The Media Lab is, I think, fairly well known for technology and innovation. Over the course of the last 32 years, we've developed a lot of technologies, spun out a lot of startups. I'm losing my first panelist. But I think what's been more unique, there are lots of places that are doing technology and innovation. I think what's been more unique about the Media Lab is actually that we are interested in the relationship between the technology and human systems. So it's not about the technology per se, it's about originally maybe the interface between humans and technology. And then in a second wave maybe it was networks, the communities that technology enables and what that does for humans. And I think now we're getting into a stage where the material per se is becoming all kinds of things. It's bio, it's genetic engineering. And one of the topics that we think about a lot and that these three panelists are thinking about and working on is AI. There's a lot of interest in artificial intelligence as a material that we could be designing new kinds of technical but also human systems with. So I want to spend the next 25 or so minutes exploring some of the issues around this relationship between humans and machines and the material of AI and what kind of possibilities this material offers us, but also what kind of responsibilities it demands of us. And I think I'd like to keep this quite informal, so more of a conversation. I've encouraged them to interrupt me, to interrupt each other, to have a lively discussion. And I also encourage you, if you want to ask a quick question, you don't have to wait till the end. There are some microphones. I would ask you not to do long statements, but if you want to throw in a little provocation or a little question, feel free to signal us and then we'll make sure to pull you into the conversation. That maybe I'll start with Joey. So, you know, the media lab in its role as an institution that trains or educates designers and developers of technology. You don't have perfect control and you don't have perfect predictions. So I just have a baby now. I have a 15 month old baby, so I'll use the baby metaphor. So when you give birth to a child, you have control of what the child sees and eats and does.  But you're still responsible for the child.  But you don't know exactly what's going to happen. So the trick, I think, is to be very aware of the context of all of the systems that it will hit and try to instrument your interaction in an iterative way so you can watch the child. So when you're seeing the child running around and you think it's about to do something, you can try to intervene. But I really do think it has an ongoing relationship and it's like introducing a new life into a complex system. And coming back to the topic of AI, I know that you've been involved in a class about AI and it's actually not a class about AI. It's a class about the ethics of AI. So I'm curious, why that framing, where did that come from? How is that different from what other people are doing? I think some other people are doing it. The class that I'm teaching with Jonathan Zittrain is specifically Harvard Law School, Harvard Kennedy School of Government and MIT. And it's lawyers, philosophers, engineers and policy people. But I think that you shouldn't be allowed to make laws or policy without understanding technology. And you shouldn't be allowed to make technology without understanding ethics, philosophy and law and policy. And so our goal is to get engineers to understand the other side and vice versa. And our success has been we've got some of our best engineering students to go take start the law degree program. It's harder, I think, to get lawyers to become engineers. I was going to go to York next, but maybe I'll already change the flow because Julia is looking at me. I'm looking at Julia. You shouldn't be allowed to make laws. No, definitely not. I mean, if this is the standard that I have to understand AI and technology in order to make laws. Well, I guess a lot of people who elected me probably didn't think about that at all. And I think if this is kind of the goal that we aspire to, that we want to be governed by experts, then we would probably need an entirely different approach to democracy that we have today. I think today, at least in the ideal sense, it's a lot more about trust. Like, who are the people who we trust to actually try to seek out the expert information that they need in order to make informed decisions? Sure. When I said understand, I think it doesn't mean that you have to be able to code. But in the US Supreme Court, the guy who just retired, he didn't use computers. He only wrote with pen. He didn't like electric lights. And he was judging things that had to do with internet. And we have a lot of the form when I was fighting with Lindsey Graham about the internet. He had never used email, you know? And so you have to have at least a sensibility to understand the architecture. Otherwise, it's gobbledygook. So I don't think that you have to be an expert, but you have to understand it. It's a slightly different thing. I mean, I guess perhaps we could say that only young people should be allowed to design schools and only old people should be allowed to design retirement homes and only people who use the internet should be allowed to govern the internet. And that might actually be a good approach. I mean, what I see in my work a lot is that we make quite general rules that apply to the internet as a whole that are designed to only work with Facebook and YouTube because the people who are making the laws only know Facebook and YouTube and kind of perceive them as being the entirety of the internet. And when I asked them, well, how would this new legislation that would require you, for example, to scan every uploaded piece of work for copyright infringement, how would that work for Tinder or how would that work for GitHub, then of course I need the person who I'm talking to to know what Tinder or GitHub is actually about and ideally to have used it at some point. And that is very much not the case. But then you could wonder, is this because our politicians are too old? Is it because they don't have enough expertise because we're asking our politicians to make more and more with less and less resources? And I think both of those could be part of the problem. So this was great. Let me jump back to York because I know you're thinking about the types of structures and systems that we would need to support an engagement with things like AI at the level of a state. So we've talked a little bit about who should be allowed to govern, who are the experts, who do we trust? How do we maybe prepare people to take those responsibilities? What are some of the other pillars, let's say, of an approach to this? Well, I think my first point would be that there needs to be an understanding of both sides. You know, AI is politics and, you know, those coding and designing need to understand that they heavily affect society with what they do. Maybe not when you come up with a music engine, but we have this understanding in our society among the general population that AI is more something really remote or dangerous like a terminator or something. And we don't understand yet that it really influences us in our everyday life. I mean, maybe not AI, but algorithms. And so if you live in New York these days, the question of to which high school your kids go is decided by algorithms. The question whether the police is patrolling in your street or not is decided by algorithms. You know, the sentence a judge sends you to or releases you from prisons is supported by algorithms. And I think we have to have an understanding that everybody who's programming those things has a political responsibility, and so we need the training on both sides, make people aware of what they were doing and not only make lawmakers and politicians aware of, you know, what modern technology brings to our society. So this is a perfect example. So right now in the U.S. we are passing laws that require algorithms to be used to support judges, but the companies that are selling them at, you know, police expos and conferences and they are signing in the procurement letter that the data is not disclosed and the algorithms are secret. And so when you have a court case, when a defendant is trying to ask why she or he can't get probation, they can't force the stuff in court. And if the judges or the lawmakers who pass the law to include the stupid risk assessment thing, which they shouldn't have in the first place, they would have put in a thing that said, oh, the data should be open, the source should be open. And that's the example that I would say of a politician knowing enough about, or a lawmaker knowing enough about the code or software to be able to say, oh, this should be in the law about procurement. Yeah, I think there's also a difference in the situation where the state is actually actively employing AI, because then I would say the primary responsibility is not with the developer. Then the primary responsibility is with the state, with the developer to actually choose and then which kinds of companies to use and what kind of rules to give them. But I think that not all of our lives are controlled by the state. So of course, especially if we're dealing with companies that are employing AI at a grand scale and that are building quasi-public spaces like Facebook, for example, they do have a responsibility even in areas where they are not kind of government mandated. But I think, yeah, in order to be able to judge as a politician where using AI makes sense, you do need a certain understanding of it, but I think what is even more problematic at the moment in the way that politics approach AI is that it is used as a way of basically having less work, that we are confronted as politicians with a huge array of extremely complex problems and increasingly an answer of politicians that are dealing with limited resources, limited money is to say, well, let the big companies fix it for us and we don't exactly care how you remove hate speech from the internet, for example. We just want you to do it and if you want to keep the algorithms that do it secret, then we will let you do it because you're fixing a problem for us. So I think there's also an issue of kind of who actually has the ultimate responsibility about these... But I think there's a broad field where it's not the direct responsibility of a government or a state, but it affects the chances and equity issues of a society. Whether I get a credit from a bank might be just, you know, some issue between me and the bank, but if I don't get a credit anywhere, I'm reduced in my chances and opportunities. And it's today, it's algorithms, it's, you know, maybe even intelligent algorithms, deciding whether I have a right or access to a credit and with that to an opportunity. And so here I see just a very broad field where it's not direct government responsibility, but where you can't just, you know, look away and say, oh, just leave that to the finance