Cadmore media player playing video Standards in open research infrastructure: challenges and perspectives for global adoption
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Standards in open research infrastructure: challenges and perspectives for global adoption
Description:
Standards in open research infrastructure: challenges and perspectives for global adoption
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/339f671a-7422-49d5-ad24-6b36bab58cd2/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=WMJLWGkzYV4TOctF80iTPSugWUTua1E4QmwJA1JYL7k%3D&st=2024-11-22T04%3A08%3A45Z&se=2024-11-22T08%3A13%3A45Z&sp=r
Duration:
T00H40M38S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/339f671a-7422-49d5-ad24-6b36bab58cd2
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/339f671a-7422-49d5-ad24-6b36bab58cd2/Standards in open research infrastructure-HD 1080p.mov?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=ceTYg2KG3sEQhG81ZB6678l2QzfR7jkn8jydwdKXl%2F4%3D&st=2024-11-22T04%3A08%3A45Z&se=2024-11-22T06%3A13%3A45Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2021-08-23T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
[MUSIC PLAYING]
NATASHA SIMONS: OK, welcome, everybody, to NISO Plus 2021. This session is Standards in Open Research Infrastructure, and in this session, we have a fantastic panel of speakers. So we have Ian Duncan from the Australian Research Data Commons. Hi Ian, we're waving. Arianna Becerril-Garcia from Redalyc in Mexico and Daniel Bangert from the Digital Repository of Ireland. And I'm Natasha Simons from the ARDC.
IAN DUNCAN: I'm Ian Duncan. I'm the Director of Outreach at the Australian Research Data Commons, so I look after the engagements, the communications, and the skills and workforce development teams. In my previous roles at AIDC, I looked after the compute and storage functions, so the net, the research cloud, and our research data storage program.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Hello, my name is Arianna Becerril. I'm a Professor at the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico. I'm also the Executive Director of the Redalyc, which is the Latin American network of scientific journals. And I'm also President of AmeliCA, which is an initiative for open science in Latin America.
DANIEL BANGERT: I'm Daniel Bangert. I'm based at the Digital Repository of Ireland, at the Royal Irish Academy, and I hold the role of National Open Research Coordinator. In this role, I work with Ireland's National Open Research Forum, and we're currently in the phase of developing a national action plan for the implementation of open research across Ireland.
NATASHA SIMONS: So we are going to do this session as a Q&A panel style session. So I'm going to ask a number of questions and then I'll ask our panel for their responses. And hopefully, this becomes a very nice conversation around standards in open research infrastructure. So the first question is, why are standards an essential part of open research infrastructure? Who would like to answer that first? Daniel, did you want to jump in?
DANIEL BANGERT: Thanks, Natasha. So I think we can think about open research infrastructure in a few different ways. I maybe come back to that in the conversation but I think standards give us a really firm basis to help facilitate interoperability and how we exchange information as the first priority. And in general, I think it helps us to create a more trusted and more efficient environment for a given research community.
DANIEL BANGERT: When we think about the benefits, there are some obvious ones which enable connections between systems and people. But also, because we're working in a particular context, these benefits would differ depending on what challenge we're attempting to solve. So this might be communication within or between disciplines or between regions or between systems, for instance.
NATASHA SIMONS: OK, thank you. Arianna?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Yes.
NATASHA SIMONS: Jump in please.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well, I think open research infrastructure encompasses the elements, services, and means to enable research activities and research outcomes to be open. And by open, I would like to stress openly-accessible, openly-disseminated, and openly-connected and discovered. So this kind of infrastructure levels the field to allow equitable participation, which is the ultimate goal of science.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: In this context, standards are the key to make possible the connection of knowledge pieces that are openly available in a world. Without standards, every piece of information could be an island, let's say. It will enable to be part of a broader cloud of interconnected knowledge, which in turn produce more knowledge. Standards enable diversity in open science. For example, geographical, cultural, and even linguistic diversity is possible through the implementation of a standard.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Since all agree on, let's say, translate, transform, or adjust a message to make communication possible. Standards, I think, are so powerful and they work for research output, ideas, people, even things, to be connected in order to generate new findings or to improve people's life.
