Good morning, everyone. So just a quick review of the agenda we've got planning for the HackFest, a brief update on where we are with Rocket Chat, a discussion of the – there's somebody in a room with a lot of background noise, if they could mute, please. Continuing discussion of the security badging, I don't know if Brian is on and going to join. I know he has a cold and he's on the road. He's not joining. Okay, so maybe we want to defer that or – probably, I suspect, because I'm not sure what Brian had in mind, to be honest. Yeah, we can defer. Not a problem. Okay. A reminder that there is hiring. Hart has requested time to review the white paper, skeleton draft document, which I think we need to link to in the chat, since I don't see it in the note here. And then we will then continue our discussion of the working group charters. And I think we have – I can't remember now which ones were attached and which ones we need to discuss, because I wasn't on last week, so – Todd, could you remind me, please? Yep. So we have Google Docs for the technical working group China Identity and Architecture. Hart sent over the charter for the white paper working group as a PDF, so that was attached in what went out last night, as well as the skeleton outline for the white paper work group was a PDF attached as well. And then when we get to the work group charter section, we're still waiting for something from the requirements work group, the protocol working group and fabric SDK working group. Okay. Thanks. And then there's one other topic that I'd like to add, and that's something that came out. We just had the governing board meeting ended about four minutes ago, and Rob Palatnik of DTCC brought up the discussion that some of us were having back in December when digital assets published the white paper on the global synchronization log. And so we just had a brief discussion in the governing board that was then tasked to me to sort of raise the discussion back in the context of where the discussion really belongs and the TSC in terms of is there anything we should be doing about the GSL, what should we do, and so forth. So I think I'd like to tack that on the end if we have any time. Anything else? Okay. So, Todd, Hackfest, where are we? Yep. So plan for February 1st and 2nd in San Francisco, there's roughly 50 people that have registered as of now, which is fantastic. If you're planning to attend, please get registered as soon as possible, dropping the link into the chat window now. We also have a draft agenda going for that. If there's topics that you want to see, please get those slotted in. We will run this on conference format, as we typically do, and map out the agenda at the morning of day one. So any topics, please get those added. Otherwise, we're still looking tentatively to have a Hackfest in Shanghai in March, piggybacking on the Hackathon, as well as New York in May. I've been chatting with a few people on those, but if you do have venue space, please get in touch so we can see what we get planned. Any questions there? All right. That sounds good. I think it's really great that we're seeing the numbers up this early. That's a really good sign, so I'm enthusiastic about that. I'd like to make sure that when we do get together in San Francisco that we try and focus a little bit less on talking a little bit more on actually engaging and doing some collaboration, especially between the projects, I think that would be important. Okay, is Ryan or who's giving the update on Wreck-a-Check? I'm not sure if Ryan's on, so I'll just give a quick update. The IT team is working on this. It does support the use of your Linux Foundation ID, LFID, if you have one, which is great. And it looks like this will be up before the Hackfest on February 1st and 2nd. So, while people are face-to-face there, we can kick the tires with it in real time. Great. I think that's going to be important because I keep getting feedback mostly in Slack, actually. People saying, oh, I was looking for something and it's not there and how come? So the sooner that we can get to a point where we have archived, where we are having to archive and drop off the edge of the world, all these conversations will be a good thing. So, okay, and then you want to send a reminder then about the hiring. I know that there's already been some people putting in for the different positions, but maybe you can remind everybody what the positions are and where they can go. Yeah, certainly. So I just dropped a link in. This was a blog post just summarizing everything we're looking for. But essentially, we're looking to bring on four full-time hires, two community architects to work very closely with the technical community here, as well as a security maven, just to make sure that the community is implementing best practices for secure software development, et cetera. And then lastly would be a director of ecosystem development. Really a company, a person working with a various member companies and non-members just weaving together the overall strategy, helping them further engage in the technical activity as well as the business and marketing activity. But there's job descriptions in the link that I sent for all of those. If you have any questions, you can reach out to me directly. Otherwise, there's a link for how to apply for those. So if you know anyone in your network that would be a good fit, please send them our way. Great, thank you. Any questions on that? OK, then next up is Hart. Hey, everybody. I just wanted to mention that the White Paper Working Group is progressing. We have come up with what we're calling a skeleton White Paper, which is essentially an outline with a lot of points we want to cover in the White Paper.  We would like the TSC to hopefully approve this document, perhaps next week. So if anyone really, but especially TSC members, if you could go over this document in the coming week, give us feedback or comments, and then we can go from there. Does anyone have any questions? So Hart, let me just sort of ask, who hasn't had a chance to review the White Paper skeleton? I know it's been out for a while. I know some people have given feedback. I'm just curious who hasn't yet felt that they've had a chance to review this. Chris, this is Greg. I haven't had a chance to, I apologize. This is Dan. I also haven't gotten around to that yet. Any others? Yeah. This is Zano. Do you hear me? I actually had read the previous paper, but not the skeleton, so I need to do that. But so I just wanted to clarify, Hart, I mean, I know you struggle with this, you know, that there was kind of a moving target, which I can understand is not sustainable. And so my understanding is the goal is to now, you know, set the direction and be able to stick to that, right? Did you also clarify which audience you're trying to address? Because that was part of the question. That's in the skeleton. So we have an outline and we also have a couple of paragraphs about what we're trying to address, who we're trying to address points to, and sort of what we're trying to say to who, I guess. So we have a couple of paragraphs on that in the document. And if you have comments on that, you know, obviously please feel free to let us know. