Right, so with Kubernetes, the history is we started off with only file systems. Block is something very new within the past couple of releases that I actually personally worked on. The next piece that we're doing at Red Hat is leading the charge to create CRDs for object storage. So it's defining those APIs so customers can dynamically provision and manage their object storage with that. In addition, we recently acquired a company called Nuba that does exactly that. They're able to have that data mobility through object buckets across many clouds, doing the sharding and replication with the ability to dedupe. And that's super important because it opens up for our customers to have image streams, photos, things like that that they typically use within an enterprise and quickly move the data and copy it as they need to. So we noticed that more and more people want to try their workloads outside of the centralized, one centralized data cluster. So the big term for the last year was the hybrid cloud, but it's not just hybrid cloud. People coming also from the IoT user space wants to containerize their workloads, wants to put the processing closer and closer to the devices that are actually producing and consuming those data and the users. And there's a lot of use cases which should be tackled in that way. And as you all said previously, like Kubernetes won the developers' hearts and minds. So APIs are stable, everybody's using them. It will be supported for decades. So it's natural to try to bring all these tools and all these platforms that are already available to the developers try to tackle these new challenges. So that's why last year we formed the Kubernetes IoT Edge Working Group, trying to start with the simple questions because when people come to you and say, Edge, everybody thinks something different. For somebody, it's an IoT gateway. For somebody, it's a full blown Kubernetes cluster at some telco provider. So that's what we're trying to figure out all these things and try to form a community because as we saw in the previous also for the IoT user space is that complex problems like these are never basically solved by single company. You need open source, you need open standards, you need a community around it so that people can pick and choose and build a solution to fit their needs. Yeah, yeah, so I care a lot about diversity in tech and women in tech more specifically. One of the things that I feel like this community has a lot of very visible women. So when I actually looked at the number of contributors by men and women, I was really shocked to find out it was 3%. It's kind of disappointing when you think about it. It's 3% of all the contributors to all the projects in the CNCF. Exactly, if you look at the 36 projects, you look at the number of the people who've made issues, commits, comments, pull requests, it's 3% women and I think the CNCF has put a lot of effort into the, for example, the diversity scholarships. So bringing more than 300 people from underrepresented groups to KubeCon, including 56 here in Barcelona. And it has a personal meaning to me because I really got my start through that diversity scholarship to KubeCon Berlin two years ago. And when I first came to KubeCon Berlin, I knew nobody, but just that little first step can go a long way into getting people into feeling like they're part of the community and they have something valuable to give back. And then once you're in, you're hooked on it and yeah, then it's a lot of fun. I think the ecosystem may finally be ready for it. And this is, I feel like it's easy for us to look at examples of the past. People kind of shake their heads at OpenStack as a cautionary tale of sprawl and whatnot. But this is a thriving, which means growing, which means changing, which means very busy ecosystem.  To an enterprise, just because this got launched in 2014, okay, June 2014, that sounds kind of new. Like we're still running that mainframe that is still producing business value and actually that's fine. I mean, I think this maybe is one of the great things about a company like Microsoft is we are our customers. Like we also respect the fact that if something works, you don't just yolo a new thing out into production to replace it for what reason? What is the business value of replacing it? And I think for this, that's why this kind of Unix philosophy of the very modular pieces of this ecosystem, and we were talking about Helm a little earlier, but there's also draft, brigade, et cetera. Like the Porter, the CNAB spec implementation stuff and the cloud native application bundles, which that's a whole mouthful. One of the things I like, I've got a long history in open source too, is if there are things that aren't perfect or things that are maturing, a lot of times we're talking about them in public because there is a roadmap and people are working on it and we can all go to the repositories and see where people are complaining. So at a show like this, I feel like we do have some level of transparency and we can actually have realism here. I don't think we hear that as much anymore because there is no more barrier to getting the technology. It's no longer, I get this technology from vendor A and I wish somebody else would support the standard. It's like, I can get it if I want it. I think the companies that we typically have aren't about features anymore. They're simply, my business is driven by software. That's the way I interact with my customer. That's the way I collect data from my customers, whatever that is. I need to do that faster and I need to teach my people to do that stuff. So the technology becomes secondary. Like I have this saying and it frustrates people sometimes but I'm like, there is not a CEO, a CIO, a CTO that you would talk to that wakes up and says, I have a Kubernetes problem. They all go, I have this business problem. I have that problem. It happens to be software. Kubernetes is a detail. Sure. I think the NSM is just a first step. So the network service mesh is basically doing a couple of things. One is it is simplifying networking so that the consumption paradigm is similar to what you've seen on the developer L7 layer. So if you think SSTO and how SSTO is changing the game in terms of how you consume layer seven services, think of bringing that down to the layer two, layer three layer as well. So the way a developer would discover services at the L7 layer is the same way we would want developers to discover networking endpoints or networking services or security capabilities. That's number one. So the language in which you consume needs to be simplified whereas it's whereby it becomes simple for a developer to consume. The second thing that I touched upon is we don't want developers to think about switches, routers, subnets, BGP, VXLAN, VLAN. For me, I want to dig a little bit more into the idea of multi-cloud. I've been making a bit of a stink for the past year with a talk called the myth of multi-cloud where it's not something I generally advise as a best practice. And I'm holding to that fairly well. But what I want to do is I want to have conversations with people who are pursuing multi-cloud strategies and figure out first, are they in fact pursuing that? The same thing that we're defining our terms and talking on the same page. And secondly, I want to get a little more context and insight into why they're doing that and what that looks like for them. Is it they want to be able to run different workloads in different places? Great, that's fair. The same workload run everywhere in the lowest common denominator. Well, let's scratch the surface a bit and find out why that is. Bob Wise and his team spend a ton of time working on the community and the whole team does, right? We're one of the biggest contributors to EtsyD. We're hosting Birds of the Feather. We've contributed back to a fair amount of community projects. And I think a lot of them are in fact around how to just make Kubernetes work better on AWS. And that might be something that we built because EKS or it might be something like Cluster Autoscaler, right? Which ultimately people would like to work better with auto scaling groups. So I think we have the community involvement but I think it's about having a quiet community involvement. That it's about chopping wood and carrying water and being present and committing and showing up and having experts and answering questions and being present in things like SIG groups than it is necessarily having the biggest boost. So Joe, tremendous progress in five years. Look forward for us a little bit. What does Kubernetes 2024 look like for us? Well, a lot of folks like to say that in five years Kubernetes is going to disappear. And sometimes they come at this from the sort of snarky angle. But other times I think it's going to disappear in terms of like it's going to be so boring, so solid, so assumed that people don't talk about it anymore. I mean, we're here at something that the CNCF is part of the Linux Foundation, which is great. But how often do people really focus on the Linux kernel these days? It is so boring, so solid, there's new stuff going on. But like clearly all the exciting stuff, all the action, all the innovation is happening at higher layers. And I think we're going to see something similar happen with Kubernetes over time. Exciting is being here. If you rewind five years and tell me I'm going to be in Barcelona with 7,500 of my best friends, I would think you were crazy or from Mars. This is amazing. And I thank everybody who's here who's made this thing possible. We have a ton of work to do. And if you feel like you can't figure out what you need to work on, come talk to me and we'll figure it out. Yeah, for me, I just want to give a big thank you to all the maintainers, folks like Tim, but also some other folks who you may not know their name, but they're the ones slogging it out and the GitHub PRQ trying to just make the project work and function day to day. And we're not for their ongoing efforts. We wouldn't have any of this.


