G'day everybody. My name is Liz Stokes. I'm from the Australian Research Data Commons and I'm very excited to welcome you all to today's webinar on infrastructure and DMPs or data management plans. This is a combined event with the data management plans interest group that I coordinate locally around Australia and the Research Data Alliance. We're running this in collaboration with their regional virtual event. I'm very excited to present an awesome lineup of speakers today and to start I would like to make sure I can work the controls on this slide deck. So to start with, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners on the land on which I'm standing. For me, that is the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation based in Sydney, Australia. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders past and present and note that Indigenous sovereignty has not been ceded yet in this country. I would like to invite you if you are familiar with the traditional custodians of the land where you are to say hello and acknowledge that in the chat section on in this WebEx platform as a way of introducing yourselves to each other. That's a nice thing. So in order to crack on and get started, I'm going to invite my colleague Stephanie Kethers who is also the director of operations at the Research Data Alliance to say a few words about the RDA Virtual Plenary and the reason for this webinar today. Thanks very much Liz. My name is Stephanie Kethers. I'm the director of operations of the Research Data Alliance as Liz just said. And as you may know, the Research Data Alliance or RDA is an international initiative that was launched as a community driven initiative in March 2030. And RDA members come together working in interest groups to build the social technical bridges to enable open sharing and reuse of data. RDA usually convenes to plenaries here, which are being held in different locations around the world, which is now happening virtually, which of course makes time zones a bit of an issue. The most recent plenary was held in April in Edinburgh and it was very difficult to follow the whole plenary and still get some sleep, I have to say. So this next slide please. So the idea of the RDA regional virtual event is basically my bad place to bring back some of the topics from the RDA plenary and discuss them in the regional context. So today's session on infrastructure and data management plans is one of them. And apart from this session, we already, we also have an RDA Q&A and catch up session tomorrow at 3 p.m. AST. And we also have on Thursday a session on data policies, which is going to be run by my colleague Natasha Simons. And that's going to be held at 2 o'clock 2 p.m. AST on Thursday. And if you would like more information or to register for any of the upcoming sessions, you'd be very welcome to visit the URL that's just there. And we will, I can put that into chat as well just in case. Thanks very much. And that's it from me. Thanks, Stephanie. So I would now like to welcome our wonderful panel of presenters today. So I chose this picture because it looked like it included things like landscape and paths and things that look like infrastructure and also things that look a little bit like a BMX bike track. And I think that that's a rich visual metaphor for the creativity in genuity and let's say heart that people that I know in this sector bring to developing infrastructure for data management plans. So today I would like to, I'm going to welcome Peter Niche from the University of Melbourne who is going to give us an update on the plan on the maintenance and adoption of what the DMP common standards working group have been developing for machine actionable DMPs. I'm also going to welcome Roland Mossberg and from the Walter and Elizabeth Hall Institute, who as a first member of our DMP interest group here in Australia has got some interesting questions and experience to share when developing data management plans for researchers. And also, now you would have seen that Maria Pritzelis was the assigned speaker from DMP tool today. Unfortunately, she can't make it today. So we have her esteemed colleague, John Shadaki here who's going to talk to us about DMP tools and PIDs infrastructure. After that, we have Andrew Brassati from Australia's own QCIV, the Queensland Cyber Infrastructure Fund or Foundation, who is going to talk to us about service provisioning and do a quick demo of red box. And then finally, last but not least, we have Peter Sefton, who's a business consultant from independent consultant from the University of Technology, Sydney, who is going to talk about what do we really want from data management plans. So I'm going to run all of these presentations together. They all have five minutes. So I'm just making sure everybody knows that so that we have an internal clock as well as a social clock here. I'll share that responsibility with you all. Please offer your questions and comments in the chat as we go through. And we will we will run a Q&A session after everyone after all our panelists have finished speaking. So without further ado, I'm going to hand the mic over to Peter Niche and I look forward to what you have to share with us today. Okay, thanks, Liz. I can share my screen. So people seeing that. So yeah, good. So yes, I'm a co-chair of the DMP Common Standards Working Group, along with Thomas Mixart and Paul Walk, and just a super, super quick introduction to machine actionable DMPs or MA DMPs for short. They're an idea that came about to try and take a standard DMP, which was just kind of blobs of text that researchers would submit to funders to fulfill an obligation to something that's actually useful that was machine actionable that could be used to trigger actions, could be validated, could actually have information that could be computed on. So to fully implement MA DMPs, we