is my voice audible now? Okay, all right. Okay, so as I was saying, we talked about the different, you know, God is a God of covenants. He keeps those covenants. He's a God who establishes those covenants and He calls us to be part of the covenant, right? Now, let's go into chapter 2. We look at God's covenant names. Now, we establish the fact that God is a God who makes covenants. He's the initiator of the covenant and He wants us to be part of the covenant, right? And God being a covenant God, He by His name, who He is, is a covenant keeper, right? So let's look at some of those names of God, right? Exodus chapter 6 was 3 to 5. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, which is El Shaddai. But my name, Lord, I was not known to them. I have also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land of the Apilgrimage, in which they were strangers. And I've also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered my covenant, right? It says, I have remembered my covenant. Now, let's look at this word called Lord. I mean, we use it very often, right? Yes, right? We use it in our songs that we sing. But what is the word Lord? When we translate it to Hebrew, it is, you know, it is this word, yadhe vadhe, right? It is the most supreme name given to a person, right? It's four letters in the Hebrew. If you see your notes, it's yadhe, we say yadhe and warhe, right? But the exact pronunciation is yadhe vadhe, which means what? Jehovah, Jehovah, or Yahweh, right? This is the name which God chooses for himself. He says, I am the Lord. I am the God. I am the yadhe vadhe. I am the Jehovah, right? And let's go down. He's the self-existent, which means nobody created God. Nobody, you know, fashioned Him. He was there from the beginning, right? He was absolute. He is indisputable. He's unchangeable, and He's a God who is always the same yesterday, today, and forever. Now, it's wonderful and it's exciting to know that as believers, you and I worship a God or we are in covenant with a God who does not change. All other covenants, you know, earthly covenants, they keep changing or they keep renewing it. But in the Bible, when God has made a covenant, it does not change, right? Now, even if you look at the book of Revelation, it talks about how Israel will be the center of everything, right? Across the world, Israel will be the center, right? And it's working towards that. Why? Because God has made a covenant with the nation of Israel, right? So even the smallest prophecies or the smallest covenants that God has given, He has kept it, right? So through time, God reveals Himself through these names, right? He reveals Himself who He is, what He can do through these covenant names, right? And we as His people, even when you look all through the Old Testament, you see God revealing Himself to His prophets, to the nation of Israel, right?  It's not like, okay, God did it in the Old Testament. He did it for Apostle Paul and people in the New Testament. It's not like He's not doing it for us now. He is doing it for us now. So every time we pray, we must understand that I'm praying to a God who hasn't changed. I'm praying to a God who keeps His covenant, and I'm praying to a God who is a God who will hear us and answer us because of the covenant that He has kept, right? Look at those, let's look at a few names. Jehovah Elohim, the eternal Creator. Elohim, and we see those names quite a few places in the Old Testament. Jehovah Elohim, God the Creator. So right now, in our situation, we know that God created things, right? He created human beings from the dust. But didn't God create things now? Can He bring things into existence out of nothing? Yes or no? Yes, right? Remember that verse in Romans 3.17, He says, He calls those things that are not there as if they are there. So He can create, right? He can create organs in a person's body. He can create things that, you know, people, human beings cannot comprehend, right? He can do things, you know, just by saying the word. He can do it, right? And is it that God has changed? No, right? Because He is Jehovah Elohim, He's the eternal Creator, right? God, we can pray, God, you know, I've been faithful, create an opportunity for me. God can do it. God can make something come for us. He can open a door for us, doors of opportunity. He can create opportunities for us, right?  Some of them come and say, you know, there's a sickness in my body and, you know, the doctors have said this has to be done, that has to be done. You can pray saying, God, create, right? Create these muscles or create these blood vessels that are required. Create, right? The problem is we think it's only the doctors sometimes. We know God can do it, right? He took the, you know, the sand from the earth and He put it on the blind man's eyes and said, go and wash. And He received His sight. God can create things for us, right? So He is the Jehovah Elohim. It's not just a song that we sing. It should be reality within, right? Then Adonai Jehovah, the Lord our Sovereign or Master Lord, right? The Lord our Sovereign or Master Lord. When we say Adonai Jehovah, He's Master, right? What is, what is Master? Master is a name given to somebody who knows all, right? Highest in the ladder, right? Master Lord, Sovereign. Nothing can stop him.  He's Sovereign. If he decides it, it is done. And the devil can come and try whatever he wants to try. But if he decides something, it's not, right? That's the sovereignty of God. If he decides, for example, right? If he decides, tomorrow's the rapture, it's done. It's not like Satan is going to say, oh, no, it can't be, I still have so much work to do. He's sovereign. He decides, right? If he decides that tomorrow, the whole day, it's going to be dark. Scientists can't come and say, no, no, it should not be dark because day is bright, night is dark. If God decides, he decides. You understand what I'm saying? So, he's above science. He's above our natural mind. He's above our understanding. He's sovereign, right? He is Jehovah Jara, the Lord who everyone knows this. The Lord who provides, and he provides in supernatural way. And this is, this came up from the book of Exodus where he provided for the people Jehovah Nessie, the Lord is our victory banner, right? Jehovah Rafa, the Lord our healer, Jehovah Shalom, the Lord our peace, Jehovah Rohi, the Lord our shepherd. What a wonderful, you know, look at that. It's so, it's so beautiful to just read them. Jehovah Nessie, the Lord is our banner. He's fighting for us, right? Oh, Jehovah Rafa, the God our healer, Jehovah Shalom, the God our peace, you know, in a world that we are living in, peace is something very, it's very hard to find, right? People want peace, but they get P-I-E-C-E rather than P-E-A-C-E, right? Their life is in pieces.  Why? Because he is the Jehovah, Jehovah Shalom, the God of peace. So, for example, you know, you are going through a difficult time in life, right? There's challenges. You go back once you join the ministry or you're serving in your church and all of a sudden, you this, this is challenges, right? It could be in the family. It could be within church. We have a choice. We can succumb to that challenge or succumb to that stress and all that's happening, or we can say, God, you are my peace, right? You are my peace. You know, many a times we go through life forgetting what God can do, right? And it happens because we are so, you know, sometimes when we think naturally, we behave naturally at the carnal mind, right? And so, when we turn our attention towards who God is, we begin to understand, okay, God, you are able to do these things because this is who you are. This is what you can do. This is your covenant, right? Jehovah said, the Lord are righteousness. Jehovah shaman, the Lord is present.  God, the creator of the heavens and the earth is hearing your prayer. He's there. He's present there, right? Now we may not feel it. Yesterday at the mentoring, our people asked, how do I know God is there? He's there. Why? Because that's his covenant.  He is there in that. He's a God who hears that, right? How many of us have done that, right? Sometimes you just can't do anything. You say, God, help me, right? It's just a cry from the heart. He's there. He's present in that, right? The Lord of hosts, Jehovah, sorry, Jehovah Sabot, the Lord of hosts, Jehovah Makadesham, the Lord are sanctifier. What is sanctify? What is sanctify? Sorry? Cleansing? Yeah. All of us know that, no. Sanctify is the Lord who cleanses us. Like, what does all through the New Testament says? He sanctified us. He set us apart, right? Now, in our life, we will have things that are there. There will be temptations. There will be challenges. But when we go to God and say, God, these are the things that are in my life, and I need to get rid of it. He is Jehovah Makadesham, the God who sanctifies, right? Jehovah Eleon, the Lord Most High, Jehovah Hosino, the Lord Maker, Jehovah Elohim, the Lord our God, Jehovah Eloheka, the Lord Thy God, and Jehovah Elohe, the Lord, my God. So, you look at all these names. These are the covenant names of God. And you and I can use these names in our prayer times, in times of ministry, when we're ministering to each other. It's not like you have to know the exact pronunciation and all of that.   You are the Jehovah Shalom. Now, give me that peace. I want to rest in that peace. I don't want to live in stress. I don't want to live in fear, in doubt. I want the peace that you have promised. I didn't say, I'll give, you know, I didn't say anything. You have initiated the covenant. You get what I'm saying, right? You, God, have initiated the covenant. So, the onus is on you.  