So welcome everybody to the product update for the month of May 2020. So the things that we wanted to start with would be to show you a couple of things that we have released or have been working on lately that you may have missed or that are new to press books. And I want to start with some of the smaller features and then we'll talk a little bit more about the big projects that are ongoing. The first thing that I wanted to share was a bug or an issue that we had noticed that has been fixed and has now been deployed to all press books networks in the latest release. So previously when you made these various different colored text boxes you can insert them in your text. So you could have a learning objectives or key takeaways or exercises or an examples text box. If you were to just make a standard text box let's say I made a key takeaways text box what would happen by default is there would be some heading text in just a regular paragraph but you could if you wanted to change it to be heading like a heading two or heading three or heading four element. And previously those elements just accepted the color of the heading element rather than the text box header value. So what's changed is now if you go into theme options for a book you'll see in your web book you have the ability to change the header color. This is the text color for the header for each one of these different text boxes. And previously it would change the default value but if you had changed it to a heading this rule wasn't catching the headings and so they were just sometimes it would be like a blue heading on a blue background and it was nearly illegible and it was causing accessibility problems. Now when you change this heading color it will be applied to the text value even if it's a heading as well as if it's a paragraph. So for example just to show you I'm going to make this like a you know a gray for exercises and we'll notice a very subtle difference here. If we come back to that chapter that I was just in you'll notice that exercises is now a very faint gray rather than a white and examples is now a red on a white background for example. So those are some customization tools that you have they were there previously for regular text but now they work for headings as well. It's not a huge deal but it makes a difference if you're using heading elements inside of text boxes. The next thing that we did and we fixed was we added support for three additional scripts or alphabets. So in pressbooks there is a way that you can declare support for non-Latin alphabets. Many people use alphabets or language systems that use different character sets and so typically to add support for them you would come into the theme options and you would see which fonts that you wanted to add support for. This is important both to allow you to display those typefaces properly and those languages properly in the web book and also to make sure that the characters needed are included when you make an ebook or a pdf export. So in this case we added three. One of them is called Adlem which is a script or language used in Guinea and Senegalbian languages. Another is called Nicole which is also a West African language alphabet and the third is Armenian which is used by people in Armenia. So if I added support for those three languages and I saved the changes here what you'll notice is if I come back to the book you can see in this book here's some script testing. Here's the text this is the I think the UN Declaration of Human Rights being represented in Adlem which is a right to left language Nicole which is also right to left language and Armenian which is a left to right language and if you wanted to you could then come to the export menu and we'll say let's make a EPUB and a pdf export. Without this feature oftentimes what will happen is the missing characters will just display as those little rectangle blocks that look like tofu and so we wanted to make that so it doesn't happen and you'll notice in this book now here you're seeing Adlem being represented as the character set you'd expect and Nicole is the same and Armenian. So those are three additional languages if you are working in those languages or you know people who would like to represent knowledge in any one of those languages that's now possible in press books. We support a lot of text type faces and languages and if there are others that you feel should be represented and are missing let us know and we'd be happy to add them. Another thing that happened is in press books we have a feature we call it shape shifter and it's available with the Malala theme. So if you apply the Malala theme to one of your books it's available here from the theme options. Malala is a really versatile textbook theme that we designed recently. When you come into theme options we have this shape shifter value which means that in the web book you can set custom typefaces for both headers and body elements you can set them separately in the pdf and yet again separately in the ebook. So you could use a whole different set of typefaces for print that you use for the ebook that you use for the web book and this was already possible but there were some users that wanted to be able to use source sans pro and open font in the google fonts library it was very important for them their ebook needed to have source sans pro so we added source sans pro to the list of available typefaces and to use it let's say in this pdf i would say let's set the header font to be i don't know noto or body font to be noto serif and the header font will be source sans pro and then i'll save that change and then i'll export the book and i'll make the pdf and when you view the pdf so here you'll notice this book this typeface is source sans pro and this typeface is noto sans so i just customize the pdf the next change is actually a feature that someone on this call requested thank you sharyl so sharyl said hey you know a lot of times libraries or other publishing organizations are on instagram because that's where the kids that are at these days they're all in the gram so we want to be able to have an instagram link on our network landing page that points to an instagram account that the library or the publishing program may run so previously you could add a facebook link that would look like this you could have a twitter link that looks like this and now you can add an instagram link so that's available just to show you how to get there if you're at your network route and you click on your dashboard you come to appearance and customize you'll see a bunch of customize your choices and one of them here now is a social media link that points to an instagram page so in this case on this network i don't use instagram i but my sister does she has a flower farm in washington and so this points to her flower farm so that's an instagram feature thanks sharyl for the idea and that was really fun for us to build an ad the next thing is also something that was suggested by someone on this call jim parody so thank you for bringing this to our attention jim noticed that the book source attribution statement had a couple of stray values if the publisher was missing so in this case this book is a clone version of american government published using press books there used to be a stray buy here the word buy and it was a space for the publisher but if the publisher is missing there was just a weird grammatical phrase published using press books buy under which didn't make any sense so now if there's no publisher there's no stray buy there if there is a publisher it looks like this this book is a clone version of this book by perva thank you perva great book and published using press books by name of publisher under the license so it's a small change but it makes a difference if you're trying to read a grammatically correct attribution statement did anybody have questions about anything they just saw or anything they'd like to ask in the chat for me to take a deeper dive into hey steel i've got a question on the instagram links yes are those set at the network level so that's one instagram link for your entire catalog or is it available for the author of a book to set individually yeah that's that's available at the network level so the network can have a set of social media links for the press books network itself we don't we don't use the we don't have a social media integration at the book level though you can tweet about a book by clicking the tweet this thing link so that would those would be network that one yeah okay so the next thing that i want to show everyone is a given update on what we've been doing with the lti update so some of you were hearing a call previously so the the basic idea is that we're setting up press books to be able to communicate with your learning management system so you could take press books content you can embed it in the lms and you can exchange great information using the lti advantage or the lti 1.3 specification and so i want to give a quick demo of how you might do that in a live press books book using the canvas learning management system we've been testing this with lms's and so far we've tested it with the five largest lms's and it works similarly in all of them but for demo purposes today i'll be using canvas if you want more details about how it looks in say blackboard or d2l or sakai or moodle we can provide that on request so here this is a sample chapter in a press books book and what i'm going to do here is i'm just going to say paragraph one and then i'm going to insert an h5p activity so i'll do a simple fill in the blanks activity and i'll say paragraph two and i'll make another h5p activity it'll be a true false question and then i have paragraph three so these are activities i've already made and so i've inserted three activities into this chapter i'm going to save this chapter and i'll say okay there's three gradable activities in this chapter when the lti plugin is turned on below that there'll be a space for the instructor to configure this activity as a graded activity and so i'd like to actually do some grade reporting in aggregate for three different activities so my comma key was sticky so i've added three different activities so these three activities have been added to this chapter as an aggregate activity and it tells me it recognized okay activity eight this one had a title it was called language pluralization activity it's a fill in the blanks activity and it's worth a total of six points you can get up to six points for doing this activity the next one's a multiple choice question it's worth one point and the next is a true false question it's also worth one point so in total this should be an activity that students could get score out of eight on and as the instructor i can then say okay when do i want this to be graded so i can set a beginning date and an end date and only attempts within that time period will be included for the grade if i leave it blank there is no limit all attempts will be considered gradable and then i can choose a grading scheme so here what i'm going to start with is i'm going to say first attempt my first attempt will be the one that gets the grade in the grade book so i can do it as many times as i want but the one that goes to the grade book is the first attempt so now that i've configured this activity i'm going to save this here so i have saved a configurable activity what i'm going to demonstrate here in in canvas is how to create the activity manually in the in the lms so here what i would do is i would create a new activity i would select external tool we've already configured press books to be an lti tool here and then i need to paste the actual launch number for this activity i happen to know it but in the future if you needed to you would just be able to paste it from the configuration value and i'll call this demo graded activity and i've added it to my course now i can pretend that i'm a student if i were a student the view would be a little bit different i'd have to publish the activity but i'm logged in as an instructor and student so this ought to work the student would launch the activity in the lms and they would see my press books chapter that has these three activities in them and so i'm going to practice and i will take this activity and i'm going to try to get these ones right and i'm going to get a lot of them wrong so i'll check okay i got four out of six on the first one this true false question let's say it's false i got that one right which answers are correct well it tells me these three so okay so on this i scored six out of eight on this my first attempt if i go to grades you'll see hopefully whoops i didn't configure my