All right. Thanks everybody. I'm going to go ahead and start. My name is Greg Madden. I'm the CIO at UCAR in NCAR. So NCAR is the National Center for Atmospheric Research. UCAR is the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which operates NCAR. With me today are Jennifer Phillips, our Library Director and Matt Mayernick, the Assistant or Deputy Assistant Director, whatever that is. And you'll notice that we put our ORCID IDs on the slide just because we felt like, you know, you really ought to do that. So I'm going to give you a little bit of organizational background about UCAR and NCAR and then our immediate motivation for what we're doing over the next five and a half months. And then Matt and Jennifer will come in and give you all the interesting pedagogical stuff that's associated with this. So NCAR and UCAR. NCAR is the Federally Funded Research and Development Center. It's the National Center for Atmospheric Research up in Boulder. So I think all three of us just drove down today. UCAR is an operating entity and basically the only thing it operates is NCAR. So these two organizations are tied at the hip, have been for 60 years. We have a cooperative agreement with NSF. And so that's how that works. We do have about 120 slightly more member colleges and universities or a .edu for our email addresses. As it turns out, we're not particularly educational. We're not really government.  We're similar to a lot.  So that's probably the easiest way to look at it. We have a lot of facilities. We've got a super computing center up in Cheyenne, Wyoming. We do community coordination and we do obviously atmospheric research. So our immediate motivation, so Matt's going to talk more about the sort of motivations around PIDs and ORCIDS and that sort of thing. But our immediate motivation is that we've got a UCAR President's Strategic Initiative Fund grant to improve the adoption of ORCIDS across NCAR and UCAR. Also to complete some initial integrations of ORCIDS into our systems to help with NCAR's research impacts initiative. So right now when the NSF asks us, you know, show your work, it's very difficult. So it takes a long time and a lot of effort to pull everything together and show where their money is going. So we have a research impacts initiative to improve that. And then really we're trying to sort of drive towards what I call a virtuous cycle of integrations. So this is the slide for this. The nice thing about being the CIO is I can be wildly overly ambitious and then back it off when it turns out to be unrealistic. So these are some of the integrations we have either in progress or planned for ORCIDS. So on the left hand side first is sort of our research products. Open Sky is our internal database of organizationally affiliated research output. So we have ORCIDS in there already. We are going to use ORCIDS as our authentication system for a variety of our data products so that we know who's accessing our data. So we've got the Geoscience Data Exchange, our Research Data Archive, Climate Data Gateway, those three different data products and we're trying to make sure we know who's using those. Our EOL Field Data Archive, EOL is the Earth Observing Lab and we're including ORCIDS in our metadata records there. Also in our metadata records for the Dash Search, what does Dash stand for again? It's a digital asset services hub. It's our consolidated search for all products across the organization. Yeah, thank you. Then more on the IT side, and this is like I'm enterprise IT, so this is where I kind of come in here, is we're trying to get this spread throughout all of our enterprise systems so that from that sort of that operational level, again, UCAR is the operating entity, that we can really be confident we can meet NSF's cooperative agreement and really tell it where its money is going, where all of our funder's money is going. NSF's not our only funder. So we really want to be able to really show the impact of those funding. So some of the things we're going to do is get the ORCIDS into our MUL platform, which is just an integrations platform that makes it sort of easier to integrate across multiple systems. We're going to get it into our research administration system. We have quality research, so we want to make sure it's in there so that we understand who's applying for grants based on their ORCID and then we can report out based on that. We're going to get it into our organizational financial system. We have workday financials, or, well, we will in about a year. Something all goes well. And so we want to integrate from that research administration system into our financial system so we get better financial reporting on all of the grants. We're going to get it into our HR system so that we can tie our researchers to their ORCIDS internally within what we're doing for HR, get it into our research information management system. We're about three months away from, well, probably less than that from having it selected. We don't actually have a tool right now. That's why it takes us so long to do our research reporting right now. And then we're going to also get it tied into our identity governance and directory services. So really, we're trying to just spread the ORCID across everywhere. It can be spread so that we can tie all of our information better together and just get better reporting much faster. So the problem is now when we get asked to do these things like report on where the funding is going, it can take weeks of a bunch of people to pull all that data together from multiple different sources. We're really trying to get that down to hours, go into a system, click a button, all the graphs and money comes up and you're done. So we're really trying to go from weeks of multiple people to hours of a couple of people so that we can really improve our reporting there. So that's what I've got and now over to Matt. All right, thanks, Greg. So the theme of the talk, kind of the rest of it, and Greg kind of kicked us off is trying to move from the idea of assigning persistent identifiers to doing things with them. And so if you think about the slides Greg already showed, on the first slide, our ORCIDs were there. That's sort of a label, right? That doesn't do anything for you if that's all you have. But if we can use ORCIDs in the sense that Greg said to connect these systems, then we can do something with them. So that's kind of the theme and I have a few slides on each of those themes and we'll talk about a few cases. So I just pulled this up to kind of emphasize that point that first of all, the step back, the persistent identifiers we're talking about here are not, again, sort of something you might have in an internal HR system, but it's the idea of an identifier that can be used to persistently identify something on the web. And as the second part of this quote says, there's some actionable aspect to it, right? So it resolves to a page where that asset is, if it's a publication or a data set, or in the case of a person who's, you know, not a digital entity, there's information about that person. So that's the kind of core idea of the persistent identifier versus some generic identifier that you might have in any system is that it's web-based and there's some actionable aspects to it. And so that's what we want to get to in this talk and kind of interested in hearing your thoughts as well on what we might use with identifiers or what you've done with identifiers. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the assigning part first just to kind of set the stage and the landscape. So we've been assigning DOIs through the data site organization since 2012, and we have also been assigning ARCs, which are archival resource keys and other type of persistent identifier since about the same time. And those are to service supported by the California Digital Library. And you can see the sort of breakdown of asset types here just to give you an idea of what we're using these for. So DOIs, we're really using those for, you know, sort of sightable objects kind of to create a persistent citation for data sets, texts of various kinds, software. And to folks who were in the previous session, 41 is a dramatic undercount of the amount of software produced by organization, but if you were in the last session, there's sometimes challenges in getting a good grasp on that topic. The reason we use ARCs in addition to DOIs is that in our open access repository, which is called OpenSky that Greg mentioned earlier, many of the things we collect in there are published articles, that's the top item there, that themselves have DOIs created by the publishers. So we didn't want to assign a second DOI to sort of confuse that situation. So we use ARCs as a different type of identifier for our own resolution of our own persistent objects. And then, you know, various other types of assets going on down. I'll give a quick sort of promotional shout. If you want pictures of clouds, we have lots of pictures of clouds in our OpenSky repository. So please take a look at that.  