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay. So everybody has homework who hasn't already reviewed and provided feedback to Hart and the white paper working group on the skeleton and Todd lets tee up a decision for next week. We'll do it in the agenda. So for those of you who need to, please, please try to carve out half an hour. It's not a lengthy read and so carve out a half an hour to review it and provide Hart with any feedback. And then I'd like to, you know, at least, you know, get agreement on, you know, from a purpose and the general outline, is this the direction that we're trying to, you know, that we all agree is where the white paper should head for next week? Okay. Next up, working group charters. And again, I apologize, I wasn't around last week and I'm not actually sure which ones we've done yet, Todd. So help me. Yeah, certainly. So we hadn't received most of them last week. So Brian's suggestion was that these get sent over email over the last week. We would have a discussion this week in the TSC call, make sure that we get the remaining few and then look for formal adoption in next week's TSC call. So I think this call is really just focused on a questions, comments on the four that have already come in, and then a reminder to the requirements working group protocol working group and fabric SDK working group to get theirs over. Okay. All right. Fair enough. So let's go in alphabetical order. I see architecture is Ramang. Hi, Chris. Yes, I'm on. All right. So let's review this one. All right. Everybody have the Google Docs link that was sent over in the email. So the architecture working group, it's fairly straightforward, and we have a clear charter from the beginning. We are focused on developing an architectural framework for enterprise class ledgers and ideally converging on a modular architecture. We realize that that's not an easy task, that everybody will converge exactly on that modular architecture, but we think it's a goal that we should be shooting for anyway. So the main work involved in developing that architectural framework is identifying common components, providing the functional decomposition, focus more on what those functions are rather than how. The how would be the implementation details and the design that's associated with the individual projects. And then providing the interface definitions between the components. The other important aspect that we want to cover and haven't covered yet is the aspect of interoperability. What does interoperability mean between ledgers, between different versions of ledgers and different stacks themselves. And that's something that we would like to address as well. So besides that, the workgroup serves as a cross-project forum for architects and technologists across the project. We exchange ideas and explore alternate architectural options. We discuss trade-offs and capture the reasoning behind the choices that we make, both in general for the ideal architecture and for the individual choices that the project have made. And we provide recommendations and guidance to the projects under the hyperledger umbrella, hoping to encourage them to converge on a model of architecture. Obviously we invite the projects to come to the workgroup and we provide design review and guidance back on trying to move towards the converged architecture. Any questions there? So Ram, I think the only thing that I think this is fine, the only one comment that I might make is that under work products that you also include the offer to do design reviews. I think I mentioned it there in the last line, Chris. So if you look at work product. Oh, yeah, okay, yes, fine, thanks. I was looking for the word design, never mind. You had me worried for a minute, Chris, because we specifically talked about that yesterday. Yeah, so we leave most of the design to the individual projects, there's more architecture review if you will, but you know, we're open to providing design guidance as well if you and we can explicitly include that if you think that's a good idea. Yep. No, I think this is fine. Any other feedback? So this is, I have one comment, it's a very small thing, but in the collaboration section, you say ideally it collaborates with the use cases, requirements, blah, blah, blah. Do we really want to have this ideally? I mean, I understand, you know, I think I understand what this is about, but I would think that from a charter point of view, you probably should say it collaborates, that's the goal, right? That's the ideal, that's so what you're shooting for. Yeah, I think it's, I take your point. The reason I put it there, that's what we wanted to start with, but it hasn't happened, that's why I stuck the idea in. But this is why I'm pointing this out, in fact, because if it's something we feel that it should be, you know, maybe we need to change this and make it an actual goal. And then I understand practically it may not quite happen as much as you would like, but I think it might make sense to remove the word there to make it for a strong commitment. Sure. I would go ahead and do that right now. Thanks. Done. Any other, any other feedback? Okay, then I would suggest we take a quick vote, and rather than doing a role, I would suggest that we just sort of do the opposite and say, does anybody object to, you know, approving this as the architecture working group charter? Okay, here are no objections, I think it's approved. Next up, I'm looking for my email here. Next up, identity, I guess it's identity, I guess. And as somebody just posted that in the chat, I know. Thank you. Is Vipinon? I will tell you that WebEx is really annoying. Or go to meeting whatever this is. Is Vipinon? He's not in the list of attendees. Okay, maybe we'll defer this until next week then. I would encourage people to review it and provide Vipinon with any feedback during the week. But since he's not here to hear it, then I think we should just move to the next working group then, which is the white paper working group. Yeah, hey Chris, the document went out in the email about the meeting that Todd sent out last night. Yes. I think this is an extremely simple charter, it's probably massively over rewarded. As you might guess, the purpose of the white paper working group is to write the white paper. And that's basically what the charter says in probably more words than necessary. But if anyone has any comments on the wording, we'd love to hear suggestions. Has everybody got access to the email? No, if people could just post it in the chat window, that'd be great. It's a PDF, it was attached to the agenda that Todd sent out yesterday. I need to get on that mailing list, sorry I've just recently joined sorry about that. Which is the right mailing list? Hyperledger-tsc.hyperledger.org, I'm sorry, was there a comment in there? You may have talked over somebody, sorry. So thoughts on the working group charter for identity? For the white paper working group I've dropped the message archive in from the list so you should be able to get the PDF from the bottom of that called white paper charter. So I would have one comment which is that document really doesn't say what the white paper is really about except in the introduction where it says it reflects the philosophy of the Hyperledger project. And I understand it may be a bit of a challenge to have a very descriptive kind of expansion of what the document is about. It's kind of a catch-22. Yes, but it seems like the charter really doesn't say anything other than well we'll do some white paper without saying what it is. I understand the challenge in going further than that, but maybe if we have a, you know, I assume that Haught has a pretty good sense of where he's going with the paper now and maybe can they expand a little bit on what this document is supposed to be about. So I agree with you Arnaud that the first, I think it's the first two paragraphs on the skeleton that are sort of the introduction to the skeleton is something we might want to just drop in here as the charter. Yeah, I looked at this and maybe that's too much. So maybe something in between at a high level, what do you expect to cover with the white paper? I don't know. So that's sort of what that first two paragraphs cover. Right, that's what I thought. Yeah, so here's what I would suggest. I think this is a good point and so assuming that as people review the