industry, they'll figure out some way. But it is direct government responsibility to the extent that regulators report to the government. So the credit scores in the United States, they're now selling your credit score data to marketing companies and there is a law in the U.S. that says you can't sell personally identifying information with credit scores, they're selling the house. So they send predatory advertisement to the house and they say the house is not, doesn't have privacy. And then what's happening is they're now using credit scores to give jobs and give loans and now they're including Facebook data into credit scores and LinkedIn data into credit scores. So it's making this horrible loop of, and you have a regulator. The government's supposed to be watching this and they're letting it happen. And it's very, also there's one other, I'm going to make one other point. So if you go back in history to the insurance business, when they were trying to calculate the premiums and actuarials, there was quite a debate in the United States about what is fair. So should poor people be carried by the rich people? Should your premium be decided by your specific category of risk? Should people with pre-existing conditions be allowed? There were all this discussion about risk and then the technical statisticians came in and they made it very complex. They came up with a single definition of risk that was too hard for the activists and the people to understand and the fairness became a mathematical technical decision and then all of the democratic discussion disappeared. The same thing is now trying to happen in AI and machine learning where you have different kinds of fairness, fairness of discrimination, fairness of outcomes, fairness of need, fairness of accuracy. Each community is going to have a different view of what's fair. But what they're trying to do, the community of statisticians and machine learning people, they're trying to come up with a checkbox that says this is the definition of fair just like the insurance industry many years ago made their determination of what's fair and the government doesn't know enough to intervene. This is an example where the government could or should have an opinion. They don't have an opinion and I think the experts are now fighting over this and this I think is an important battle. I wonder if we could go back to you, Julia and maybe you could talk a little bit about your experience with legislation that deals with technology regulation and both the frustrating sides of it maybe and the limitations but also I think there are some very positive aspects in your work that we should also highlight. Okay, I will try to not depress you too much. I actually found it very fitting that you started with Kraftwerk because Kraftwerk symbolizes a bit in technology policy one of our huge challenges and that is speed because the European Court of Justice is currently dealing with a court case of Kraftwerk versus Moses Pelham. I don't know if anybody still knows who Moses Pelham is but he was like a German hip hop DJ in the 1990s and in the 1990s he used a very short sample of a Kraftwerk track. Now under kind of traditional copyright law it's very clear that if you take somebody else's melody that they have composed and you use it as your own you need a permission for that but what is not at all clear is if you use more modern technology which in the 1990s was sampling I don't think we would necessarily think of it as very modern technology today and you don't actually take somebody else's melody you just take kind of two seconds of sounds of metal banging against each other and use that in your own work and make something new out of it like under US copyright law it would probably be relatively obvious that this is not an infringement but I think the point that I want to make is that in 2018, 20 years later the courts are still fighting over this and I think that is a big problem that we have not yet come up with the mechanisms to make democratic decisions about how to deal with new technologies that are not new at all anymore by now making these decisions in a reasonable speed and I think that is a huge problem because in the meantime the cultural use of technology is just going to create facts for better or for worse and if we now decide that either we think it's morally wrong to take somebody else's metal banging on pots or not it will not change what we consider as actually fair like the law will invariably be far behind the technological development but on the positive side I think you can see that at least in European politics in the European Parliament there is a certain responsiveness that if you have a big community like an on-line community like YouTubers for example actually speak up with their own stories and tell politicians who may not have first experience writing on the internet that a certain proposal would kind of threaten our very kind of cultural surroundings that can have an effect so we just had a vote about this in the European Parliament in July where actually a majority voted down what the supposed experts in the committee had decided because suddenly an entire kind of generation of 17 year olds was writing to their representatives and this is completely out of touch with how we use technology today so I do think that kind of technology is all on the one hand kind of under governed because we are too slow to react to the developments but at the same time it's a huge opportunity to kind of have new ways of communicating with your politicians so I found the proposal about using blockchain to kind of track politicians promises very interesting in that sense I mean I think there are probably flaws to it because it assumes that every politician can make a decision by themselves and that they're an absolute ruler but at the same time I think it's kind of grasping this potential of using the internet, using technology to create a dialogue with these different backgrounds so maybe I'm curious if you've seen other spaces if you think we need more spaces for this kind of conversation we definitely need more spaces for that kind of conversation because first of all if the general public isn't aware yet of what's going on there is no need to discuss it because you don't know it's happening maybe an example if you build a new building in Germany you can put down the proposal in some hidden room in some public building and if as a neighbour you don't know that something happened you wouldn't look at the proposal and maybe intervene in Switzerland if you want to build a building you have to put a frame of the building made out of those metal pipes to the place where it's supposed to be and everybody walking by sees something is happening there people get aware so the first step is general awareness in getting people involved there's something which affects everyday citizens life and that everybody should be involved the second issue of a conversation you need more than one partner and there is a discussion in the scientific community there is a discussion in the political community there is definitely lots of going on in the industry but there are not enough platforms where those different people meet so we need awareness and we need platforms for a conversation in order to get everybody involved and not only informed politics often or industries as it's enough to just keep people informed of what's going on I think here we really need participation and involvement and actually this reminds me of something I saw in one of the presentations where the myex.ai there was this gasp in the audience when they saw what this new company is doing or this new fake company is doing so I think we also need art I think there are certain things here that are actually easier to communicate through art or through performances or through experiences and maybe not necessarily just having the facts written down and provided to everyone in the newspaper or the public service announcement so I wonder maybe back to you Joey at the media lab we think about art, design, science and engineering as this wheel I think that art is very good at posing these provocative theories that evoke an emotional reaction but then we should go in and explore because when I was looking at this myex.ai what I was thinking was that this may be a fake commercial product that we don't want to be in the market but at the same time it's also a very real experience that a lot of women already have today I mean this is exactly how stalkers use social media and they may not have artificial intelligence to support them doing it but it's nevertheless a reality for a lot of women so I think if we think that is creepy and if we wouldn't want that to be kind of a business model we should also think about okay how do we make sure that the internet actually makes sense and works for everybody who is already using it today and I think when I was on the pre-artist electronic board a jury for the internet I think one of the key things is that artists will use the tools in ways that they're not intended and they are creative so the app I think is kind of on the edge of art for me I think really interesting art is when they break the tools and it does two things I think it advances the tool and it also allows, like you said Philip to look at it from a different direction so there's also a very positive piece so there's a critical design which is to criticize and show the negative but at the Media Lab we think about things like photography or computer graphics and games where a lot of the artists were also involved in the technology so the form was able to evolve in a very interesting way but forms where you have the technology and the artists separated like television or newspapers the form kind of got stuck and wasn't able to adapt to the technology or the social system so bringing art and technology together has those two things I think it provides the societal context back to the engineers but also takes the engineering and moves it in a creative way but I think it's the job of art and also of science and education to demystify the black box of algorithms because as long as the general population thinks it's just something we cannot understand it's completely closed, it's completely complex it's one billion lines of code then it needs science, education and art to translate the complexity in something either visual or understandable or simple and so I see here more than just breaking the rules which is part of the game but it's really this translation issue into something everybody can understand and understand that it affects and you know my ex-AI or however this wonderful company was called is exactly that it confronts me with something I put out in conversations digitally and plays it back to me in a super visual way to understand who you know this is just affecting me and the way people can understand me or think about me because it's out digitally on the web I completely agree with that point that it's very important to demystify because that actually will lead to better policies but I