needed three things. We needed like a well-defined RDM workflows. We needed, you know, infrastructure to do this, repositories, DMP kind of systems, and also a common standard to represent information. And there's a link there to the standard, which we've been developing for the last couple of years. So it's now version 1.1 and it's being used by a number of adopters and I'll just go through quickly what we've discovered so far. So I'll focus just on the infrastructure side of things. There are other things that other people focus on with DMPs, but in terms of MA DMPs, we like to think of it as like glue between different systems and a way to get information in and out of those systems. So during the RDA plenary, we had quite a number of stories of adoptions. People have been using it. We'll hear from John about DMP tool, which is great. Maria Pritzels talked about Fair Island. We've got, yeah, we've got DMP tools. We've got a publisher. We've got repository, like capillary repository, a number of other DMP tools. Crossref, you know, implementing kind of our standard within a data type there. So there's quite a lot of people showing interest and using the system. So the thing we're discovering is, you know, we've, we obviously, this is a lot of consultation. We had the tools developers on board, but things aren't perfect. So a large part of the RDA was looking at, okay, what are the issues? What do we need to fix? Where can we improve it? So these are kind of the three top open issues, but I'll point you, I'll put a link in the chat to our GitHub where all these things discussed. So if you're interested, that's where all the information is around the common standard. But the things that we're kind of tackling like, have we probably mentioned that people can, like specific information that's not as general, just specific use cases. So how to actually do that within the standard also identifies, you know, there was assumptions made around datasets having a single identifier because of a standard that we're implementing for our standard. And that's so that that may need a little bit of a change. And also some of the things how to make things more explicit when they're planned or when actions have actually taken place or have not taken place. So currently it's using dates, but that's a bit fragile and needs some tightening up. So that's kind of three of the major things we're looking at. There's a few, quite a few little minor things as well. The other main thing we're doing. Again, we ran a hackathon last year, which had nearly 100 people in a number of different teams. And one of those teams looked at thunder templates and whether the common standard could effectively transfer that information around between systems. So we looked at some European, some US templates. I'm keen if anyone can point me to other templates that funders might use, especially in the Australian context, I'd be really interested. And from that we've discovered that there's some things we may need to extend the standard, put some more information in. We may need a funder extension so that we can, we can more easily reuse those things and or it might just mean a slight change the description of the standard. So, so that's kind of the area where we're working at the moment. And yeah, I'll leave it there and answer questions after, after talks if necessary. Thanks so much, Peter. That's excellent. Okay. Next in our illustrious line, we have Roland Mossberg and did you want to share your screen, Roland? Yes, I would. Hi, my name is Roland. I'll be looking slightly a scans at my screen, my second screen. And these are some personal thoughts on infrastructure relying on DMP. One of the things that I think is really important is whatever you call them, whether it's for audio and life cycles or whatever, being able to actually understand what the actual workflow looks like for researchers is really important. And this is a very poorly documented version of what I've got so far. And I think it'd be quite cool to be able to expand on this because I think, as someone who sort of sits between both the research and the research infrastructure, having this sort of information allows me to interact with the researchers better, help them understand things a little bit better. But anyway, but I think the thing that I tend to see is this difference between the minimum compliance over the maximum benefit. And I guess minimum compliance really, you could read all that, or you could just say, hey, minimum compliance is just getting paperwork and giving it to the researchers and then being done with it. And the maximum benefit is actually how do we provide a competitive advantage for our research by tying things together and making it easy. And while this increases the complexity of the ultimate benefit is that is the uptake from the researchers. And I think that's the real key. And how do researchers really use this in a way that's going to be able to help them in the future. And I also started realizing that there's a clash of cultures because with DMPs it's more like a waterfall. Okay, what are you going to do? And I think the challenge I gave to people in the DMP group was, okay, can you write out all your projects for the next three years and document how many files you're going to use and how much space you're going to use. Because that's what you're asking the researchers to do. And they work in an agile way. So how do we get away from saying there's waterfall versus an agile approach, which is just in time to make informed decisions. And how can we gather that information in a way that they can be reused in the future, I guess. So I think from the last meeting, some of the questions that we had at the DMP was metrics and adoption on DMPs and how effective they are from a researcher's perspective. And linking DMPs to other systems and making them useful, not