Amen? Right? So, when we do this, we begin to understand, you know, how we can really fellowship with God.  Right?  Okay, all that is there. But who God is? God, what you've done for me? Who you are in my life? Right? And sometimes, you know, these declarations that we do can go on for hours. Why? Because you're just declaring who He is, what He has done. Right? God, you are Jehovah Jairah. And then every time I say that Jehovah Jairah, God, I look back, I see your faithfulness. You are Jehovah Shammah. But you, can you picture what I'm trying to say to each one of you? Right? So, all of a sudden, we may not, you know, we have, for example, we're praying 30 minutes a day. All of a sudden, you'll realize, hey, there's so much I can pray. There's so much I can thank God for, all the things that He has done, all the covenants that He has kept for me. Right? All the times when I called on to Him, He answered me. Right? And so, we begin to build on that. Malachi chapter 3 in verse 6 says, For I am the Lord and I do not change. A wonderful, wonderful promise that is, I am the Lord and I do not change. He is still Yahweh, the God of covenant. He is in covenant with us. And you and I, as His children, must understand how to live in that covenant. Right? Now, basically, what we want to accomplish in this chapter is, it's not like you should know it all by heart and, okay, for the test, you should get 100 on 100. It's not about that. What we want to achieve is, God, this is your nature. These names, these things that we have learned, this is your nature. Right? And you and I can use it in our life. It's a choice. Right? Are we in covenant with God? Yes or no? Yes? So, we can use these names. Right? We can use it in every season of our life. Right?  Early January, I was really tired. I pushed myself in December, you know, and January began to show up. And remember the conference, I was, you know, just a little down. I went back home and I said, go on.  So, I went back home. I wanted to sleep. I was so tired. I just said, God, you are the Jehovah, Rafa. I just closed my eyes. Opened my eyes. It's more than an hour. I didn't realize. Right? But I'm, you know, I'm tired. My body is weak. Oh, man, I keep touching myself. Oh, I checked my temperature. It's 103. I was not getting sleep after a while. But I remember at that moment and saying, God, you are the God who keeps covenants.  There was such a peace in my heart. You know, I'm not counting. I'm not saying because of the medicine that's happened. I popped it, but it was more than the medicine. The medicine can heal the body, but there was such a peace in my heart and there was such a strength in my spirit. And when I woke up in the morning, I was, I just knew, God, you are there with me. There was such a joy and I knew there was something happening. Like my body may have been weak still right from the tiredness from the fever, but my spirit, you know, I just felt like a lion that morning.  I just felt so strong in my spirit. Why? Because we can stand on these names. So I did.  All I said was, God, this is who you are and this is what you can do. Right? So it's not always, when we pray, when we have our personal prayers, when we are praying for people, yes, we pray in Jesus' name, we pray the blood of Jesus, but times like this, when we are weak, you use the name of God. You use His covenant names, God, this is who you said. Now, you don't have to think, oh, I don't know what is that? No, I have to open my Bible and check. It's okay. Just say it, express it, whatever your need is, express it. This is who you said you are. This is what you said you can do. Right? Any questions? Or we move into, yes, hold on. Let me, the Lord, thy God. Yeah, so, thy is us, our God, the Lord, our God, the Lord, my God is a personal thing. Right? So it's just that the Hebrew has two different things. It's like two different words, two different Hebrew meanings. Right? So when when prophets in the old covenant say, the Lord, your God has spoken this to me. Right? And then sometimes in those prophecies, our Lord God has promised this to us. But it's the same thing. It's just bringing it very personal in some. And in some, he's blanketing the entire nation or every believer. So, okay. Right. So, one of the, let's go to chapter three, understanding blood covenant. Now, one of the, and we'll talk more about this in the cross and the blood in the next sections, but understanding the blood covenant. Now, the word covenant is a serious bond. We talked about it.  We talked about that. But what is a blood covenant? Right? Why is the blood covenant so powerful? Right? Even in the Old Testament, when you look at the blood covenant, it's very powerful. I remember the high priest, they would take the blood, they pour it on the altar saying, okay, this is to signify the sins of Israel. Like once a year, he would go and why was that blood so important? It was just a goat, right? How did that blood become, you know, that the whole nation of Israel stops everything that they're doing and their eye is on this one high priest who is going with the blood of the goat in a small cup and pouring it there. What is so special about that blood covenant? You know, when we say blood, blood is what? Life, right? If all our blood is drained out from our body, you know, our heart is not going to work, right? The heart pumps blood, right? So there should be sufficient blood going into the heart. Too much blood is a problem. Less blood is a problem, right? So blood is life, right? Of course, we have the heart, which is the main organ, but it is the blood that supplies the heartbeat, right?  Let's look at this, right? The Hebrew word covenant is, which means to cut a covenant referring to a covenant that was made by passing in between two pieces of flesh, which was the right involved in making a blood covenant between two parties. So basically, I'm going to paint a picture for you now, right? So, for example, in the Old Testament and the Old Covenant, there were two people, right? Maybe two brothers and the two brothers say, hey, until death. This is just an example, right? That's for us to understand. Until death, I will be with you. As a brother, I will support you. I will stand by you. When you fall, I'm there. I will provide you. So two brothers make a covenant. Now, how do I establish this covenant? So the brothers say, okay, let's make a blood covenant, right? Out of all the covenants, let's do the strongest covenant. So what they would do, they would take a ram or a goat or a calf, whatever, they would cut it, right? They will drain out all the blood, keep some of the blood.  I am willing to give my life for you in this covenant, right?  You see how strong the blood covenant is?    Do you see how strong that covenant is? Now, what happens if the other brother says, hey man, you did wrong, why did you do that wrong?  What if this brother says, no, I can't, I don't want to die for your mistake? What is he going to do? If he runs away, he has violated and broken a blood covenant. Right? Now, this is just in natural terms. Now, look at what God did in the blood covenant. A blood covenant is an agreement that involves the shedding of blood, a covenant in the highest form of covenant that can ever be made. The most powerful kind of covenant is the blood covenant. Right? When you enter into a blood covenant with someone, it is binding until death, in some cases continuing from generation to generation to generation. Right?  And then this other brothers, okay, I will look after your generation, your next family, your family and your family, next four generations, I'll look after them. It's a blood covenant I'm making. Right? You see, it's a powerful covenant, a covenant between two people is the strongest born on earth. Now, let's look at what happens when you enter into a blood covenant with someone. Right? First one, your life, all that you have is available to them if they need it. All that you have, right? Everything of you is available to them and everything of them is available to you. Right? Second one, your love, you will do anything for them at any cost. Remember the two brothers, the example that I gave you? They will do anything for them at any cost. Right? So, this other brother, if he runs away saying, hey, you made a mistake, I don't want to take the penalty for that. What happens? He's violated the covenant.  Right? Why? Because of the love. Right? Your love will, the love will cause you to do anything for them at any cost. Third one, your protection, you will come to aid and rescue no matter what. Right? No matter what it costs you, no matter what happens, you are always there being there for them. The blood covenant ceremony was to announce the terms or words of the covenant and then to seal or to ratify that covenant. Now, how is it sealed? How is a blood covenant sealed? In the Old Testament, the blood covenant was obviously sealed with blood.  Right? Now, just an example to paint a picture here. When the Israelites were coming out during the Exodus, they were coming out of Egypt and God initiated all these covenants and when the blood covenant was established, you know, it was so powerful that, you know, they were, when you read through the scriptures, we see that people acknowledge the blood covenant as the highest form of covenant. That's why once a year, the high priests would go in. Over time, God gave his people many, many other covenants. Right? So let's look at a few of them. The blood covenant with Abraham. Maybe one of us can read Genesis chapter 15, 1 through 6. Genesis 15, 1 through 6. Online students, you can also, you know, read it if you have your notes open. Genesis 12, 1, sorry, 15, 1 to 6. Go ahead. Anybody can read. Thank you. Right? We know this story, right? God called Abraham and Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness.  