think one big challenge that I face there as a lawmaker is that there is an entire industry of lobbyists whose primary job is it to confuse us as politicians about what algorithms actually do like I have set in seminars designed for politicians where certain academic publishers for example try to explain to me if we allow scientists to data mine academic articles then Trump wins the elections and these kinds of... I mean I'm not making this up this was a seminar I participated in and I think this is kind of showing that we have to sift through so much misinformation from people whose job it is to basically confuse us and try to lead us on the wrong path So one thing that I found encouraging I think we've been focusing more on the dystopian sides but what I found very encouraging is many of these projects explored ways to demystify technology by allowing more people to use those technologies and I remember a conversation with Eric from LEGO before the workshop actually he said you know 20 years ago the kids started going to these maker spaces and learning about electronics and about sensors and motors and then the next time they go to the supermarket and the door opens magically they look at the door they're like oh I know exactly how this works it gives this incredible sense of ownership and power in a way over the world by understanding how to use these materials and these technologies and I think it's much harder to do with AI and some of the more modern technologies but some of the projects actually I think we're pushing in that direction like how do we make them tinkerable and then you're not going to get to the highest sophistication necessarily but that's not needed go ahead I don't actually think they're harder so I think that they are a little bit harder right now because we don't have the interfaces but the AI one actually comes from work by Stefan at MIT who is trying to figure out how to teach young children about AI using the bricks and using robots and the concepts of AI aren't that hard as long as you sort of and in the real world when you cook you don't actually understand the chemistry of what's going on but you have a cookbook and you think you know how to cook and you actually can walk into a restaurant and say I know how to make that omelet and it gives you power so I think that a lot of the emerging technologies are just complex because they haven't yet put into nice Lego bricks so once you have the bricks the experts know how to make the bricks but once you have the bricks and you understand their function it isn't that hard to learn and I think getting back to your point it's the design is it designed to express what it does or is it designed to confuse and to me there's a little bit of any difference between art and design I think design is about how to make something more suitable for use in society art is actually a little bit different I think it's more of a it doesn't really care about whether it's useful for you art is more of a perception and it's more of a provocation but anyway that's a technicality so I think that once the technologies get better designed they'll be easier to understand intuitively just perhaps as an example of this how this can be translated kind of also into a policy field so a few years after 9-11 there was this huge security craze in politics that we still haven't gotten completely over and in the kind of youth political group that I was active in at the time we decided to organize a security conference which is what all the political parties do it's kind of the hot topic of the day and at this security conference we thought about okay what is actually most likely to kill me as a 16 year old girl in Germany and then we talked about everything from suicide to traffic issues to drugs but we also did things like for example isolating DNA from a banana in like a half hour workshop because I think it's extremely useful to kind of well use transparency and understanding as a means of countering fear and I think at the moment there's a lot of fear in the AI debate which may also be part of the reasons why politicians have a tendency to kind of push the topic away to the companies like Mark Zuckerberg coming to the European Parliament is telling us AI will solve all of our problems that it will get rid of fake accounts and it will get rid of illegal behavior on the internet practically because he has an interest in saying that because his company is building the AI so if we are extremely afraid of these problems that he is promising to solve for us then we are of course very susceptible to these kinds of promises and we don't have the tools to question whether this is actually the way forward. Before we continue I do want to invite all of you to participate so if there are questions there is a hand, I think how does it work the microphones are here in the middle so I would ask you to please get up and if you can go to the microphone and maybe just say your name and who you are. Hi, my name is Juan I studied physics here at the TU Berlin and I have been working as a programmer for the last five years more or less in this field and I don't want to sound like a looted or something I think technological progress is very important but I have become slowly disenchanted in different aspects and I think what Joey just this example that he just said about that judges are being supported by algorithms that are not open and that just completely defeats everything of what are the fundamentals of a justice system so I feel I don't know I want to see what's your take your three opinions on isn't it necessary that the tech community maybe finally just acknowledges some shortcomings on what you can do and what you can't do for example Joey said that there's this initiative working with the Kennedy government school and with Harvard and MIT but that sounds to me extremely elitist there has been an ongoing movement in public education of just like dismantling this whole principle of that we should learn how to learn and what to learn and now people just learn something how you can be embedded into an economy and just this acknowledging of there's no amount of smart contracts in the blockchain or AI that will fix the problem that for example that there should be massive public outrage that even this algorithms that are practically helping these decisions by judges that this code is not disclosed and that is not disclosed and there's no technology that's going to change this there's a million questions in there shouldn't be there also a massive public outrage if we see that humans discriminate in for example court decisions I just wish we take a more positive look I mean clearly some of the software products proved not to fulfill all the promises we have hoped but they both can be less discriminatory and take away repetitive tasks from judges giving them more time for the real important tasks I mean if a judge has 5 seconds on average to decide on probation or not I don't want to be there I want a judge to have more time for my case maybe because something algorithmic helps him do very repetitive tasks and beforehand we talked about the finance industry and the problems with credit ratings yes there are problems with credit ratings but on the other hand in the traditional banking way something like 50 or 60 million Americans are invisible to traditional credit scoring and only when you use algorithmic systems that access more data those people become visible and get a chance for credit so I think we really have to see both the more opportunity, more chances with a positive outlook of what could be possible and obviously the things that go wrong if you don't have the right rules the right regulations people misusing the power of algorithms and AI I wish the discussion wouldn't only go in this dystopian way we tend to lead the discussion sometimes too quickly I'd like to add something because it's a direct point to what he's saying just hold on one second I don't want to make it a back and forth Julia wants to get in maybe she'll broaden the conversation give us a second at the risk of making your point for you I think there is a huge difference between criticising AI being used at all and I don't think there was the point and AI being used in an in transparent way I mean I completely believe that there is a place for AI to be used and that you know it can be a huge benefit but I think the reason perhaps why you are outraged and a lot of people out there are not is because they don't believe that even if the data were disclosed or even if the AI were transparent that they could have the facilities to actually interpret that so I think in the open source community it kind of works because it is a community well kind of there's the developer community where everybody has a basic understanding of programming and can look at the code and understand something but there is also kind of this broader layer of the community of open software users that may not be programmers themselves but they trust that if the software is open then hopefully somebody else will look at it for me and then we had things like I don't know a heart bleed where it turned out that well just because something is open doesn't mean that a lot of people had actually looked at it so I think I completely agree with you that it is outrageous that we are using these transparent closed systems but I think people will only be outraged about it if they feel empowered to actually use the information that we are asking them to disclose I'll actually be a little bit more extreme I think there are cases where you shouldn't use technology so I agree that we should make the system more efficient but for instance when Mitch Kapoor was talking about Oakland he said that they were using in jail an old file maker pro database an access database and an Excel spreadsheet and they were doing everything by hand and it took two days to process it fix that first and to me the electronic voting machines are a bad idea I think they just are a bad idea but you shouldn't have it and I think it's possible that certain categories of risk assessments just won't be fair because the underlying data is unfair because I think that what happens when you look at all of the American systems you have data on poor people but you don't have data on rich people and there are some systemic biases in social systems and depending on where you want to go whether you're just trying to keep business as usual and punish poor people and move power to the rich people you might want to but I think maybe thinking about the to your point it kind of makes your point that you have to look at the whole system including the humans including everything and then I would deploy algorithms much more strategically on what are the effect in the whole system rather than right now you're trying to make each subsystem more efficient better accuracy in policing better accuracy in risk assessment better accuracy in parole but that isn't making the system more fair that we are looking at trying to make the judge's job more efficient when we should try