So we have a new research coordination network funded by the FAIR OS project that's focused on persistent identifiers for facilities and instruments. And I think I showed briefly on the last slide physical object there on the left, the fourth one. So we have assigned about 25 DOIs to things like she's shown here. This is a set of integrated surface flux measurement towers and tools that are one of our NCAR Labs provides. And we've also assigned a DOI to some of our aircraft and in line with what Greg said earlier, we're trying to use these DOIs to facilitate persistent kind of citation to them or, you know, metrics of usage, attribution of usage, things like that. So if you're interested in this topic, please feel free to come and talk with me. I'm interested to talk more about this. We're just getting this project kicked off now and we're digging in a lot more in the next few years. So if you're interested in facilities and instruments, even kind of campus level facilities, we have colleagues at the University of Colorado in Florida State also in this project. So we're happy to talk to you about that. There's also externally generated identifiers and this is a couple of examples that are more prominent for us. Greg already mentioned orchids. Who has orchids within our organization and how kind of full their profiles are. These are the numbers so far and our organization is a whole of about 1,200 people, about half of that is research staff. So we think we're actually doing pretty good in terms of the numbers. We're just kind of still trying to suss out exactly what those are. We're also interested in the research organization registry IDs or ROARS. We know UCAR and NCAR both have ROARS. Some of our subunits have ROARS. We're not quite sure how they get created because some of them don't. So organizational identification can be somewhat tricky. What is somebody's affiliation? Are they UCAR or the NCAR? This is an internal debate we have far too often. But these are things that we sort of have less control over. Put it that way. We do not create these identifiers ourselves. So that's the landscape of what's been assigned or what's been created and now we're going to talk about using persistent identifiers and again that's the kind of theme we're trying to get to is just assigning them to using them. And again I like this to sort of emphasize that point that the benefit from the use of persistent identifiers there needs to be clear case about the benefits of taking time to actually use them for scholars to use them. So that's what we're trying to do with a couple of these cases in addition to the ORCID project Greg mentioned is doing things with them to incentivize people to create them and to use them more consistently. And this is kind of the theme. This is just sort of a cartoon. There's nothing kind of logical about this but the idea is that there's lots of persistent identifiers for lots of things. These things are often related. The people create the data. The people use the tools. The people create the services or use the services. Publications derive from the data. Use the software. Use the instruments. And we think there's a lot of potential to using these identifiers and connecting them more. So that's going to be a little bit of what we talk about in later slides. And there's a lot of interest externally from data site which provides DOIs and other organizations to creating a PID graph, quote-unquote, which would kind of connect these in a more formal sense. So the two cases we're going to talk through for the rest of the talk is linking scientific papers to underlying data, software, and other resources to enable discovery and gathering impact metrics to assess impact and identify contributions to scientific work. So in the first case, linking scientific papers. This was a long-running project for us. Can we collect and display linkages between specifically papers and data sets, but then it extended to other kinds of resources such as software and instruments? How to make this information usable and understandable, and how to do this in a tractable way? That means automated as much as possible without maintenance or with minimal maintenance. And so the workflow that we've come up with with our software engineers in the library, which is now operational, is that when we collect open access copies of articles produced by NCAR and UCAR staff, we have a PDF parsing process that looks through them, it looks for all DOIs, and then we're able to use the metadata associated with those DOIs to tell what those DOIs are. Are they to articles? Are they to data? Are they to software? Are those DOIs to instruments? And then we can kind of use that metadata to determine what they are and insert that back into our own systems and then display the related links. And we like this process because services such as Web of Science or other citation services often don't look at the full text, and so we know that they're missing things. And so we feel this is more complete. So this is just a screenshot of the kind of outcome of that. This is a service we've added to our institutional repository. This is a landing page for an article. And on the left, somewhat small text, but there's supporting datasets and supporting software. And that links directly to the identifiers associated with those. So we feel this is a really good value-added sort of service that we're able to do simply because these identifiers exist and they have metadata associated with them. So that was case one. I think at this point I'm going to turn it to Jennifer. Okay, thanks everyone. And so, as Greg mentioned, we have a multi-year initiative right now to instrument a research information management system for NCAR and UCAR. And PIDs are integral to this ambition, especially because NSF and the other sponsors want quantifiable measures of the intellectual, merit, and broader impact of NCAR science. So these are very broad concepts. And we have a long history of collecting and doing collecting publications and doing bibliometric analyses, as well as staying on top of our facility usage. But really that has limited value. It certainly is valuable, but has limited value in terms of representing the work of the center as a whole and its impact. And so, again, as I mentioned, we have this initiative to define new metrics sort of beyond the number of publications and times cited, and to instrument the system for our organization so that we can do some of the work that Matt and Greg have been describing in a more integrated fashion. And so our aspired RIM system builds on our practice of managing the citation record for NCAR peer-reviewed publications. And we also have a custom database for staff activity reporting. We, as Matt mentioned, are long established now in assigning DOIs for outputs other than publications. So for data sets and software, as well as instruments and facilities. However, in spite of good pit assignment, we do have some courage challenges in our system, so there's no common controlled vocabularies, and there just is a lot of customization and stand-alone-ness to the way that we're doing research information management right now. And so one of our main goals for the RIM system implementation is to connect our systems. So a good example, I think, and this is maybe getting a little bit in the weeds, but right now we manage associations between publications and grants and awards within the institutional repository, and we have a custom sort of, I'll call it setup, to query the grants database and align that with publications, match that to publication metadata, and then we manage that relationship sort of behind the scenes in the repository. And with the new RIM system, we're hoping to sort of pivot and have a more centralized location for managing relationships between things like grants and awards and their associated outputs, not only publications, but then other products that stem from sponsored work. And so another ambition that we have here is to have more interoperability of our system with the broader research analytics ecosystem. So for example, right now, we have orchids in our institutional repository, although they're not globally assigned to cross publications. Rather, we have an internal identifier for our personnel. And so this then, it's very good for sort of our own purposes, but it is difficult to integrate with the broader landscape when we're using this sort of proprietary identifier for our publications. And so, I'm like realizing, I'm trying to move along here. So we are in the process of, we have an RFP out for Research Information Management System to build on our practices, and I'm trying to get this slide to advance. There we go. So these are draft graphics to be used in the promotion of our work and try and get uptake. So there's maybe a lot of detail here, but the thing that I would point out is, as I just mentioned, relationships between things like publications and associated data sets or publications and award numbers, that's happening internally to the Open Sky, our institutional repository platform. And then if we are asked questions about it, it takes people's, it takes specialized people's time to answer questions. And this really holds true for pretty much most questions that we get about the merit and the impact of our work. So we can easily answer questions on a number of citations, but once we go beyond that, it requires a lot of manual manipulation. And so again, as Greg was attesting to, a lot of time. And so I'll talk a little bit about our hoped for future state, which is where the RIM system will serve as a hub for research metadata and a place that's where we sort of managed the relationships between the different PIDs, basically. So I was like, the future state title for the slide