skeleton and if we approve the skeleton that we update the charter with that preamble in terms of the scope of the white paper, does that make sense? That makes sense to me. Yeah, I think that works. That might be a good way to get out of the sketch 22 we're in right now. Yeah, that sounds like a good plan. So regarding that, one of the things that that brings, one of the points that that brings out about the white paper working group is that it has a finite duration as opposed to the architecture group where the facility of providing architectural and design reviews is something I think we continue on in perpetuity. The white paper group, especially as we hone in on the specific characteristics of the deliverable becomes terminal when we deliver that, it's done. Is that our intention or would we like this group to be something that continues to provide documentation facilities? That's a good question, Mick. I would think that we should sort of lay that if other things come up that this group could then be working on, we can expand the scope to include that over time. But I would think that it would be mostly, as is described, which is the working group will exist until there's no apparent need to continue to maintain the white paper. And then it can disband and we can bring it back if we need to do a rethink on our sort of purpose here. We can create another one, but I think generally because each project has its own sort of documentation and so forth that once we establish this, once we finish the white paper that basically we should all focus on doing other good works, architecture and so forth. I agree with you, Chris. I just want to make sure we were understanding the implications of this specificity that we're talking about for this. So I would suggest that we take a quick vote then here that we accept the white paper working group charter to be amended with the preamble from the skeleton that we approve next week. Any objections? If not, I think Vipin has joined. Vipin, are you there? Yeah, just take a minute. What's that? Can you hear me? Vipin, we can, but there's a lot of background noise. I don't know if it's yours or somebody's. Yeah, there could be. Okay. We were doing the work group charter reviews and yours is next. Yeah, basically it is still the same state as it was last week. It's nothing but a very draft version. We did not have a meeting last week. So we defer it to the next meeting which is going to happen next week. I have not received much input except from Thomas Harjono who suggested adding some collaborators to the list. And yesterday's architecture working group, we had a sort of discussion about the interactions between architecture and identity. I don't know that we came to a conclusion. But it was felt that the identity working group would confine itself to questions of identity and security, which are different from those that would be the concern of the architecture working group because that is going to be mainly the separation of the various layers and the APIs to those layers. So I will add those to the charter document in terms of the scope. Again, it is all sort of in vague terms in terms of the work product to be delivered. Mainly a list of what should the ideal identity solution look like and how can it be externalized and how can that component interact with the others and provide some clarity on that. Of course, we cannot enforce any of this stuff, but we can only gently cage all people into doing this. And I noticed that you have changed the name of Fabric Cop to Fabric CA. I applaud that decision by the way. Me too. I was really upset with the name. And I did express it a couple of times to them. Thank you, Vipin. So I guess Vipin will defer this to next week. Yeah. I mean, how should we proceed in terms of the review of the charter? We go section by section. Well, I mean, we could do a quick review now for what you have in draft and get any feedback and factor that into any revisions that you do in the working group. Yeah, are there any specific comments on the structure of the document or are there any specific comments on any of the contracts? Mainly, I put the document out there to be commented on or to be somebody to even make changes. I think the link provides for both. Yeah. So should I be going over each section or how should this work? What would people like to do? Would people want to wait or review this now? How long is it? One and a half pages. Not even. I have no feedback. Yeah, if it's quick, then let's go ahead. Okay. Why don't you sort of take a section by section and then if you know of a specific area that's going to be worked, then you can write like that as you go through. Okay, hold on a second because right now I'm inside the firewall and I cannot access this. I'll take one. Why don't we just do this? I would encourage people to provide comments and put them back on the document. And then we'll take it up and form it next week that way. Because I think if you're struggling to get a bit and so forth, I think it's probably best that we just sort of take up the next charter. Especially given that I think you need to distill to that. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks, Lepin. So next up is... Chris, maybe... I mean, I have a kind of a general question about the scope of the working group, which I think maybe might answer and you know, maybe it's just me. So I'd like some clarity as to the scope in the, you know, I admit that I have not been following the identity working group. So I don't exactly know what they do today. I did attend the very first meeting and I remember being surprised because they were in fact in the meeting, you know, I went there thinking, okay, these are the people who are actually looking into solving the identity problem, the context of the hyperledger project, specifically like in blockchain implementations. And then there were people in the room, we were more in the camp of, hey, we want to use blockchain to solve identity problems in general. And so I thought, oh yeah, this is interesting. So there are actually two sides to this story. And then when I read the document now, I still don't know which way it is. In the beginning and the traditions, it seems to be talking about identity issues related to blockchain implementations and frameworks, if you will. And then somewhere down in the work products or something, it talks about identity solutions. And so I'm not sure which one it is now. Have you guys evolved towards just one? Or do you still look into both of these sides of the coin kind of thing? Okay, here's the short answer to that. You know that Chris has been leading this group. And his situation is that he's for permission less blockchains and for identity in general, you know, like self-solving identity, those kind of things. So that's where the group was. But I think this dichotomy exists, meaning what is identity for natural persons and how it can be shared among not only in hyperlature, how can it be made broader in scope. The other is, of course, the identity connected to the functioning of the blockchain, which is the identity of the various nodes, the identity of the endorsers, the identity of the validators and so on. And then added to that would be the identity of the IoT devices that also participate in the blockchain. So, you know, there is a natural split between these two kinds of identity. And it is not clear that the identity working group has to focus on one or the other. But I would say that I agree with you, Arnold, that it has to be more focused towards what we can do within the hyperlature umbrella in terms of the actual DLTs available here. And, of course, touch upon, a little bit, touch upon the other parts, like the business of identity for natural persons that have to be then distributed