NATASHA SIMONS: Great, thank you. I love that big picture of you there of improving people's lives as the end goal of this. Ian, did you have anything to add to that question?
IAN DUNCAN: Yeah, I would. Thanks, Natasha. I'm very honored, is the word, for being in the company of such standards and PID experts, because I'm not one really. I'm a PIDs and Standards user. And I think, for me, the standards are sort of proxy for language. If we don't have a shared language, it's very difficult to communicate and share and understand what we're referring to.
IAN DUNCAN: So they may facilitate the comprehension, but they also facilitate precision. And one thing I find in my role now is, you can have a conversation with someone about something you're almost sure is a completely defined word, like data, and they will have a completely different idea of what you're talking about. So I think those standards and definitions are really important to make sure we're talking about the same things.
IAN DUNCAN: And without that, the open infrastructure-- and again, I think what Arianna saying is exactly right. Open is not open data, and often there are shades. But as opposed to closed, it's very difficult to have open and shared and collaborative infrastructures without shared language, shared definitions, kind of consistency across how we define things.
NATASHA SIMONS: Yes, very good. So leading on after that, what do we actually mean by standards in open research infrastructure? Let's unpack the word standards a little bit. Because we've heard from Arianna that it actually applies to all kinds of things too, so what do we mean by it? Who would like to jump in? Daniel, back to you.
DANIEL BANGERT: So I think, yeah, just picking up on some of those ideas, and it's really useful to think of it as a means of shared communication or shared understanding. So if we take that broad view, we can think of standards as common frameworks that facilitate and improve a certain type of practice. In this case, supporting open research. So this might encompass technical standards, persistent identifiers, vocabularies, ontologies, taxonomies, and so on.
DANIEL BANGERT: Things we might usually think of but perhaps also frameworks that support the social infrastructure. So how do we facilitate connections between people and build that common understanding in areas like the skills and competencies that we need.
NATASHA SIMONS: Yeah, very good, good to see the link there with skills and competencies Further comments from Arianna or Ian?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well, if I may. Standard side key components of exchanging information. In this sense, the standard in open research infrastructure is, oh well, as a repeatable agreed and documented way of structuring information. So this can be deconstructed and interpreted for further processability, for example. The standards, in this sense, could include technical specifications, identifiers, protocols, vocabularies, among others, which are designed to be used consistently as a rule or guideline or, I agree, as a framework.
NATASHA SIMONS: Excellent, so can you give examples of standards that are currently in use in open research infrastructure? Who would like to jump in there?
IAN DUNCAN: I think we have the sort of standard standards. You have your ORCIDs and DIYs and the various standards for metadata definitions. I think I'll hand over to my esteemed colleagues who have a much more detailed understanding of size.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well, I think it is very interesting to track, for example, the evolution of the standards regarding information retrieval, which is my main sector. I remember the origins of information exchange in libraries with the C per 950 standard, which is an international standard that enabled these layer of communication between clients and servers. So it was widely used in the online public access catalogs, at libraries, and then in the evolution of information exchanges in libraries and in open access particularly, with journals and repositories.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: We can find the NISO standard, for example, the Z39.85 standard, Dublin Core standard. This is a metadata element set, which defines different elements to the interchange of different resources in a cross-disciplinary information environment. And more recently, the standards needed for the Semantic Web is being honest, I believe. This is one of the most promising implementation of standards nowadays, and I particularly enjoy it as I technically work very closely with it.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Transforming, for example, scientific journals content in case this content with semantic and standardization to make it part of the semantic web. It's very interesting. So a great example of that is the JATS standard, the Journal Article Tag Suite standard, which provides a common XML formatting, which publishers and archives can exchange journal content. And those are very good examples that standards that are working through improved visibility, discoverability, of scientific content, for example.
NATASHA SIMONS: Excellent, thank you. Sir Daniel, you have a background in musicology. A lot of the time when we think about standards, we do think about them as being applied to the big science areas. Can you give examples of where standards apply in digital humanities?