just for the researchers, but maybe for the grants department or from the legal department or whatever. So one of my favorite slides, thank you, Peter. I use this quite a lot. And it's just showing we need to think of ecosystems instead of data silos. And the DMP or whatever goes through DMP can sort of connect there. I've tried to do this at a lower level. And this is an older version. But the idea is to map out the original lifecycle, which is my second slide, with that ecosystem and start to say, well, you know, how does that ecosystem connect with the researcher? One, two, three, four, five. The slides will be there so you can have a look. But it's just an idea of being able to map those over there. And sometimes we find that we've got a big gap when it comes to things like visualizing data or having interactive data sets online. And I really like these slides from, I think it was Simon or Blassa, because I guess the question is asking about what information is actually needed versus information that is guesswork. And can we do that just in time? So I think this is what here says, okay, I'm going to have raw data that's 4.3 megabytes. And it's really, really difficult to guess that. But is there a way of being able to find a different way of being able to do that and maybe increase storage dynamically and provide running totals instead of things. And I think this is a really great way of being able to look at it and get researchers to interact. And I also started to think about what are the key questions that researchers actually want answered when it comes to research data management. And therefore maybe through the data management plans that you might be able to ask them at the start of the project as part of their experimental design. So you know, where is the data that my postdoc generated four years ago. This is a very medical research type of thing. So some people don't have postdocs. So here's the sense of data I'm bringing to the organization being looked after. Electronic lab notebooks, you know, if I have the electronic notebook, can I find where the data is or if I can find where the data is, can I find what my electronic notebook is. But it's also for people who actually generate data as well. And but you've also got governance legal and of course it services. So by actually taking those into account and trying to narrow down the focus, I guess my question is what parts of the DMP are really valuable for people to go through. And that's it for me. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Roland. Those are such interesting questions and I can see in the chat that those that your diagrams have resonated with people there. So moving swiftly along, I'm going to pass over to John Chidaki from the California Digital Library at the University of California, who is going to talk to us about the networked DMPs and the Fair Island project. Thank you. Yeah, I apologize. My colleague Maria Pretzels wasn't able to join today. So I'm here filling in and these slides are somewhat new to me. So hopefully it goes smoothly. But yes, I'm here to talk about network DMPs machine actual DMPs and the Fair Island project. For those that are we're here last time you'll maybe have heard of the Fair Island project in the past. And I'll just quickly go over some of our aims. So just as some people have mentioned already so far, you know, a lot of the infrastructure for maintaining and creating machine actual DMPs is in the works. It's being discussed. It's being implemented. The team that Maria and I work on at work with that CDL run the DMP tool and we have been embracing a lot of that infrastructure and the common standards to support that work going forward. Separate from all of that and maybe in conjunction and informed by all of that. We've also been looking at some of the questions that we just heard around, you know, what makes DMPs interesting to researchers and how do we judge whether or not they're actually successful long term. Which brings this question of saying. What are optimal data policies, the policies that inform the data management plan requirements that then have researchers creating data management plans. What are the optimal policies themselves and what are the technical infrastructures that would incentivize better usage of DMP technologies and also updating technology. And so we are embarking on a project called Fair Island where we're working directly with field station run by the university field stations run by the University of California. And we're partnering with to field stations that you see runs in the South Pacific. In French Polynesia and we're working with them on revamping their data policies that they, they administer locally for anybody who visits silence for field stations. To, to optimize it so that we can then also over time track the effectiveness of compliance with those policies. And so using the DMP really as the anchor and machine actual DMPs as a way of transmitting that information over time and iterating with with the researchers over time. And so Fair Island is a research project in itself. We will be iterating the data policy. We will be iterating on the data management plans that we are asking people to fill out. And we are integrating it into our existing infrastructure. So we're integrating it into DMP tool. We're integrating these changes in exchange of information into the reservation systems that the researchers have to use when they book time at the field stations. And we're really using this as an opportunity to track over time over years, how researchers interact differently based on the different policies. And as was mentioned before, we do run a international group or tool called DMP tool. It is a platform for creating DMPs. It includes guidance. We've for the different requirements from different funders. We have partners around the world and we co-develop with DMP online a code base that's leveraged by multiple different partners globally. And we're really focusing on trying to build a machine actual future for this platform. And so the common standards work that Peter mentioned earlier is something that we've already incorporated into the way that we manage the information and exchange information within that tool. And so machine actual DMPs and the workflows that are embedded in the kind of the terminology that we're talking about today. That's really our way of saying, you know, we're trying to network the information that's inside of the DMP and Fair Island is really an example of how we want to try to test some of that out. What is the value of that networking? And just real quick, some updates from the project. 