or somehow made available to other blockchains or taken from, bootstrapped from other blockchains. This is, you know, always a question that arises whenever we talk about KYC, any of the identity for natural or even institutions that participate in business, I'm not talking about the blockchain itself. So, this dichotomy exists and that's why I think you see it in the document. I'll try to make it a little clearer and separate out those concerns a little bit. I hear you though, Arnold, and it's the same thing that I'm struggling with myself. Hi guys, it's Jonathan. If I can say something. So, maybe the separation should be solutions that we have within hyperlature, like under the hyperlature umbrella project. Okay, then we look at, you know, if it's Fabric CA or whatever solutions we are having or we want to have or we plan on having or we need, you know, internally. And we should also look at the others, what's out there, right? So, if we need to kind of interoperate with any other system, you know, that should be another part of the working, I think, the working group. So, I wouldn't separate it to this guy. So, blockchain, they have their own identity solution, right? So, there are a few companies here that have their own solution. But they all, most of the people around the table kind of want to interoperate. So, I would do like internal interoperability and something this external. I don't know that. I would kind of try to separate this. Yeah, yeah, I mean, I wasn't saying ditch one of them. I was saying, yeah, saying have both, but be very clear about the scope because, I mean, this is just a charter document. It's not the real output of the working group. So, that's where I am at right now. I've been attending the identity working group since the beginning, I think, but only in the last couple of three, four meetings have I, you know, I'm focusing on the general direction. Because I do, to agree, for most of the working groups, I mean, architecture is pretty good, but other, you know, many of the others are too diffuse and sometimes vague. And we're not even sure of the effects that we might have on the different incubation projects. And identity is a very vast topic. And it's very, you know, it's one of the two fundamental atomic particles on the blockchain. One is identity, the other is an asset. I mean, and then you have identity, in fact, even comes before the asset because the asset is either created by the identity and then exchanged between identities, you know, all that stuff. Plus, you have the other problem, which is the one of identity participating in the consensus, in the various operations of the blockchain. I think we have to address both of these aspects, like Jonathan said. All right. That's good. Thank you, Amin, for clarifying. I think that the charter would be improved if you highlighted a little bit those two aspects. And I agree. It doesn't have to be about rejecting one. It's really more about documenting the fact that there are two different aspects that we are dealing with here. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Pippin. Any other comments on this? If not, then I would suggest we move to the China Working Group. The other aspect which I want to bring up is Brian had suggested that the Identity Working Group would be a natural place where external identity providers or solutions would come and give presentations and we would do some kind of evaluation. He had mentioned sovereign and a couple of other providers who are, you know... So I tried to touch upon them in the charter, but not in a very good way, I think. I mean, I may have to work on it a little more. Okay. Thank you. China Working Group. So we have Baohua or Charles on who wants to go. Somebody needs to come up for me. Hi, Ryan. This is Baohua. Hi. Somehow, most of the candidates just follow Brian's suggestion and also the advice from the GSE. And the China is mainly a bridge to the global community and help build the local community. And we hopefully have several work products like to guide and drive the technical developments and promote the technical collaborations and the adoptions. And also we would like to promote and drive the communications and the discussions and also those technical events. And this group would be very relative with other groups. And also we want to make all the processes into everyone. So the group just started and everything is new. So we would like to welcome for an extension of the charter. Thanks. So thanks, Baohua. Anybody have any comments or suggestions? This charter is more or less the one that we voted on in December, right? I don't see any substantial changes to it. It's basically just been put into the same template that the others were. The only comment that I had was that under the collaborators you have all projects in incubation. Actually, it should just be all projects. Yeah, sure, thanks. Any other comments, questions, concerns? Maybe, I don't know. Go ahead, sorry. Let's say we're not happy with the Fabric Cup name in the past. It's already done. We changed it. We merged it this morning, right? But just in general, I just don't want people to feel that they don't have how to add their concerns. Where should it be? Should we vote? I don't know. I know a few people that didn't like the name. I didn't really like it. It was like VP and Telling Bean. I don't know. I don't want people to be bitter. So what's the channel? I don't know. No, no, no. I'm not about you. In general. In general. If people are not happy with something, can we agree to disagree or can we agree to... I don't know how to summarize. I want to push a nice kind of summary of what we did with the move, why we did it, et cetera, et cetera. But that's it, so that we have some reference. But just in general, I'm wondering, if people want to say stuff, where is the best channel? So each project is basically its own, you know... Yeah, governance. Yes. You know, sort of technical governance and so forth. The TSE sets the standards for, you know, what tools we use and guidelines as a broader community and, you know, the code of conduct and things like that. The TSE is also, though, sort of, you know, a body that can be used to bring, you know, disputes that can't seem to be reconciled, you know, within a given project or between projects, as the case may be. And so, you know, we can leverage that and, you know... So if you're not happy with an answer, you can bring it to the TSE for discussion. But I would, you know, strongly encourage that people try to work things out, you know, amongst themselves.  And those maintainers are the ones that are, you know, sort of responsible for oversight over their projects.  And again, if you're not happy with the answer you get, you can bring it, you know, forward to the TSE and we can discuss it and we can tell people to go and grab a beer and work it out.  