basically let's assume you have a word and a PDF document. You take out the plain text. The plain text is the generic manifestation. It's independent from any encoding format. It's like a very clean and natural way of representing some data. You have that also for images where you have in the end you have pixels which are coordinates which you can respect in a quite abstract generic way. And then we have media specific manifestations which are encodings like you have a JPEG and you have a PNG. And then we have the exact representation which is a bit by bit similarity and on the individual copy is basically what you have in the physical world. You have one specific book in your shelf and you have some notes in there and this is what we call individual copy which does not exist in the digital world but which comes into play with the new blockchain based technologies. So the ICC is a proposal for a modern and open content based identification system. It is a universal for across different types of media. These are the generic media types, text image, audio, video. It is a lightweight multifaceted fingerprint designed for digitally encoded content. It is cross sector applicable for journalism, book, academic, publisher, music industry. And the goal is to establish content as a subject of transactions in decentralized and network environments again. So I guess I switched it off. Yeah, well, okay. So it's designed for management of general and granular and dynamic content. It supports content clustering similar to detection, deduplication and it's decentralized. So here's what it looks like. Basically, what you see here is one ICC code. And you basically just drop in some information file and what you get out is this code. And the different components can be used separately as identifiers but they are more meaningful if you use them together. And the first component is generated from metadata, very basic metadata like a title of something. The content code is specific to the media type. So it's for text or image or audio. We have a data code that is based on the raw data which is not decoded. And then we have the last component is basically part of a cryptographic hash. So without further ado, I'd like to give a short demonstration. I hope this will work, will it? Oh, okay. It should be public. Yeah. Okay. Then I just tell you what you would see. So basically you have a JPEG image and a PNG image which for us have the same content for a machine. It's very different content because they are differently encoded. You drop it on there and you will get two identifiers where the first two components will be identical for the JPEG and the PNG and the last two components will be different. So we have the same here. Ah, maybe this one works. Yeah. So we do this here with an EPUB file and a PDF file. So you drop it, no. So as you can see, it's created from totally different files, file formats, EPUB and PDF. So you have basically, you can match them just by the identifier themselves. And even if these identifiers would come out different, you can measure the similarity between them because they are actually, each of the components is 64 bits and basically it's a 64 dimensional vector that places the syntactical structure of the content into a room of 64 dimensions. So, well, okay. So I will, what does my time say? Okay. So I will briefly go into the separate components. So the first component is basically the most abstract. It is generated seeded from metadata. Now, because this is a universal identifier, we cannot say like you have to put in the author there or, you know, we cannot put any requirements on the metadata because, for example, who is the author of a movie? Well, it might be hard who are the creators. So we basically just use the title and anything you want, it might be industry specific, but best you only use the title and for scientific usage you could be tech or something like that in a normalized form. You could put it in there and we use this data to generate the most abstract grouping part of the identifier. And you have control over it what you put there and if you collide with some other registered identifier, you just put in some more information and get a separate free identifier. And this metadata is then frozen so you can reproduce it. Of course, metadata might change over time. This is a separate kind of metadata with you attached to the ISSC. So we distinguish between seeded metadata and floating metadata. So this is what we have been seeing there. So the content identifier is media type specific. So you always identify image data or text data or video data or audio data. We also have a mixed version of it where you can take different assets which are bundled in a multimedia document and create a compiled ISSC of mixed type. So the thing is here that if you look at the data and you apply cryptographic hashing, they will be very different and with the content ID it will collapse to the same based on the syntactical structural content itself. And we have this for text. We have this for image. And we also have it already about for audio but it's still working progress and for video. Then the data ID uses some specific techniques for measuring data similarity which is called content defined chunking or shift resistant chunking. So usually if you cut data into pieces and then you put something somewhere, the cut points will all shift if you cut by a regular amount of data. And the content defined chunking is a trick to find these cut points. They are about some lengths but not always exactly the same length. And the cut points are defined by their surrounding. So if you change some data here, all the other parts of it stay the same. So it's used in deduplication systems and stuff like this. So we use this here at the data similarity. And the last one which I told you is a cryptographic hash. It's basically