1 aspect of the project is to basically pitify all the different pieces of information that's inside of a DMP. And we have started working with data site on using the DMP itself as a container. And assigning DMP IDs to the DMP. And the reason to do this is to create a space where we can claim what is happening around research. And so what you see here is the purple dot in the middle is actually the PID assigned to the DMP itself. And all of the outputs of the that are there coming out of and all the information that's associated from that DMP is then traceable over time. And in this example, we actually retrofitted this, this idea on a past project. So you could really see that this DMP with working with researchers at 1 or university that had multiple funders and multiple publications and multiple data sets. And you could over time, if you put it this, literally, you would be able to see it grow over time based on what was being stated in the DMP. And we've also started working on this within the DMP tool itself. So here's a representation from a landing page of exactly that information. That the DMP ID now would resolves to this, this landing page that as you can see would include information about the project start and end date information that we know can be made public. But also as the data sets and articles grow from that research, it's something that the landing page itself would start to grow. And so this is really just trying to work with different identifiers and assigning those and mapping those into what we're tracking as part of the machine actual DMP. So this is work that's been built into the DMP tool to track different aspects of the work that researchers do. But it's also something that we are talking about leveraging when we move further down into the Fair Island project. The latest version of DMP tool 3.0 does have a way of inputting research outputs and directly into the system, tracking those individually. ID minting the DMP ID minting and the DMP ID landing page. And obviously what we work on is a global partnership across many different levels. So just want to thank everybody, including RDA and the folks here who have been very helpful with keeping everything moving. So if you have any questions, Maria is the product manager for DMP tool. Also, I'll be here to ask, answer questions later on the hour. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much, John, for that. It's so wonderful to see a lot of this, this infrastructure being being so becoming quite familiar and being able to see lots of synchronicity to the attention towards developing the infrastructure and the plumbing. So our next speaker is Peter Sefton. Yes. I got that right. Sorry. No, sorry. Andrew. It's Andrew Brasati. Okay. Well, I'll have to remember to delete my blunder from the recording. Sorry about that, Andrew. So Andrew from QCIF is going to talk about Redbox and provision and how that particular local product provisions, services, services for researchers. Take it away, Andrew. No worries. So yes, I'll start quickly. If you haven't heard of Redbox, it's a research data management platform that assists researchers with their planning, creation and publishing of their research data sets. Yeah, it's an open source product managed by the software solutions team at QCIF. And it's highly customizable and has a lot of integration with a number of different systems. And I'll be talking about, I believe, about services for building today. And one of the big strengths of the product is it's really driven so we can buy and use this on that. Yeah, it's a bit of a quick diagram about how Redbox interacts with things. So, typically a research and an RDP. And from there, they can actually provisioning of storage and create the other end collection metadata about those, the data that's being created from that project and Redbox managers, linkages between all those things. Next slide is a diagram that you might have already seen today. So thanks, Peter, for making this back on the day. But this is essentially how Redbox, the provisioning framework works. It allows you to plug in a number of different adapters that may have a provision services and a variety of different systems. And, yeah, the list is growing all the time as we work with our users. So, I want to quickly show you the Redbox form and how that's how this all works. So, which is this one here. So we've got a research data management plan here that we've configured up. I won't fill out the whole form for everyone, but so there's a number of different forms fields within the form that you can configure to your needs. And yeah, we've got a type of in for workspaces, which is what we call services within Redbox. And you can see there's a link for one I've created earlier here that describes a workspace that's been created for this particular research data management plan, including some location information as well based on that. So, typically a researcher will come into the home and pick from a list that have been configured in this demo environment. We've got a very basic example, which is a, a CentOS 7 Linux