should be, you know, PIDs make the dream work or something like that. But, you know, when we have multiple author identifiers, this is not a very sort of, there are limitations there. And so one of the ways that we are imagining that PIDs will be useful to us is through broader adoption of orchid identifiers for our own researchers, but also greater awareness about the orchid identifiers that are associated with researchers using our facilities and platforms. And so, you know, maybe a good example here is for the usage of our supercomputer. Currently, there, you know, people can gain access to supercomputing time. And the only way that we are able to find out what came of that is to directly contact those people and ask them, did you create any publications? You know, what came of your time on the supercomputer? And so by leveraging the orchid authentication system, garnering orchid identifiers for our HPC users, and then being able to assert back to those orchid profiles usage of our facility, we're hoping to gain broader understanding of the usage of our facilities because it's sort of going back to what I was saying before, and we have very good bibliometrics. I can answer all the bibliometrics questions the NSF might want to throw at us, but this is really insufficient for our time. And so, you know, what we would like to know is what is the uptake of our other products beyond peer-reviewed publications? What does usage of our facilities look like? And what are the downstream impacts of that? And so, again, identifiers are sort of key to this environment. The last thing I would say is just referring back to that question of sort of what's the system of record for managing relationships? So right now we have these relationships sort of tucked away in different systems, which is great because Matt and I know this, but Matt and I aren't forever, and so we need a sort of more central way of managing this information. Case in point would be our grants information, so we would like to have the associations between sponsored research and its various outputs, not, you know, peer-reviewed publications and the like, managed centrally so that, you know, people other than sort of highly specialized individuals who are steeped in how these systems work are able to answer questions when we get them from our sponsors.  Yes, this is the last slide. And these are, in some sense, asterisks, right? So we've talked a lot about the benefits of PIDs, and obviously we are fully on board with that, but there are some very practical challenges. I've already said that at the top, PIDs alone do not provide much value. So, you know, I've worked with people to assign DOIs to things, and they never put it on a webpage, they never promote it, and not surprisingly, it has zero citations, you know, 10 years down the road. So assigning a PID itself is not solving anything. A couple points here, inconsistent use of PIDs is still very much a limiting factor to a lot of these services that we're talking about, unpopulated orchids, inconsistent data citations. And to a certain extent, if you base metrics on these or some services on these, you can somehow get, you know, undercounts of things that seem like they're real counts that are actually deceiving. So one example was we did a report for NSF a year or two ago on data citations specifically. So citations to our DOIs for datasets. And we were able to show from 2016 to 2020, it went from about 40 to over 400. We were very excited. We had a 10-fold increase in five years. This is a great thing. When we showed this to our organization of leadership, they said 400 citations in a year is not very much. We're going to take this chart out. So they threw that chart in the garbage, even though we were very happy with it. Because to them, you know, for how many datasets we have, which is just over 10,000, 400 citations in a year is not very much, right? So it's true that that was not the actual number of usage, right? So that was an indicator of DOI usage, not of dataset usage. I mentioned external services like Scopus Dimensions. These are good. They're getting better. They're much better than they were five to 10 years ago. They're still inconsistent. They're still incomplete. And so somewhat hard to use to do these things. And then the last point is the PIDs require management maintenance. You need to keep your DOIs pointed to the right place. Orchids, people's names change, things like that. So there are a lot of things to still work out, but we're hoping we can get a lot more progress in the next five years as we have in the previous five. So stop there and take questions. Is it long? Oh, thanks. So Matt and I were involved in a project where we talked about curation thresholds being a great time to try and gather this kind of information. I'm submitting a proposal, writing a paper, doing my annual report for NSF, things like that. What I find interesting about what you're doing is libraries, research, administration, and enterprise systems are coming together. So I'm going to paint a scenario and you tell me if it's desirable, undesirable, or something in between. I'm a new employee at NCAR. And when I'm in work day and I'm doing my payroll information, you either require me to create an orchid or you capture it. That is the dream. Yeah. I mean, that's not quite true. I mean, look, we're moving to a world where we really need to know who people are. I mean, and if you look at some of the external factors like NSF's requirements on foreign collaborations right now, it's really critical that we know who we're collaborating with. And going back to the previous talk about the use of GitHub, like if you don't ever look and see who your collaborators are in GitHub because you're not going to recognize two-thirds of them and it will terrify you. So that's a very scary thing. The more we can drive people to verifiable identities, the better off we are, the less we have to sort of manage those identities internally, the better off we are. So this has a lot of sort of downstream value that doesn't really have anything even to do with research, but more like a research administration, research compliance. So I have a lot of reasons for really wanting to do this, but federated identities, and this is a type of federated identity essentially. Like to me, this is the way to go in terms of keeping us compliant with all the NSF stuff that's coming in the next 10 years. It's just going to get worse and worse. So yeah, I would love it if people came in and got an orchid. Frankly, I would love it if they authenticated to all my systems via their orchid rather than me assigning internal user names and email addresses, right? So there's a lot of things here that could take so much work off the sort of enterprise side and give research benefits and research compliance benefits. So yes, I agree with that direction. I don't know that we'll get there anytime soon, but totally agree with the direction. Tom Morrell, Caltech. I was really excited to see your kind of enhancement of datasets and software links via PDF scraping. So I was curious kind of what percentage of the publications in your repository were you able to enhance in that way? And is any of that code open source? So to answer your second question first, it should be. I need to talk to my colleague who's written the code. I know he would be very happy to share it. So whether it's in an open source repository now, we should make it so. In terms of how many... I don't have the most recent numbers, but I want to say that, again, this is a one that's kind of gradually increased over the years. We started looking, I think we went back to 2020 because we instituted this in 2021, I think. I think it was around 15% at that point, and I think it's more around 30% now. So it's been fairly stable around 25% to 30% for the past couple of years. Very cool. Thanks. Yeah. Mark Loversweiler, University of Oklahoma Libraries. I'm also going to say that I'm a ringer. I'm a meteorologist by training before moving to the libraries. I was also a member of usercom from Unidata. The question I have is related to the software end of things. And so I know working with that at the time, it was not just people within the atmospheric science community. So the local data manager software package for moving data packets is used by a lot of commodity commercial type companies where reporting for them is not going to be in the same interest or vein for us within the science environment. So how do you work with programs like Unidata, which are code developers, or say your radar group, which comes out with SOLO, right, which is the standard? And we're dealing with issues of reproducibility. That's also coming up, and people don't necessarily track what version of the software they've been using for their stuff. I'm seeing it as a culture change within faculty and researchers outside of your organization. So how do you address that? You have these needs internally, and I agree with everything you're saying and everything, all the problems, but also all the advantages. How do you get that culture change for the users that are not within your ecosystem of NCAR or UCAR when you're dealing with the academic institutions, all the field programs that come up, and then the private industry that's making use of your software as well? Solve all the world's problems. We got five minutes here. I can respond first. So