SHA-256, double SHA-256 actually in a Merkle tree. All in all this is the Bitcoin block structure and we create a top hash, a Merkle root from there which we there take only the front part. If you really want a secure, provable integrity, we also provide in the metadata the full 256-bit hash. And the idea is here that I can give you an ISCC ID, I give you a part of my data and I can prove that this data is part of what is identified by this. So it is proof of containment. So this is an overview of the process how the ISCC is created. It might look complicated but actually I have coded this in 500 lines of Python code. So it's not that complicated and it's just functions, no classes, very, very simple open source available. So it is not a kind of content identification system like you have, let's say, YouTube's content ID. It's more like a lightweight fingerprint. But the idea to make a fingerprint like standardized and use it not as a fingerprint but as an identifier, I think it's an immensely powerful idea. And I'd like to see this happen. So just an example, I have been looking at the data on unpaid wall. They have 25 million records of open access titles indexed by ISCC, by DOEI, and I did some analysis on this and it turned out actually there are DOEI, which your scientists all should know what it is. I don't have to explain it. It points to very different documents which mostly are similar to each other but not always similar. So for this DOEI, we have four repositories where we can find open access versions. I have leaked them here. And these are different versions, additions of about the same document, but they are. And in the ISCC, you can see they match up here. They mostly match up here but not totally. And you can measure the similarity of the text between them just by comparing the identifiers. So the ISCC codes actually create an emergent overlay structure of content relations. And you can infer many things by comparing two ISCCs to each other. And to once again show the difference. What we have currently is like random UU IDs which are used in systems where we just produce some ID and there is no link between the content and it always needs to be an authority who says this is the file that belongs or this is the data that belongs to this ID. But we have to believe them. The other one is SHA256 or other cryptographic functions which are basically you don't have to trust anybody. It's very simple. You put in the data. You get the ID which is very long, of course, to be secure. But it's really secure. You cannot temper with the data. You will always get the same ID. But in content, content is dynamic and it changes. And we lose all the connection between the history of some data if we only use cryptographic hash. So the ISCC code comes up with a multifaceted fingerprint as an ISCC that is generated from the content itself and then comes the blockchain part where we can really, this is ugly and not for humans. And for sighting, for example, we would like to have something short. We can have something this short that is resolved by a blockchain to the long version. And we call this shortcode. This is in the making. It basically takes the components, collapses them to the shorter variant. And in the header, we say this is a short ID. It is registered on Bitcoin or on whatever blockchain. So this would be a pointer to some blockchain, public blockchain. This is the part that clusters the data. And here we have a counter, which we upcount to disambiguate between different things. So we have a completely decentralized registry of short globally unique persistence, resolvable, owned, verifiable, and authenticated IDs, which could be even used for an URL short or whatever. So yeah, this is what I'm working on. Actually, the dean, the German standardization organization, liked the idea and they put it up for proposal at the ISO to make an international standard out of it. We are at that stage, which is stage two from about, I don't know, 49 steps through hell. And but I'm very grateful for this because this brings discussions with the existing community of standard identifiers. But it's a hard road. Well, so that's about it. Digital reality, there's too much granular content to manually assign and track identifiers. Good news, all your content already has an ISEC. It just needs to be extracted. Come join us. We have everything is open source. And of course, we are looking for contributors, donations, funding. Currently, it's only funded by my passion. So thank you. So any questions? Thank you very much. And thanks to Martin for bringing you here. This is really interesting and really cool new stuff. And OK, well, is it too cool and new or are there other people working on similar things? Because we understand sort of what you're doing there. But we don't have an overview in the field, right? What's happening there? OK, so actually it is absolutely not cool and absolutely not new because all the technologies that are used here are widely known for many, many years. I think what's cool and new is the combination of using these technologies first in a standard way because this content similarity, duplication, matching, vectorizing stuff is used in many systems. But it's only used in closed systems and not for interoperability. And I think this is the new part of it. Is there any other questions? OK, I have one more too. Thank you for your presentation. It's really, really interesting. And I see there is a lot of application of such thing. And I'm just wondering what are technical limitations? And for example, if you compare two documents, like one PDF, one EPUB, let's say there is a paragraph missing in one, will it lead into dramatic change of hash or not? If you change a paragraph. Just completely remove one paragraph. Yeah. So the thing is what we have there is basically its estimated similarity that is encoded there by a technique called min hashing, whatever. The thing is it always will depend on how much percentage of the document you change in relation between them. So if you have 1 million paragraphs, or let's say 200 paragraphs, and you remove one, they will still be the same ID. Or if you remove two paragraphs, they might start diverging. But you can still measure that they are closed. The sensitivity here is always based on relation to the whole data. So it is meant only for comparing near duplicates. I see. Yeah. So from another perspective, if I will remove all articles, like not articles, like let's say I will remove all, I don't know, like the in the document. We do that for you. Yeah? No, we don't do that. But if you, yeah, that would definitely make a difference then.  