to make the judge's job more effective and so I think it's slightly different but also making it more consistent I'm only making the point that humans are not terribly consistent and judges aren't very consistent either but it's very hard to get an inconsistency and discriminatory behavior of a single person once I have it algorithmically designed and transparent and there I'm completely with you then at least I can in the democratic process openly discuss about fairness consistency and parameters but I want to talk at the next layer because the current criminal justice system sucks it's biased against poor people and biased for rich people so why can't we use data and machines to fix the whole criminal justice system rather than just trying to eliminate a little of those who are already terribly biased because they're publicly elected in the United States so to me I want to set the bar higher I want to say can we use data and machines to understand a causal system in a theory of change of society and that we use AI not to look at the defendants the people but to look at the politicians to look at the judges and say let's look at the history of the judges across this jurisdiction and say alright these judges that tended to be conservative caused crime to increase in their neighborhoods these judges who tended to let people go for drug crimes decrease crime in their communities let's try to understand why rather than saying can we make the judges job more efficient that's kind of my sorry it's hard it requires a lot of political will but I think we're just trying to basically we're trying to automate existing functions in a democratic system that isn't really very good yet and I guess we all agree if we now digitize the unfairness of the current analog system we do the worst job of all I'm hesitant to allow another question but if there is another question yeah go ahead the microphone is in the middle there so no I was joking please ask more questions I wanted to ask about because when we talk about technology we always talk about progress and possibilities are going forward and there is a lot of things that technology very much but are not analyzed that we kind of start to see that they're going in the directions that are am I doing something wrong okay is it better hello is it okay okay so I wanted to ask about the when we talk about technology we talk about progress and the technology moving forward and a lot of technological solutions that we come up with turn out to not be a beneficial change like the example with the judges and then we kind of leave it to the legislative system to solve for us so we do a big mess with technology and then we like okay let have politicians regulate it and I wanted to ask if you know about any initiatives who try to invent technology to like go backwards and kind of change the direction I don't know sorry I don't think that necessarily just because there are technological developments that are bad that there isn't progress or that it would be worth to just go back so for example if you look at the car I think it took like I don't know 30 years before they had seat belts so I think we are still in the kind of kindergarten phase of digital technology and its regulation and I mean my party the other party were kind of sometimes accused of just wanting a wild west on the internet which is actually not what we are about at all like so for example net neutrality was something that perhaps you didn't need as a law in the early days because it was kind of built into the technology but as companies were trying to exploit it and change the architecture you needed the legislator to step in so maybe an example of what you are talking about that basically the technological development goes in a kind of bad direction and then you take the law to go back to something that worked so maybe net neutrality is an example of doing that but I don't know if there is the same kind of among technologists themselves that they try to do that electronic voting there is another again the mic is in the middle so we you mentioned design as distinct from art but I guess one way to talk about design is as a system of methodologies and different ways of thinking and working together and when we have these experts we still need specialists and it's not like everybody can be a generalist so I guess my question is do you see a case for creating more of a role for people and systems as a kind of connective tissue since the other ways that we used to do this seems to be failing at the moment I think one of the biggest problems that we have right now is the silos of disciplines and there is a lot of work talking about it but basically you have very tribal systems whether you are talking about academia or whether you are talking about business and what we have is these systems interact in a very formal clunky way and the federal funding so government funding goes usually along these paths, ten years, schools and it's the if you are in between these spaces it's very difficult to get funding it's very difficult to get a job if there is no job description and it's very difficult to get a degree it's very difficult to get anything and so what we are doing at the media lab is to create a legitimate job art and engineering but actually what you want to do I think we need to do is to be able to explore the spaces that aren't even just between two disciplines and I think it starts with education I think that you want project based learning that isn't constrained by classes and disciplines and like the hackathon you learn what you need to learn in order to get things done I think you can have specialists and the organization should really be about if you have a passion about something and you do it and you get to be the best in the world at this peculiar weird thing and then the world has a way to find you because you have a YouTube video or you have a website I think it should be extremely diverse specialists rather than a whole bunch of specialists that have a guild and they all know how to do this certified way of doing you know bolt turning so to me I think that the internet actually allows us to develop, learn and connect these broad array of specialists in these completely non-existent fields and I think that's the opportunity but the universities and the schools and the job description job market all of those structures get in our way and perhaps to just add one thing to this I think that also the internet and this having access to all these specialists and experts who you know explain to you how to build an airplane on YouTube they make it easier to become reasonably expert in a number of fields whereas like 50 years ago you would probably have to study 10 times that long to get to the same level of expertise because you have to basically learn everything from scratch and you have less access to the mistakes that other people have made so I think there is definitely a space for specialists but probably if you get to a place where they cannot communicate with each other anymore because they are in a community of only experts of the same kind then it can also be kind of limiting but maybe just adding one different perspective yes we need the expert but also we need in the broad general public a basic algorithmic understanding I think we just got to teach young kids the basic understanding how algorithms work nobody needs to program them but you need to understand how they influence you or how other people build something around you using technology and that you get best and they are completed with joy if you have project based learning in schools and you build applications, you engineer them and you understand how just an algorithm functions yeah I think also there is kind of a problem in our curricula that we spend a lot of time teaching children things that computers are already better at so really kind of analytical problems but I think we should be focusing the education much more on the things that computers are bad at because then we can really kind of have an added value from technology and probably achieve more and have a positive outcome there that's actually maybe a really good moment to slowly wrap up and also it's really unfortunate which really actually build on the conversation we've had here one is we had 50 or so people in the in this church for a week who were working on technology projects and they spoke 35 or 38 languages but they were experts in many many many more things and it was really fascinating to kind of throw them together into these groups where they would discover things about themselves but also things that they could share with other people and I think it was exactly this idea of learning where you need to bring those different perspectives together and then have people build things together then that's when they really understand the other perspective and also more about the technology and I want to end on maybe one positive example of AI that I saw in the week that didn't get built to my disappointment on Monday we so the workshop had this first day it was field trips all of the tracks went out into Berlin and they explored companies and they visited spaces they went to museums and they met interesting people and I was going along on one of these field trips again with Eric sorry Eric for constantly referencing you but and we were reflecting on how refreshing it was that we could see the sense of unlimited possibility in the young people who were part of this workshop everyone was talking about oh we could do a startup in this area we could be working here at the university or we could be starting a nonprofit and they were like all these possibilities and one of the teams had considered building an AI that would reconnect you with your younger self where you could have a conversation with yourself when you were maybe 18 years old and your AI could say hey Philip remember that time when we went on holiday in Italy and you fell into the water or you stole the boat or you met this wonderful person and had an amazing conversation and your AI would know these things about you and could have a conversation with you and I thought it was for me that was a beautiful vision for having an AI that is transparent that I control that adds something to maybe my reality that's actually helpful to me and it did give me that sense of wonder and of possibility and Eric and I both came to a moment in our conversation we were like we still have these possibilities so for me that's what we hope to get out of this workshop just a sense of possibility and a group of friends that we can do these things together with and I want to thank everyone I want to thank my panelists and I want to thank everyone all of the participants and all of you for coming for really a fantastic week together so thank you and there will be drinks and food


Cancer cells rely on abnormal levels of intracellular calcium to survive and spread. Research suggests that targeting these abnormal calcium levels could provide a new therapeutic approach to treat cancer. This article was authored by Chow Chu Chui, Robert Merritt, Li Wufu, and others.