That means what? No matter what happens, I'm there for you, Abraham. You can be out in the desert and there may be 10 lions around you. They will not do anything to you because I am there. You can be in the desert and people may come to kill you. Nothing will happen to you because I will be there. I'm making a blood covenant and I'm ratifying it or sealing it with blood. Let's see what happens after that. God established a blood covenant with Abraham. God himself passed through the sacrifice animals. If we read in Genesis, go ahead. Let's read it. Genesis 15, 7 through 21. It's quite a long chapter, worse, but it'll help us understand. Genesis 15, 7 through 21. Should I read it for the benefit of the online students? I'll just read it. Then he said to him, I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to inherit. Now that is the covenant, right? And he said, Lord God, how shall I know I will inherit it? So Abraham saying, God, you're calling me to a place and he's saying, Abraham's asking a genuine question. Lord, how will I know that I will inherit this land? He said to him, bring me a three-year-old hypher, a three-year-old female goat and a three-year-old ram, a turtle dove and a pigeon. Then he brought all these things to him and cut them in two down in the middle and placed each piece opposite of each other. But he did not cut the birds in two. And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abraham drove them away. Now, when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abraham and, behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. Then he said to Abraham, know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in the land that is not theirs and they will serve them and they will afflict them for 400 years. And also the nation whom they serve, I will judge after they shall come out with great possessions now as for you. Right? So here, just those couple of verses, God is talking about 400 years in Egypt. Right? Now he's coming back.  You shall be buried in a good old age, but in the fourth generation they shall return here for the inequity of the Amorites is not yet complete. And it came to pass when the sun came down. It was dark that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed through the pieces. Right? The Kenites, the Kenazites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Pisites, Pettizites, the Raphim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Gurgashites and the Jebusites. Right? All of them saw this. What happened? Let's just read that verse. Verse 17. And it came to pass when the sun came down. It was dark that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed through those pieces. This is where God established his covenant with Abraham. Let's picture this. Right? God is telling Abraham, I beg your father to many nations. Abraham had a simple question. Are you sure? Yes, I will take you to a land, a land that is flowing with milk and honey and you will be there in that land. God, how will I know that I will be there in the land? Okay, Abraham, this is how I will establish the covenant with you.  And so you're placing one this side and one the opposite side. So two pieces, right? One is this side, one is that side. And, you know, he's there in the mountain, I'm sure. Now, you know, when we read it, we understand later on how the Levitical promises are. But imagine Abraham, say he's cut those animals and he's saying, he's sitting there and said, God, now what? Try and eat or just wait. So he's waiting and a deep sleep fell upon him and suddenly he saw this. When the sun went down to that, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those two pieces. The sacrifices had burned. God himself passed through those offerings and he established the blood covenant with Abraham. So, I'm sure Abraham is, why you had to come all the way for this? You could have just told me, but God was saying, I'm establishing it because you asked me, no? How do I know?  And he established the covenant. Let's look at the next one. Genesis 17 talking about the circumcision, a seal, a token or a memorial of the covenant. Let's read Genesis 17, 10 and 11. Go ahead. So, you see the covenant. First, God established a blood covenant.  Right now, the circumcision was only the ultimate purpose of this covenant which God is making is relationship.  Right? Abraham did it. It was Genesis 18, 17 and the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing? Right? We see a relationship, a covenant.  It will be a blood covenant and you do the circumcision. I'll meet you once a while. It's not so, right? You do what you want. I'm just here in heaven listening, watching anything urgent. I'll come. No, God is talking any saying here. Genesis 18, Shall I hide from Abraham what I'm doing? You see that relationship? That's established. Who is Abraham? What is so great about him? But God is saying, hey, no, no, no. I made a blood covenant with him. Now, he's my friend. I walked through that offering. He obeyed me. He has faith in me. He knows that I will take him to a land and he knows I will bless his descendants. How can I hide it from him? Can God hide if he wants to? He can. He doesn't have to tell Abraham everything. But he's saying here, how can I hide it because I made a blood covenant. It's life for life. Now, the problem is I am, as God, I have no beginning and I have no end. I can't give my life. There's no, you know, I cannot die. But how can I hide something? I built a relationship with him.   That is why later on, you know, when you read these Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, why were they so upset? Because these are prophets who understood what the covenant is. It was not, okay, go there, cut the animal, okay, the high priest will walk through the blood. Okay, next, next, come on, next covenant. What do we do? Okay, guilt offering. No, it was not that. It was, they knew this. They knew, hey, Abraham, our descendants, right? God, God walked, made a covenant with him and God calls him friend. Remember in Jesus's time, the high priest come and say, you know, talk about Abraham. What did Jesus say? For Abraham was, I am. And what did John the Baptist say? God can raise up Abraham's from these stones. Don't put your faith in your rituals. Put your faith in God, right? Are we understanding the weightiness of this covenant, right? Abraham's test to call, the call to give all. Remember what's a part of a covenant? Life for life. Now, 25 years, God made Abraham wait. Isaac was born, the covenant child was born. And when the child was grown up, what did God say? We all know the story, right? God says, hey, Abraham, you're my friend, no? Yes, yes, God, I'm your friend. I've given you what you asked for. Yes. So I have fulfilled my part of the covenant. I brought you to the land, right? I blessed you.  Now, through that child, you will have generations and you will be called the father of many nations. I've kept my covenant. Now, there's something that you have to do in the part of the covenant. Okay, Abraham, what is it?  Okay, Abraham, do you imagine Abraham saying, no, no, no, no. I'm sure he felt that. God, why? Why are you doing this?  I'm sure Abraham would have thought, okay, it's my turn now because God has done what he said. Now, I have to do, it's my part of the, he may not have used the word covenant, but he understood. Okay, because God did his part. Now, I have to do my part. Okay, come Isaac, let's go. Right? Let's go up the mountain and we know the story, right?  So the same way, you know, when God does some things for us, he blesses us, he provides for us, he still wants us to be in covenant. What does that mean? Not just being happy and saying, okay, thank you, God. No, he wants us to do our part of the covenant, to grow more like him, right? To do things, to be obedient to his word, to grow in maturity, to grow in Christlikeness. That's a part that we have to play, right? So we don't say, God, you've given me everything. Thank you so much. Yeah, that's because he's kept his covenant, right? Even when we disobey, he will keep his covenant. But there's something that we must do, right? What did Abraham do? Abraham didn't say, no, God, I'll take, I don't want any promised land. I'll take Isaac. I'll just go away. Thank you for what you've done till now. Did he say that? He said, no, I have to keep the covenant. My turn now.  