first I'll say that most of the Unidata software that you're referring to has DOIs at this point. Now, it's a great point, though, that many of the users wouldn't be writing papers with the software, so you wouldn't sort of track it that way. And so I think we see the sort of DOI-based citation type counts as a complementary to other types of usage counts to kind of get that aspect of it. In terms of the culture change, I think we're also, we've done a lot of engagement with the American Meteorological Society in particular, which of course is very relevant to our community. So I was on a panel that wrote data citation recommendation in 2015. And more recently there's a similar statement on software citation and archiving, and I know that the AMS publication side, so again, publication focused, has changed some of their author guidelines in the recent years to have data availability statement and software availability statements. So I think the culture part is a community thing, and so I think we really like to sort of work with the publishers, AMS and the AGU, which is the American Geophysical Union, to kind of be the more visible entity in that and to kind of get the results cut more groups. Yeah, I'll just add real quickly, and this is going to sound kind of way out there, but when you look around an organization, you see like 40 units, whatever those units are. When you look at the researchers, if you've got 1400 researchers, that's 1400 more units. So each of them has their own set of processes, their own background, their own interests, their own visions, their own goals, their own mission, everything. When you look at that culture change, you cannot get 40 units to adopt a common process. You're never going to get 1400 faculty to adopt a common process. Thinking that you ever will is just beyond a dream. It's just silliness, right? So what you have to do is you've got to come up with things that are close enough to the most common workflow you can think of that it will allow the most number of faculty possible to use it well. And you can't aim for 100% of them because you're never going to hit them, but you can try to get, like, as much as you can. And that's really the best you can do because they are going to keep having their own individual. I mean, that's what they're there for is to have individual missions and goals. So you can't put an end to that or you've killed the research. I'm Megan Sensany. I'm at the University of Arizona. I've been working with members in our research office to try to socialize, work, and adoption. And I was looking at your kind of blue sky, that might be a pun here, list of integrations for products and systems and then hearing your very pragmatic answer just now. And I'm curious, you know, if you were to look at that list and talk about what you would prioritize in terms of potential for highest impact in terms of moving forward specific integration efforts first. I feel like locally, we've done a lot of low hanging fruit pragmatic approaches to, like, what would be the easiest to integrate. But I would just be curious to hear your thoughts on if you were to prioritize some of those items by impact, what you might prioritize. My quick answer would be the institutional repository in the research administration system, your grant system, like to me and your research information management system. So if I get three, those are my three. And I'll just add that the first kind of integration that we're working on within Greg's unit is Workday, which is an HR system. And so what we kind of want to establish there is what's the system of record to track orchids? You know, we have a system of record for publications and for grants, but if we sort of decide that Workday is that, and then we can kind of build other things from there. So that's where we're starting. That's super helpful. Thank you. And I think if I might add that we could have another thing on our short list of priorities for the orchid authentication mechanism. So we're sort of considering that it's part of our initiative to sort of get broad adoption of orchid identifiers themselves. But that use case that I mentioned about the supercomputer facility and being able to authenticate people rather, I mean, we're creating local user name and password. And so we really want to do that in a best practices way and one that also allows us to feedback to orchid profiles, the usage of our facility so that that is, you know, so that's established for the researchers themselves, but then also for our organization when we go to answer questions about our impact. So yeah. Thank you.  Like, that would just be brilliant and we're just nowhere near that right now. So I think we're getting into the break, but let's do one more question then we'll be done. This might not be an easy question for, you know, 30 seconds. I understand why you've approached using DOIs for research infrastructure, like high performance computing and airplanes and things, but it's really a misapplication of DOI and I'm sort of troubled by that because you're kind of pigeonholing something into something that it's not designed for. The question that I have, though, is what are gaps in the persistent identifier landscape that you're facing that we need to develop new PIDs for, like software for research infrastructure that instead of turning to DOI to solve every problem, I mean, we could use the handle system, but let's think beyond the box. Yeah, so I'll comment on that first. I mean, to a certain extent, anything beyond publications is a misapplication of the DOI system. I mean, when we first started looking at data sets, it's kind of a goofy idea, right? They change a lot. If you have regularly growing data sets, the DOI, I think, kind of breaks down a little bit. You get the same data sets in multiple systems quite frequently. So I think any use beyond very stable objects, it's not a perfect fit. But the reason we're using them for that purpose was because we had some of the same goals as we had for data citation, which is, can we see who's using these things? Can we track who's using these things? We've had a really difficult time in doing that. And can we find a mechanism to try to do that? So that's why we're using DOIs. I agree it's a strange fit. But again, I think that's true for a lot of other resources. And what we're trying to do with this grant that I mentioned is to build use cases for different kind of identifier schemes. We're looking at research resource IDs also in that context, which were more created for that purpose, as well as other identifier schemes to say, you know, we have use cases for citing facilities and identifying them. And we have identifier schemes and their capabilities. How do these cases in the identifier schemes match up? So that is one of the goals of this project that I mentioned is to try to get to, you know, is the DOI the right thing to use for these? If not, what's a different and better scheme? Identifier scheme to do that. And like very specifically, if you had a database of your institutional research assets, every column in that database, that's what we need PIDs for. So that's really the short answer. If you can imagine every possible research asset, we need to be able to identify all of them. In terms of your second question, or whatever the other question around, what PIDs do we need more? I would kind of almost push in the opposite direction that I think we need fewer new PIDs at this point and greater connections between the existing PIDs. And, you know, to your point, figuring out which PIDs are really good for which purposes. There were so many PID systems that have been started up. And I think we haven't connected them and really figured out how they work well together. So I would be hesitant to promote any new ones at this point until that's been sussed out a bit more. And I would add on in sort of, in defense of our approach, we began doing this work almost 12 years ago, I think, and we initially signed an ARC to the supercomputer at the time and with the next generation moved toward DOI because DOI had, what am I going to call it, like brand recognition and traction with our researchers. And so in order to encourage the assignment of these persistent identifiers and encourage citation of persistent identifiers, DOI was really sort of an obvious inroad in our community to sort of say they already had established understanding of why, you know, DOI's worked, we'll say. And so it was an entry for us as we got into this space, although now understanding that maybe there were some finesse required. But I think this is a great point of what I was trying to say before, which is the use case was citation, right? DOI was very visible in that context. Whereas in the institutional repository, as I mentioned when we use ARCs, I mean, you know, we want people to cite those, but that's, the use case is more for persistent location. And so we're not concerned about metadata. We're not concerned about citation aggregation as much. And so the ARC is perfectly fine for that. So I think that the point about use cases and identifier schemes and how they match up is really important here. All right, we should stop there. Thank you, everybody. I really appreciate your questions. Thank you.