assignment properly so i did something wrong where i didn't configure my assignment let's go back to live demos are always a joy let's go back to a different activity that i already did configure properly which was my need occur activity this is a activity that i've set up in press books that has a bunch of learning activities and i did the same way except that i did it right before this activity so here i'm going to take this activity this one is set to be an average of all possible scores so you'll notice right now i have a grade value i want to take it i have a grade value for this activity of 75 and in press books itself it's set up to be the average attempt so i'm going to really bomb this activity and we should see my score drop from a 75 to a little bit lower okay i did that one wrong got that one wrong got that one wrong i got a couple points so it wasn't a total bomb got that one wrong and i got that one right okay so i did okay and then there's a question at the bottom i got that one wrong so now when i come into my grades rather than it being a 75 my grade has just dropped to 62.5 it's averaging all of the attempts that i've made according to the rules that i've set and so what we're seeing here basically is that press books is acting as an aggregator of learning activities and they can display them on a kind of chapter by chapter basis according to fairly complex rules and fairly complex settings if i were to come back into the book here and let's say i were editing this chapter and i removed this very first h5p activity okay i've removed the activity from the chapter and you'll notice down below the grading tells me one or more activities has been removed because it can't be found in the chapter editor it's kind of unfair to assess your students on activities that aren't actually in the chapter that you're assessing them on so we will automatically validate and remove activities if they get taken out of the chapter so for example i could go back and add this this activity back in by adding an h5p i don't remember which one it was i think it was 41 once i save that chapter i can come down and i can restore activity 41 to the graded activity or i could just manually remove it i could say you know what this activity is just for practice i don't actually want to record their grade on h5p activity number 41 let's remove it from the grade value and now when i save this students will only be graded on the question set and the multiple choice and they won't actually be graded on the other activity which was just for practice so the idea here is we want to give instructors and learners maximum flexibility to set up the assessment in a way that makes most sense for their context most of the time we think this is probably best to be used as formative assessment but there are some cases obviously where you might want to do this for slightly higher stakes so i'm going to pause there i think jim raised his hand has a question i just had a quick one on the if you were to remove that h5p activity would it refresh or the grade book because let's say you're mid stream you're like oh this one is being very tough on students i'm just going to remove it really quick will it refresh the averages so to speak in the grade book or would they have to actually what would happen in that regard yeah so so what will happen is the grade has already been reported to the learning management system and in order for that grade report to be updated they would need to generally what would happen with the learner would need to make a new attempt and then we can send them because the lms and the the tool will have to communicate so that if the learner made a new attempt we would faithfully report whatever the grade value was based on that new attempt for that new value so it's generally not a great idea to change your grading scheme after learners have already started taking an activity but but if for example you were doing average score or last score or best score those are three of the options each of those would be updated each time the learner made an attempt based on whatever conditions you as the instructor had set so no perfect yeah this is clearly hypothetical hopefully no one would do that just curious if someone were to do that what we could expect so yeah you would just the the score that the grade value will only be communicated when a new attempt is made so whenever a new attempt has been made well it'll check and say does this should this override the existing score yes or no and if so then it will so Anita yeah so canvas so let me clarify that a little bit I so each of the lms's do support the import of fin common cartridges with lti links the problem right now with most lms's is they assume that the lti tool will be an lti 1.1 tool and so they look and say is there an existing lti 1.1 tool do I have a key secret pair well in this case no we have an lti 1.3 tool and it uses a different authentication method and so the lms sees an lti link and assumes it's using lti 1.1 and then can't find a 1.1 tool and says sorry you don't have a valid configuration what the lms needs to do is to say oh there's an lti link is there an lti 1 tool no is there an lti 1.3 tool yes use lti 1.3 blackboard does that right now but the other lms's haven't yet figured that out and so the the fin common cartridge links will work but only if you're using lti 1.1 in those platforms we expect that they'll fix that because that's a pretty important piece of compliance with how people expect the income and cartridges and lti to work but we're kind of waiting on the lms providers right now so the way that it would work currently needed would be much the same way that most other lti tools work you'd either manually create the external link kind of through the method that I showed there or you could do something called deep linking which is you connect a book and then you pick the activity and add it that way both of those are ways to add lms or lti activities to a course we just think it's much more convenient and faster to add a whole book at once because that certainly saves you a lot of configuration time but right now the lms's are a bit behind on that supporting that the fin common cartridge um jr asked is the connection of pressbooks lti to the lms something that network admins within an institution are able to do or does pressbooks have to enable for each institution's network individually um i'm not sure i understand the question but jr let me show you kind of how the connection works so i'm going to share my screen here and i'll zoom back out so okay so here i'm logged in as a network manager you'll notice there will be at the network level a tab called integrations and you will see the ability to create as many lti consumers as you would like so typically you would create one lti consumer for each of the platforms that are connected to your network a platform in this case would be an lms in most cases there is a single pressbooks network used by one institution and that institution probably has one lms so there are cases where you have more you would probably make a new lti consumer for each lms that you use you can see that we're testing with a bunch of different lms's on one network now but you what you do is you click add new and here your lms will provide a bunch of information from the platform so we have a kind of a kb doc or a walkthrough doc that shows you in canvas where do you get this information and you get it from canvas and you paste it in in moodle where do you get this information in sakai where do you get so you get the information that you need from your learning management system and you paste it in here and then there's a bunch of information that you need from pressbooks that you give to the learning management system and that usually gets established at the lms institutional level so when that happens pressbooks is a trusted lti tool your pressbooks network is a trusted lti tool for your whole installation of the learning management system and then it's a configuration that happens once usually by a pressbook network manager and your lms admin and you can handle it from there and then there's a k id and then you have a bunch of defaults so default values for various settings that you can so you can control these settings and then these settings are also available to be overridden at a book level the settings control things like should you be able to set the user's role when they first launch the lti link and what do you want them to be so for example in this case i want students to write a book collaboratively so when i they launch the lti link i want to make them editors in the book and i could set that setting or i could choose which common cartridge version to use etc the other thing to note about the lti product here this is a paid add-on for pressbooks so this the lti integration wouldn't be included but it could be included for like as a paid add-on um to establish connections for grading great pass back i think there was also a question in the chat earlier about how do people notify users that google analytics has been activated on the site kathy you willing to kind of elaborate on that one and i can take it better crack at it yeah i am so um we've activated google analytics across our pressbooks site how do we how do we tell people that are on the site that they're being tracked i think kathy probably what i would do is if you'd like to let users know that their page visits are being tracked through google analytics i would probably configure your network homepage to say something about that so when your pressbooks your pressbooks visit your website so for example let me just share the screen here you have the ability to make this landing page say whatever you want you can put a little you could put some kind of notice or some kind of information either in the main body or if you want there's a little footer area that's a nice place to notifications and things like that so i'd probably decide where you think it's best or most appropriate and notify people there that you're using google analytics ideas that might be a really good question actually for the edu community of practice because i don't know what other people's practices are other schools and and steel it's the case that you could put a full to s terms of service for readers as a separate page that could be linked in that footer as well if your institution wanted to do that that's a great point and kathy there's a pretty good thread on the edu community practice okay lauren ray and others have been talking about their terms of service policies and what they put up i bet that would be a great question for that okay okay i'll put it in there we have a great privacy statement we just haven't figured out how to make it obvious on the book level so that when the students come to it you know they they see it right off the bat so great thank you friends yeah thanks kathy does anyone else have questions about lti or where we're at and what we're working on there yes still this is chelsea i have a question sure um you did a great job at seeing how like within that chapter you had three activities and you're aggregating them to send back a grade is it possible to send back the grades individually on each activity so the answer is yes it's possible within the lti specification so lti advantage supports something called line item uh so so in that case what what would happen would be you would send an aggregate score and then you could also send the lms information about how that aggregate score was calculated so each of the individual activities we would like to build and develop that and add support for that we haven't done it yet so that's something we'll be working on maybe in the next month but i believe that it's possible we just haven't implemented it yet okay and then with the point values and the assignment dates when that gets configured over on the canvas side they're also able to add kind of override those values that come in right and i guess if you set a date on the prospect side presumably that you know kind of limit of you could only go narrower on the canvas side not wider but like for point values if it comes over from press books as a point value of eight a professor could choose to make that assignment worth 50 points and i assume it would just auto calculate you know based on the percentages yeah so that's a really good question and this is a little bit complicated so i'll try to unpack it what you're saying here is that if i made an assignment here in the canvas course so these are assignments created through press books so for example if i edit this assignment i can put a due date on it but i can't control its