virtual machine that's provisioning in Google Cloud. The particular plugin that we're using here uses a library called Terraform that supports a number of different cloud services. So it's highly sensible, probably more typical use case. Here would be a provisioning a virtual machine that has a bunch of research tools already pre-installed on it, so the researcher could go in and start using it. So yeah, once they've selected a workspace, I can click on the open button and it would take them to a form that has more specific information about the service in question. Because there is a link, it will be granted to the RDP. It could also pre-fill some values as well in here if they, if they're useful. So, but this one here is just a very simple one so it doesn't have any of that. So obviously, you know, this is a bit of a magic number. In a real world form, you could make it generate a key for the user to log in or pick from a list that they might already have. But yeah, this is just a very basic example. So if I click on the great workspace on that, you'll see that a new linkage is being created for this new VM. Obviously, it takes a little bit of time to spin up a VM, a couple of minutes, but that's probably more minutes than we have for this particular demonstration. But eventually, once it's complete, we'll get a linkage there as well. So within the plan, we've got a link to the workspace that's been created, but also there's a reverse linkage. So if I go into the new workspace's area, you'll see a bunch of VMs that I've created in the past for demonstrations, their locations and what plan they're linked to. So yeah, we've got a two-way linkage there as well. So within the view, the idea that you've created, the summary page also outlines those particular ones. And you can see that what I've created before actually be complete in time. So there it is there. That's my presentation. Thank you very much, Andrew. That's wonderful. Whenever I see people watch people demonstrating a tool, I always think about maybe one day in the future we can have a tool demo like Olympics or something and see who can create the fastest DMP under pressure. And, you know, how it compare researchers against repository managers and dev teams. But maybe that's a dream. My typing falls apart under pressure. But let's start with that even better. Wonderful. Thank you for that. And now I will introduce Peter Safton, who is going to round out our presenter panel today. Peter, would you like me to be screen host for you? Or would you like to share screen? You've got it already. Great. Okay, your time starts now. Peter, I think you're muted. I'm sorry, Peter. I don't think we can hear you just yet unless this is maybe this is a useful way of understanding of what happens when the very important data stream disappears. Can you hear me now? Yes. Right. So this is this is roughly where I live in this, which is Derrigan Gundegara people's land. Liz asked me to talk about what we can expect from infrastructure to support DMPs. And as usual, I might have a few positive things to say about progress we've made, but probably spend a little bit of time talking about what we need and where the gaps still are. What we really want from DMPs is that they're useful to people. And so broadly, people might find a DMP useful in two very broad ways without talking about carrots and sticks. It may be that you have to do one or engage with the process to get money or continue to get money or satisfy requirements from somebody. Or it might be that it can do useful things for you. And the thing we identified at UTS was provisioning. And I'm glad I didn't use, reuse Gerrard's provisioned a diagram because we've already seen it twice. I've gone back in history to the ARDC, the Australian Research Data Commons data lifecycle project, which is actually where we got some of this inspiration from. So this was a vision, which I think is still pretty valid about how researchers might, doesn't say DMP here anywhere, I don't think. But the PAP portal, the provisioning portal there is essentially what Redbox is doing. Unfortunately, this project seems to have been shelved. But I think a lot of the ideas and the data that was collected in this and the interviews they had with people were probably still really valid. So maybe we should try and restore some of it. So speaking of data life cycles, I just want to, I've been had a little bit of time to reflect lately and I've been working with a developer from Melbourne called Marco La Rosa. And we've been trying to come up with critiquing some of the data management diagrams. And particularly the use of the overuse of the word life cycle, but to come up with our kind of our own contextualizing diagram about what the research data management space looks like. So there are, broadly, there's a couple of things here. And this was in the service of doing fair data, right? So how do you make things findable, accessible, reusable, interoperable is a different kind of practice, not so much about infrastructure, maybe. Maybe it is. But on this, you see the work spaces. So they're the things that are around the outside of that circle, that semicircle diagram. And what we wanted to emphasize is that if in an ideal system, work spaces would be ephemeral things where people go to work. They would expect to get some storage for a certain amount of time, but they would be doing a constant deposit of data into the services that make things findable and accessible, which is, broadly speaking, repositories. I mean, there's other ways you could do this. You could build your own infrastructure. But there is actually a kind of established thing that does this, which is a data repository, which looks after storing stuff, keeping it, and making it findable and accessible. And I'm going to come back to the accessible bit as well, because that's a bit of