Why's it feel so good? Okay, welcome to Tea Time 002. I'm Lance Quiggy, and this is Allison Tanner. No relation. Allison has just, I wanted to have another one of these interview Allison and hear about her bad experiences with medicine and health. Because I think her recent extravaganza has, I don't know, it could be a good lesson for a lot of people. What we kinda want you to get out of this is like, I want you to understand that, and she kinda disagrees with me, but most, I think most providers are not gonna care about your health as much as you do. And if you have a particularly challenging situation, you're gonna need to know a lot of details about yourself and the provider needs to know those things, but they don't know what those details are and you're not gonna know what is relevant if you don't know a little bit about the body and generally your body specifically. So Allison went to a neurologist and I'll let her kinda tell her story of her experience with that. So, we know I've had some lingering health issues for a while and things with the stress of PA school and managing my time, they've progressed. Well, they've definitely come back and that's okay. I've still handled them fairly well, I think. It's much better than what I was handling and dealing with in undergrad, but the symptoms are a little bit more progressive. They're a little bit scarier, so some vision issues, some hearing issues, severe neuropathy, which if you don't know what that is, it's pins and needles are burning in your extremities, so I have peripheral neuropathy and it gets worse when I'm outside in heat or if I'm exercising and being in PA school, I've learned that is very clinically relevant to multiple sclerosis. So a couple of months ago, we decided, okay, maybe I should go get another brain image, see if maybe things have progressed. There's some evidence now if you have a history of Epstein-Barr virus that you're much more likely to get MS. Basically 100% of people who have MS have had Epstein-Barr virus. Which she's had. Correct. So- That's mono. Yes, that's mono. So we decided I should probably just go get a brain scan, get a brain MRI, see and make sure that it's not actually MS since it is so clinically specific to that. So I decided to seek out a primary care provider at Phoenix. She referred me to a neurology clinic that they have worked with in the past. And you went to a cardiologist first, right? I did go to a cardiologist first. And briefly they were, my understanding of the story is, he said, I mean, your heart looks great. I don't think it's your heart. Go see someone else. Yes, because there's some things with dizziness. I've had maybe a little bit of hypertension recently, but hypertension is associated with stress and things like caffeine, which is a stimulant, which will increase your blood pressure. So in the fatigue. And fatigue, yep. Like a bad night of sleep, your heart rate and blood pressure the next day will probably be more elevated. So if you have something like sleep apnea, you're more likely to have elevated blood pressure. And we do kind of understand what causes blood pressure, which is relevant for later in the story. Oh, God. But so we decided, see some specialists, see what's going on. Cardiologist said, you look great. It sounds like a lot of your symptoms are definitely neurological. Make sure you see the neurologist. So I went in for my first appointment with the neurologist. And I'd been told in advance that they typically run late. They typically run behind. And that's OK. A lot of specialists, especially with complicated cases. You got to spend more time. Yeah. You know, I want a provider. If you're running late because you're spending an hour with a patient and you're going to spend an hour with me, I don't care. As long as I get that time to see you. And I don't think everyone has that same mindset. But for me, I've worked in a clinic. I know what happens when you're running late. It doesn't bother me. So my first appointment I show up. And the medical assistant is in the room with me taking history. And this was kind of red flag number one. The medical, I don't know if I told you this, medical assistant was training another medical assistant. And I knew that they were training because he didn't know how to do anything. And he didn't know how to spell any of the stuff. So he's taking my history. And I could say one word. And he would look at the girl. And she would spell him the condition. And at least half the time, she was spelling them wrong. And so I can kind of understand that. You don't need to get the spelling right. The computer will fix it. As long as you're getting the notes, that's fine. But it was really hard for me to give a coherent background because my story is so long and it's eight years long. So is that the first red flag? That was the first red flag. Was that part of the appointment late? Yeah. So this is maybe an hour after my appointment time. They take me back. This is the experience I'm having. So then I'm sitting in the office for about an hour after they took not a full intake. But as much as they could get, half the words are spelled wrong. I know they're spelled wrong. And the neurologist finally comes in and she starts in. So I hear what brings you in today. And I said, well, I've been having a lot of symptoms for a really long time. And I think it's time that I get them checked out because they've started to come back and they've been worse. So I start to dive into my story and she cuts me off. And she says, give me just the highlights. Pick one or two symptoms that you want to discuss. And with the majority of my symptoms being neurologically related and all of them overlap and you're coming in for a possible diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, which has tons of different presentations and symptoms that are associated with it, for her to tell me to narrow it down was kind of upsetting. But, you know, okay, whatever, I'm not there for you to diagnose me right now. I'm there so that we can order tests to see what's going on. I understand that. I have that background to see that. But for someone who doesn't know how ordering tests work, she just needs a code to put into the computer to get insurance to approve me to get the MRI because she knows from hearing my story, I'm not diagnosing this girl today. It's not gonna happen. It's too complicated of a case. So she just needs the highlights. I understand that. That's fair. So I told her the main symptom that's most easily recreated is the neuropathy, which is pins and needles. I get it in my arms, my legs. If I'm exposed, like if I go outside right now, it's maybe 90 degrees. I'll have neuropathy within five minutes. Sometimes I'll get it with exercise. Sometimes I just get it randomly sitting in class. So I say that one and I don't remember if I said any others just because that's the main one. And I know that if I'm experiencing neuropathy, when exposed to heat, that that is a diagnostic code to be able to get me an MRI for MS. So I knew that. Cool. She spends another five minutes maybe doing some physical examinations and I've had physical examination class. So I know certain things like, number one, if you're gonna do a test on an extremity, make sure you check that test bilaterally because that's really relevant. You wanna make sure that it's both sides that are affected or just one side where maybe it's just a normal presentation for them and you wanna make sure that it's not anything egregiously asymmetrical. And she only checked one. She only checked one. She only checked one. She did maybe one strength test and she didn't check any of my dermatomes that I have persistent numbness in. Like there's a spot on my leg. I just don't feel it. And that's... It's irrelevant, I guess. It isn't and I know it isn't. But again, I don't really... For this initial appointment, that's not super relevant because I just need her to order the tests. So she says, okay, yep, we're not gonna find anything out today. I'm gonna send you to get some blood work we're gonna check your B12. She's like, I think it's a B12 deficiency. For those of you who don't know what B12 is, it's a vitamin that's primarily found in meat and so you see B12 deficiency primarily in vegetarians and vegans. I'm not that. I have no background of having low B12. I've had B12 checked in the past. There's, I'm not malnourished to have low B12 and low folate, but she wanted to check that. So maybe there's certain GI issues that you might have that affect B12 absorption into the body. So okay, whatever. I had it checked. It seems unlikely, but let's clear it. Yeah, I'll buy that. That's a blood test. And I was like, is there any way that we could also do an MRI because I have a family history of autoimmune. I have a family history of muscular dystrophy. Let's make sure there's nothing centrally going on in the brain, especially seeing this new research about Epstein-Barr virus and knowing that I had a really hard time with my mono infection. Maybe it's connected. So I basically had to ask. She did agree though to order the MRI. So I went back, got my MRI. I got a copy of the MRI because if you're going to the doctor, you're getting imaging, try to get a CD. Not just the case report, not the reading. Get a hard copy of the images so that you can keep that. Save it, yeah. It's really, so my backstory for this, I've had brain scans in the past and they were all done in Connecticut and I don't have that disk. It's in Connecticut. So they can actually send my images to other providers. They only