Yes, yes, yes. Okay. Yeah, just... Yeah, so let's just talk to the maintainers so we can bring it up. And yes, that's fine. So back to the China working group charter just, I think, very briefly. Since I didn't hear any other feedback or any other comments and since we did really approve pretty much everything that it says previously, I take and ask, is there anybody who objects to approving this hearing none? The charter is approved. Noah and Charles and Victor in absentia for doing that. And so the last item was something I brought up at the, you know, as we were doing the review and is Tamash on? Tamash, are you there? I'm sorry, I'm here. What's the question? Ah, so we, so back in December, the digital assets published the global synchronization log circulated it to, you know, the hyper ledger community and, you know, we had a discussion. I think you guys presented the paper and so forth. I think the question that was raised in the governing board this morning by Robert Platnick from DCCC is, so what is to become of that? Right. Is this a request to begin work on something like delivering a global synchronization log? Is it something that we can do in the context of one of the existing projects as a, you know, from an implementation perspective? I guess, you know, the real question that came up in the governing board this morning was, so what's next? And so I thought it'd be worthwhile to have that conversation here. Well, actually the board said we should have the conversation in the TSC, but I figured we could start that now. We don't have to come to resolution in the next nine minutes, but I think it would be worthwhile for, you know, to hear your perspective on what you and digital assets think we should be doing here. Well, as the paper also stated, we would want to follow up on this paper. We promised a more technical detail, divide paper as an X follow-up. And the paper, I think the interaction also said that the reason we published this is to articulate what we think would be a useful component. This is an input to the architecture discussions. And the aim was also to influence the development of products, projects that are under the Aipologe umbrella, and see if they would fit with this vision and work towards an implementation, which we would be interested using since this is a component we think that is useful and this is a component we explained is a part of the digital asset stack. Does this answer the question? Well, I guess, you know, so then the question, do you want, or, you know, do you think you want to sort of propose a specific project or a sub-project of an existing project that will be undertaken to affect this? Well, we evaluated both fabric and the core of the projects, if they are able to implement such a component, and we have our own experience with them. I think we also provided feedback to those groups, but yes, we did not yet push it into the open or explained or declared how we think this should work. I think this was not just our decision. It is really, the question is what is the reception of this paper within the community and whether others would want to work on a GSL buy-in to this idea and would want to work on a GSL on the basis of either of the projects. Right. Well, I can let Morali speak for DTCC, but I know that what Robert was suggesting was they found it interesting and somewhat compelling and they were wondering, so what's next? And so I don't know, Morali, if you have any insights into what Robert was thinking. And Ben, if you want to comment on the suitability or the ability for fabric, I don't see Richard on, but I'd ask him the suitability of being able to implement something like the GSL in the current fabric architecture. So the question I think really sort of, well, let me just sort of ask Morali to sort of, if he can, to sort of articulate what DTCC is thinking. So I'll talk to, I want to say that I think let me touch base with Rob as to when he said that, what is his perspective? But with that said, I could imagine that, I think where DTCC is coming from is, I think we always supported, like Ram brought up, an architectural framework which is comprising of these components and all these components have interfaces. And if we have components which are something like GSL which can interoperate or which can, a module which can work with other general ledger platforms, other distributed ledger platforms, that's the ideal state that DTCC and companies like DTCC would like the industry or would like Hyperledger to go towards. So I think from that principle perspective, I think that's where we are going after is to, I think interoperability between ledgers is a higher goal, but before that, can we have components, something like GSL which can a module which can work with other distributed ledgers and that'll be a start. But I'll touch base with Rob in making sure that that is his perspective, but I would imagine that this is what DTCC would like to see in the market. Fair enough. So we have one minute left and let me just sort of wrap up by saying this. If you could touch base with Rob and then sort of start a discussion thread in the mailing list on the TSC list on where this is coming from. Again, I think what you're intimating here is that indeed there is interest in a component such as this and so then the question becomes, okay, so what are we going to do about that? DAH has proposed this from an architectural perspective. The next step would be, so collectively, how are we going to address this? Are we going to go build something? Is this something that we can use, you can configure one of the existing things in such a way that it accomplishes the objective or we can all try and implement it in our respective platforms and so forth. But I do think that we want to start that discussion. So I would encourage you, Morali, to sort of just post the interest in this because I think, you know, Tomas from the DAH perspective, you guys are trying to figure out, is anybody interested in something like this? And I think the answer is, I think yes. And so let's start a conversation in the mailing list about so where do we go with this, right? What can we do? Could it be implemented and so forth? And it would be useful, I think, to share some of the experiments and so forth that you've been doing, Tomas, to understand, you know, what are the limitations of what the existing technologies can achieve? Where, you know, do things need to be changed and so forth so that we can actually start thinking about, well, if we were to come up with a component as Morali was describing, how would we do that? So I think with that, I think we are at the end of the job. And I'll thank everybody and talk to you all next week. Good luck. Thanks, Tomas.


Professionals don't get distracted. Over the next few weeks, we'll be focusing on eliminating distractions as we drive. Nearly 80% of crashes involve some form of driver inattention within three seconds before the crash. As you drive, there are lots of opportunities to be distracted. Technology, food, or even emotions can play a role in distractions. I ask you to take a minute and reflect and think what distracts me. And as you do this, make a plan to eliminate those. Our phone is such a powerful tool to keep us connected with our loved ones and even with the office and to do our jobs better. But a cell phone is also an extremely dangerous distraction. Whatever message you need to send, whatever message comes through that you want to respond to, it can wait, I promise. Whatever audio book or other thing you want to change on your phone, it can wait. Remember, professionals don't get distracted. We also want you to take this message and let's make it contagious. Talk to your friends, your family, your coworkers about the dangers of driving while distracted. As a professional driver, what you say holds a lot of weight with those around you. Imagine if everybody took this level of commitment, how much safer the roads would be. Thank you for all you do and all you do to be a professional driver. And remember, professionals don't get distracted.


Now the joy, the glory of the Christian life is that when Jesus Christ purchases us out of the slave market of our sin, He gives us a new heart. He renews our mind. He makes us a new creation. He gives us new desires. He puts His Spirit within us and He causes us then to walk in His statutes and in His judgments and to keep His commandments and to do that, right? He gives us a hunger and a thirst for righteousness. He gives us a fruit filled faith, a wonder working grace and the very desire of our new heart in Him is to obey Him and to keep His commandments and the evidence of that is that His commandments are no longer burdensome.