a... Right. So the next couple of slides are just sort of reflections on... Because I've recently left the university in their redundancy program, and I'm ramping back up to work in the space, I actually get to think about what's interesting to work on. And I thought that might be of interest to mention, because I'm working, focusing my efforts into the places where I think there are still gaps. So one of those areas is in standardization. So the machine actionable data management plans is a really important part of that. One thing we work on is a research object crate, which is a community project to pull together a way of describing datasets so that they can be interchanged, which is a joint work between... started from work between UTS and Manchester, and has now gone global. But this was a much needed thing that we might have had data management plans and so on, but we didn't actually have a good way of actually just saying, what is a dataset and describing all these things about it. So that's one thing that I think we need to keep working on. Another encouraging thing that's going on is starting in Europe, but it should spread to the rest of the world. Isn't that a great project name there, the CS3 Mesh4 EOSC? So that's a mesh of false sharing services for the European Open Science Cloud. And I think this is important because this democratizes the ability for people to move data around and to share it. A lot of the places that have actually, a lot of the disciplines that have managed to kind of get their data sharing act together are large verticals, physics, the climate science people. And this, which I'll finish on, is the thing that I'm currently obsessing about the most in terms of what kind of infrastructure we want. If we want to be able to do this provisioning and giving people access to services, as we've heard about in a few contexts, we actually need to be able to put people into groups into cohorts. And that has to be able to be done cross-institutionally. And to me, this is one of the really big gaps. We have really successful things like at UTS where you can have an internal provisioning system, but it's really only useful for the people at that institution. And it misses out on the fact that lots of, you know, research is trans-institutional and transdisciplinary and that includes people who are not parts of our research organizations. So, this is kind of a, I've been working on how we might, how I might present this to funders and try and get some backing for how we put people into groups. But I think John's presentation earlier actually pointed the way to that a little bit that there was a slide there showing how co-ordered people are associated with the data management plan. So, maybe the data management planning tools could play a role in sort of authenticating group membership so that you can provision things to people. And very importantly, so that you can give access, if a dataset can't be made open, it may be open to people who are on the project or on related projects. And we don't have a good way to support that at the moment. So, I'm going to look more into that. That's it. I just want to raise those couple of issues. I'll figure out how to stop sharing. Awesome. Oh, look, it wouldn't be a bad thing if we kept all of those smiling faces on the screen for a while. Okay. That was Gary. Thank you very much, Peter, for sharing what we really want from DMPs and RDMPs. I'm glad that we've got similar names for the same thing. I'm going to hand over to my esteemed colleague, Catherine Unsworth, to coordinate our Q&A session. So, I'll just briefly, before I mute myself, I encourage you to put your questions into the chat and join in. No question is too thorny or naive. Thanks, Liz. If you... Oh, someone's added a question in the Q&A box. Christopher, are you able to just... Well, actually, Christopher, do you want to unmute yourself and just ask your questions straight up? It might be more useful. That would be novel to speak. Yes, I was questioning for Andrew, given the chronology of the presentations following on from the work that Peter Nish spoke of. He's read box looking to do some work to make the MADMP compatible, if that's a correct term. Yeah, it's definitely something we're interested in doing. I guess the project started before assuming actual BMPs were really a thing, but we've been following what's going on there. And I don't think it would be a lot of work to make it compatible. We need to crosswalk builds from what we've got with now forms to support the format with FEMA. Thanks for that. Noticing, looking in the chat, if you do have a question, because I can't see everybody on the screen, could you just put a Q in the chat and then I'll be able to identify who you are. And I can just throw to you and you can speak to the question yourself. I just wanted to say thank you to Peter Sefton for explaining what RO Crate was because there was a bit of discussion about that in the chat. And if there aren't any questions at the moment, I was just going to ask John. Now you mentioned in relation to John Chidaki. You mentioned in relation to Roland's talk about where he expressed that researchers are more interested in capturing things in their DMPs than certain things that funders may want. And you talked about looking at that yourselves in terms of looking at what researchers do want to capture in their DMPs. And would that then mean that you need to do a whole process with funders to get them on board with that? And have you started that process and what's been the reaction to that if you have? Yeah, so, I mean, funders are definitely the kind of frame framing that many of us begin with when we talk about data management plans because funders very often are the ones requiring a DMP. And so the policies that we're trying to comply against come from funders and many aspects. But I mean, one of