Now, can you do this for me? What is going to be our response? What is our response going to be? He said, no, God, this is only better. Thank you for all that, but I don't think I'll be able to do this. God is saying, hey, I made a covenant for you. But you know, the wonderful part about our God is, he's not going to say, you have to do it. He keeps the file open. He says, see, I've done for you. You do for me. He may call you to say, okay, can you pray one hour every day for me? Just pray one hour. Just talk to me for one hour. You have 24 hours. You sleep eight hours. You talk to me for one hour. I've done so much for you. Abraham, I've done so much for you. They're willing to give you a son. That's good. But God, you know, God may say, just give me one hour. Just talk to me. I will talk to you. You talk to me. If God is asking that, no, God, actually, it's half an hour is better. Half an hour is good. And oh, it's too cold in the morning. Or I can't do this. I can't do that. God is saying, hey, I've kept my part of the covenant. I'm just asking you to spend one hour. Or he may ask you to, you know, do simple things, right? He's not asking for big things. Go and start a big ministry and 10,000 people must be saved. He may start off with the small things. I'll just take a break, but I'll say this, you know, in Bible college, I was in Bible college, my job was to clean the cobwebs, you know, the place that we had when we were studying, it had a lot of spiders, a lot of cobwebs and all. So my job was to take that long broom and walk the whole college and then sleep and mop the whole place. We were four in the team. Nobody will come. So alone, I'll be doing it. Where are they? They're covering and sleeping. Say, God, what is this? I got really upset and I remember God telling me, you keep your side. You watch what I will do for you. You do. Nobody's there in the Bible college. Nobody's watching you. Nobody's going to honor you. Nobody's going to say, Paul, this award is for you. Nobody's going to do that. And for two years, you're going to do this. But you'll see what I'm going to do for you. You keep your side of the covenant. I will keep my side of the covenant. Now, was that a big deal? Was that praying in tongues for two, three hours? No. It was all what responsibility was given. Do it. Right? Keep your side. God, I'll keep my side. Okay, let's take a break. We'll come back.


update. Good afternoon, folks. Steve Rhodes coming to you live from the shores of well. It was rainy Delray Beach, Florida, but I do see the sun is out now. That must mean we've got rainbows out there. But this is your 1 p.m. update. And Krillin, we've got a mixed bag out here. You got the Dow S&P and Nasdaq trading lower. The Dow is off 49. S&P is down 6. And the Nasdaq is off 44. The Russell says, what are you guys doing? I'm up 13 points. And the Chinese say, I don't understand what you're doing because it's up 100 points. That's about seven tenths to the upside. Gold trading out of $17.60. That's out $5. Silver is down $0.10. Trading out of $22.56. Lights we accrued as flat. Natural gas up $0.11. Let's go take a look at our nine panel market update chart. We begin with taking a look at the ESMini upper left hand corner. We can see the price just sitting at the point of control. That's where both buyers and sellers believe there's fair value. And that fair value is between the prices of $42.81 and $43.87. If you're asking which way is the wind blowing right now, it's into our face versus a, so we've got a headwind. And we say a headwind because you've got that spot volatility on X trading above its 50-day exponential moving average. 50-day right now is priced out at $19.47. Prices trading at $19.73. If we take a look at the NQ prices trading below and closed below yesterday, the bottom, or not the bottom, the center of its center of its bearish structured daily profile, that really does suggest that the NQ should target $14.470. The U.S. dollar index strong like bull, not really doing too much to anything too significant to gold and silver, gold's up a few bucks, but nothing big there. It's still finding resistance at the top of its daily profile, $17.68. In the case of silver, it's at the center of its weekly profile. That's the resistance zone of $22.82. Lights we accrued likely on its way to $83.85 unless we see some type of bearish reversal candle, which would then confirm a sell the D-point. And that would also be a butterfly pattern that's out there. Natural gas is continuing to act strong. Price finds support at the top of that daily profile. That's at $5.38. To close below $5.38, then we're looking at $507 to $492. But that is not the current message. In the case of the 30-year treasury, she's trying to complete that measured move. That's that consolidation breakdown, but you got a brand new profile that is formed. Support at $157 in 1430 seconds. This looks to me like the 30-year treasury wants to make a run for the $159.18 level. That's the center of its daily profile. Folks, stay tuned for the Trader Z Show. But if you're off to start your Tuesday, we want you to have a terrific one. Thanks much for joining us and we'll look forward to seeing you again soon. Take care and be safe.


Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the first gathering for the brand new instrument identifiers community of practice. Welcome. Today we have three speakers for you. And again, questions for those speakers can come towards the end of our call today. We have Andrew Mainett, who is associate professor at the Center for Microscopy Characterization and Analysis at the University of Western Australia. And he's going to present on instrument identifiers, the NIF Trusted Data Repositories Project approach. And then we will have Andrew Jenke, associate director of research technology at the University of Sydney, who is going to talk about the RDA instrument identifiers group. And then we will have a quick update from Siobhan McCafferty from the ARDC skills team on activities in Australia. And finally at the end we have some questions and interactive questions session. So we're going to kick off with Andrew Mainett. I have to say which Andrew. Andrew Mainett on instrument identifiers, the NIF Trusted Data Repositories Project approach. Take it away, Andrew. All right. So my name is Andrew Mainett. I'm a joint microscopy Australia and National Imaging Facility Informatics Fellow. I'm based at the Center for Microscopy Characterization and Analysis at the University of Western Australia. So I'll talk about instrument identifiers and I'm going to talk about that from the context of the NIF Trusted Data Repositories Project. So very quickly, just a slide on the National Imaging Facility. This is a $200 million Australia-wide network of characterization facilities. You can see on the map to the right there are a number of nodes around the country. NIF provides state-of-the-art imaging capability to Australian researchers for characterising humans, animals, plants and materials. And its MRI, PET and CT scanners essentially produce vast amounts of valuable research data. In 2017, ANZ and RDS, now of course the ARDC, funded the Trusted Data Repositories Program. And one of the projects funded under this program was the NIF Trusted Data Repositories Project. This was a 12-month project, which completed in December 2017. And broadly, the aim was to enhance the quality and durability of data generated by NIF. By quality, we meant data had to be captured according to a NIF-agreed process. In terms of durability, the data had to be guaranteed for at least 10 years to be available. And reliable researchers, the data had to be useful for researchers in the future, so it had to have sufficient evidential metadata as well as being available in one or more open data formats. The motivation for the project from this point of view was to enhance the quality of the data required across its facilities. And from the ARDC's point of view, it was to help to establish trusted data repository services around the country. There were four NIF nodes involved, UWA, the lead node, UQ, the University of New South Wales and Monash University. Now the project scope was limited to MRI data, but post-funding, the results have been generalized to other instrument modalities. The project had four key outcomes. The first was a document which we call the NIF-agreed process, which outlines what's needed to obtain trusted data from NIF instruments. So this included having quality control standard operating procedures, quality control cross-reference, but also importantly, having an instrument record and an instrument ID for each instrument. The second outcome was another document describing the requirements necessary and sufficient for a NIF trusted data repository service. This was platform-agnostic, and one of the requirements is that it should be possible within the repository service to link a data set to an instrument ID. And then three and four, number three was to have some exemplary repository services across the four participating nodes. In this case, based on different platforms, XNAP and MyTardis, and finally a self-assessment against international core trust seal for trustworthy data repositories. So in a nutshell, if we take a look at the bottom left-hand corner, we can see we define an instrument record for each of our instruments. We have a unique handle, which we use to represent our instrument ID, and we have an instrument description. We park that handle and the description into a record in Research Data Australia, which is a data and service discovery portal hosted by the ARDC. If you look at the top left now at an instrument, and it's associated instrument PC. On that instrument PC, we install an uploader client. So when a user acquires some data, that uploader client pushes the data up to the repository service. So if you look on the right-hand side of the diagram, across the four nodes, we have our four repository services. We log in with the Australian Access Federation. We organise data by projects, and a project can contain one or more data sets, and a data set can contain one or more data files. Now, importantly, a data set is linked to an instrument. So in