availability unless i do like some module release conditions so the the date grade setting is really set in press books but there is the ability to set a point value and the way that lti grade exchange works is a little bit confusing but basically what happens is you saw in press books that there was actually numerical points but what we do when we sum up the value the lms tells us send us the maximum possible points and the actual points received and it turns it into a ratio or a percentage so when the when press books gives a number to the lms it doesn't say oh they scored 10 it says oh it scored 10 out of 12 or five six or 84 point whatever percent or 80 what's five six jonathan is it 86 percent something like that so what would happen would be canvas would receive a percentage value the lms receive a percentage value and then it would scale it to whatever their numerical point value is in the lms so press books will always be sending a proportion or a percentage and the lms will use its point calculation to turn it into a raw number because if that makes sense so for example if i were to set this to 20 the grade would be scaled to be a percentage a ratio of 20 rather than 13 out of 15 it would be 16 out of 20 or whatever the ratio ended up turning out to be if you change how the grade is calculated here in the lms again you'll need to have students resubmit the activity in order for the grade to be updated so if i change this suddenly from 100 to 20 the grades would still show as might i would just be changing the denominator i wouldn't change the numerator like you can see here this this grade used to be set to be out of 20 and earlier i later i changed it to 100 and these students are looking like they only scored 12 or 13 because it was initially base 20 and i changed it to base 100 to kind of explore exactly what you were talking about great thank you the last thing i know we're running a bit short on time i have an update on the press books directory i'm happy to show that but i also wanted to really make sure we left some time for people on the call to share things that were of interest for others in the group or things that they are working on i would say let's hold off on the press books director i'll have even more to show you next time just know that we are working on a directory of a bunch of public press books books from all over the various networks and we're really excited to be able to show you a front end next month's demo will be mostly focused on that and we think it'll be pretty exciting for you to see in the meantime what do you have that you want to share thanks everybody for joining us for the May press books product update we appreciate all that you're doing for open education we appreciate you participating in our software community and all the work that you're doing to advance better education for all thanks so much


Okay, so in this session, HILC occurs from CERF-SARA and Ilona Von Stein from DANCE are going to guide you through certification and assessment for data repositories and services, and in particular, they will touch base on evaluation of core trust seal and its implications for maturity modeling, on assessment of fairness of data sets, and on fair assessment framework for data services beyond repositories. The session will start with the presentation of some of the recent outputs from the FERSFET project, and then we will engage you in some polls using a millimeter tool. A little bit of housekeeping for the event, so the event has been recorded entirely, as you know. Your microphones are off, so we invite you to use the Zoom chat for question, as you know, or raise your hand in case you need to speak. As said, we'll invite you to a millimeter poll later on, and we'll share again the code for the poll following the presentation. We are taking collaborative notes. There is a shared file, so if you want to contribute and add any inputs there, please feel free to do so. FERSFET, in a nutshell, FERSFET was funded by the Horizon 2020 Infra-Eusk 5c call. It started in March 2019, and it will last for 36 months. There are six core partners in the project, so Dan, who is the TTC coordinator, yes, DCC, E-Way, SCFC, and trust IT services, but the project has 22 partners in totaling from eight different countries. The objective of the project is to survey the landscape of fair activities in relation to the EOSC, and create a basis for harmonization efforts of all those actors working in the fair ecosystems and trying to build an active community around EOSC. In particular, we try to identify overlaps, divergences, and challenges related to the framework with a spatial focus on the recommendations that were identified by the high-level expert group on fair data in the turning field into reality reports, and to accelerate the realization of the goals of the EOSC in all fair-related matters. The FERSFET project is structured around seven work packages. Two are dedicated to the management and engagement and dissemination, while other five work packages are really bringing to the project the real technical activities. In this session today, you're going to see the results in particularly of two work packages dedicated to fair practices, semantics, interoperability, and services, and another one dedicated to the certification of repositories. The FERSFET project is supported by two groups of experts. The first one is the High-Level Advisory Committee, made up of nine experts who provide strategic advice to the project. And the second one is the European Group of Fair Champions that currently counts 11 members from different disciplines and different projects in Europe, and it's mandated mainly to ensure uptake of FERSFET results by their communities. One of the key actors of the FERSFET project is the Centralization Force, a team of people working to enable a dialogue among the various projects in the EOSC, and working in particularly to maximize coordination and minimize unnecessary overlaps, encourage the dovetailing of projects and activities with the EOSC governance, and promote the mechanisms to collaborate to an unfair into reality. The Centralization Force is gathering representatives from the main actors in the EOSC ecosystem, namely the regional thematic initiatives, the S3 clusters, and of course the working groups in particular. We have stronger relations with the fair working group and its task groups, and we are also working with other horizontal activities and other fair related initiatives. The Centralization Force met physically the first time last year in November in conjunction with the EOSC symposium in Budapest, and it's meeting for the second time now in these days with a series of virtual workshops taking place between April and the 11 of June, when the final concluding session will take place. So I conclude now my presentation inviting votes for our poster, which is number seven in the list, and we remind you that the voting closes tonight at alphas five Central European time. I'm Sara Pittonette from Tracedis Services, and I now welcome Hilke from Fairsfair, and from Serfs Hilke, up to you. Great, thank you very much. Let me unmute and share my screen. Can everybody hear me okay and can people see my screen? Yes, you can. Great, let me take it away. So thanks a lot, Sara, for the nice introduction, and thanks a lot to all of you for coming. It's great to see so many people in the audience. We have a nice saying in the Netherlands, elektvordel, elektnadelhebsenvordel, which translates to every disadvantage has its advantage, and I think the disadvantage of doing this offline or doing this online virtually is that many people have the opportunity to join, and it's great that so many people of you have taken advantage of it. So thank you all for doing that and welcome very much. So my name is Hilke Koers. I'm a group leader of the data management services team at Serfsara. Serfsara is a Dutch national organization for high performance computing and research data management, and I'm also the task leader of Fairsfair task 2.4, which pertains itself with fair assessment of services and software, and that is the topic that I wanted to talk about today. So in the task, we set out the work on perhaps a rather naive question or trying to formulate answers to a perhaps naive question. What does it take for a data service to be fair? This was our starting point, and what I want to do in my presentation is talk you through some of our discussions around that and to resharpen the thinking and also to refine the objectives for the task. I wanted to present what we have done so far and also share with you what is our plan going forward, how we plan to take this further. And then of course, very important, I'd love to hear from you about your thoughts around data services, what are important data services in the context of Fair, what are important criteria for data services to help data be fair, etc. So we'll do that at the end. So I'll try to be relatively brief in the presentation part so that we have enough time for the more interactive part where you can give your input and we have a bit of discussion around that. So actually the starting points in our conversations with the group from this question is, is this really even a good question? Should we be speaking about Fair services or is there perhaps a different frame that we should take? And really to think about that, we wanted to go back all the way to the very foundation of data and of the digital objects, the bits and bytes. Because as we all know, at the end of the day, that is what we are talking about. But we also know to make these objects truly findable and accessible and interoperable and reusable, we need to go beyond just the bits and the bytes, we need to have metadata, we need to have persistent identifiers. And of course it's important that these objects follow certain standards so that also other researchers can easily find and use them. So if you take that together, you arrive at the notion of a digital object, which I think is a very meaningful level of abstraction that encapsulates not only the bitstream but also persistent identifiers, metadata, and of course builds on existing standards, which can apply to different types of digital outputs. Of course the data sets but also research, software, methods, ontologies, etc etc. These digital objects can exist in various places in the data life cycle. They can represent data that just comes out of an observational device and just comes out of a certain apparatus. They can represent data that's actively being analyzed, data that's already in a repository. And of course very important at the end of the day, the data that's being reused by other researchers. Now if you think about data at these data sets or digital objects and can also apply to software or other types of research outputs in these various stages, you immediately see that in order to really do something with the data to get value out of it for the data to be more than just a static inert piece of content, you need to be able to act on that. You need to have tools, you need to have services. For example when the data is being gathered, of course there's a measurement device, hopefully some provision, some service to add machine metadata to the object right when it's being created. Data analysis tools that take the fair digital object and operate on it, turn it into something else that is of more value for the scientific insights that you could out of it. In the data repository there is functions for uploading annotations to a chip and so on and so forth. And then of course function services to aggregate the data and the metadata, expose them to search tools and give people the ability to download the data and act on it. So it's really this combination of the fair digital object, the content and the services that act on them to be able to really get value out of the data and be able to do something with it. There are supporting services as well that underpin all of these, for example functions, services that means persistent identifiers, linking tools, registries and so on and so forth. So all supporting infrastructure to be able to do all of these things with your data and your other digital objects. So a way of thinking about it, which I kind of like is if you see the digital objects as the musical notes in our world of data, then the services are the rhythm and the cadence that add the dynamics to the music. And you need both of them to really have a perfect symphony or a fair data ecosystem. So actually the way we slightly rephrase the thinking in our task around fair services, not so much what does it take for a service to be fair, but rather what does it take to