Good morning Next presentation The it's good to be here again. We were artifacts was at this conference last year. We had just formally organized the the organization and Had yet yet to release a product It's wonderful to see that the progress that that the folks Here in the room today and many that aren't represented here have made in this made in this field We what I'm here today to really speak to is the future of indexing and secondary publishing and I have a colleague of mine Jason Rawlins whom some of you may may have already met and I'd encourage you to To catch up with Jason here over the course of today. We're also going to be at the work tending the workshop tomorrow and Thursday where we will be focusing on showing our products Both what's currently live what's in our near-term and medium-term? development roadmap So our vision where I'd where I'd really like to begin is is a reference And I'd like to also echo a theme that that your us and Alex began this morning and it has to do with recognition Eugene Garfield Quoting a Robert Merton the Merton description of normal science describes citations as the currency of science scientists make payments in the form of citations to their preceptors our Vision the artifacts vision is to change the outdated inefficient process of how researchers receive credit for their work breaking through existing delays and constraints Empowering researchers to collaborate in real time Share their work earlier in the process and get credit they deserve every step of the way advancing both their careers and Simultaneously advancing research So scholarly communications today the published article is principally the single format of discoverable research today Citations that are critical to discovery and research a reputation are formally recorded for only a subset of published articles in indexes that are deeply retrospective break-prone and inconsistent and Until artifacts arrived on the scene there is no mechanism for linking and associating Related and valuable research artifacts this inhibits discovery or research attribution cannot be formally received now those of you who are researchers and Who are tenured or pre-tenured? You all recognize that research researchers depend on and universities spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year for these limited indexing and attribution tools and While we know that researches that discovery is is a critical input to research and innovation worldwide Those same limited data sets those same limited indexes are relied upon for measuring performance determining determining hiring practices as Well as as well as tenure reviews Tim Berners Lee talks about has talked about all of the data That's merely sitting in scientists computers and currently not shared The Dora declaration good science is good science regardless of where it is published And we would cut we would add to that by saying regardless of whether it's published Because as we all know there's a great deal of valuable science and knowledge that is never published let alone indexed and As John has pointed out we're basically applying a 17th century communications format Here we are in 2018 Now the lack of change in everyone yesterday and probably throughout the rest of today will lament The slowness of change here, and this is not merely it's not just a technology problem This is a reputation recognition and attribution problem from the artifacts perspective So the model of scholarly communications that we like to begin with Moving from left to right a project begins Perhaps it's pre-funding some research is done a funding application is submitted funding is received The research begins the data the information the artifacts that researchers generate throughout that initial and continuing phase of their research Activities continues to build that knowledge then it begins to compress and it compresses into an article form factor and That further compresses in peer review because not all the manuscripts that are that are authored that are submitted are accepted for publication and There is delay in that acceptance Ultimately works are taken through peer review, and we're hopeful that blockchain applications such as Such as what yours and Alex walked through will begin to take hold in this arena, but ultimately these published works Only a minority of them are indexed Only 20% of the scientific technical medical publications are Are indexed 80% of that content Not being indexed makes it extremely difficult to find those resources let alone any of the artifacts that are associated with those publications So artifacts allows research outputs to be indexed and cited from the earliest stages of research Creating persistent link at persistent and linked chains of these transactions so in brief Everything is indexed in real time while research is underway with all artifacts linked and searchable Intellectual property is established and managed by the creator We very much respect the creator owner relationship of intellectual property and Transactions can occur there where intellectual intellectual property rights move certainly that's the case with a manuscript But it can also be the case with other artifacts that are generated throughout throughout the research effort Citations can be given at any point to research outputs at any time So we're breaking the barriers and the boundaries of only being able to cite an article only being able to cite a monograph Possibly cite a patent or essentially enabling citation Citations to be given to any type of research this facilitates we believe community sharing and We'll lower the barriers and the resistance and the fears and risks that as we learned earlier Early early stage of searchers are oftentimes Withholding information and that's a common behavior throughout most scientific disciplines And what we believe we're providing is transparent and consistent data set that creates the ability for new types of analytics and dimensionality to citations So for example today if Jason and I author a paper We submit it to the catalysis system It's process. It's published We're indexed Perhaps by one of the indexes that are widely used and And one of you picks up our research you conduct your work you eventually publish and our indexed You cite us now that may occur That citation May occur five seven years down the line We're pleased to receive a citation We have no idea why you've cited us and so the dimensionality here that we speak of is providing Contextual information metadata around a citation that illustrates or that describes the reason for the citation Is it a confirmation? It were were was the other party unable to reproduce results. It could be anything in between or beyond that Now the artifacts platform. We believe can begin to address it certainly Contribute to addressing many of the issues that are listed here whether it's certainly focused on reputation research integrity Peer review we believe we can we can facilitate and and complement Reproducibility definitely and data access, but here's the crux of the challenge in secondary publishing Right primary publishers are the parties that that publish the articles and the monographs Secondary publishing is the echo effect. It's the indexing of the research itself, right? Well, the fundamental problem in this in this field is that none of these if you think of these indexes as bank accounts None of these indexes agree none of the balances agree which one is correct. Why is it correct? Which should we use which does our institution require? Which would I prefer? I mean the numbers here are vastly different Google Scholar has nearly 68,000 citations Web of science has a couple of different numbers itself And that depends upon the content that is being viewed and used to accumulate those and measure those citations if this were your bank account and You received which bank would you rather go to? Right, we'd all rather go to Google here But if this were your bank account, it would make the entire system highly suspect So the artifacts research workflow platform, which is live and in the wild today. We released it in March of this year enables researchers and scientists to do three simple