the repository service itself, in the database, we have a record for that instrument that includes such things as a link to a quality control project. And more importantly, for the purposes of this discussion, a handle which resolves to the record that we've parked in Research Data Australia. So as we go from instrument to repository service, according to the NIF-agreed process, when the user uploads their data, they include NIF minimal metadata, which includes the instrument ID. The native data goes up from the instrument as well as conversions to one or more open data formats. The instrument operator can also upload quality control data to the repository service. So for any data set that is in the repository, we can cross-reference by date to the most relevant quality control information to understand the state of the instrument when the data was acquired. This is one of the services. This is the one at UWA called Trudat at UWA. You can see the landing page here I've logged in in my own account. The service here is based on my TARDIS, which is developed at Monash University, but we've customized it in a particular way for this project. Here, the word experiment, we map to mean project. So wherever you see experiment, just think project. If I look at now one of the projects or experiments, project number five, we can see that on the right hand side, it contains 62 data sets. One of those data sets I've highlighted there. And you can see there's a reference to the instrument from which the data came, a Brooker Biosec 9.4T MRI. There's a little hyperlink to the right of it there called the RDA, which resolves to the record in research data Australia. And we have a little bit of additional information too, the facility to which the instrument belongs at the CMCA. Another view showing data set, data file view within the repository. Again, I've just circled the area that shows that the instrument from which the data comes from and the hyperlink to the record in research data Australia. So in the project, how did we handle or mint instrument identifiers? Well, it was a two step process. Number one, we mint a handle through ARDC's identifying my data handle service. And we ensure that that handle resolved to the URL in step two, the record that we have in research data Australia. So step two, we're actually creating that record in research data Australia, including in the record, the instrument identifier, as well as a detailed description of the instrument and any related websites. Now, I should point out that access to those two services is through the institution, so we didn't do that directly at the CMCA. At UWA, that meant going to UWA library to be able to mint the handle and to create the record in research data Australia. Once we have a record in research data Australia, it's possible to find that record via the advanced search function. So if you go to the main landing page for RDA, you click on advanced search.  If you look in the bottom left hand corner of this slide, you can see that I've selected here services and tools. Once I've done that, I can enter some search terms. So in this case, I've chosen the organization to be the CMCA where I'm based and the description of the instrument, a bio spec. And then up comes the record. I split the record into two halves on each side of the slide here. So on the left hand side, you can see the description of the instrument, where it's located, contact details. On the right hand side, you can see related organizations and CMCA and related websites. And importantly, on the bottom right hand side, you can see we have the handle, the persistent identifier for that instrument. Now, in the project, we decided to handle updates to instruments in the following way. We decided that what needs to be done is that the RDA record should be updated whenever we make a change to the software and hardware of the instrument. So we simply update the record, but put a date stamp in there so that it's clear when that update occurred. We also decided that should the hardware and software updates be significant enough that that constitutes a change in the system or model number from the point of view of the vendor, then we would deem that the instrument is in fact a new instrument and we'd have to enter new handle as well as create a new record in research data in Australia. Post-NIF, Trusted Data Repository Project at UWA, the UWA Library embarked on a special project to create instrument records for all of our 51 instruments in a local database, a pure database. That involved four steps, bulk import of instrument data into pure via XML, minting of research data in Australia handle identifiers, manual addition of minted identifiers into pure records, and harvest of equipment metadata from pure to research data Australia via custom crosswalk. So the information here was gleaned from the CMCA web pages and also by talking to our individual instrument managers. The custom crosswalk meant taking records in pure and mapping those over to RIFCS schema required for ingestion into research data Australia. So Melanie Barlow at ARDC created the original crosswalk in 2017 for datasets at UWA to park them into research data Australia. And then again in 2018 added capability for equipment or instrument records. And that was in consultation with the UWA library team. And this crosswalk is now being used by other pure users in Australia to harvest into research data Australia. And every time we update pure, we review the crosswalk itself. So I thank here Katima Toofexas who's the research data coordinator at UWA library for this particular information on this slide. This is an example of the Google block that was used to collaborate between UWA and ARDC in order to do the mapping between the pure schema and RIFCS needed for RDA. So if I have a look now at the Brooker BioSpec MRI scanner again, it's an instrument record that I showed earlier. On the left of this slide you can see the record that's in research data Australia. On the right hand side you can see the UWA record, the master record in pure. And what we've done that's a little different to the original project is that the handle now that's in research data Australia actually resolves to the master record in pure rather than to the RDA record itself. All right, some outstanding issues from the project. First of all, how do we standardize instrument records across the National Imaging Facility and in the other increased capabilities. So in this particular project, we had three instruments, three sites I should say that had the same instrument. And when you look at their records in RDA, the descriptions are slightly different between sites and websites included are slightly different. So how do we standardize that? How do we best accommodate instrument updates? So as I said, the approach we took was simply to update the records with date stamp changes. Who's actually responsible for maintaining these records? Is research data Australia itself a suitable place to host these records long term? Is the handle a suitable process and identify to use for instruments? And finally, how do we encourage our researchers to actually cite instrument identifiers in papers they publish? So one thing we can do is to say that by doing so that simplifies the description of the instrument in the paper. They can simply include the handle. Doing that then of course enables NIF to be able to track publication outcomes. We can do searches in papers to find who cited our particular instruments. And with that, I say thank you. Right, thank you very much Andrew. If we have any questions beyond a couple of technical glitches in the middle of that. And I can see some thanks rolling in for you, Andrew. We might just move straight on to Andrew Jenke presenting on the instrument identifiers group from the Research Data Alliance. Okay, so hi everyone. I'm Andrew Jenke from the University of Sydney now. When I did a lot of this work, I was working at UQ. And I was also seconded to at the time to one of the ARDC subsidiaries. So here we go anyway. So instruments at the time, when I decided to join this group, there was no consistency in the way instruments were referred to. There was some consistency in how the records were entered into things like Research Data Australia, but how the instrument itself was recognized was not consistent. So I figured that was something I wanted to have a go at. It just sort of happened out of a group here called the Persistent Interpretation of Instruments Working Group, which is one of the subgroups of Research Data Alliance with the URL on the top. And these slides understand it was made available towards the end of this. They had a remit, so quite early on in the group, in the formation of the group, Research Data Alliance has got a process around how these groups are formalized and how they're recognized and how they're endorsed, which I'll step through a little of the detail of. And this sort of describes that the journey towards piddings, as we're calling it. I was presenting in a DMP, an RDA DMP group, and Marcus happened to turn up, which I think is one of the strengths of the RDA conference or the plenaries as they're called, in that you see a wide attendance of people across all the areas, as opposed to just in my own narrow area that I was looking for. He invited me, Marcus Schlockert, to be part of this group. At the time, there was fairly north, well actually northern Europe dominated, and they were interested in having a Southern Hemisphere chair as well. So I