send them the written report. And sometimes they leave out things in the written report. That's not relevant to what you're getting tested for. So it's really important that you get the hard copy. So that's, take home lesson number one from this video if you're watching this far. Get the hard copy, get the disk, keep it in your files and your records. Yeah, organize it where you know where to find it. Yeah, you want that hard copy. So I got my MRI, I came home. I looked at it because I have a general understanding of what to look for and I did not see any lesions. So I knew going into the second appointment, it's not MS, which is a relief in some ways and also really frustrating because it seems like it's progressive and I don't want to keep getting worse, especially with the vision and hearing problems that I've been having. I don't want to go blind. I think that's pretty reasonable. So I went into this appointment expecting to be disappointed. And the first thing that happened was they changed my appointment last minute. So that's fine. Things come up. It was definitely inconvenient because I have class but I understand providers have a difficult time keeping their schedules and she had picked up hours on the day that I was supposed to see her somewhere else so they had to move me, fine, we made it work. I go to my appointment and I'm the first appointment of the day, 8.15 in the morning. I get to the clinic at 8. I go into the lobby, someone comes out and they say, oh, someone will be right with you to check in. And I wait for maybe 20 minutes and I hear them in the back say, she's late, where is this girl? And someone's like, no, I think there's someone out front. And so I hear this conversation going on. They just forgot to tell the person who was supposed to check me in that I was here. So I sat in the lobby for about 20 minutes without them coming to get me and I hear them talking about me in the back. So that's not a great start, but okay, again, I understand. People are humans, people make mistakes, people get confused, it's fine. So then they take me back. The NA is training someone again, but this girl was much better. She didn't have to get spelling, it was much more coherent. She was going through her old cards, her HPI, she did great. So I'm sitting there and the room that I'm in, the office room that I'm in is next to the physician's office, so it's adjacent. And the walls are pretty thin. So I'm sitting there for maybe five or 10 minutes and then I hear her talking and I hear my name. And then I hear her read the MRI results and I realize she's dictating a note. I'm hearing her process, I'm hearing what she's saying, she's dictating a note for the appointment she hasn't come in to see me yet. If you don't know what note taking is, so sometimes there are times where you would dictate part of a note before you see a patient. That's not that abnormal. But I heard everything that she said. She had put my vitals in it, she had put my MRI results, her patient care plan that she'd already decided and hadn't talked to me about any of this and that you probably shouldn't be uploading a patient care plan without falling up with a patient first because things change or you might do some more exams or you might talk to the patient and say, hey, there's some more stuff that we should look at before I really decide that I'm just going to refer you to other specialists, which is what she had decided. So that took maybe another 20 minutes. So I've been in the office room 30, 35 minutes and then still don't hear from her. She doesn't come to the door. I hear her, what I assume was her talking on the phone saying, are you taking any NSAIDs and asking questions? So I'm sitting there like, are you seeing other patients? I'm your first patient of the day.  What's going on? She finally came in an hour and a half after I had been at the office, maybe an hour back in the exam room. And at this point, I had class because again they had to move my appointment. So I am really frustrated and she comes in and she says, hey, Allison, thanks for waiting. So everything's fine, your scans look good, your blood tests are great. I don't think anything's wrong. And I just start bawling because I'm so frustrated with all of this and clearly things aren't fine, clearly something is going on. But here's this provider saying, I did just baseline tests and I don't see anything. So I'm not going to investigate any further. And I think that's really egregious as a provider. There's a lot more tests that you could do, a lot more investigating that you could do. And she wasn't even gonna give me the time, day or place.  You don't have a B12 deficiency and you don't have neurological syphilis, which she did not tell me she was testing for.  And I can imagine that a lot of people don't feel that way, they don't wanna know all that, they just want you to, they want the doctor to do their job. But in a case like this where it's complicated and you have a little bit of a background, I don't, that doesn't make sense to me. I would communicate. She did know I was a PA student. So she did know I have some background in this. So I'm crying. Normally in this situation, you would expect a provider to stop and think, okay, she's upset by this. Let's talk about it. She just kept talking at me saying, yeah, I don't, your B12's fine. Your MRI's fine. You're the weirdo crying in public.   I sit up, I take a deep breath and she goes, do you have a lot of stress in your life right now? Which is, again, it's a reasonable question because clearly I'm upset. She knows I'm a student. Some of these symptoms can be exacerbated by stress. I know my symptoms are exacerbated by stress, but that's not what triggers them. And I've been meticulous about recording these symptoms over the years. I know what triggers it. I know what brings it on. Stress makes it worse if I have the symptom. And if I get a really prolonged period of stress, it can cause the symptoms to come up, but that is not what's happening here. And so I recognize this as a patient, as a future provider. And she looks at me and says, do you have a lot of stress? And I think I just kind of scoffed at her. I was like, I mean, yeah, I'm a PA student in school. And you're making me late for my class. So I have some stress, but I don't think it's what is causing what's happening. And she said, well, I can provide you or I can prescribe you a beta blocker. If that makes you feel better, it might help with your anxiety. And I said, I don't think that's gonna help me because I don't. Beta blockers are, you have, how do I explain beta blockers briefly? You take it for things like high blood pressure. Makes you chill out. Yeah. It's not a sedative, but it's something that helps calm your nervous system. Or the response from your nervous system. So yeah, it can help people with anxiety. It can help you lower your blood pressure. It can help your heart tone down if your resting heart rate's really high. But that's not my issue. And my blood pressure's actually been really normal. It's gotten better, yeah. The past couple of months, my heart rate is back below, my resting heart rate is back below 60. That hasn't felt like an issue. And I don't think anxiety is my primary issue because I actually don't feel very anxious. And I've worked on anxiety the past several years and I've been in therapy for it. And I feel pretty good about it. And that was really frustrating because it's something I've worked on. And so I said, I don't think that's gonna help me. I've been having more issues and I explained to her the other symptoms I've been having, how I have tremors, how I have all this other stuff. And she stops and goes, I didn't know you had any of this. And I said, yeah, because the first appointment you told me to pick a symptom. So you don't have my full story. And you're trying to say, you just need to see a rheumatologist take a beta blocker for all these symptoms that I didn't even know that you had. So she didn't take the time to really listen to me again, which was frustrating. And then again, I have this background. I've worked in a clinic. I understand what it's like when you don't know what's happening with a patient. That's okay. The doctors aren't gonna know everything that's wrong with you. My case specifically, it's very complex. I don't think science has caught up with what's happening to my body. I don't think they will find out for a while what's really triggering this and what's causing it. And I can accept that. And so I told her that. I said, listen, it's okay. I'm definitely frustrated by this, but it's okay if we don't know what's going on, but I don't feel comfortable just taking a beta blocker and masking some of the symptoms because I don't think it's gonna actually help me feel better. And she said, well, I can prescribe you Gabapentin, which is something that can reduce neuropathic pain.  