enable fair and really be an integral component of this ecosystem where services act on fair digital objects to enrich them, to add value and perhaps make them more fair. I'm mindful that the way I've been speaking about it is fairly hand-waving of course. A lot of this is made much more firm and given more detail in the turning fair into a reality report that appeared in 2018. I think some of the authors of this work are also present in a session, so that's great. So a lot of these notions are made much more precise in this report and if you haven't read it or looked into it yet I would highly recommend you do because it really gives the scaffolding to think about this in more detail. So what's the issue then? If we have that report and we have this notion of a fair data ecosystem, what do we still need to do? Well, quite a lot of things that still need to be elaborated more because as you know, fair is not an absolute, but it's a set of guiding principles that still needs to be taken further that requires more interpretation and definition to really be able to do something with it and to become really actionable. For fair data there's been a lot of work that has been done on also quantifying the fairness of a digital object representing data. There are all kinds of checklist, assessment, certification criteria, etc. But for services that's not really the case and there's actually very little guidance that service owners can benefit from that tells them how to make their service fit in this fair data ecosystem. So this is really what fair is fair task 2.4 is all about. It's our objective and we will deliver that at the beginning of 2022. There's still a little bit of time for us working towards an assessment framework, a fair assessment framework for data services that will enable and stimulate this kind of interplay, this symphony between digital object and the services that act on that. We're also working on a fair assessment framework for software, equally important in terms of the scope of the work, but not so much the topic of the session today. So I'll really be focusing on the service aspect of our work. So what we've done so far we took a little bit of time to review the existing fair assessment frameworks for data also because we think they can serve as inspiration for assessment frameworks for services and in a sense the services needs to build on what we already have for the data. We've also looked at existing assessment certification frameworks for services, not necessarily fair but what's out there in general. We've done a couple of case studies where we did a bit of an uphill bottom-up analysis, if you like, looking at an existing service and trying to answer the question, do we actually feel that this service is enabling fair and in what sense is it doing that? So rather than first, well, defining a lot of methodology, just starting from an existing service and trying to make sense of this question with then the aim to abstract that to a more formal methodology later on. And we've also formulated some guiding principles for this assessment framework. So not yet the guiding principles for the services itself, but more what do we think the framework should be about and what are the boundary conditions or the desired aspects of such a framework. And of course, we had a lot of interactions and very useful beneficial discussions with stakeholders and other related working groups and projects. I wanted to quickly show you one case study, not so much for the detail of the specific case study, but more around some of the aspects of the methodology that emerged. So we took a look at a couple of services from the EOS portfolio, one of them being redefined. And then what we did is just mapped against the fair principles. And for every principle we try to formulate an answer to the question, is this service enabling this fair data principle? When it acts on the fair digital object, is it making it more findable, for example? And then the specific formulation of the F1 principle, is it respecting that property or is it reducing it? And we felt that these, well, this set of three, or actually it can also be not applicable, of course, if the service completely does nothing with a particular fair principle, then it's non-applicable. But mostly it's a charge of three. And we found that a much more valuable way to think about it rather than a binary yes, no. So for every of the fair principles we asked the question, is this service really actively improving that? Is it sort of respecting it, fair in, fair out, if you like? It's not adding it, but it's also not destroying the fair property when it operates on a fair digital object. Or is it actually reducing it? So this is the kind of mapping that we came up with. And like I said, it's not so much at this point to really scrutinize the defines or any of the other services, but really to formulate a sensible methodology that we can now formalize more in the work that this has. So in the case of the defines, we find that, well, actually, if you look at the fair principle fair, one, metadata are assigned a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier. We define respect that if it operates, if it acts on a digital object, that property is kept, it's respected, it's maintained. But be defined in itself does not provide you with this property. As opposed to F2, data are described with rich metadata. Here be defined is actually enabling that. It is elevating that fair aspect of a fair digital object. Where we are right now in the process. So some of the things that I presented and a little bit more are described in more detail in a first assessment report. It's available on Zoonodo. We very much welcome your feedback. There is a Google Doc that's still open, so you can use your feedback there or by any other means that you would find appropriate. So if you're interested in this, please take a moment and let us know what you think. There's still quite a bit of work ahead. We started the task in last September. So we're sort of three quarters of a year in. So we still have ample time to refine the thinking. So your input is still very valuable. This is a team for a task 2.4. We have the good fortune that there's some really smart, clever cooperative people. So a really nice team and we've had some really high quality, great discussions. So that's been great. And now I wanted to move on to the more interactive part. I would propose that we save questions and points for discussion to the end. At the end of the session, we have reserved a little bit of time for that as well. So if you have any questions about the presentation, we can pick that up at the end. But for now, we wanted to spend a bit of time on also getting your views and your input around certification, assessment for data services. And we set up a mentimeter for that. So I would ask you to open up menti.com and then use the code 89191. And then for the purpose of the presentation, Sarah, I am going to ask you to then take back control because all being well, you should have the menti view open. Yes, I have it. And I see people who are starting to provide an answer to the first question. Can you all see the screen and the balloons popping up? I can see the screen. So I'm assuming others can see it as well. Right. So first question also to get to know the audience a little bit better and help us understand the context to your answers to the other questions is to describe yourself. We wanted to leave it open. So in your own words, how would you describe your role in relation to data repositories and services? I see we have a repositories hacker amongst us. That's great. We'd love to hear a little bit more about your experiences later. Service providers, managing a data service, a user, research consultant. Some people are both a user and a manager. I think many of us wear different hats in this arena. Let's leave it open for a little bit while there are still responses coming in. But it looks like we have a very nice mix of different perspectives, which is great for the discussion. All right. 54. Let's wait a little bit. We have 159 people in the audience, 57 responses. So I think we can still do a little bit better. Say again? No, we have very diligent participants. One third of them is replied. Thank you. Okay. Shall we move on? Okay. Yeah, let's move on. That's fine. Thank you much for sharing that. And we'll use this also in the analysis so that we are able to segment the responses a little bit on the basis of your role, if you're a data provider or a provider of services or more consumer. So the second question, we wanted to ask you to name three types of data service that you yourself would consider essential to enable fair data. So imagine we start designing this all from scratch. What are three types of services that you would find absolutely necessary to enable fair data? And I would ask you to focus on technology title services. Of course, there's a lot of more non-technological services as well, but let's zoom in a little bit on the technology side. I still see a lot of feedback coming in. So let's leave it open for a little bit. I see some of the usual suspects, if you like, but also a few more uncommon ones. CPID services, data repositories, annotations, licensing, BMPs, AAI, important aspect as well, of course, data citation services, excellent ontologies, almost at 60. So let's leave it open for a little bit still. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to elaborate a little bit on why they have selected these type of data services? If you would want to add a bit more detail to that or perhaps just some rationalization, could you raise your hand and then we can open up the microphone?  Palomangi wants to raise his hand. Yes, Palo, you can very much raise your hand. Let's see if I can find you so that I can unmute you. There with me. Palo, the floor is yours. Can you hear me? Yes. Hello, Hilke. Hey, thanks for joining. Hello, everybody. No, I'd just like to elaborate because we've been experienced in this lately. And of course, apart from the infrastructural services, which are key, like precision identifiers and this kind of enablers, I think that today one of the key propositions would be to make thematic services so the places where scientists perform their science, where they execute their digital experiments, open science by design. So expect the services to publish on behalf and under the authorization of the users or the elements that are needed to repeat the experiment. So basically aspects such as province, attribution, semantic interlinking, the position, the proper repository selected by the community, user IDs, etc., the proper usage of PIDs should be managed substantially by the services used by the users. Open science requires a big effort in terms of publishing, which cannot be left to the manual upload of scientists to different repositories. So thematic service. So full stack open science. I see Andras also raised his hand. Andras, I will unmute you for a comment and then we'll go to the next question because we still have a few that we would like to cover. Andras, floor is yours. My answers were intended to be non trivial. I think the most important thing is to help researchers make their data fair. So one of the words I've chosen was consultancy. I think a lot of the researchers would need help for making their data fair or more fair. Another word is evaluation. It would be nice for researchers to be able to check how fair their data is. And the third word is enhancement. I would find very attractive to get services which help to enhance my dataset. For instance, proposing finding linkable pieces of metadata or enhancing the data in any possible way. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you very much for that contribution. Very useful. Thank you. I'm sure there's still a lot that we can say about this and we can come back to it in the open discussion at the end. But for now, let's move on to the next question because we have a few other things that we'd really like to get your input on. So this question is not about the services itself, but more the qualities or the type of the attributes that you would expect from a data service to enable fair data. So what do you consider to be the most important qualities for a data service to really be fair enabling? I see trustworthiness coming up repeatedly. That is great. We'll also talk a little bit about trustworthiness in the context of data repositories in the second half of this session. Interoperability, no paywall, transparency, sustainable, open signs by design. That might be Paolo again. Interoperability coming up quite a bit. Excellent. Persistence, yeah. User friendliness. I've also seen that a couple of times. Building community standards. Great. Correct attribution to data providers. I also really like that one. I think that's very important. We already have 73 participants, so more people are getting engaged in giving feedback. That's wonderful. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you very much. Let me ask maybe one, just in view of the time, is there someone who responded around trust or trustworthiness around the quality for data services? Somebody would like to elaborate a little bit on what trustworthiness means for them in this context. If you would be willing to say a few words about that, please raise your hand or say so in the chat window. No hands. Then I propose in view of the time, let's move on. And then there's still some other questions where I would again invite some discussion. Let's move on to the next question, Sarah. So this is a rating question because if we speak about fair assessment of services, that can still mean many different things to many different people. And here I've tried to summarize that into three different levels of maturity, if you like. One is around sharing good practices, recommendations for fair enabling service. The second one is a self-assessment tool, already a little bit more formalized. And the third one would really be formal certification. So there is a formal certification stamp for fair enabling service. My question for you is how important would you feel for these three different types of assessments slash certifications? Do you think the good, just sharing good practices, is the most important? Do you feel formal certification is most important? Or this self-assessment tool, which perhaps sits a bit in the middle. In the next question, I'm going to ask you to elaborate on why you chose those values, but for now really just on a rating of one to ten. Let's wait a little bit. There's 50 people who have given their response. There might be a few still coming in. Interesting to see that most people find these sharing good practices and recommendations most important than self-assessment and then certification. But in the certification, you see these two bumps. So there's also part of the audience who really feels very strongly about that. That's really interesting. We'll leave it open for a few more seconds. Last opportunity to cast your vote. So again, thank you very much. That's really valuable and helpful. Let's move on to the next slide where I wanted to ask you to motivate that in particular, if you have given different scores, would be really great to understand why you value one of these elements or why you find that more important than one of the others. And this is the last question for my bit of the session. So please tell me if you find best practices, good practices more important than formal certification or the other way around. Why is that? Okay. All equally important about flexibility. Yeah, I understand that argument. Steps one and two might be a prerequisite to get to three. That's also a really good insight. Many people also gave equals scores. That's also very good to know. Somebody here mentions the aspect of demoralization. Maybe a side effect of certification can be that some people are left out, which is of course also not something that we wish. There is already a quarter seal in combination with very guidelines. Very, very good observation. We'll speak more about that in the second bit of the session. Francoise, thank you for your comment. Important to see it as a stepped process where maybe we would start with establishing good practice, et cetera, and then moving on to self-assessment and certification. 28 people have given their feedback so far. In view of the time we need to move on shortly. So last few seconds to share your motivation, if you wish. Great. I had wanted also to invite people here to motivate their feedback, but actually you've already done that here in writing. Maybe time allowing at the end of the session, we have 15 minutes for open discussion. We can come back to this because I think this is a subject that at least I would love to tease out in a little bit more detail. But in view of the time, we're midway in the session. I would propose that we move on to the second part of the session and give the floor to Ilona. So I'll stop sharing for the moment. And Ilona, floor to you. Yes, hi everyone. I'll start sharing my screen. Give me one minute, please. Can you see my screen? Okay. We see the presenter mode, Ilona. So also the other slides, et cetera. Yeah, okay. Let's try how to fix that. I think when you click share screen, you can choose between your primary or secondary screen. I'll try again. And how is it now? We see the slides, but also the PowerPoint. So we also see the navigational. Yes, this is it. Okay, so this should be the right one. Thanks for guiding me through the technical stuff. So welcome everybody to the second part of this session. I'm Ilona Von Stein. I work with Danse in the Netherlands. And we are the Netherlands Institute for Permanent Access to Research Data. And I would like to dive with you into the topic of fair enabling repository data services. And I will focus on evaluation, assessment, and certification. The scope of my presentation of this part is on the one hand about evaluation and certification of data repositories. And on the other hand, I will focus on evaluation and certification of fair data. So I take the fair enabling perspective, just as Hilke did before. And also I take the perspective of the fair digital object. And also the complementarity between those is very important. So I will dive into that a little deeper as well. With this scope in mind, I would like to just provide you a little bit of background. Because I think that repository practices, they enable fair principles for digital objects. I think they do so. And this is also a starting point for my work. They do so because those services ensure at least to a certain extent, the fairness of your data set. And on the other hand, they also perform long term stewardship and creation. So very important, I think that the data remains fair over time. If you see the repositories in relation to certification, a common starting point is to think that repositories are assessed against guidelines or standards to evaluate their trustworthiness. A few certification frameworks do exist to assess the quality of a repository. And cordial steel is in common use for that. So now I go to what fair is fair is doing in the area of assessment of the fair enabling repositories. I've highlighted three aspects here. And I would like to go through them with you over the next couple of slides. So I will touch on our work on the fair alignment of certification schemes. Also, I will share a little bit more about a European network of trustworthy repositories that enable fair. And also, in the light of the fair enabling repositories, we're working on providing an improved registry for finding and selecting relevant trustworthy repositories. So the first thing we are doing under the umbrella of fair enabling, we are aligning the cordial steel requirements with a fair data practices to identify how repositories can enable fair data. And all this we do under the conviction that context matters. So really, the evaluation of object fairness cannot be done in isolation from its context. Again, we take the fair object versus the fair enabling environment perspective. The design methodology we have here is to use the cordial steel requirements as a baseline and elaborate them in a way that they demonstrate that the repository enables fairness. In this capability maturity approach, we use the cordial steel compliance levels, as well as the CMMI approach. So this is the capability maturity model integration approach. And we hope that with such a maturity approach, we may support repositories at lower levels of maturity in defining and achieving their goals. So we are focusing also on continuous improvement here. The next slide gives three figures in the middle that show some outcomes of our work. For example, on the left hand side, we have proposed an initial cordial steel plus fair mapping. In the middle image, you see the CMMI maturity model. And in the right image, there is the cordial steel process, which is a self assessment and peer review model. So I would like to say with this slide that the ideal outcome of our work will be a cordial steel process which certifies repositories as fair enabling trustworthy data repositories. It's also important to highlight that within fair is fair. So during the course of the project, so we will still have more than one and a half years left, we will not foresee a past fail outcome, nor we will perform or govern a formal process of fair enabled certification through cordial steel. However, obviously, it's very important that we share our recommendations for the fair integration into cordial steel with them. And we do so on a regular basis. And also cordial steel boards, they have provided a statement of support for this. So they support the work in this respect. If you're interested in this kind of work, I've provided here an overview of some Xenodo links to component documents that we have provided. So we worked on cordial steel plus fair also a report on fair ecosystem. And the last bullet is there meant to tell you that we have an upcoming work package deliverable which integrates those components documents. It will be released at the beginning of June and we will be seeking wider community feedback. The second thing we do under the umbrella of fair enabling is that we offer support with a cordial steel angle to 10 fair is fair supported repositories. So what we do we go with those repositories on a journey towards trust and fair. And on the other hand, those repositories provide us the input and share their experience on how their repository practices enable fair. So it works both ways. We have selected them through a call of repository involvement. We will extend this limited group of fairs fair support repositories which are 10 to a wider European network of trustworthy repositories enabling fair data. And also obviously we need to take the wider network more like the global network also into account of fair and cordial steel stakeholders. This slide is meant to provide a little bit more detail on how we support the repositories. So you see here the cordial steel process which consists of self assessment and peer review. And you can see a circle with the fair is fair logo and a yellow band which indicates that our fair is fair supports engages at the self assessment point of the process. So we provide support before the repositories submit their self assessment formally to the cordial steel board. The third thing we do under the umbrella of fair enabling repositories is we are working on improved descriptions for repository metadata. The ideal outcome of that would be that we would have a better description of organizational and data collection metadata. And ultimately obviously we hope that then the relevant repositories are better findable for all stakeholders. And this work is supported by the work on the cordial steel plus fair alignment as well as our work on the object assessment against fair. And exactly this point is where I'm heading to with the last part of my presentation. So here I have a couple of slides that indicate what we are doing in the area of evaluation of object fairness. Fair is fair is developing and running pilots with two primary use cases that help assess the fairness of individual data sets within repositories. So we have two primary use cases. One is focused towards researchers and we will develop their manual self assessment tool. It's like a fair awareness and education tool. It's meant to be used prior to deposit. And on the other hand we would like to tailor an automated assessment for data repositories and that's meant to be after the data publication. If you want to know more about the use cases stakeholders and our design approach for the evaluation of object fairness I've included here one of our deliverables. It's also open for community feedback. And I put it at the lower end of the slide here. The next slide gives you two tool set snippets. So on the lower left hand side you see a tool snippet of the manual self assessment awareness tool where the researchers can fill in questions and where they can be where they can raise awareness and can be educated on how to improve the fair data before depositing. And on the right hand side there is a work in progress on an automated assessment tool and you'll see a snippet there on the right. Again this is a slide with some more