Hello, everyone. Welcome to this webinar, which is on some technical changes to the way in which the DOI service is now going to be delivered in Australia. I'm Adrian Burton. We've got a number of other presenters here today to just walk you through exactly what will be changing and what the new situation will be like. I'll get on with it. ARDC and Data Site have been collaborating for a long time now. The timeline goes back to even well before Data Site itself was actually formed in 2009. One of the predecessor organisations for the ARDC and was involved even before Data Site itself was constituted. We helped with actually writing the constitution for Data Site, and we were there right at the very first member meeting in France in 2010. It's a very long-term relationship that we have with Data Site and that we intend to keep going well into the future. In 2010, we just formed Data Site, but there was nothing there, and we had to build up the infrastructure, the global infrastructure for minting DOIs for data sets and other non-traditional research outputs. In 2011, the ARDC started to build parts of the infrastructure in collaboration with Data Site. It looked something like this, that the Australian research institutions came through the ARDC systems, and we provided a number of front-end things that made it a little bit easier to create metadata and reserve DOIs and manage the DOIs, update them once they've been created. We had validation and link checkers to see that the links were working nicely. In the background, whenever we've always minted a DOI, we've registered that with Data Site. At the beginning, that was the key role of Data Site was to register that into the international DOI system and to resolve all the requests for DOIs. We had a front-end that was helping people at that minting and managing stage, and then all the really fundamental DOI infrastructure has always been run by Data Site. We've always also had very strong support, not just on how to mint a DOI, but why and what kind of business processes and whereabouts in workflows. We've always worked very closely with the research organisations in Australia to pick the right way in which to implement DOIs for datasets in a research organisation. If we fast forward through to 2020, where we are now, there are some changes that's happened in the Data Site system itself. Centrally in Data Site now, there are some very mature systems that actually provide all the functionalities and more than what we've ever provided here locally for Australian clients. They're very strong set of outreach and develop that new period. What we've found now is that if you look at those two, the light blue box, which is the ARDC systems, it's fairly much just mimicking now what could be done centrally at Data Site. So that's what this changes the transition that we're talking about now. As it related to this over time now, the functionalities are just being mirrored. So what we're proposing that 2021 might look like, sorry, no direction. 2021 would look like this systems area that ARDCs no need for us to keep maintaining that now because it's all that functionality is available centrally at Data Site. So we over the next year plan to remove that sort of software application from ARDC local systems, provide consortium access for all the Australian research organizations to get direct access to the Data Site systems. And pretty much all the functions that you've been used to at the ARDC are available now in the Data Site systems. Some of them are not exactly the same. Some of them are still being developed in slightly different ways from what you might be used to. But in general, the general just it's a true statement to say that the key functionality that you've grown used to using through the ARDC systems is now available through the Data Site systems. And just to be clear, those Data Site systems are our systems. We are consortium members, you are all members of a consortium that is part of Data Site. Those Data Site systems are our systems. So we're now just all using the same central system. So that's what 2021 will look like. And that's in general the changes that we're now talking about today. I might hand over now just before I hand over to Sel. So if you look along at this big picture in 2010, we had the establishment of Data Site for the first 10 years. ARDC provided a whole set of extra functionality for Australian Minters. And we've always provided that as part of the Australian research infrastructure. Now in 2020, ARDC still provides all that backing and support, provides you access to the Data Site infrastructure through the consortium that we fund and resource. And now you'll be getting that functionality from the central Data Site systems. Into the future, it's important to note that we continue our support for the consortium, for minting DOIs in Australia, and for more. We're ARDC now with our other resources. We'll be focusing in on how to really get the best value out of having, after you've minted a DOI, then what does it actually do for you? How can we really help with the global tracking of the outcomes and the impacts of research by using Data Site DOIs? More on that a little bit later. I'll hand over to Sel now. I've got these slides up on the screen, Sel, so maybe if you just want to talk to them and I'll forward the slides when you're ready. Thank you, Adrienne. Can everybody hear me? Yes, good afternoon everybody. I am Sel Pilapil and I am the ARDC ID Services Coordinator. On the screen today, you'll see the proposed timing for the transition to Data Site Fabrica. So during the months of April and May, ARDC and Data Site have worked together in preparation for the transition of all our clients. During the month of May, we have also started creating all the Data Site Fabric accounts and started a distribution of those test accounts as well. We have sent announcements and completed some documentation to help aid all our users in the preparation for the transition. So some of you or a majority of you would have probably received the Data Site Test Fabric accounts. So for all our manual meeting users, we would really recommend that you start testing now. Data Site will present later the Fabrica interface. However, we would expect that by the end of September, everybody would have all the manual meeting users would have already transitioned to Data Site Fabrica interface. By the end of September, that would mean that we would have to commission the DOI manual interface that you access from the RDA registry, which is my DOIs. Also for our manual meeting users, I'm sorry, machine-to-machine meeting users, once you have received your Data Site Test Fabrica accounts, we would like to ask you to start planning for demigration, any code changes, any configuration changes that you will have to do in your system, please start planning and start testing. We would expect that everybody, all our M2M API users would have completed demigration by end of December, at which time we will commission the ARDC DOI service. If at this stage you anticipate that there will be issues with demigration and you will not be able to complete it by the end of December, we would really encourage you to get in touch with ARDC. Let us know any issues so that we can work together and that we can plan on a transition that works for both you and ARDC. So that's the timing. If any feedback or any suggestion regarding the proposed timing, please let us know. Next slide, Adrienne. Coming. Thank you. These are the transition steps at a very high level. This is in line with the transition timing that I have just presented. So first step is the creation of all your new Fabrica accounts. The Fabrica accounts, as you are probably aware, is the same account that you use to manually meet, that means to log into Data Site Fabrica and to authenticate through the Data Site API. Once you have received your test Fabrica accounts, you are going to conduct all your testing. So you let us know when you have completed the testing and then when you're done, we will then distribute your Fabrica production accounts. At that time, you will start demigration and then when you are done and finally when you are finally completed the migration to production, what you have to do is just let us know. Let us know when you are ready. And at that time, we will disable your access to both my DOIs and the ARDC DOI API. That will mark the completion of your migration. So those are just the four easy steps. We create your account. We distribute it to you. You conduct your testing. Once testing is done, we will distribute your production account. You will migrate to production and then you let us know when you have completed the migration. Next slide, Adrienne. Yep. Thank you. Nothing has changed when it comes to supporting you from the ARDC point of view. ARDC will remain your single point of contact even after the transition to Data Site Fabrica. Any issues, feedback, suggestions, queries that you may have in relation to Data Site Fabrica and the API, you set it directly to services at ARDC.edu.au. In turn, if there are issues that we need to escalate, we will work closely with Data Site and we will work to resolve your issues as soon as possible. It is important to note that you contact us in the first instance. So nothing has changed when it comes to the support of ARDC to all our DOI service. Do we have questions? Yeah, there is no question. So the question from Paula about how do we get a test account? Paula, if you can send an email to services at ARDC, all our existing ARDC users, DOI users have already been contacted when it comes to the creation of the test DOI Fabrica account. If you are a new user, if you are a new prospective user, then you send an email to services at ARDC.edu.au and we will get in touch with you and we will send you your test Fabrica account once we have done all the administrative tasks. Is there any other question? That's it at the moment. Good. Have you done the sales or anything else on the support? Yes, that's all Adrian. Thank you. Then through to Joel now. So yeah, I just encourage people to put any questions they have in the chat box. That's probably the easiest way to raise the questions and we'll sort of as they come through, we'll sort of try and answer those in context or at the end of sort of each section. So hi everybody, I'm Joel Ben. I'm the DevOps Manager at ARDC. I've got a couple of slides just to sort of reiterate some of the information we put out in the documentation earlier this year around sort of the scenarios that our users will come up against when they're transitioning over to data site services. So the first, so there's three scenarios, really three main scenarios and the first one is for manual minters. So this is ARDC DOI users who currently log into the RDA registry to manually mint DOI so they might only just use manual interface, but we also have some users who primarily use the API to mint but they will still log into the interface to deactivate DOIs or enrich