Why do you think a vitamin is gonna help me? And she said, well, sometimes we have to treat things that we don't know what they're being caused by, like hypertension or high blood pressure. We don't know what causes high blood pressure, which we kind of do. There's a lot of explanations for why people have high blood pressure, not always, but we understand genetics has a component, stress, poor sleep, certain renal issues. There's high salt diets, high fatty diets, all of this plays into hypertension. So no, we do kind of understand what causes this and we understand how to control it. And we to a degree know how to reverse it. That's why if you are early in your hypertension journey, it's important to address it early because once you let it progress, it's harder to turn around. Same thing with diabetes. So she went on to say, and we don't know what causes type 2 diabetes, but we treat it, we do. We don't know exactly the biochemistry behind insulin resistance, but we know insulin resistance is part of it. We know that there's pancreas involvement and we do. We understand type 2 diabetes fairly well. So at this point, I'm trying to make sure I'm staying composed, but I'm very frustrated. And that was kind of ridiculous to me that she was trying to lecture me about things that were just factually incorrect. And then she said, well, you know, I'm typically a really difficult patient because sometimes I just think I know stuff and I try to draw connections between things that aren't really connected. So I'm a difficult patient and sometimes I just need another provider to tell me that what's happening is not what I think is happening. And I looked at her and said, okay, but most of my symptoms are strictly neurological at this point. And that was when she said, you're just a bad patient. And that was when I started crying again because that was not fun to hear and to be scolded when I'm just trying to advocate for myself. And I think that is what we kind of wanted to talk about is just it's really hard as a patient to one, understand what's going on. That's why you have these professionals. That's why you have people to help you because you don't know what's going on. So you have doctors to help you figure out what's going on. You expect them to have that baseline and to help you through your journey in your process. I'm someone who's been very active in my journey and my process. I'm meticulous, I've journaled and documented my symptoms throughout the years. I can tell you exactly when certain symptoms started, what month of what year, and... You're going to school for it. I'm going to school for it. So you can solve your own issues because no one else can. So I would hope that a provider would recognize that and say this girl is very dedicated to what's happening and to figuring out what's happening. She really wants help and I just need someone to help guide me, to help me order tests, to help want to explore this with me because it's affecting my life so much. And in the past when this has happened, I've just kind of shut the door and said, okay, nothing's wrong with me. I'm just going to step away and I'll just help myself with diet, lifestyle and exercise. And this time I said, no, you should really be trying to figure out more of what's going on. And then she told me I'm just a bad patient. Which is frustrating for all of us. And I mean, as somebody who's not there, I'm like, okay, what do we do now? Do you want me to leave a bad review? Because I think we should because I don't want anybody I like going to see this person. But that doesn't solve your problems. And I think the solution is just to constantly keep learning about this stuff. Even if it's not, even if you don't want to go the Allison route and go to some higher education program where you learn how to order tests and stuff. You've got to, you've got to one, you've got to learn what symptoms matter. And two, you've got to learn who not to trust and who to trust.  You don't want that to just run amok because it could get worse, right? So even though this is frustrating, we still have to find another appointment with another doctor and try to find somebody who might be a little bit more compassionate and maybe hopefully a lot more competent. And that's, so the plan that she gave me is, well, I can, I think you should see a rheumatologist, which is fair. I think you should see an infectious disease doctor because of your Lyme history. Kind of fair. We know I don't have an active Lyme infection now. And so most infectious disease doctors are going to say, you don't have an infection anymore. Your recovery process is not something that you deal with me with. So yes and no on that. But I think it hits home about these specialties that medicine has. So you have neurology, cardiology, you have endocrine, you have rheumatology. They can only focus on what is tangible for them. And so when this neurologist has a case where there's nothing in her immediate round of tests, she's not going to explore further to figure out what's going on. She's not helping me. She's trying to push me off onto another specialty even though my symptoms are clearly neurological. And I think that's a really big problem with the medical community is one, they just don't listen to the patients. Two, if it doesn't fit their perfect image of what a disease should look like, they are clueless on how to help you. And I say that because this lady was clueless about what to do with me. She even said, I could just send you, I can write you a referral for a different neurologist so you don't have to come back here. Which at this point, yeah, I'm never going back there. No one should, but. Except to get your water bottle that you left. Someone else went and got it for me so I didn't have to be locked up. Hashtag, thanks, Brenna. I'm really good friends. So the thing that is frustrating is in the medical community, she is trained to notice these things. And we joke about this with our buddy, Alan, but it's like, oh, she saw the MRI and you're not completely paralyzed.  Where you're not trying to be necessarily healthy, you're just trying to be not sick. And for you, it's not quite there yet. So you're trying to just get on top of things before they get worse. So when you see a doctor who's a creature of habit, like all humans, and they're looking for this pattern and then they don't see the pattern and they don't know what to do, the dream is to find the doctor house to take your patient because it's a unique case and he's gonna look at it with a blank slate. You need people who, and this goes back to the advocacy. You can self-advocate for yourself, but if you're just told that you're a bad patient when you try to advocate for yourself, one, it's discouraging. I don't wanna go back and see another doctor to just be told I'm being a brat because I didn't feel like I was. I was trying to be respectful.  You need someone to take you by the hand and say, you're not alone in this. I'm gonna help you find out what's going wrong. And if we can't figure it out, we're in that together.  And I don't think that there are many people in medicine who do that. Well, it's hard to do that because if you're really nice but you can't fix the problem, there's no reason for you to go and see them. Yes and no, I think that is something primary care provider should be doing more of is if, how many times, think about this, because I can think about it for myself. The amount of times that I've seen a primary care provider and we've talked about what's going on, and they say, okay, what do you wanna do about this? And I say, well, I'd like to see some specialist, maybe. And they say, okay, I'll send you to a neurologist. Not, okay, let's send you to the specialist. If they don't have an answer, come back. Come back, you can come back and I can read those results, see what that specialist said. And if it doesn't help you, we're gonna figure out what to do next and we're gonna figure that out together.  Yeah, I mean, I think the goal in this case is not necessarily to have a primary care provider who knows what the answer is, but somebody who will help you find somebody who knows what the answer is. You've found the basic neurologist that looks at the normal neurological tests in their routine, but now you need the weirdo neurologist that looks at the weirdo tests and the weirdo symptoms in their routine. Yeah. And you just gotta find that person. And that's where we're at. But I think that the take-home message from this video is, one, learn about your body, figure out what you're feeling, and I think something that Lance did not say that's really important, learn about systems because that's how specialists are broken up. So the reason I had to see a cardiologist is because some of my symptoms, like light-headed and dizziness, can be associated with cardiological issues, which is why they said you need to see a cardiologist and a neurologist because it could be either of those things. So figuring that out, what the systems are doing, what systems your symptoms are associated with so that you understand the specialists that you're seeing and why you're seeing them is really important. Speak up for yourself. If you don't like a medic, if the doctor says, here's what's wrong with you, here's your medication, buy, and they're not explaining to you what it's for, ask. Yeah, if you don't know, just ask.  Ask your questions. Ask what this test is trying to find. Ask what this medication is gonna treat. Ask what they think is wrong with you. I've had, I've seen patients that have seen doctors who they leave given a prescription drug to take for the rest of their lives and don't even know what their diagnosis is, which is insane. Which is insane. Sorry, dead battery. Insane. I don't remember now. But just, so- You're saying learn about systems. Learn about systems, ask questions, and if you don't feel like you're getting good care, don't let that shut the door for you.  