joined at that stage and I submitted a NIF, National Music Facility user case, to the group. Turns out that our NIF user case was quite different to most of the other user cases within the working group, which was a good thing in that for most of them, they were more concerned of problems around multiple instruments and multiple IDs to make up a group. So for example, they were looking at thousands of instruments being towed across the top of the Atlantic Ocean, in one case, and how all those identifiers in a mesh would come back together towards the single data set and where the data would come from. Others were interested in things like how a long-term instrument attached to an ID attached to a telescope, how that might change over time and follow the images, which is probably the closest to what we were doing, but there were a lot of other use cases which were completely different to what I was used to. So for that use case, it was very interesting for me to try and develop an instrument ID that was different to just my own local use case. So I joined as the chair. It meant that a lot of the work we did because the geographic distance was predominantly around GitHub and Google Docs, and it also meant we turned out running alternate meetings because there was no good time zone. So this group still runs. I've since stood down as a chair since taking up my position as UCIB, and there's now a new group which I'll show you towards the end of this. And at the moment we're back to monthly telecoms which I still join, but as the time gets closer to the RDA plenary, they tend to be more consistent. So what I'm sort of saying to all you listening there from our local community is get involved in groups like this. You can get much further reach and you'll get a lot of support quite quickly from people in these groups. So just to give you an example, this shows, for example, one of the agendas that we would typically work through and how we go through towards getting an endorsement of a particular ID in this case it ends. An interesting thing to note too is just because you're part of these groups, you don't have to join, sorry, you don't have to attend an RDA meet. I'm yet to attend an RDA meet and still have participated in a large number of these. I think it's a conference which is very successfully makes use of teleconferencing and video conferencing and I've presented a number of these without being in attendance so it's not mandatory. So what came out of this is what I was discussing before is we had a large number of use cases submitted and if you look at the table here what's important to note is that whilst there are a large number of submitted use cases, it doesn't actually mean that they all go on to ratification. So you'll see that from the plan yes and no and whether they're tabled yes and no. So the MIFF use case yes was in the text and we submitted one and it was tabled and it didn't actually turn into the plan because it turned out some of the other use cases were overlapping with it. So we've absorbed some details in there but it is included in the final specification. So there's a number of other planned ones as you see further down who we're yet to see a submission from it'll give you an idea of the interest in instrument identifiers across a whole wide range of area of research. It's not just confined to the characterization area for people interested in doing things. It's largely characterization but not only characterization. So from there where do we go? The user story sort of looks like this and this is a template for the sort of things you have to achieve to get endorsement as such of these things. And it tends to be a lot more as you see from the comments and this talk about so that. So it's not just I need an instrument identifiers. I need an instrument identifiers so that I can track my research outputs at the university. I need an instrument identifiers so that I can understand whether my data came from and I'm surprised in this match is a lot of what Andrew Maynard was saying. But it's always about what you want to achieve, how you're going to do it and why. So being as specific as possible is important when you're part of this group. So what comes out of this is a schema and I'll share what that looks like in a second. And then in time, once you've gone through the process, this you'll find from is over a year, just over a year and a half ago, where we gained endorsement. So this means we've gone through the process of building the use cases, presenting it at RDA plenary, getting sufficient buy-in from the community at which stage the preliminary schema is endorsed or from any use cases endorsed. And from there, this is what comes out. This is the schema that is the current RDA-bless schema for persistent identifiers of instruments. Important things to point out here is that the unique identifier is not specified. At the moment, it seemed more useful to allow the individuals to specify whether it's a handle or a pearl or a DOI, whatever works for them, because there's a lot of discussion around the correct type of identifier. So Maynard will go for ratification of that at a later date around a type of identifier. The owner, which is a very consistent thing across all of the use cases, contact details, manufacturer and all the standard things. So you'll see this is not much more beyond what you would normally think to be in. The difference is this is now part of the schema. It will map into schema.org. So meaning if you use this structure for your persistent identifiers and your instrument metadata, it will automatically now be harvested by all of the areas within schema.org. That's the purpose of the ratification. So that's the effect of the where we're at now. And that's it. And I have to quote Natasha saying, if you want it, then you better put a pit on it. I think that's one of the best lines you've ever heard. And I'm going to keep sticking with it. So that's all from me. I don't know if I'll press stop now. Right. Thank you, Andrew. And so the final bit that we have presentation wise is just a brief update from Siobhan McCafferty. Now on current and slightly future work within the Australian context in instrument identifiers. Take it away. Cool. Thank you, Tom. This is really brief, but just to give you an idea of what's going on. So there's currently discussions going on about PIDs instruments at that slightly higher level than ARDC are involved. And we're keen to make sure everyone knows what's going on. There'll be a meeting organized for, I think it's Wednesday, the 11th with Joe Shapt is organizing it in Duncan, Natasha Simon will be there. And they're organizing the agenda and we're talking about that. So we'll hopefully report back to that next time this community meets. And there's also discussion going on about NCRS, across NCRS and all of the facilities there. And we're hoping for more movement on that in the new year. So myself and Natasha will be organizing a meeting early in the new year and we'll be happy to report back on that also. And that's it. Right. Thank you. Andrew Maynard, if you could join us again. We have one question in the forum for you. Do you know if the instrument identifiers used by NIF that those handles, that is, are being referenced in NIF research publications. Is that a goal in terms of tracking impact? Or is that not so important to me? Okay. I think you can hear me now. So at present, that's a goal we'd like to have is that all our users are citing the instrument identifiers. But at present, I'm not aware of even a single case where we've done that. So, yeah, we definitely have to find out a good way to encourage our users to do so. And yes, it is an ultimate goal that as a user site instrument identifiers and papers, that means it gives us a way of tracking within NIF and indeed, my cross could be Australia, usage of instruments and getting attribution for that.  And I think it specifically related to, I think Natasha, you did respond to that by saying that, because it resolves to the pure record, or did you have some more detail to add to that? So the handle, I guess, needs to resolve to the definitive record at UWA. We've chosen that to be our pure database within UWA, but every time we add an instrument to that database, the metadata is then harvested into Research Shader Australia. So for anybody around the world, they can just go to Research Shader Australia, search on the instrument, they'll get the record coming up there in Research Shader Australia. But if you click on the handle itself, it'll resolve back to the master record. I mean, that's just a matter of preference, I guess. Okay, Andrew, while we're sticking with you, where do the state damp changes to instrument metadata appear on the front end in the description field or in a dedicated field? So any changes to the instrument itself? I don't think we have an example amongst any of our instruments that we have records for where we've included any changes to date. And that's part of what we need to do as NIF and increased facilities to the future is to find what's the best way to do that. So the suggestion we have in our Trusted Data Repositories documentation is we simply include a date stamp in the description. So we just simply edit the description to reflect changes in terms of hardware and software. That's not ideal and open to any suggestions for how to do better to the future. Sounds like an excellent rabbit hole to go down for a community of practice. So, Andrew, Genki, can you say who is using the