DANIEL BANGERT: Yeah, in fact, in Semantic Web work as Arianna has mentioned, I think that has been a very active area for DH, and it's actually a nice example of how open standards can build on each other. If we think of the Semantic Web stack or the layer cake and how those different frameworks interact to better connect and enable querying access and discovery and machine actionability.
DANIEL BANGERT: In the glam sector, more generally, there's also initiatives like the International Image Interoperability Framework or IIIF, as well as encoding initiatives for text and also music. And these were all established to solve challenges related to accessibility and interoperability and are supported by a strong community that develops and adopts its specifications.
DANIEL BANGERT: And particularly, in the creation of digital editions, for example, and in music where you have objects, which can be represented in many different ways. And you might want to be able to display and connect all of these representations. I think TEI, in particular, is a good example of a successful international community of practice that is now very long standing.
NATASHA SIMONS: All right, so that leads us into community needs. So, we all know the challenge with standards is that there are a lot of them, and it's not as good. It's not simply a matter of setting up a standard and saying, this is the standard. It's really about community of adoption of the standard. That's where it really takes off. So how do we actually identify community needs and build consensus on what becomes a standard?
NATASHA SIMONS: Who would like to dive in there?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well, I believe that widespread adoption of a community practice is a sign that the next step is to define the standard. So this could be developed as a new standard or a specificity of an existence. These community practices sometimes act as the basis on which the standard is defined. This happened, for example, with the JATS vocabulary, which evolved from the apartment XML specification.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: And it was widely used and it became a de facto standard for the community. So later, it evolved to the NISO Z39.96 standard, for example.
NATASHA SIMONS: Do you have examples too, Daniel, in your experience?
DANIEL BANGERT: I think, just the more-- maybe more general point around community needs and building consensus, I think part of that is creating a space for that to develop. And I think we see that in some organizations. that allow people to come together under a certain interest. In Ireland, we have the National Open Research Forum, for which I hold a coordinating role.
DANIEL BANGERT: And this is a space that's been created through communication, consultation, and cooperation among key stakeholders in the research system, so higher education bodies for such performing organizations, funders, and library groups. And we've worked together to develop a national strategy around open research. And we're now in the process of mapping out where we are in areas, including infrastructure, so where are our current gaps.
DANIEL BANGERT: And as our strategy includes a commitment to applying open standards as well as other recognized certification mechanisms and specifications, utilizing open source systems wherever possible, we hope to be in a position, work through the next year, to understand where standards should be adopted across the sector. So I guess that's more on the development, on the adoption side rather than development.
DANIEL BANGERT: But by setting a strategic direction, I think, and having the community agree on certain principles and how to move forward, this gives us the ability to have that broader conversation, build consensus, and specify how we should move forward in a more coordinated manner, which is important, I think, for the national context.
NATASHA SIMONS: Yeah, so from my point of view as well, standards are there to solve common problems that we have, common challenges. So I think about how the ORCID, as a standard identifier for researchers, was adopted in Australia, which was about getting the key players in the research sector in a room together and on a national level and saying, well, what is the problem here? What problem do we have? And the problem is, we need to consistently and persistently identify researchers and connect them with their works, so that we can use them in funding applications.
NATASHA SIMONS: We can make sure that the credit is due to those researchers. And the research institutions also want that credit forwarded on to them. There are researchers that are associated with their institutions. And so from there, it was then, well, what is the solution? Well, we have ORCID. We have a national identifier for research. As we have other identifiers, which one might it be?
NATASHA SIMONS: And it was coming to the consensus that actually we needed a global, open, persistent, identifier for researchers that had some very good functionality and researcher control of their records, and that's where ORCID fitted the bill. And then we went on national approach to ORCID and a consortium was set up to get the adoption going. So that's an example, from my experience, about how you would build community consensus around a particular problem and implement a standard very widely.
NATASHA SIMONS: Because, obviously, the more widely it's adopted, the more the uptake is going to be. You get more benefits from more people adopting it. Ian, do you have anything that you would like to add to the discussion?