some of the metadata manually instead of doing it through their API connection. So for these users that the transition is obviously going to be fairly straightforward for the interface. Once you've got your credentials as we just spoke about to the Fabrica test instance, you'll be able to log in with those credentials and start sort of having a look around and familiarizing yourself with the interface. And I believe Mary is going to run us through the Fabric interface in a little bit. But really it's like any new application there will be an adjustment period. Adrian sort of touched on that the same functionality is across the two applications more or less and it's just a different interface and a different way of sort of approaching minting DOIs. The other thing to note is that there are separate instances. So now when you use the ARDC service to do test and production, minting you log into a single instance to do that with your account. Whereas when you're going to Fabrica, there'll be a test Fabrica instance and a production Fabrica instance. And that allows you sort of to keep them very obviously separate when you're doing your sort of testing within Fabrica. Next slide please Adrian. So the next scenario is users of the ARDC DIY API. And this is going to be the majority of our users I believe. This API has been around since the early days of when we started to mint data site APIs. So the bulk of our clients using the APIs, our APIs will be using this API. Now the ARDC API is quite different to the data site APIs. So they've got really different signatures. There's different request endpoints. There's different messages that have to be posted. And there's also different responses and error codes that come back. So I can almost guarantee that there will be code changes required for clients using this API. And it's probably sort of where the bulk of the work is going to be for our users. The API itself, data sites APIs, they offer several APIs to register DOIs. The two primary APIs, the REST API and the MDS API. The services that we offer through the ARDC DIY service is underpinned by the MDS API. And that's probably the older data site API. The REST API is a newer API. It underpins a lot of the functionality in data site Fabrica. And it's probably the preferred API to go with. But it will depend on your circumstances and what you're comfortable in using. So the REST API is a JSON specification API. So it operates purely on JSON objects, whereas the MDS API handles XML. So it will come down to sort of what your developers have a preference for and which ones you can integrate with. In terms of testing the APIs, once you've got your credentials to test Fabrica, you can start using either of those APIs to sort of start integrating and testing. And in parallel, you can continue to use the ARDC service. So that won't stop anything from occurring through your normal systems. But you can set up an extra test system and start sort of tinkering around with those APIs to work out which one is going to be best for you. We've also obviously got technical staff. So if you come up with some, come up against a few challenges in doing some sort of integration with the new APIs or how to handle the messages coming back, please flick an email through to services at ARDC and we can try and assist you. Next slide, please, Adrian. So the last scenario is probably the easiest one. So this is a very small subset of our DIY service users. And these are clients using the Datasite client API. So this API from ARDC is basically a replica of the Datasite MDS API. And it was constructed so that people with third party applications such as FigShare, Dataverse, Pure could configure their application to talk to the ARDC service to mint Datasite DUIs. So the users of this API really won't have too much to do. There will be some configuration changes within the application. So a new API URL obviously pointing to Datasite, a new username. So that's your new account that Cell will provide. And you will get a new test prefix. So with the creation of new test accounts, you're getting a new test prefix. So any of your existing test DUIs you won't have access to once you migrate into the new test account. Just to note that your application may only support one of the Datasite APIs. So it's best to check the configuration manual for your application. Or if you don't have one, just check with your technical support. But I can say if you've been integrated with our Datasite client API, then you will be able to use the Datasite MDS API. But it would be worth checking if you could also use the REST API. I think that's more or less done. Mike, pause for any questions. I've got a few that I can read out, John. That would be great. What happens to our old set of DUIs and their prefix now that our organization prefix is going to change? That's a good question. So the test, as I just said, the test DUIs within Test Fabrica, they actually get routinely cleaned up.  So they'll probably go away anyway. And so every now and then you'll probably go to update a test DUI and you'll get an error back saying that it doesn't exist. And that's most likely because it's been removed. So with your new test account, you will get a new test prefix and you will lose access to any of those test DUIs. With your production account, though, you will maintain the same prefix. So all those DUIs that exist in your current production account will be migrated over to your new production account. And that's sort of the process that's been happening. And I think we've almost migrated all clients. I think there's probably sold maybe about 10 left to migrate. But then everyone will have their new accounts ready to go. And the prefix remains the same as our job between the two. The production account. Yep. The production account. Correct. Good. I've got another question here. What's going to happen to the existing records that has DUIs? Will that be migrated as well to production? I'm not sure. It might be the same question as the one before, just so that, you know, if you've published, I'll just jump in there. Not quite sure what the first part of that question is. But if you have allocated a DOI name, meaning you've identified a dataset with a DOI previously, that remains exactly the same because, you know, that will have been published, you know, potentially is references in journal publications and it will be out there in the literature. People will ever refer to it. We're not asking you to change any of that. That's fine. That all stays in place and they will resolve into the future. There's no, absolutely no change with the previous DOIs that you've minted. What we're doing is, when we say we're migrating them, we're migrating them into that new interface so that if you need to update them or review them, et cetera, you'll be able to view all of that in the Fabrica interface. So anything that you've minted in the ARDC interface over the last 10 years, you'll be able to see all of that in the data side interfaces as soon as you migrate across. And the DOIs themselves just be 100% sure and nothing changes if you've got a nature article that refers to your favorite dataset. We are using a DOI that remains absolutely as it is. Nothing changes there. The DOI remains exactly the same and it will continue to resolve as long as the DOI infrastructure stays in place, which is being set up to stay in place for a very, very long time in accordance to the requirements of scholarly communications, which is, yeah, we're talking the very long run. All right. There was another question there. Will the slides also be sent out? Yes, we'll send the slides out. Yes, we'll have anyone who's registered for this webinar. We'll be linked to the slides. I think this one might be for you, Joel. Will using the MDS API create technical debt in the future? How long will that be available? Yep, that is a really good question. So I might have to pass over to Mary or Helena on this one. We've been advised that there is no changes going ahead to deprecate or remove the MDS API, but maybe Mary, Helena, you could comment on that. I think Robin is probably the best person to answer that she's responsible for our APIs. Yes, hello. Hi, this is Robin Dassler, the product manager at DataSites. So we do not yet have a firm date on the retirement of the MDS API, but the ultimate intention is that, yes, at some point, it will go away. Currently, our thinking is that it's probably on the order of year or two kind of timeline. We don't yet have a firm date for this. Thanks, Robin. And I probably should have pointed out one of the major differences between the REST API and the MDS APIs. Using the REST API, you can make a single call to Mint and register your DOIs, whereas with the MDS API, you actually have to make two calls. So it may be easier in the long run just to use the REST API. With the MDS API, you actually have to sort of register the metadata and the URL separately for the DOIs, so that might be something to factor in. And the REST API also supports full JSON, if that matters for anyone, so you don't have to send your metadata packages as XML if you use the REST API, depending on how your shop works. There's a follow-up question from Tim, who originally asked, what happens to our old set of DOIs and their prefix now that the organization prefix is going to change? So the answer to that from Joel was the organization prefix only changes in the test account, not in the production one. The follow-up from Tim was including ones that are currently set as disabled. So does that mean that... I suppose the question is that the disabled one's been transitioned across? Yep, there should be no changes to those DOIs. So anything that's deactivated at the moment should remain the same. Now, do you still be able to help bulk updates once the DOIs have migrated across? Yeah, I mean, I don't see why not. We can definitely have that discussion. One of the things that is on the roadmap for Datasite is to be able to sort of do the batch minting and batch updating. We have the functionality within the registry at the moment, but we could possibly help out in updating the DOIs in the future. Any comments from our Datasite colleagues? Any comments from the bulk update functionality? Yes, we are aware that this is something that people are very interested in. We also do not yet have a firm timeline for this one either, but that is something that we know people are interested in, so we're exploring our options. Sure, thank you. I've got a message from Lyle. I could read it out. Lyle, if your audio works, I'm happy for you to say it yourself. So I might just go on to the next question. I'll come back to that if you don't have a microphone or if the webinar thing doesn't allow that. Confirm that the TOS recent, confirm that the MDS API doesn't have a set date, but would be potentially retired in 2022. I think that was a question. We have not yet decided when to do that. We've been trying to run them both in parallel for a long time to get used to the new REST API and make any changes, but we do not