It means you need to find another doctor. Yeah. So try not to get too discouraged. If you're not happy with your care, don't let that discourage you from seeing all providers because I'm not gonna get better. Things are getting worse. So her saying, you're fine, doesn't mean I'm fine. It doesn't mean that I'm healed and I can't just accept that she said I'm fine and move on because things are getting worse. And so if I don't advocate for myself and continue my journey myself, I'm gonna get a lot worse. Who knows how much? So you have to kind of stick with it and find a support system, whether that's a really good primary care physician, whether that's a partner, whether that's a family member or a friend, find someone to help you with your journey. Don't just give up. And the other stuff that I always talk about on this channel is like, just be healthy, take care of yourself, do stuff. Even if it's not gonna solve your sickness, I think you should put a lot of energy into solving your sickness, but you should also sleep and eat vegetables, which we're cooking right now. Taking care of myself is how I've treated myself for the past eight years. And only until recently, living in the hottest place in the world is when I started to get really sick. So, and even then I manage my symptoms. Like I can function, I worked out today, which is huge because in the past that wouldn't ever happen. So I do have moropathy, I do have progressing symptoms, but I can still manage my baseline well enough with diet, lifestyle, exercise, sleep that it's not as bad as it could be. And I could be slowing it down or helping my body reduce the inflammation that's triggering these symptoms. So I'm gonna keep going on my journey. You should keep going on your journey and really, really advocate for yourself because to Lance's point, okay, I like to think that providers care a lot about their patients because I care a lot about the people I've worked with in the past.  So that's hard for me because I say, if you just exercise and go for a walk every day, you're gonna feel a lot better and then people don't do that. That's frustrating for me as a provider, but it doesn't mean I quit and push them off onto a different person. I mean, I need to provide you better guidance and better explanations as to why this is important. But advocate for yourself, stand up for yourself because you know your symptoms, they can't interpret and understand what you're feeling. Speak up for yourself, ask questions and don't stop trying just because one or two doctors, you don't really like them and you don't like the answers that they're giving you. Yep, and keep learning. Thanks for watching. If you learned something, hit the like button and subscribe to be notified when we release new videos. If you need something else to watch, well, maybe tea time 001. Also drink tea, tea is delicious. The other tea time, we talked about other health stuff. So you might like that podcast style. And stay tuned because I get my cholesterol checked next week and hopefully it's a good result. And if so, we'll be doing a video about all the stuff I did to help lower it. And if not, we'll put it off. Maybe about how embarrassed I am that it didn't work. Thanks.


Good morning and welcome to this tutorial video from STA Microelectronics. I am Andrei Vitale, sensor ecosystem manager in the Internet of Things Excellence Center in Santa Clara. Today I'm going to use the Sensor Time Development Kit. We will see how to use the environmental MEMS sensors and verify their performance. MEMS stands for Micro-Electromechanical Systems. The environmental sensors are the barometer to sense the ambient pressure and the hygrometer to sense the ambient relative humidity and temperature. We will also have a quick look at the digital MEMS microphone, which can be used to sense ambient sounds. A short introduction to the Sensor Tile. The Sensor Tile is a reference design, an evaluation tool and a development platform. The Sensor Tile is a tiny, square-shaped module. It is only 13.5 x 13.5 mm. This module packs a powerful microcontroller, a Bluetooth low-energy radio network processor, motion sensors, accelerometer and gyroscope, environmental sensors, magnetometer and barometer, and a digital microphone. The Sensor Tile is part of the Sensor Tile Kit. The Sensor Tile Kit includes two different motherboards that can extend its capabilities. The Sensor Tile Cradleboard and the Sensor Tile Cradle Expansion Board. If you want to learn how to assemble the Sensor Tile, search the Unboxing the Sensor Tile video on YouTube. Once you have assembled your Sensor Tile, you can connect it to your smartphone. You just need to download and install the ST BlueMS app from the iTunes or the Android Store. When you are ready, power up your Sensor Tile and run the ST BlueMS app on your smartphone. Connect the Sensor Tile to the ST BlueMS app. Power up the device and wait until you see the orange LED blinking. Then launch the ST BlueMS app. Push on the Start Discovering button. And you will see the device name on the list. In this case, we are running the old Mems 1 firmware version 3.2.0. Select the device and you will be connected. Log the ambient pressure, relative humidity and temperature. In this screen, you can see the ambient temperature, pressure and relative humidity. If the Sensor Tile is assembled on its cradleboard, there are two ambient temperatures. The first one is from the humidity sensor, the thermometer. The second one is from the pressure sensor, the barometer. Press the Share icon on the top right corner of the screen. A pop-up menu will appear. Select Start Logging. You can now blow some hot and humid air on the device to see variations in temperature and humidity. Or you can move the device up and down to see variations in the ambient pressure. Press again the Share icon and then select Stop Logging. Plot and log data in real time. Press the Plot data icon on the bottom of the screen. Press Select Feature and scroll until you find the parameter of interest. Humidity. Select. Scroll to select the time scale for the plot. Select. You will see the data in real time. Press the Share icon on the top right corner of the screen. Select Start Logging. Make some change in the parameter by blowing some hot and humid air on the device. When you're done, press again the Share icon and select Stop Logging. The app will prepare an email with several attachments. If you have selected an environmental parameter for the plot, you will get the log for all the environmental parameters. Humidity, pressure and temperature. Plot sound pressure level and stream voice over Bluetooth low energy. Press the Plot data icon on the bottom of the screen. Press Select Feature and scroll to the end. Let's select Microphone level. And again select for the time scale of the plot. You will see the sound pressure level in DD. If I stay silent, the level will drop. And as soon as I speak, the level will raise again. Now let's press the More icon and select Blue Voice. Blue Voice is a function which transmits voice over the Bluetooth low energy line. This is not easy to do as Bluetooth low energy has no dedicated profile with high throughput and low latency as the classic Bluetooth. It must be emulated. To hear your voice on the smartphone speaker, be sure that it is not in vibration only mode. Be aware that if the microphone or the sensor tile can capture the sound from the smartphone speaker, the high pitch lasts in effect due to audio feedback and happen. Performance of the barometer for altitude estimation. Let's have a closer look to the performance of the barometer. Sound and pressure is related to many factors. One of them is the altitude. Let's then perform an experiment. Turn on the sensor tile and connect it to the ST Blue MS app. Press the Share icon and start logging the environmental data. To verify the sensitivity to the altitude, repeat the following sequence at least two times. Move the sensor tile up by few inches and keep it at that level for few seconds. Then move the sensor tile back to the original level and keep it there for few seconds. When you're done, press the Share icon again and stop logging. Send the email with its attachments to yourself. The attachments are in CSV format, comma separated values. You can read them using a simple text editor or you can use a software tool such as Matlab or Excel. In this case I've used Excel. I copied the relevant columns in my Excel sheet and I've created two plots. One for the ambient pressure and the other one for the temperature. Do not forget to edit the axis properties to zoom in and see the small variations that can be there. Looking at the ambient pressure, one can easily see that the output changes due to the altitude changes. When the boat was up, the ambient pressure was down. And when the boat was down, the ambient pressure was up. Looking at the temperature, one can see the temperature stability of the output. The sensor tile was warming up, but the output of the parameter was stable. The last portion of the plot shows a pressure spike and temperature increase, which is due to blowing with breath on the sensor. During this tutorial we have seen how to use the sensor tile development kit to use environmental MEMS sensors and verify their performance. I hope you have seen how easy it is to use the sensor tile as an evaluation tool. Thank you for watching. Bye!