IAN DUNCAN: Yeah, I was just thinking that the question is interesting question especially on how do we identify our community needs and build consensus. It's really the community identifying their own needs and how do we sort of help guide best practice and commonality and reuse of the components. Because one of the-- I guess in some community stages, the richness of different standards is what they want and a standard is a compromise.
IAN DUNCAN: Exactly what you were saying Natasha, there was an early Australian identifier being developed and ORCID isn't exactly the same. But there was discussion in the community about, well, will this do enough of what we want? And, does it have the additional benefit so that international exposure and international applicability to make it worthwhile losing perhaps some of those extra little bells and whistles that we wanted for our one.
IAN DUNCAN: So I think, for example, for organizations that take a national view of standards, the fewer standards the better because that just makes all those systems easier. But for each individual community, they want that richness and the precision of everything that they want in a standard. So the question is how do we bring all of those communities together? So it's this sort of cross community rather than within the community discussion.
IAN DUNCAN: That's also really important as well, I think.
NATASHA SIMONS: So that's an interesting perspective, Ian, and it comes across as well that you situate yourself outside of the communities that you're helping to facilitate or helping to come arrive at a common standard. I wonder if Daniel and Arianna have a similar position there or if you're actually embedded in the communities that are deciding which standards to use?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well in my case, as I said before, I work very closely with the community of journal editors which implement the JATS standard, for example, and with another group that are working to make these standards more specific. Because sometimes, and perhaps we will discuss this later, sometimes the standards are a little bit flexible, so we have to agree on other terms or specificities in order to implement a precisely the standard inside a community.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: So this is my experience for the journal publishing sector.
DANIEL BANGERT: OK, in the Irish context and in my role working with NORF, the National Open Research Forum, we're taking a perspective on where the opportunities are for a coordinated approach and that might not always be the case. In certain instances, communities may need to move in certain directions and/or the institutions may need to act on certain mandates.
DANIEL BANGERT: But in others, there could be a very clear case for where we can apply something across the board to actually connect the systems, connect people, connect into more global or regional initiatives. So I think it's--
NATASHA SIMONS: OK, those--
DANIEL BANGERT: --finding those opportunities.
NATASHA SIMONS: Yeah, that's great. So we're reflecting on the challenges of building some national scale open research infrastructure, which is going to be different in different countries. So could you describe your National Open Research Infrastructure and how it interacts with some regional and possibly some global research infrastructure as well? Ian, do you want to jump in there?
IAN DUNCAN: OK, so I guess-- and maybe we do at ARDC. We're a national infrastructure and so, and cross discipline, right? So we occupy an interesting space here where, really, everything we do has to be national and has to be collaborative and, generally, not suited to just one discipline. So we have some research infrastructures. For example, our research cloud, which links into international clouds as well.
IAN DUNCAN: So the NEC, the Research Cloud, OpenStax, Federated Research Cloud, uses standard identifiers where it can. So we do try to-- it's a very Australian expression, eat your own dog food, and try to apply what we're saying to other people that they should do as well. We run some of the national identifier services as well. So ORCID is run by our colleagues at the Australian Access Federation, but we run a number of identifiers nationally here as well.
IAN DUNCAN: But also, what's really interesting is aligning those and integrating those with government identifiers. So within Australia, the government is recognizing the value of consistency across their data sets. And so they have a sort of semi-formal identifier structure set up there and trying to align in there. So those identifiers and standard infrastructures are really important for us.
IAN DUNCAN: And then across all of our activities where we're sort of producing data sets with partners in the sector, we're trying to apply consistency across all of those, and that's actually harder than it sounds. So making sure that our partners do walk and talk fair at the same time as writing it down on the application forms, making sure those things actually get applied. Because again, and I think this is one of the real challenges is, being a good data steward doesn't necessarily pay.
IAN DUNCAN: You don't necessarily get the reward today from that, but you hopefully will get a reward later on. We may touch on that later on. So they're some of the, I guess, national infrastructures that we do. The identifiers, obviously, we pull in from the International ones. And the cloud ones, we work with our colleagues at the high-performance computing centers who also-- we try to make sure that those are nationally and internationally consistent as well.