yet know exactly when we're going to retire that. It seems that Lyle's microphone is muted and I don't have the magical power to unmute it, so I'll just read it out. I think he might be unmuted now, Adrian. Okay, Lyle, go ahead. I just thought I'd pass on to everyone that we underwent the migration process to the data site system and it went pretty smoothly. Now we've got our fixed share repository and it's minting stuff via the Fabrica system API and the prefix, sorry, the suffix hasn't changed at all. We're also looking at the manual user interface and it looks to do everything we need, so look, everything was fine. Good. Well, thank you, Lyle. That's a nice contribution. All right. It might be time for us to move on to our next section. I think we're done with the questions that have come up there. If you've got further questions, don't hesitate to put them in whilst you're listening. I think we'll hand over to our data site colleagues. First of all, maybe just to introduce the data site support team and what you guys do and what kind of roles there are there and then to give us a run through the Fabrica interface. Helena. Hi, good afternoon. Yes, we did want to take the opportunity to also briefly introduce ourselves so that going forward, you know who you're talking to. So my name is Helena. I'm Data Sites Director of Community Engagement. So I am responsible for membership. I will probably mainly be working with ARDC directly, but if you have any questions about our member model, about the consortium structure, about what it means to be a consortium organization, then I am the right person to talk to. Maybe before I hand over to Robin to introduce herself. You can reach all of us by emailing support at data site org. That's our main email address. And then your question will get assigned to one of us depending on the topic and you will get an answer from us. So yeah, Robin. Yes, hello. And like I said, I'm Robin Deslar, I'm the product manager at Data Sites. So that basically means that I am the interface person between Helena's engagement team and our development team. So I kind of helped bridge that gap and figure out where we're going with our services based on what you guys want. So feel free to let us know. Yeah. And so basically if you have suggestions about product functionality, about DOI Fabrica, about the API, then Robin is the main person and she'll be able to add that to our product board so that the things you need are being developed by our dev team. So Mary. Yeah, hi. I'm Mary Hirsch. I'm the support manager at Data Sites and I work mainly with a kind of help desk service that we provide to our members. So I work closely with the dev team to resolve issues and try to make sure our documentation is up to date. So if you do have any feedback on the documentation or if you have any questions, as Helena said, you can contact us at support at DataSite.org. And Mary will now talk you through DOI Fabrica and the transition process. If I was shipping off Mary's getting ready, I would be really excited now to actually be able to provide all that we're not changing any of the support allocation that we do at ARDC and we're now complementing it with our only team in DataSite. And so we're really quite excited about being able to really promote the use of digital object identifiers for datasets and promoting the actual datasets of those class objects in the scholarly communication cycle. And as I said before, really working globally in Australia and with DataSite on the systems that allow us to track what the impact of research was, what the impact of some of these datasets, where they were used, what kind of references there were, what kind of usage there is to them. So I think that's where I'm very excited about the new step up in our collaborative relationship. Yeah, we're also very excited that ARDC will be leading or continue to lead the Australian consortium. You've already done so much great work in this space and I think there is a lot more we can still do and Mary will also mention at the end of her presentation that there will be a virtual member meeting, also one hopefully in the right time zone. So that will give us another opportunity to interact with this group so that we can also really hear from you what we can do in the region. Okay, so I think I should just go ahead. I'm going to talk you through our web interface, which is called Fabrica. So let me just see. Okay, so what is Fabrica? So Fabrica is a web interface for DOI registration so you can register DOIs and you can register metadata and it also is where you can update and manage your accounts. As Joel mentioned, there's a production environment and a test environment and they are completely separate. So as has already been mentioned, it would be great if you go into our test environment and you can create as many DOIs as you want. You can play around with it. You can fill in all the fields of the metadata and none of those DOIs will ever go live in our production system. So yeah, we highly recommend that. It's a sandbox so go and play around and then when you're ready, you can move into the production system. And I've just put the link to our support site where you can find documentation about Fabrica and I've added a few more links into the slides as well to our support sites. So the first thing I think I wanted to talk through was the account setup that we have in Fabrica. So you may or may not be aware that we transitioned to a three tiered structure for consortium. So you're all part of the ARDC consortium and this allows the consortium organizations to manage repositories and prefixes themselves and then the top level consortium which is ARDC in this case is our primary point of contact and here is a very nice diagram that was created by Robin which kind of demonstrates how we've set up the accounts. So at the very top there is the consortium leads in this case ARDC and then below are the different consortium organizations and those consortium organizations have minimum of one repository and then maybe more as needed. So what does that actually look like in practice? Okay well here is what happens when you log in with your consortium organization account. This is the first screen that you will see. We're using opaque IDs really at the moment although I think you guys have well that's essentially a four character or five ID that you use to log in and you will see at the top right when you're logged in with your consortium organization account you can see the ID at the top right there you can also see it in the organization information. You can update your organization information we would recommend that you do that to include the service contact and any other information about your organization and then at the bottom right there I just pointed to the feedback button so that's quite useful if you want to send us any screenshots that will take a screenshot directly of the page that you're looking at so if you need any technical support you can use that it's quite helpful and then we'll see here this is the repository account so the ID that you will use to log into your repository account will be the consortium organization ID followed by a dot and then a string of characters so it's different this is a different account and when you log in you will see again at the top right the ID that you've used to log in and information about your repository and you can update the repository settings as well so what can you do once you've logged into Fabrica well I've just tried to show some of the differences between the permissions in terms of functionality when you log in with either your consortium organization account or your repository account so basically for consortium organization you can go in and of course you can update the settings and the information about your organization but the main purpose of this account is to create repositories and manage your repositories so part of an important function of that is that you will assign prefixes to those repositories and then you can move the prefix between repositories and you can move the DOIs between the repositories but this account is just for creating repositories if you want to create DOIs you need to log into the repository account and so on the right there you see that the permissions that you have when you log in to the repository account are essentially to create and manage DOIs and metadata so I am actually going to do an attempt a live demo but I'll just flip through these three slides on how to actually create a DOI in Fabrica so as we've seen in the previous slide you need to log in with your consortium with your repository account credentials you navigate to the DOIs tab so you'll see there are four tabs when you log in as a repository and the DOIs tab is one on the right and this repository already has four DOIs and just there on the left hand side you will see the create options that you have so I'm just going to talk you through the form today if you want to use XML you can directly actually there's a few accepted formats that you can use to create a DOI using the file upload but we'll just focus on the form today so you just click on the create form button and then you can go ahead and fill in the required metadata fields we've just recently added the recommended and optional metadata fields so you can actually fill out all of the available metadata fields for your DOI in Fabrica form now so let me see if I can just quickly show you this live so here we have I've just logged into this repository example one and here we have info about the number of DOIs the settings you can update the repository settings here there's a few fields like the software that you're using or the repository type and also you can include the certificate here so yes please go ahead and update that information make sure you have a prefix so you won't be able to create DOIs unless you have a prefix assigned and then you need to navigate to the DOIs tab and click create form so I'm just going to click to this tab where I have one I prepared earlier and I'll just quickly walk through it I think that most of this hopefully is quite intuitive so you will see the required fields have the red star next to them which means that you have to include this information or you won't be able to register the DOIs so there's the DOI here at the top with the prefix you want to use if you have more than one you can edit the suffix if you don't choose to edit that's fine you will just get a randomly generated suffix here which is what we recommend generally the state of the DOI refers to whether the DOI is publicly facing publicly available or not we recommend using the draft states this is useful because if you make a mistake you can delete a draft DOI even in production once the DOI is registered or findable you can no longer delete it it's registered if it's in production within the global handle server and it can't be removed so please use test and please use draft and then obviously you can move it to register the state once you've got everything as you want it then