the things that we're trying to break apart with the Fair Island project is that the very basic reason for a DMP is good data management planning. And there are other aspects of why someone should want to plan for their research data. There's different reasons for that. When it comes to a field station, for example, it may be that they're going to have multiple site visits. It may be because there's collaboration with other physical stations somewhere else in the world. There could be a lot of reasons why that's the case. What we're trying to tease apart with the Fair Island project is if someone complies with certain aspects of a policy, does it actually help the researcher? Does it really help the research and does it promote open sharing of information and better science? And many of that many of those things have to do with the way people are managing the data. And that includes, you know, so we are building a data management plan that's specific for the field station. And that is specific for them and it's not directly related to the funder. But there is definitely the need to continue to connect with the funder. I mean, very often when we talk to funders within the DMP tool, they will say. Of course we want researchers, for example, of course we want researchers to update their DMP. It's something that they put into their grant application. Why don't they update them all the time? It's actually a contractual obligation of the researcher. It's a contractual obligation of the institution itself as well. And there's this kind of kind of unspoken like nod that, okay, we understand we don't really check that compliance, but it's something that is actually required. So what we're trying to get with with Fair Island is how do we start to tease out what actually good compliance would be and what are we really getting out of policies in this in between phase that we're at right now where funders do say that this is something they really care about, but aren't necessarily checking. So we can start to really understand what are the motivations on the researcher side. And I think it goes back to, I'll stop talking, but like, I think it goes back to a lot of what everybody's saying, which is that there has to be value. It has to do with tracking and management and helping with the feedback loop to the researcher themselves. So a lot of what we're trying to build with the graph that we saw is really making those connections so that it's easier for researchers to see their own outputs being tracked back to them and really understand their impact. Thanks, John. I think that's an absolutely fantastic approach. Really, honestly, I do. So I'm not sure why we haven't really sort of been taking that approach a little earlier than what we have. Now there's a few questions here. I'll start with Steve McGeckin. Can you, I think that's the first one here. Are you happy to ask your questions, Steve? It's more, I'm picking up on Peter Sefton's point about the groups across organisations. We picked up on the same sort of issue, thinking about that with our cadre project. I haven't got an answer yet. Have you got an idea about this? Because I'm curious to see where you would take this. Is that directed at me? Yeah. So, Steve, I would just been writing up some stuff sort of, not published yet, but I actually used the ADA as an example of an internal, so you can do mediated data access. You can request access to something and then within your own network you can do something about providing it. But we do have a really thorny problem about how we have sort of, you know, cross-system authentication. And I was in the process of inventing this kind of group, having a group management server that could authenticate to the Access Federation and the Australian Access Federation and Google and Facebook and the rest of them, which would let researchers manage their own cohort of people. And that would be useful for things like provisioning, but there's another step which is to use it for data licensing. So, if you have a group, you could say, everyone in this group has a license to download data from a particular project, kind of mint a license, and then repositories could come to that group's management system and do the authentication dance where things get referred off to other services. If you work out who the person is, then you see if they're in the group, and then you see if that group has a license to download a piece of a data set. But just looking at the DMP tool, that actually looks like that might be some of the way there. And so if that knew things about people's orchids, for example, and could assert that these people were members of a project, they could have a license that goes with the project. And then you could do data deposit into an arbitrary repository, which is not open. It's not a problem if it's open data, but a lot of data is not open. So then we would start to have a mechanism where you could put a license on something with a URL that points to the DMP tool. And the DMP tool would have to grow some new features to be able to authenticate a person and then authorize them as a holder of that license. There's a lot of moving parts, but we need something like that. Yeah, I think that sounds sort of along the same line. So maybe I'll follow up with you separately on that one, Peter, because yeah, those are the sorts of questions that we're raising along the same line. So I'll get in touch and we can be great to talk that through. Right. And I'm going to be involved in the language data commons project as well, where we will reimplement some stuff that was done in Alvio, I hope that will help with that. Yeah, excellent. I just have problems laid out to say Peter and I would just have our own conversation. Thanks everyone. I just wanted to add that. I mean, the common standards is something that's been is very foundational to a lot