IAN DUNCAN:
NATASHA SIMONS: Daniel, you can go to you?
DANIEL BANGERT: Sure, yeah. That is an interesting question as we're in the middle of doing some landscaping work nationally to outline our progress in certain areas of open research, including the access to and preservation of research and fire our national infrastructure. So in broad terms, I think I can maybe mention a few parts of the infrastructure picture in Ireland, so this includes networking and computing infrastructures.
DANIEL BANGERT: For instance, the services provided by HEAnet to Ireland's National Education and Research Network, and I checked the Irish Centre for High-End Computing. There's also data infrastructures like institution and domain repositories, several of which carry the CoreTrustSeal certification, and meta infrastructures like the Irish ORCID Consortium, which is a bit younger than the Australian one.
DANIEL BANGERT: I'm also wearing another hat being based at the Digital Repository of Ireland, which is part of the Royal Irish Academy. And this is a repository for Irish social and cultural data, including humanities and social science research data, as well as cultural heritage. And DRI supports national needs through its membership program and other ways of ingesting and enabling discovery of content related to Ireland and helping data discovery and preservation of this important material.
DANIEL BANGERT: But it also serves as a connection point to regional initiatives and wider audiences, for instance, by serving as a national aggregator to Europeana. I think another thing for us to consider here as a smaller country in Europe is how we connect to regional initiatives. And for us I guess the main overarching one is the European Open Science Cloud.
DANIEL BANGERT: In general, Ireland's closely followed the policy shifts set by the European Commission and others, for instance, in the development and alignment of our national strategy for open research. And this also applies to our interaction with the EOSC, which aims to create a federated ecosystem based on fair data and other open science outputs. So moving forward to benefit from these developments, national infrastructures, whether these are existing or new, will need to be compatible with the agreed rules of participation and service requirements, and that's something that's still evolving.
DANIEL BANGERT: So for this reason, experts and organizations have been contributing to these developments and will continue to have representation. So I think it's a matter of following, interacting, and again, finding, where we can align and benefit from what's happening at a broader level.
NATASHA SIMONS: Great, thank you. Arianna, would you like to add to that?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Yes, thank you, Natasha. Well, in Mexico, as in many other countries from the Latin American region, yeah, well, the open access and open research is kind of endemic. Journal publishing has been both open for readers and for authors. I mean we have an APC free open access publishing sector owned by and driven by the academic community, in this sense, universities and research institutions as well as government agencies are key components of the open infrastructure sustained at a great extent by public funds.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: In an upper layer, let's say, we have regional infrastructures like Redalyc, Latindex or Scielo, which provide added value services to journals in terms of feasibility, interoperability, metrics, and editorial workflows. Redalyc, for example, the network of [INAUDIBLE] open access journals where I am based works as a gateway to connect the Latin American research publishing, the Latin American journals to other platforms like DOAJ, like Journal Docs and many libraries around the world, aggregators, among other services.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Regarding green open access in Mexico, we have two strategies. One is the Mexican network of institutional repositories, which integrates, through harvesting processes, the information from institutional repositories. Mexico also implemented the national repository to collect the research outputs. Both of them are part of La Referencia, which is a Latin American network of national networks of repositories.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Which in turn, it is connected to Open Air, which is the [INAUDIBLE] European network for repository. So this is a kind of a complex ecosystem where the open access or open science, in general, is non-commercial and it's managed by the academic sector and where, by the way, standards are very useful to connect these lower layers, let's say, to these upper layers in terms of collectively build this research ecosystem.
NATASHA SIMONS: Great, thank you. It's really interesting to hear the differences and some of the common aspects between the national approaches. So we're coming towards the end of the speaking, question and answer panel time. So I think I just want to finish on a sort of three part question for each of you, which is, what's working well? What's not working so well? And, where are we headed with standards in open research infrastructure?