pointers and links if you're interested in this work. The deliverable on top I already mentioned. We also have a metric specification we are using for our pilots. It's available on Zenodo as well. And yeah last but not least we are also working closely in collaboration with the RDA fair data maturity working group. We've done testing and yeah contributed to a lot of aspects of the work. But recently we've also compiled a detailed project response feedback to their specification and guidelines. So it's also open for everybody to see there. To conclude I think it's quite I've said it a couple of times already but really for me the conclusion is that fair for objects and fair enabling they evolve in parallel. Another important takeaway would be that we are mapping object characteristics to where repositories can enable fair. We do in the conviction that fair and courteous steel approaches are complementary and well aligned. Fair is fair offers support with a courteous steel plus fair angle and later that will be really interesting for the remaining part of the project will be to see how we can integrate the object evaluation outcomes into into repository assessments. So there we can see how we can align the repository practices with the fair scores of their collections. And so we will have interesting times ahead of us. We work here with this great team of people. We have I think 12 people working on this dance is the work package lead. I'm work package leader of this work package for we work together with DCC with data side read through data. University Bremen which is Pangea, CNES and also the UK data archive. So this is the end then of my presentation. And now I would also like to go to Menti. It's the same code so I will stop sharing my screen. I would like to invite Sarah to open the Menti again please. Yes it's there Ilona. Thank you so much. Okay so the first question. Is everybody okay to see the Menti slides? Yes I hear yes thank you for your confirmation. So how important is it for you that characteristics of fair digital objects are aligned with repository contacts? And I would love to hear some motivation as well if you dare. I'm still here. I'm just waiting for some responses to come in. Thank you very much for the first contributors. So I see some indications that people do find it important. They share the same opinion as I have. Also interesting that another one says well I'd say it's not that important, not too important because repository should just deposit more than vice versa. Yes clear enough. Thanks for the contribution. And I've seen what I take up from the answers here as well that community acceptance of the fair principles is very important before it can be elaborated into repository requirements. Thank you so much. I'm just waiting for a couple of seconds before I will go to the next question. It was a difficult question to start with but thank you for formulating and expressing your views. And I was also interested in one person saying not important. Thank you for sharing your views. Either by raising your hands in the zoom or by making yourself known in the chat. Is there somebody who would like to share his or her view with us? I don't see any raised hands or I don't see anything in the chats. Well thank you very much for your writing. Very helpful to us. I would like to propose to go to the next question please. Maybe this gets you going. What are the main challenges around fair enabling repositories? Would you be so kind to give your opinion on this? So I see coming in one vote. Thank you three. Not all data is fair yet. That's interesting one as well. Everything is evolving around the indicators. The lack of clarity that relates also to the things that are still evolving. In the chat I see also a participant coming in on sustainability. That will be a main challenge and it comes also apparent that the costs and the staff resources are a point or an issue you are thinking about when you think about a challenge. Comments in the chats from a participant that states that it may seem a difficult process. Maybe too difficult. Is there anybody who would like to share with me the reason behind the main challenge around fair enabling repository certification? You can either please raise your hands or make yourself known in the chat and mute you in a bit.  Yes please. Hi. Thanks. I wanted to just raise the issue that one of the challenges for us. I work for Gbeth Global Biodiversity Information Facility and it's sort of like Schrodinger's repository. We both are and are not a repository. We are a federated network. There are ways in which data have and always have persisted. The challenge of actually trying to approach certification from a federated or network model is quite challenging. We feel that we align very well across the board on fair data metrics but trying to walk through a step-wise certification process presents real challenges for us. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for sharing it. And what do you think Kenmore should be done to improve that? Who should take an action on that? You think? Okay. I think Kyle lowered his hand so he cannot talk anymore. Don't worry Kyle. Do you want to say something Kyle? Should I proceed? That's okay as well. While we are waiting then I have received in the chat also by I think it's by Hela Hollander. Is it possible to do step-by-step then? Is there something you would like to say about that Hela to the audience? I'll try to find you and unmute you. One moment please. Hi. I'm Hela Hollander. Thank you. Hi. I'm Hela Hollander. I'm a colleague of Ilona working at Dans. Head of the archiving team but also a project leader in Ariadne Plus and the other I worked in parts and most different communities from the cultural heritage perspective. And I think to find the start or the beginning of this process is the most difficult part. If I see people who are at the bottom of this process, where do I start? Who do I contact? Can I do this step-by-step? How can I learn? How do I get the expertise? Is it really that difficult? The question is like this. It's like a road map perhaps. And I commend what's a challenge also to have enough reviewers because when you have 40 people willing to make one step ahead, how do you train those people? How do you help them? So this was my these were my answering questions. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I really understand that. So really the basic question. So where should I start? And so like I explained, I can give you a little pointer you might be able to use in your community. For example, we've created some workshop material with a road mapping exercise and a stakeholder mind map exercise. In first instance, we tailored it towards the 10 support repositories. However, we also generalized it. So it can be used also by others seeking trust certification and fair. So yeah, we're trying to deploy activities in that area as well. Yeah, thanks. Yeah. With an eye on the time, I would like to go to the next question. I have two left. So the next questions are please give it a little bit of the bright side. What are the main opportunities offered through fair enabling repository certification? Open science in general. Yeah, that's an important one as well. Easing the burden on research. So actually, that would be all about it, right? That we make the life easier for the researchers so that it can take the burden of individual researchers in making data fair. Yeah, I agree with that. I also like to see that the key phrase of improvement is there. So yeah, through good practices, we work all together to improve our repository practices, ultimately surfing the researcher. I like that as well. Thank you. Thank you so much. I did see a raised hand by, I think it was Paolo Manghi a couple of minutes ago. So I would like to open the microphone for Paolo Manghi to respond. Hello, that was for the previous question. Okay, we go back to the challenges then, sure. Well, it's actually both sides, I think. This actually links to the similar comment that I made in my previous, in the previous session. So I think repositories cannot be left alone in this fairness certification process. So there are aspects of fairness that cannot be just measured based on the metadata, but must be ensured by the process that generates the data. So the payload itself, for example, the quality of content in terms of ability to reuse it cannot just be described by metadata, but must be ensured by the process that generates the data. If it's a systematic service that on behalf of the users performs the deposition, ensures that certain conditions are respected, is certified accordingly, and its certification can be even stored as part of its accounting system within the repository, then this process is simplified. Again, thematic services should be more involved. This is the coupling of where we do science and where we store science should end with the open science. The two systems should be connected. Yeah, okay, thank you for your comment. I also think that quality data curation really should involve community experts and current community practices should be respected. So I support that as well. Thank you Paolo. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to share his or her opinion on one of the things they answered as an opportunity offered through Fair Enabling Repository Certification? I don't see anything coming in. So then I would like to suggest to go to the next question and it's the last one. So the question here would like, I would like to you to think about is how much do you consider trustworthy data repository status and fair data to be a journey? So one strongly disagree, 10 strongly agree. I see already 20 responses coming in. Thank you so much. So well, it's very clear. You do really see this as a journey and I'm taking this perspective as well because I think that if we have an approach for repositories that might give them some indicators of where they are, where they want to go, what they can do to improve. Yeah, they can reach a higher level of maturity. So I am in favor of this as well. And somebody in the chat mentioned that it's very important to go step by step and that hints towards your journey as well. Thank you for that. The last opportunity for the audience to reflect on one of these Mentimeter discussions. So if there's something you would like to say, please raise your hand or use the chat. It will be open the chat and raising hands obviously. So that would be the end of the Fair Enabling Data Repository Servers Perspective. We have with an eye on the time 15 minutes left for a general Q&A round. So we can go on the Fair Enabling Services from Hilco. We can dive a little bit deeper into the repositories, what you like. And I would like to ask Sarah to take back control of the share screen please. Yeah, I have it already, yeah. Yeah, and if you would like to be so kind to put up the last slides and moderate the Q&A session, that would be great. So if I go back to the chat and the comments I've seen there, there were a few of you who raised the point of the effort needed to enter such a process, and in particular for small repositories. I've seen comments by Andres, a whole Joy Debiton, and Keith Russell, maybe. So I don't know if any of you want to further elaborate on this. Andres, yes. Give me a second. Yes, you know, sorry. Yeah, go on. I have added another comment at the chat window. And I think while certifying repositories is important, it's even more important to create a fair enabling workflow, a fair enabling process of which only a part is the repository is the archiving place. And I think in this process more components, all components are important. So the burden shouldn't be put on the researcher. It should rather the researcher should use proper tools, fair enabling tools, proper practices, and all the environment, the services should be also fair enabling. And in this way, we could really bring lots of research data to be fair. And obviously, certifying repositories or making repositories more fair friendly is important. But what I see is that some of these burden could be shifted from the repository operators to, say, creators of repository software. What I'm saying is obviously not true for big data centers which operate with their own software. But for small repositories, I think it's more important to have the software they use fair friendly or fair supporting. And of course, software is not everything. They need to change their practices. They need to adjust their practices. But my opinion is that there are much more important steps, not just only the certification of the repositories or the efforts of the repository managers. Yes. Okay, thank