schema currently? Or is it just too new? No, no one's using it officially just yet. People are welcome to adopt it, but it's not an officially endorsed... Sorry, the group is endorsed. The schema itself is up for comment right now. There will be some who are using it but it's obvious the path that it's going down. But it's not an official schema of RDA yet, as I understand. Terrific. Can I bring in Paula Martin as National Characterization Training Coordinator at NIF? You're missing from our panel right now. But now would be a great moment to... We're going to now turn this back on the audience unless we have any more questions for either of the Andrews. Okay. Maybe we go through the questions that were sent through the registration form and I'd like to any of the speakers to answer what about the timeline in Australia and what specifically do increased facilities are planning to do around assisting identifiers for instruments? I'll speak first. Andrew. So I guess we don't have an official timeline to get this done. ASAP is, I guess, the appropriate answer. And part of the problem there is funding such activities and making sure that we can achieve this. And ARDC has just been a new platforms call and that's an opportunity for us to look at this particular problem of instrument identifiers, instrument records. So, yeah, as soon as possible. So it really requires funding and cooperation, collaboration to make it happen. Yeah, and maybe we need to highlight that this opportunity that we are putting up now with the webinar is to collect people feedback about how to move forward. So this is the first initial activity but then we want to meet in person and set the goals and the timelines together. Do you want to add something to that, Tom? I just note that we have some more questions rolling in, some of them related to this point anyway. Natasha is asking you, Andrew Jenke, has there been any analysis done on the most common identifiers used for instruments? I would think it would be DOIs and handles. You also mentioned pearls, though. Is anyone using those? We had all three. The analysis of that is on the GitHub site where you can dig in the use cases and they do show that. Obviously, the largest use case is the one with the most instrument which is the oceanographers who have one instrument ID per trailing thing and they have thousands of them floating around in oceans. So how do you measure what's the most used? A question for anyone on the panel. Have publishers recognized persistent instrument identifiers? I would say they don't have to. I don't know if somehow. What I do know is that publishers recognize Schema.org and this was discussed specifically in the piddance group and the approach taken was, well, there's a lot of effort in getting published to update a new one. If we publish what we're doing in Schema.org, if it's compliant with that, we don't have to do any work. It's already there. And not only that, we get Google Scholar, whether you like it or not, and a whole bunch of other things for free by doing it that way. So is piddance taken up by publishers? Yes, because it uses Schema.org. I think that we have another question in here. Does NIF as a facility have a unique persistent identifier? Now, I think just to clarify the parsing on that sentence, we might be merging identifiers for facilities there, or is the question relating to the approach taken by NIF or the preferred identifier for its instruments rather than the facility itself? But I think in the second case, part of that discussion is actually happening right now. So the meeting that Siobhan mentioned will actually have follow-on activities with increased facilities as well, trying to coordinate around this. Siobhan, did you want to mention the data site activity at all? How so? There's a few things going on there. Yeah, okay. Happy to talk about that in probably a different context, because there's some stuff going on with the OIs that we'll probably have a chat about later. Right, okay. I think more to the point, ARDC is looking at a more unified plan across PIDs, and we want to have some kind of road mapping and possibly advisory material around this in the next year, even at just a higher level. So watch this space. All right, we're getting more into the weeds here. Does the schema cater for a grouping of individual instruments? Andrew. Yes, it does. And that's one of the... Yes, this was debated back and forth a long time. Myself and NIF, I didn't really care about so much. But then we got down the wormhole of what's an instrument. Or a set of coils in an MRI machine. An instrument is the instrument. An instrument is the... I tried to stay away from that, but in the end we ended up with a schema where you can have a sub-instrument ID. So the answer is yes. Well, I think getting back into that tricky bit straight away, the clarification on the question about NIF as a facility was that it was about the facility itself. And I believe that's in the context of Siro being interested in doing identifiers for facilities at the moment. Andrew Jenke, would you be able to comment on that and it's what relevant mapping there might be to the RDA group there? I went in with the use case that an instrument is an MRI machine. I wasn't talking that when I was at UQ at the time, the CAI, I didn't go in asking for an instrument, I don't like the CAI. I could have, and it would match to the schema and the way it had sub-instrument IDs. It was more around that there was already a reasonably good way within the University I was at to identify outputs of a centre based upon orchard, based upon the people. So it was more about trying to get an identifier for the instrument than the centre. Your use case might differ. This schema would be able to handle it, but it wasn't something that was the focus of mine. Natasha has jumped in to clarify that data site have said that they will adapt their DOI metadata to the identifier schema of the RDA group. So people can better describe instruments with DOIs. So there's an update on the status of using DOIs as instrument identifiers. I have a fragmentary question about unified PIDs. I might let a revised version of that question roll in before we go. And while I'm waiting to see if any more questions roll in, I would say this is the idea behind this community of practice is that we continue to meet and we can pick up more specific activities as we go along. So your registration for this webinar is we're taking as an indication of interest in future activities. So we will email you after this webinar to talk about follow-up activities, which is likely in the new year at this stage. This is a great time for you to throw questions in the question box that we cannot answer today, but that we would like to put on the agenda for future meetings. So if you have any suggestions about future activities, then feel free to chuck those in the question box as well. And I cannot promise that I will be able to answer them in the next five minutes. Okay. We have a question about Wednesday's meeting. I think, Siobhan, are you able to contextualize that meeting at all? I can give a little bit more context. So there's been discussion about instrument PIDs for data management kind of records and that kind of thing at different universities and institutions, and it's become pretty apparent that we need something. So this is an opening discussion about what ARDC can do in that space and what are the needs around that space at the moment. I'm sure Natasha could probably give you a lot more in-depth answer, but I'm not sure quite how much details needed at this point as well for the community. I think we all know that there's a need for an instrumentation per door agreement across it. The scheme is a great start, but we need to look at how an institution is going to use it. Why would they want to use it? Can we get wide agreement on this as well and what kind of drivers there are there? And there's definitely business cases. Andrew, so many Andrews mentioned about being able to look at who's using your instrumentation and how you can put some kind of value on that and maybe recoup costs or look at funding cases. So when the meeting happens, we'll definitely come back to you guys with a lot more information on that. Sorry, I can't be more useful in this space at the moment. But that's okay because Natasha is now unmuted and can add any more detail. Thank you, Tom. Thanks, Shabon covered most of it. So Joe Schapter is the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Infrastructure at the University of Queensland. And he's also the new head of the Australian Orchid Consortium Governance Group. So he's becoming a little bit of a PIDS champion now, Joe. He's also on the ARDC board. Anyway, he organised a meeting here at UQ with myself and Neanne Duncan, who's also from ARDC and a bunch of UQ people to talk about the need for persistent identifiers for instruments here within the UQ system because they're installing new systems here and trying to sort of get it right from the start, really. And so Joe has started this research infrastructure group among really senior people at institutions of his kind of level. And so this is the first meeting of that group. So I think there's multi-layer discussions happening around the PIDS for instruments. And as long as we can all tie them together and we're all sort of along the same lines, then it will be successful. But basically that level that he is at is really the decision-making level about what, for example, to decide what