NATASHA SIMONS: So, just reflecting on some of the things that you've said during this session and thinking about where we're going into the future with it as well. Who would like to start?
IAN DUNCAN: I'm happy to start. I think one thing that's working well is demonstrating that implementing standards is not necessarily a huge cost and drivers benefit, ORCID being a really good example for that. So I think in Australia, having an ORCID is the same as driving on one side of the road. It's just a thing you do, and it's not a drama, and people understand the value in that, and I think that will percolate out across the different standards as well.
IAN DUNCAN: And so, perhaps, some of those very broad standards are working quite well. What's not working so well, I think, is demonstrating the value of applying all of those standards. So, yes, it's very clear what benefit that generates. Standardizing and describing your data at the moment is not very clear what the return for that is in Australia.
IAN DUNCAN: What was the last bit of question? Where are we heading? I think standards change and I think that it's an evolving system. And I think-- my hope is that we would settle on fewer, broader, standards, and I come from a research support background, not a research background.
IAN DUNCAN: And that probably thinking back on the earlier section, that may reflect why I approach these things in a particular way. But I think the standards do change and we need to be conscious that-- I was just thinking when I went to a conference in Brussels, just as Brexit was happening, and one of the questions people had was, well, once Brexit happens, can we stop having to always have conferences in English?
IAN DUNCAN: And I have to admit, my heart stopped for a moment there. I went, oh dear, that's going to cause me a certain amount of trouble. And so I think standards-- we do have standards even though we don't call them standards, across all sorts of different things. We just need to be conscious of how they can change. And I think the growth in influence of different nationalities and different global areas in different domains will apply pressures and changes to that standard environment.
IAN DUNCAN: I think it's really important for national infrastructures to make sure everyone's aware of what's happening around them. So I think part of the reason people invent new standards is they didn't realize there was one that did 98% of what they wanted already, and so making sure people are aware of those things and facilitating the application of them. So exactly the things you've been talking about in terms of being involved in those communities and pulling in the best practice.
IAN DUNCAN: I think that's exactly the spot for the national infrastructures.
NATASHA SIMONS: Terrific, thank you. Shall we go to you, Arianna?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Yes, thank you, Natasha. Well, I think we have made clear the benefits of adopting standards and many, many useful demonstration of the potential of the implementation of a standard across many, many tasks, especially in the web and information exchange. What I see as some challenge perhaps in the adoption of standards is, I think there's a big gap between implementing the standards and exploiting the benefits of such implementation.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: For instance, what the headway made in machinery stability, for example. Standards should be leveraged for plenty of reasons. To improve user experience, to increase the discoverability of content, to foster accessibility features, to generate more knowledge. And sometimes, I feel that there's great work adopting the standards but not leveraging the standards to achieve all the potential that these standards imply.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: So, for example, this is something that Redalyc is very focused on. Focus on taking advantage of the implementation, for example, of the JATS and Semantic Web In two basic ways by providing novel ways of rousing scientific information with knowledge representation maps and other representation of information that the standards enable. And also, providing tools to make the publishing workflow more efficient and sustainable, liberating the standardized structuring of content to automatically generate different output files for journals.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: So well this aims to lower the cost of journal production. And this is possible because we have this structure of information with a shared vocabulary, for example. So I think we have to do really liberate standards to improve many services and to improve the way we are, or the experience of the user with the information. And also, perhaps that the benefits of standards are not so evident for people who are far from integration challenges.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: For example, in my experience, journal editors are not aware of the importance to follow standards at publishing since they don't have the need to integrate or process information from different sources. Even though, a journal is benefited from the use of standards, they can gain visibility, they can gain discoverability and impact. So that is why it is very important to raise awareness on the benefits of following them.
NATASHA SIMONS: Fantastic, thank you. Daniel, the last word.
DANIEL BANGERT: Thanks, Natasha. Yeah, I think much of it has been covered there. But I would agree around the gap in exploiting where the benefits are and the strengths. And we mentioned, I think, diversity before and how that could be strengthened, but also in kind of the promise of some of these standards. If we think about the Semantic web, more generally, and the gap perhaps of what these systems can offer, and how they are being used, or how data is being reused or not being reused.