you for sharing that. And yeah, so I fully agree that we work here with the full fair ecosystem. And we've also tried to incorporate the broader view for you and me together to share our work on evaluation in a fair ecosystem. And what I would like to contribute as well, and then I'm also referring to the Turning Fair into Reality report, that I think it would be good if you would have registries for finding such components of an ecosystem. So it will be more easy to find the relevant ones for the users ultimately. Absolutely. Thank you. I believe Mustafa also wants to reply. Can you try and unmute yourself? Yeah. Hi, thanks, Sarah. And thanks to Hilke and Ilona for the great presentations. I just wanted to react on the question of the cost and the effort needed for the certification. And I think I would like to ask the reverse question, not the cost of the certification itself, but the cost of not being certified. The thing is that certification people think is gaining something like a label or a badge or some kind of recognition and reputation. I think that is part of the certification, but it's actually the trivial part of the certification. The most important part is the process that's behind it, more than the reputation you gain from it. And if we think of it like this, I think it becomes more obvious what is the cost of not doing it. If you're not going through this process, you run the risk of not applying good practice as we all, I think, agreed that it's an important aspect. You run the risk of not being following the community standards. You run many risks in not doing your job correctly, basically. So I think the key point for me is not to focus on the end result of the certification, but more on the process and what it brings to you as a business, as a service provider. I think that the advantages are quite obvious if you look at it from that perspective rather than just gaining something at the end. So it was just a comment, thanks. Yeah, thank you so much. So I presume you were also really in favor of the journey approach toward it. So thank you for sharing this view, Mustafa. Thank you. And since we are reaching the end, I would like maybe to just close with one comment I saw from Francoise Genova. I'm not sure if she's still there, but she was mentioning, she was asking, I think, a provocative question. So is this just a problem of costs or sources or include some expertise? I don't know if Francoise, if you want to expand on this, since this might also affect another area of activities where first fair is involved, which is the skills and professionalizations of latest works. So Francoise, are you there? I don't see her in the list anymore, Sarah. Can you speak, Francoise, now? I guess, yes, now I can. Yes, I am still here, but you didn't saw me. So I was trying to understand, because I understand the problem of costs, of course. And it was a big thing in the middle of the screen. So one has to think about what it means. It's clear that there is the question of smaller repositories that Amryash was discussing. But I think that the cost, when you say the cost of staff and so on, there is also the question of expertise. And this is not only for fair, it's for the whole question of repositories and trustworthiness. But in the case of fair, there is an additional expertise in some cases to what repositories are used to do, especially those who are just taking, if you think about the core trustee scale, those who are not the scale of compliance, but the repositories which are just taking the data as it is, and then preserving it and distributing it. To get fairness, you may have a much stronger role of repositories, especially if they help people bring more elements of fairness. So expertise is really included in the cost and in the skills, as you say. But I think that there is more expertise for the staff required if you want to have fair enabling repositories in general. Thank you, Francoise. We would all go back to data curation activities as well, right? So in order for the data to be available and accessible in the long term as well, we need curation activities for that. So thank you for this contribution. Andres, I see your hand raised. So you should be able to unmute yourself now. Sorry, I've just left my hand raised. Okay, great. So I don't see any other hand raised. So I think we can thank all our participants and the chairs for this very active session. So thank you again for joining us. Sorry. And thank you to everybody in the audience for joining us and sharing your views. Super valuable. Thank you. So all the materials will be uploaded in the EarthCup Week event page. And we'll also have them shared via fairs, fairs channels. So stay tuned and have a nice rest of the EarthCup Week. Thank you all.


Hello everyone and welcome back to another embalism inducing episode of this. Real quick I just wanted to thank all my patreon and subscribe star subscribers. Thanks to all of you I'm gonna be upgrading all of my equipment and this studio very soon hopefully here in the next two weeks. Thanks to all of you everything's gonna be looking a lot better here very soon. So this story is hilarious and it really enforces my belief that the trunk campaign is really a lot craftier than anybody gives them credit for. And maybe you all remember all the way back, way way back to 2019 when biden hilariously told a screaming crowd of democrats We choose truth over facts. If you're interested join me I can use the help. Gaff or not pay close attention to the roaring display of agreement from the democrat crowd. Let me tell you all something. It gets incredibly stressful constantly dealing with these media lies and distortions. I look at myself in the mirror every day and my skin tells the tale. Let me show you all one of the things that's helping me to look better and feel great. In the year 2020 it's important to keep your body healthy all the time. Collagen may be the closest thing that we ever get to a real fountain of youth. And many health experts now agree consuming collagen is as crucial as it gets to renewing and revitalizing how you look and feel. After all collagen is the most abundant protein in your body and is essentially the glue that holds you together. In fact after age 20 people produce about 12% less collagen in their skin each decade. For some the decline is even greater. So visit my page at www.healthwithdronetech.com and secure your supply of the best collagen on the market. We choose truth over facts. So folks if you're interested join me I can use the help. Ok now that you've seen that fast forward all the way into the future and to the far distant future of 2020 where the Trump campaign has launched a mockumentary style website called Truth and Facts. At first glance it's pretty obviously a satirical style site from the Trump campaign with Joe Bynes doofy, confused face plastered all over the front page. Not to mention the laughter inducing name of the website. One would think that the average person would see this for what it is or at the very least our highly paid, highly trained 4th estate of democracy defending truth leakers would know that these words were spoken by Joe Biden and aren't some sort of Orwellian made up slogan by the Trump campaign. One would think, right, wrong. After the launch of this website by the Trump campaign the typical media suspects launched into outrage over the quote Orwellian move by Trump. Ezra Klein for example, he's the founder and editor-at-large at Vox, a well-known left-wing propaganda outlet owned by NBC, who are known for lying and deceptive videos in service of the Democrat Party. You may have saw his interview on Ben Shapiro's Sunday show about a month ago. This guy. If you had written a satire of the Trump administration where they launched a campaign called Truth over Facts it would have been dismissed as heavy-handed and unfair. I have to completely disagree with that, first of all. The media has been nothing but heavy-handed with Trump for the last four years. And that wouldn't have even rated on the scale next to the Russian collusion hoax. You people were straight up calling him a Russian Asian for three years. Second, Biden actually said this. How does he not know this? He's a professional journalist who's only interested in the truth and is definitely not a partisan DNC hack. He doesn't know about it because like I like to remind you daily, the media is only interested in advancing a Democrat Party agenda. Later, he must have realized that he was just exposed and attempted to make it look like Trump's the one in the wrong for quote, weaponizing the gaffe. What? It's amazingly audacious for the Trump campaign to use Joe Biden's own words against him? Really? Yeah, because the Democrats in the media never weaponized Trump's words against him, even going as far as to outright lie and deceptively edit video to do it. I love how it's somehow out of bounds to use Democrats own words against them. It reminds me of when Trump played that video of the media downplaying the coronavirus from January up until March and then the media calling that a conspiracy theory because he used their own words against them. Think about how completely insane this is becoming. The only legitimate election is won one by Democrats. The only legitimate scandal is one involving the Republican Party. And apparently now the only legitimate attacks against a politician are those done against the Republican Party. The hilarity continued on Twitter with other DNC operatives who pretend to be journalists lining up to express their outrage. Molly Jong Fass, editor-large for The Daily Beast, another left-wing rag, tweeted out quote, how very Orwellian. The problem here, of course, is that she just proved that she's the one that's Orwellian. Not Trump. I mean, how could she not know that Biden said this? Because these people aren't interested in Biden gas. Only covering them up by not covering them. You see, if they didn't report it, it never happened. It's all part of their alternate reality myth-making. The responses to her tweet are similarly lacking any semblance of self-awareness, unknowingly tweeting out attacks that should have been done in a mirror. Again, the Trump campaign is not very creative, recycling old scandals, accusing Dems of doing everything that Trump has actually been doing, and now just copying 1984, rewriting history accounts as Donnie bungles dates and facts up. And then I respond, Biden says truth over facts, and this is your response. Truth over facts, God, more proof he's removed from reality or just plain wack over for pretending to be removed from reality. But it is more proof he's unfit to be president, and we need the 25th Amendment now. We choose truth over facts. So folks, if you're interested, join me. I could use the help. Or how about Isaac Stone Fish?  Are these their real names? Anyway, this guy is a Washington Post columnist. He's also a fool who falls for obvious traps because he doesn't actually do his job. This is remarkably similar and named to a leading Chinese Communist Party slogan, seeking truth from facts. Weird because it was actually said by the Democrat Party's candidate for president. And for a guy who seems very focused on China as a threat, he sure is silent on Biden's cozy relationship with them. You can just go down the list on Twitter and find other media outlets and so-called journalists making similar comments. So what we're seeing here is a bunch of media people that any of us could point out as DNC operatives being exposed as such. I think what we're going to see now is the media deflecting from this by flipping around on Trump and claiming that he's attacking Biden, not paying attention to the virus outbreak. They'll say that his priority is attacking Biden, not dealing with the virus outbreak. This response is twofold for them. They deflect any criticism from the Democrat and they turn the criticism right back around on the Republicans where they want it.  It's not as if Trump built and is now running this website. This is just another case of the media running cover for a Democrat and putting forth this idea that somehow it's out of bounds to use Democrats own words against them. Meanwhile, they can attack and edit video and lie as much as they want because they've told themselves that Trump is an existential threat. This is what you get from people who have rationalized taking any action to get what they want. That's all for this episode. Please hit that like button, share and subscribe. If you enjoy this channel, you can support it on one of these platforms. You can find all the links in the description and pinned comment. Thanks for watching. Keep coming back.