of our work. I mean, we, many people in this space kind of came together years ago and said this is something that we need to be able to tackle these common issues. And it is something that is guiding the development of the DMP tool and many of the DMP related tools out there. That the capturing of licensing on a data set by data set basis and the authentication against orchid and these types of features are all things that are informed by that common standards and the kind of round tripping of, you know, they inform that as well. I just want to say that as you're talking about these things, it's be great to feed the new requirements to the to the working group because this is the common standards is something that we're all basing our work off of so the more people that feed feedback to them, the better. Yeah, good point. Um, evidently, I missed a question in there from Peter P E T a. So I feel like the process infrastructure and policy complex chicken and egg situation. Where did you start to make effective progress and I feel it must be for everyone on the panel. Yeah, I actually wanted to add a couple of extra bits to that as well. Systems and funding is also in that chicken egg spider web type scenario. Anyone want to tackle that one. Yeah, I can, I can give it a go. Thanks, Roland. The big one, hang on, let me just get up here. The big one, I think is you need to, you need to gather your leverage is the way I would explain it. So I'd probably be the way I'm trying to tackle it at the couple of institutions I've been in is to find every source of leverage from any of those particular areas and use them to actually start to bring people together to have those conversations and to use it to be able to look at something that's systematic that's going to be able to benefit everyone. And that can that can be a challenge and it takes a long time but if you don't. So just recently I've tried to focus on the infrastructure side. And I realized I've left myself open because I haven't been spreading my I've been putting all my eggs in one basket so to speak and so I think I need to be able to make sure I spread that risk out so that if I can't do something with the infrastructure I might need to use it as a stick through policy or use it as a carrot through somewhere else. So it's always about just having as many tools as you can to be able to get things moving into a into a good direction. I don't know if that helps or not. Thanks Roland. Actually you might as well stay on because yours was the next question so. Yeah for Peter for Peter Neish and the MAD MPs. He's still there Peter. Yeah I'm here. It's really bad interoperability between systems right to be able to take it from one system to another as opposed to asking people to re implement that schema. Yeah yeah absolutely so. Really it's more correctly called a metadata application profile rather than a standard but people kind of like the word standard and we couldn't really get rid of it. But it is just a way of yeah being able to transfer that information I think as yeah as Andrew said in the comments you know it's really just taking that out and being able to transfer that information into another system. Okay I think we're getting very close to time Liz are we needing to wrap up questions at this point. I think that's probably a very sensible decision as much as I really want to get into the questions that people have raised here. I would like to I've just popped in a little spruka for our local DMP interest group for people to fill out this form you'll be added to a mailing list which sends you meeting invitations. Our next catch up is on the 17th of June. Quite possibly it could be that we might have a kid swap over session. At our next group. Thank you very much Christopher McAvaney for volunteering to lead that I'll be in touch shortly. Anyone else who is here who is interested please contact me if you would like to be involved in that I would like to publicly acknowledge that we kind of did have a bit of a manual today. So I would like to really encourage a bit of more diversity across our presenters in our next event. Well look it's all of our responsibility so thank you everyone for being here today and I look forward to seeing you at our next group. Just to give you a heads up the next RDA information sorry the next RDA sessions. I'll just share the screen very briefly here so we've got some sessions tomorrow and Thursday and there are some links there. Everybody here today will receive a copy of these slides and a copy of the recording to pass on to your mates. Thanks once again to our wonderful presenters today and my awesome ADC colleagues for their support and of course all of you in the audience and your excellent questions.


I did my research in Zambia for my thesis and I was trying to understand the gender norms. So how do men, women, children and different sections of the society perceive water issues differently. So it was more about me living in a very small remote village in Zambia and trying to understand the issues and it was very real like in that study I realized something like it's not just the experts who are who know who can diagnose a water issue but also the people who are going undergoing a problem they are also the one who have equal say and weightage in what exactly the issue is. My research is at a nexus of social sciences and technical science so it goes more into water provisioning but water access. So how do men, women, children have access to water differently and these looking at water problem through gender lens is very relevant and actually very urgent in our societies because it's not just the experts who can diagnose a water problem but also the real people who are more connected to the issue and their voices and what do they think and what do they feel is the real problem. So it's not just relevant but it's very urgent.