the URL you need to include the landing page where the data set or the content will be located in the creators field you have a couple of options fulfilling in the creator so here I included a name identifier which is an ORCID ID you need to include the full URL and this is a person and the given name or family name are auto-populated in this case you can also type the given name and family name into these fields and this field at the bottom will be auto-populated you can add the affiliation here if you want by typing in the name of the organization and then the title you can just type that in there you can include a title type if this isn't the main title include the publisher, the publication year and the resource type general this is also a required field and it's a controlled vocabulary list you can select this dropdown you can add more information here if you wanted to so those are the required fields I'm not going to go through all of the other metadata fields I have included links to the documentation and in fact you can find a description of every field in here so you'll be able to come look at that in your own time I was just going to show the related identifier field I just took a DOI from here which is a publication and now we have the option to include the related identifier you can see the related identifier type is auto-populated because well it detects that it's a DOI and we can have the relation type is cited by sorry, it should be size okay so I think we can just register this DOI I think things will be fine we can see that we have the information about the DOI registered here it will appear into our list of DOIs and you can also go in and change the state to findable or date so I think that gives an idea hopefully of how this works and hopefully it's not too complicated and you can go and have a look and play around with it your son's in our test environment so there's some useful resources I've included obviously a link to our support site we would encourage you to sign up to the PID forum discussion platform for anything related to persistent identifiers it's really great, it's not just data site DOIs, Crossref, ORCID many organizations are contributing so you can sign up to get an account and if you would like to be added to the data site chat room we have a private group you can send an email to support the data site.org we have a Twitter account which you can follow and then I also included the status page where you can sign up for alerts so if there is ever a problem, one of our services we update the status page to let users know just one more thing I wanted to mention that Helena just also mentioned briefly we will be hosting our member meeting in 2020 but because of the current global situation we'll be doing it in a different format so it will be our first ever virtual meeting we'll be taking place in October of this year and we will host three meetings of each two hours long and we'll host them across three time zones and so we would really like to invite you to join us in your time zone so that will be on the 21st of October save the date from 1pm to 3pm Australian Eastern time and we'll be hosting that on Zoom and we'll be sending out the invite and program soon yes so I think that's all from me good well we've got some questions here which we might zip through just in the last few minutes should the system email stay as services at ardcedu.au or do we change that yes I think that that would be the first point of context Adrian Sell here right now the default is set to services at ardce.edu.au you are actually free to change that there is also other that's the system email that normally receives notifications when someone changed the password and things like that there are also a field where you can put in the contact the primary contact person and the email of that person so you can have generic group email in your system email and then you can have another email address in a contact email so you can have both so yes feel free to change that if you need to can we add more than one related identifier yes you can you'll see there's an option to add related identifier and then here you see it says add another related identifier so yeah you can do that findable in the test site is not findable though is that correct basically what our test environment mirrors production in the sense that you can do everything you can do in production but you can't make real DOIs so you can make a findable what looks like a findable DOI but it will not be registered in the global handle server so it's not findable in the same sense they do resolve if it's not in the global system they do resolve if you have the link but they're not essentially like I won't be in a search correct we made our own fake resolvers so they appear to resolve because we had a lot of clients that wanted to make sure resolution would work in some way and so they appear to resolve but it's not real I've made example landing page which doesn't resolve but yeah you could put a proper URL in this field you would be able to click on this link and it would go to the page good and is there a graph or something related to see what resources are related so I think maybe this is the GraphQL API I can take that yes yes so currently we store all the related identifier information in our metadata but via our either our REST API or the GraphQL API you can retrieve some of those relations because we work in conjunction with Crossref and now it's part of this EU funded project we're trying to connect all these relationships together so technically speaking there is not like a nice dashboard interface somewhere where you guys can see a graph but that information is available for my APIs and you can query for the conceptual graph of things that are related to your DOI and you can find more information about that on our support pages or you can contact us if you have a DOI minting through data site automatically added to Re3Data do we have anyone from Re3Data? I think Robin can take that no they are not they are not automatically added to Re3Data no Re3Data has a separate curation process and so in order to be listed with Re3Data you need to actually reach out to them and ask them questions we're at the end of our current questions there's a couple of minutes left if you already have something to share there I'm just checking if I shared my screen now someone is saying yes or no whether they can see my screen no not yet obviously click the button to make it very, very visible I'm hoping it should be now is that right you know whilst we're in unless there's any other there's a couple of little questions there I'll be very quick about this I just wanted to share with you a couple of the when I keep harping on about this we're going to help you mint identifiers but we are really going to work with you to be able to get the benefit of having identifiers and that's in the tracking systems and in the reporting systems so on the screen now I've just got a page 23 of the ARC final report instructions that's the Australian Research Council it's the funder in Australia page 23 and section C2 in the report so this is after you've done an ARC project you have to report on well there is a question and it says provide details of the data outputs produced by this project the question is mandatory and there's no yes no answer so you have to report some kind of data output the only way which you can report that data output is through DOI so this is again just a little snapshot of what's happening in the world of why we're allocating the DOI's and the connections that we've been working with the ARC around this interface and around their policy and around the infrastructure so that's why we make it part of the Australian research infrastructure so that you can have policies like this from the ARC and you'll see into the future if those related identifiers if we can relate those to ground IDs then when a researcher comes to do the recording at the end there's auto-populate and all sorts of other things in here anyway I'm going to the details of this we will be talking to the sector about this kind of thing in the future but that's just one of the sort of green shoots that are showing how by minting identifiers we're really helping the tracking and reporting the other one is just something that's come up through data site just in the last couple of months actually when you go into search something in the data site system and you find the record then this is one that's come from the Australian Antarctic Division you see down the bottom here they've just started to bring in where there are some back end systems with crossref and other suppliers to check whether there's been any references to this to this data set through other relationships to other DOIs so again another really nice green shoot it's just the beginning it's not perfect yet and this number is potentially a little bit misleading on this particular record but it's just to show you that these making the links between identifiers and really reaping the benefits of having allocated DOIs is what this next ten years of us working with data site and the Australian repositories will be about now I've got extracted there is a question from Nick DOI require persistence of data so is ARDC able to or planning to provide long term curation of research data as a necessary part of the National Data Fabric I wish I hadn't come back to this very last question with only one minute to go yes we are we have other people will know the identifiers and this part of our service arm we also have a lot of projects and other infrastructure data storage infrastructure as well as project infrastructure to build up the infrastructure of the research organizations and research groups in Australia so yes we are that's part of the holistic approach here persistence into the future is a very wicked problem and part of our the way we're approaching that is through these partnerships partnering working with research organizations and research groups to build up their capacity and our injection of national infrastructure into that as part of a partnership I wish I had more time it's five o'clock unless there's anything if I hear from anyone else that there's anything else we need to do before we wrap up I will just thank everyone who's presented thanks very much for that information thanks for getting up early or going to bed late I don't know which one you've done and we look forward to this transition if you take these take-homes if you've got any questions then services at ARDC.edu.au there's a number of support materials that have also been provided by ARDC and by a data site so we will also send the recording of this will be available to participants as well as the slides will send around to anyone who registered I'm not hearing anyone saying that I've forgotten anything if that's the case thank you very much for your time and we look forward to working with you and making this a smooth transition and continuing to reap the benefits of DIYs into the future thanks very much bye thanks everyone