schema to adopt in research infrastructure within an institution. This group is more about the practical implementation of how we do it. And we need another discussion, although this one leads right into it, between the NCRISC facilities and how to get it right across the NCRISC facilities, which is what Paul is talking about. I think we actually just need a meeting around that as well, specifically with the NCRISC facilities. So we'll sort of attack this on multi-layers. But I think it's really exciting space and it's great to see the developments in this area both across Australia and internationally as well. Thanks, Natasha. I think we'll leave you unmuted because you might be able to jump in. We have a clarification of the question from earlier, but I think it was directed at Andrew Jenke and we seem to have lost him at this point. No, still in. Oh, okay. He's just disembodied. Disembodied, yeah. Yeah, okay. So with the strategy or work of unified or unifying PIDs, is this to control the proliferation of PIDs and control legacy due to poor design and so on? Yeah, exactly. Part of the work or sort of the group is to figure how we crosswalk, I think, is the word existing PIDs in this area into the PID in space. I would say it's kind of focused and it's more about having a engaged user from that area. But yes, it is part of the goal to be as compatible as possible. We have another question. So with instrument PIDs, do you think, and I think this might be more broadly put, do you think the ARC would be keen on this for the leaf-funded instruments around the country? It would be very nice to have a PID for each instrument funded so that there is a unified approach to what has been funded and how you can access it, how it has been used and so on. Anyone want to grab that one? I think it would be very nice. I think I can just say that. That's my answer. Yes, please. From all my hats of war and guests, I've needed from all areas as a user, as a facility manager, and now in research infrastructure and or research in a major organization, absolutely because we, how do you calculate the value of these things one term? So my answer is absolutely, I want someone else comment. Siobhan? Yeah, they absolutely want this kind of thing. But given the nature of PIDs, there's a need for there to be a decision within the community about what we're using and how we use it first before it gets adopted by folks like ARC. So the job of communities like this is to get that agreement and get upscale our use of something that we agree on. So it becomes just an, of course, of course we're going to use this identifier for those folks as well. So it's interesting to see that while there's a desire from all areas, there's quite a lot of us watching each other and seeing who's going to do what first. And I think being definite in this space is going to help advance folks like ARC picking up and should have been identifiers. Andrew Menett or Paula, do you have anything to add? I think we're all thoroughly nodding yes. No, nothing to add. I agree with all those comments. Okay, terrific. Well, at this point, unless we get some... Oh, I keep on having to scroll down and the questions keep coming. So to both Andrews, that's finally it's easy to say. Do you have any examples of the pdint linking to ethics applications and protocols? For instance, through protocols.io for given data set or project, or is it through the project? So speaking from the UWA point of view, we have a project ID to which data is uploaded from instruments and it's that project ID that can then be linked to but not in a manual way to ethics approvals at the institutional level. But this could be done in a much nicer way. Maybe Andrew, the other Andrew could comment here on perhaps the research activity identifier and Chaborn as well. Ray, because I think that probably goes some way to answering the solvents. I'm with Andrew one or two, but we wanted to couch himself. It wasn't a focus of the pdint's group because oceans don't need ethics. I rapidly discovered that in the area of instrument identifiers, human or ethics related research is actually in the minority, which was a surprise to me. So I would argue it should be at the project level. Conceptually, in any case, and while I'm not a part of Ray, I'm still a believer in it. So I'll let Chaborn comment there. Yeah, it's good to have a few true believers around. So yeah, they would absolutely be the place to do it, but we're yet to see a full integration. There's a few people looking at using it in that way. Can we connect it up to Research Master or some nice source of truth around ethics and permissions? I would love to see someone do this if anyone's keen to do a little bit of work connecting up Ray to one of their ethics platforms. Drop me an email. That would be cool. But yeah, it's definitely a good thing to do. It would be nice if someone did it. But as of yet, haven't quite ticked that box. Okay, terrific. For those that missed the one... I see no more questions rolling in. I'll just mention a comment way back up at the beginning. So there are appear to be crosswalks for pure and for symplectic rolling around out there. If you are interested, then please shoot me an email in the interim while we get up our website and other mechanisms for sharing information out of this group. Unless we have any more questions rolling in the next 30 seconds while I'm finishing up, I'd like to thank our presenters for kicking off this community of practice. I hope to see many of you at future community of practice events for this group. We need to come up with some catchy acronym, I think, because that's where it all starts. So please look out for us in the ARDC newsletter or via NIF and MA newsletters as well. If you are a representative of another increased facility and are interested in having a greater involvement in this activity, please shoot us an email. We're very open to bringing in other people from other instrument-based facilities and otherwise, again, let's see. Apart from thanks and applause, I think we are ready to wrap up. So thank you, everyone, for coming along. And again, I hope to see you at a future meeting. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.


Yeah, sure. Hello there. Hi there. Well, you see, why don't we turn around here and get a family picture. I'm being assigned in Washington. No, thank you. Thank you. Let's get a room to a family picture. Where are you going? I'm going to do a technical security video. Oh, yes, sir. Well, I miss you. Thank you for everything. Oh, thank you, sir. Goodbye. Goodbye. Thank you, my daughter, Gina. President, how are you? Thanks again for letting me use the program. I appreciate that. Well, listen, where are you going? Just across the street, the headquarters. I was just going across the street. That's it. I'll be there until you go back to California. Then we'll go along with you. Well, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you for everything. I certainly enjoyed the five years that I've been here. It was a great experience. Well, I appreciate all you've done. Okay, you're going to say goodbye, Brad. Say bye. Thank you. Best of luck. It's my daughter. It's my wife, Madam Mary. My daughter, Nancy. Why don't you two ladies get in the middle and wait until we have a family picture? All right. Here we go. Here we go. Well, listen, thank you and I. Are you going back to sea? Yes, sir. That's where all say-dos ought to be. I just want to keep telling you anyway. I'm going to see half the time in a year. I'll never leave home. Sue in here is but an arm and a wrist. Sue in here is anything like that. I really appreciate it. I'm working for you. This is one of the few. This is one of the administrations I've been in. I actually felt something was getting done. Thank you very much. And in pride and professional, the pride you brought back to all the service I think is really great. And I appreciate it in all of them. But I'm very proud of that. Nice to meet you, Sue. Thank you. Let's go back to meet you. Thank you. May I get you a copy to take you? Thank you. Thank you very much.


Bring your own device to Appalachian Wireless and get up to $300 in bill credits. If you're looking to switch to the Big Blue Appalachian Wireless Network, there's no better time than right now to bring in your device because we are you. We are Appalachian Wireless. The Johnson County Public Library together with Kentucky Chautauqua will host Henry Dalla as Colonel Sanders on Thursday, February 9th. We have a long relationship with the Kentucky Humanities here at the library. We have brought many Chautauqua characters here, but this will be our first time for Colonel Sanders. Proceeding the performance, the library will be providing Kentucky Fried Chicken for those in attendance. There's always something new and interesting to learn about people that we may or may not have heard about in Kentucky history. The performance itself is a first person dramatization based on a script. And then at the end of the program and the person, the actor sets out of character and the audience has a chance to ask questions about anything they want, about that person's life or about the process of being a Chautauqua and just anything they want to ask. The Kentucky Chautauqua Colonel Sanders performance will take place on Thursday, February 9th at 6 p.m. and is free for anyone to attend. For more information about the event, you can visit the Johnson County Public Library Facebook page. For Mountain Top News, I'm Kelsey Dean.