DANIEL BANGERT: So I think there are also some other challenges which are a bit broader around open research infrastructures more generally. These could be related to good governance practices and recognizing the strategic value and resourcing that's required. So thinking about the development, maintenance, and exploitation going forward, if there was a way to out forward that value proposition, understanding how it actually impacts on research communities, and looking for ways in which we can pool resources to move forward in a connected manner even though our regional challenges are different and there should be these points of interaction.
NATASHA SIMONS: Fantastic. What a terrific point to end on. Thank you all, Arianna, Daniel, and Ian. Wonderful session. I think there's a lot of ideas in there and I think that's really good stimulation for the discussion that we have after this presentation. So thank you very much and we'll now move on to the discussion part of this. [MUSIC PLAYING]
Segment:0 .
[MUSIC PLAYING]
NATASHA SIMONS: OK, welcome, everybody, to NISO Plus 2021. This session is Standards in Open Research Infrastructure, and in this session, we have a fantastic panel of speakers. So we have Ian Duncan from the Australian Research Data Commons. Hi Ian, we're waving. Arianna Becerril-Garcia from Redalyc in Mexico and Daniel Bangert from the Digital Repository of Ireland. And I'm Natasha Simons from the ARDC.
IAN DUNCAN: I'm Ian Duncan. I'm the Director of Outreach at the Australian Research Data Commons, so I look after the engagements, the communications, and the skills and workforce development teams. In my previous roles at AIDC, I looked after the compute and storage functions, so the net, the research cloud, and our research data storage program.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Hello, my name is Arianna Becerril. I'm a Professor at the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico. I'm also the Executive Director of the Redalyc, which is the Latin American network of scientific journals. And I'm also President of AmeliCA, which is an initiative for open science in Latin America.
DANIEL BANGERT: I'm Daniel Bangert. I'm based at the Digital Repository of Ireland, at the Royal Irish Academy, and I hold the role of National Open Research Coordinator. In this role, I work with Ireland's National Open Research Forum, and we're currently in the phase of developing a national action plan for the implementation of open research across Ireland.
NATASHA SIMONS: So we are going to do this session as a Q&A panel style session. So I'm going to ask a number of questions and then I'll ask our panel for their responses. And hopefully, this becomes a very nice conversation around standards in open research infrastructure. So the first question is, why are standards an essential part of open research infrastructure? Who would like to answer that first? Daniel, did you want to jump in?
DANIEL BANGERT: Thanks, Natasha. So I think we can think about open research infrastructure in a few different ways. I maybe come back to that in the conversation but I think standards give us a really firm basis to help facilitate interoperability and how we exchange information as the first priority. And in general, I think it helps us to create a more trusted and more efficient environment for a given research community.
DANIEL BANGERT: When we think about the benefits, there are some obvious ones which enable connections between systems and people. But also, because we're working in a particular context, these benefits would differ depending on what challenge we're attempting to solve. So this might be communication within or between disciplines or between regions or between systems, for instance.
NATASHA SIMONS: OK, thank you. Arianna?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Yes.
NATASHA SIMONS: Jump in please.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well, I think open research infrastructure encompasses the elements, services, and means to enable research activities and research outcomes to be open. And by open, I would like to stress openly-accessible, openly-disseminated, and openly-connected and discovered. So this kind of infrastructure levels the field to allow equitable participation, which is the ultimate goal of science.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: In this context, standards are the key to make possible the connection of knowledge pieces that are openly available in a world. Without standards, every piece of information could be an island, let's say. It will enable to be part of a broader cloud of interconnected knowledge, which in turn produce more knowledge. Standards enable diversity in open science. For example, geographical, cultural, and even linguistic diversity is possible through the implementation of a standard.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Since all agree on, let's say, translate, transform, or adjust a message to make communication possible. Standards, I think, are so powerful and they work for research output, ideas, people, even things, to be connected in order to generate new findings or to improve people's life.