things Establish proof of existence authorship and confirm provenance at any time protect and manage intellectual property While concurrently and importantly we believe facilitating knowledge and content sharing To provide and receive valid breakproof attribution an assignment of credit at any point of research So not only are we enabling? Researchers to establish proof of existence proof of authorship, but we chain those Artifacts together if it is it if it is an artifact that evolves over time a data set a draft manuscript a Protocol etc Those modifications those version changes are chained together as well as the relationship of the set of artifacts They're involved that are associated with the overall research project So to make this happen now We need more than the perspective solution and the perspective solution is what we launched As a as an early-stage release in March, that's what I've been speaking of but let me turn attention to The added component that's necessary here what we call the retrospective system We've added an historical index here because when artifacts launched in March It began to accumulate users started using it it began to accumulate artifacts from live projects from live work That was being conducted and that content is Progressively building over time But we also know that scholars and scientists need to claw back need to reach back into the literature and the research Information that's available. So we know we knew we needed to add some historical content The historical research index that That we will bring forward that we're bringing forward it will be better than today's existing tools We're going to leverage the power of the community and provide systemic rigor That's required of an authoritative research solution and will maintain research support through Community ownership So we will use a token-based system that will bring unprecedented curatorial power here. So To model this out for you in terms of how the knowledge and how the information content builds over time This first view illustrates how the how the progressive index is Is is is building out content as? We add the historical index initially it comes in as an over 200 million record machine index data set Well, there are lots of machine index data sets out there, right? But the curatorial power that we will bring to bear here is that we will rely on the community to correct those flaws fill those gaps and Augment the historical record So if your name is misspelled in a publication if you're If there are is other if there are other errors in the bibliographic information if for example the indexing that had been done Didn't pick up four of your references because the indexer didn't also happen to index those publications All of this historical content can be improved to Be sure There are gaps even in the 20% of the literature that's indexed there are errors and flaws and gaps in that index furthermore the community of researchers we believe will then go back to their prior publications and Augment them with the research artifacts that are associated with them and we believe the reason they will do this the incentive for them to do this is That this added knowledge is going to enable them to improve their Ability to be recognized to be discovered to be credited and overall contribute to the success of their research careers So how does the system work and why will it work? It combines a token with a community Engaged in curation activities. So a token will be used as compensation for for curation Community member holds tokens for stake in a star in the historical index and they're able to spend it on Services and that's not a that's not a one-for-one trade-off the stake that researchers that the community Creates for themselves in building that historical index will continue to grow over time and Give them governance rights an authority over that historical index and ultimately ownership the structure that we're that we're applying here for that ownership is to Create is to imbue a public benefit corporation with these tokens So many of you would know the company Patagonia Patagonia is structured as a PBC a public benefits corporation and that enables a nice hybrid of a If you will a commercial entity to engage actively in commercial in in public good Not only will we give the community rights and ownership over this historical index, but artifacts will Feed proceeds back to the research community in the form of funding that this community Governing the allocation of those funds will be able to allocate to research Not that we're anticipating becoming the next National Institutes of Health that annually funds 32 billion a year in Research, but we do want to make sure we find a way to give back to the community and that's the vehicle so the community The community recognition for curating levels and expertise and quality There will be challenges and quests as I referred to earlier. There are gaps and errors and flaws in the historical index My colleagues and I Jason and I have worked for many years building those indexes and we're quite familiar with where They are and we know where to point the research community to make further improvements and enhancements in an important point here in the trailer is that We're not the first to ask researchers to contribute to building something Particularly in the area of indexes and archives But in the past they receive nothing tangible for this effort Perhaps other than personal gratification And they ultimately own nothing here. They will receive incentives recognition and own what they build so The the ecosystem here that I'm illustrating Our concept is and our vision is to coexist within the existing Research and development ecosystem. We're realists We respect open science We also respect that there is an extremely mature and diverse set of stakeholders that Facilitate both the funding of science the creation of science and the communication of science and we believe it's incumbent upon us to operate and and to play nice with with all stakeholders our Intention is to live in the researchers work flowing and engage with trusted enterprises. So I'm hopeful that maybe perhaps not as soon as this conference next year But in the near future We won't be talking about blockchain applications, you know the subtitle of my talk won't be a blockchain approach It will be how we live in the researchers workflow and facilitate in advance their research their career goals So I've spoken about the researchers a bit the bottom comment the lower circle in the lower left I think is important because that illustrates our intention to Integrate and interoperate in the tools and applications that researchers are using so that artifacts is operating in the background in the future you won't even have to know that artifacts is there if you're in an electronic lab notebook and Where where where your labs at data are all being compiled and so forth We'll provide a plug-in. We'll provide an API or work with that that third party's application so that Proof of existence proof of creation citations given and such can operate as Researchers are using the tools that their customary at a customary in their in their daily workflow, but also importantly Beyond the index that we're building and the expansion of knowledge that we believe it will deliver It's incumbent on us to interoperate With all of the key stakeholders whether they're funding organizations universities publishers corporate R&D organizations and Societies and certainly the open community as a co-founder of orchid. I'm I'm Extremely pleased to hear Rob's presentation yesterday and hear the progress that they've that they've made There's much more to do there. I think I think we all recognize that it's It's also nice to be able to also say that you know the the persistent identifiers that Rob spoke of yesterday Artifacts is in a position to support those They're machine readable and they are persistent and and supporting that pit infrastructure is valuable Not only for the open community. It's valuable for research broadly This is just a bit on our timeline We're we're pleased with our progress and we're we're also Frustrated as any developer as any new developer