So and because you also have a meaning, a hash of a meaning, which is very also interesting. Yeah, well, you saw the layers I have been showing. So the second layer, like semantic meaning, we don't have a component for that yet. But this would be something that we could do which would be really not sensitive to things like that. Because if the meaning is the same, the ID would be still in the same space. OK, thank you. And you mentioned the media type, the media-dependent ID. So in case of the images, for example, you bring this to a standard image from Earth and then do it like a hashing or? Yeah, actually for the currently at the syntactic level where we are with the content ID and not at a semantic level, at a syntactic level, we take the image and we really just make a very small version of it and then black and white it. And it's a perceptual hash, it's called. And we measured the difference between one pixel to the next, 8 by 8 pixels. And this gives us the fingerprint. How would you handle watermarks? Watermarks. We don't care. That's also implemented. You can use it as. Now, actually, there's some strange thing that we came up with in regards to watermarks. If you have a hash, a cryptographic hash, and you embed it into your document, then it will change. You cannot embed it in the document because embedding the hash will change the hash, which is a problem. So you cannot deliver the hash inside the file only separately. And now with this one, at least the first three parts, you can embed them, then recalculate it. You will get a little bit different one. Then you can embed that again recursively. And eventually, you will find an ICC code that you can embed, which is the same that you get if you calculate it, which is a little bit weird. And I'm not sure what the use case of it, but I guess watermarking could be one of the use cases where this comes in. Or are you talking about visible watermarks? Well, I don't mind so much. I'm just thinking about retractions of articles, which are normally still there, but watermarked as retraction. Excuse me? If you retract an article, then normally it's still in there, but it will have the watermarked. This article is retracted. OK, I'm sorry. I can follow you. Yeah, yeah, yeah, OK. Yeah, and I think you're like, so this, I mean, exactly this is what's fantastic is that we have to look in other fields. And then look at the application. This is what we should call the NDPD, basically, right? Like what we did with your talk. Other talks were also great, but this is great because of the transfer of water. Yeah, I'm totally not from the scientific background, so I'm devolved for that. Yeah, or science communication, culture, or something. But this is exactly what makes it valuable sometimes. You like to do this, yeah? OK, there are like one or two more questions. OK, thank you very much. I just have one question. Can I use your model to detect defect models where I can use against or deep learning to fake the faces and the images? Or not because you can hash the photos and you can copy paste, or you can change something in it? So. Yeah, well, I guess that because we are using like dimension reduction technologies in the different components, actually these are viable inputs for machine and deep learning tasks. So basically, you could, for example, use the identifiers and try to learn, for example, which language the text is written in just by looking at the identifier. Of course, these are all information which go into the area of probabilistic information. So you don't have guaranteed information, but you can do statistics with it and use it for machine learning. OK, thank you. Just to ask, do you also distinguish the gravity of changes? Let's say just a very simple example. You have essentially the same text, but one author would come to the conclusion this is true. And the other one says it's not true. So like from the wording, in the extreme case, you would only have one added word, right? But you would have a completely different statement of the thing, which is, would that rate at the same thing as a word like well or so that you put in, which doesn't mean much, or if, for example, a mathematician has a calculation. And let's say in the simplest case, you have the result 42. And it would matter if somebody else had 43. Would that just count as a single digit kind of potentially erroneously done? Or can you say, OK, this is a major deviation in the scientific statement? Or you just rank that as a typo or grammatical error or very minor deviation? Well, you are already on the semantic level, which we didn't implement yet. So currently, it's really just a syntactical similarity that we have on the content ID. Basically what we do is we delete all the space, we do normalize all the text, we go in 13 character bunches, we go through it, and we create 128 different hashes over it, and it's really just structural similarity. So there's no semantic stuff there. If we do the semantic ID, I guess I have to stop now. We can talk separately. Thank you very much. No, thank you. Thank you very much.