would be on the time that it takes to actually bring product and evolve product to market And the points that yours made earlier about legal legal complications and constraints certainly compounds the challenge in this market We're extremely pleased to have University of Saskatchewan as our first academic partner that's standing up a node for for artifacts they will become an important both research partner and And entrusted node in supporting our system our co-founders are listed here across the top our advisors across the bottom and And again Jason Rollins who drives our product development efforts very pleased to be here today our vision You've seen this before with the exception of the Final point at the bottom. We want to let scientists Do science? Thank you So we have a few minutes for questions this one Thank you for the nice presentation as a science communication professional I remembered my article from 2014 published in Genome biology and it is mentioning a Kardashian index for scientists who are at the social media and I dissecting The social the scientific results to the public Can that be an artifact can that be part of artifact that? Yeah, the platform what scientists actually share with the society Can a museum exhibit with the expertise of a scientist be part of the artifacts so so Clarify again what the specific artifact there is What is the artifact there? Yes Yes, yes, so I think that the simplest way to think of artifacts is that any digital representation can become an artifact and If it's sightable Whether it's sighted or not it certainly can become an artifact. So if it's a blog comment Yes, although I'd have to say that our focus here is around is around enabling citations to Citable materials so any type of any type of contribution that researcher makes That is in digital form certainly can become an artifact. Yes, it's okay That's an interesting thing and you do you have any plans to? Influence like what will be an artifact like in terms of like the size or I mean a tweet can like contain a great idea or Like a one-shot picture of like a new finding can be like very important Like other things can be very long and unimportant. So and you have you have it now in your hand to influence its culture, right? Well, yes, I think Influence is is a yes. I think we're in a position to influence. I think we're very much going first of all There is no restriction in terms of file size Or the type of information content and I should also point out that artifacts never takes possession or control of the content We certainly have a facility where researchers can can store content But we interface with commonly used Commonly used resources dropbox github and others and what we and in a corporate r&d setting We would certainly engage with with any private storage facilities. We don't take control and ownership of the artifact We can influence this process, but we're very much going to turn those types of questions back to the research community and Specifically the scientometric community to help us it help us determine I speak of contextually relevant citations Well, we have our ideas as to what context should be should that a citation should be should be incorporated in a citation But we don't we don't want to be the party to try to unilaterally push our views on the research community That needs to emerge from the community itself So that's a great example of if it is a citable item We want the scientometric bibliometric community to help us work through the the metadata Requirements for contextual relevance if that addresses your question. Yeah, yeah Thank you for the very interesting talk Dave I had a question you said the University of Saskatchewan is has the first trusted node for university partner Can you elaborate a little bit on the blockchain technology you're using is it a permissions aetherium blockchain or what exactly is it sure sure so We're we're in a We're betwixt in between we're in the process of migrating so when we initially stood artifacts up stood the You know released the product in March We were using we were using an off-chain variant of aetherium and Transactions were recorded and and able to be viewed through Rob Sten now That was basically a test environment for us to have something that was up and working We had a we have a product we had a project workspace to be able to accumulate artifacts or be able to associate artifacts To give and receive attribution and so forth We're in the process now of in the next sprint or to probably the second sprint from where we sit today That we won in mark or there will be one in November and one Probably six weeks down the road. We're in the process of migrating to hyper ledger sawtooth Now in terms of nodes these are permissioned nodes So we envision having some n number of permissioned nodes that support this ecosystem We our preference is to have representation from the key types of stakeholder organizations Again universities as we start with Saskatchewan funding organizations Publishers certainly Societies and and the open and the open community. So it will be a permissioned node system and there are several reasons for that Maybe the two to highlight are the economics It's a it's very cost-effective with the kind with the volume of transactions that this system over time needs to scale to It will be very cost-effective to take that approach Secondly, it's important for us to engage with the organizations that house or directly support the researchers Whom we want to use a system. So whether they're funders whether the universities all of those stakeholder organizations We believe that adopt standing up a node as trusted parties We'll have an incentive to encourage their their communities to use the system if that answers your question Sure. So and we have one last question here I'm really sorry about this. I'm really curious about your name artifacts because in physics and the natural sciences and Insignal processing artifacts are actually an error. You've seen your experiments. It does not exist So when you sending a paper, maybe you have an image and you say, oh, this is like the greatest thing in the world Mm-hmm, and it's actually a piece of dust. We call that an artifact And so I'm actually quite curious about your name generation here because um, yes um That's an interesting fact that we were we were perhaps not aware of the the derivation of the name art from the social sciences humanities set of disciplines art and Facts from if you will the hard sciences sciences So it's an attempt to be supportive across all disciplinary fields and such. Thank you for that comment Alright, thanks


Our dear sister Elina, she is here to take her Shahada, Alhamdulillah, Rabbin Alameen, okay. So, oh okay, do you speak Arabic?  So our sister is from France, Masha'Allah. Um, I don't speak French, so uh, but do you speak a little bit of English? Okay, Alhamdulillah. So our dear sister is about to come into the fold of Islam and so, um, we just want to give her a few messages before she fully takes her Shahada, Alhamdulillah. So our dear sister, even though, forgive me again, I know that you don't speak that much English, but we want you to know that when you come into the fold of Islam, all of your previous sins or anything that displeases Allah is completely erased. But every single thing that you accrue in goodness is still kept with you.  So are you ready to take the Shahada? We're going to first say it in Arabic, you'll repeat after me. And then I'm going to say it again in English afterwards just because, okay. So say Ashadu, Allah, ilaha, illallah, wa ashadu, anna, Muhammadar, Rasulullah, Tekbir, Tekbir, Tekbir. And so we'll just say, again, I'm sorry about the English thing. Do you want to repeat it in English? Are you? Okay. So you said that and you will say in English, I bear witness. Yeah, I'm sorry. Forgive us. But Alhamdulillah, sisters, please welcome our beloved sister to the community. May Allah bless you and please, sisters, make sure that we get our sister's number and make sure we keep in contact with her and help her the best way that we possibly can to keep her striving and struggling in the way of Allah. Congratulations to your sister.