NATASHA SIMONS: Great, thank you. I love that big picture of you there of improving people's lives as the end goal of this. Ian, did you have anything to add to that question?
IAN DUNCAN: Yeah, I would. Thanks, Natasha. I'm very honored, is the word, for being in the company of such standards and PID experts, because I'm not one really. I'm a PIDs and Standards user. And I think, for me, the standards are sort of proxy for language. If we don't have a shared language, it's very difficult to communicate and share and understand what we're referring to.
IAN DUNCAN: So they may facilitate the comprehension, but they also facilitate precision. And one thing I find in my role now is, you can have a conversation with someone about something you're almost sure is a completely defined word, like data, and they will have a completely different idea of what you're talking about. So I think those standards and definitions are really important to make sure we're talking about the same things.
IAN DUNCAN: And without that, the open infrastructure-- and again, I think what Arianna saying is exactly right. Open is not open data, and often there are shades. But as opposed to closed, it's very difficult to have open and shared and collaborative infrastructures without shared language, shared definitions, kind of consistency across how we define things.
NATASHA SIMONS: Yes, very good. So leading on after that, what do we actually mean by standards in open research infrastructure? Let's unpack the word standards a little bit. Because we've heard from Arianna that it actually applies to all kinds of things too, so what do we mean by it? Who would like to jump in? Daniel, back to you.
DANIEL BANGERT: So I think, yeah, just picking up on some of those ideas, and it's really useful to think of it as a means of shared communication or shared understanding. So if we take that broad view, we can think of standards as common frameworks that facilitate and improve a certain type of practice. In this case, supporting open research. So this might encompass technical standards, persistent identifiers, vocabularies, ontologies, taxonomies, and so on.
DANIEL BANGERT: Things we might usually think of but perhaps also frameworks that support the social infrastructure. So how do we facilitate connections between people and build that common understanding in areas like the skills and competencies that we need.
NATASHA SIMONS: Yeah, very good, good to see the link there with skills and competencies Further comments from Arianna or Ian?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well, if I may. Standard side key components of exchanging information. In this sense, the standard in open research infrastructure is, oh well, as a repeatable agreed and documented way of structuring information. So this can be deconstructed and interpreted for further processability, for example. The standards, in this sense, could include technical specifications, identifiers, protocols, vocabularies, among others, which are designed to be used consistently as a rule or guideline or, I agree, as a framework.
NATASHA SIMONS: Excellent, so can you give examples of standards that are currently in use in open research infrastructure? Who would like to jump in there?
IAN DUNCAN: I think we have the sort of standard standards. You have your ORCIDs and DIYs and the various standards for metadata definitions. I think I'll hand over to my esteemed colleagues who have a much more detailed understanding of size.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well, I think it is very interesting to track, for example, the evolution of the standards regarding information retrieval, which is my main sector. I remember the origins of information exchange in libraries with the C per 950 standard, which is an international standard that enabled these layer of communication between clients and servers. So it was widely used in the online public access catalogs, at libraries, and then in the evolution of information exchanges in libraries and in open access particularly, with journals and repositories.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: We can find the NISO standard, for example, the Z39.85 standard, Dublin Core standard. This is a metadata element set, which defines different elements to the interchange of different resources in a cross-disciplinary information environment. And more recently, the standards needed for the Semantic Web is being honest, I believe. This is one of the most promising implementation of standards nowadays, and I particularly enjoy it as I technically work very closely with it.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Transforming, for example, scientific journals content in case this content with semantic and standardization to make it part of the semantic web. It's very interesting. So a great example of that is the JATS standard, the Journal Article Tag Suite standard, which provides a common XML formatting, which publishers and archives can exchange journal content. And those are very good examples that standards that are working through improved visibility, discoverability, of scientific content, for example.
NATASHA SIMONS: Excellent, thank you. Sir Daniel, you have a background in musicology. A lot of the time when we think about standards, we do think about them as being applied to the big science areas. Can you give examples of where standards apply in digital humanities?
DANIEL BANGERT: Yeah, in fact, in Semantic Web work as Arianna has mentioned, I think that has been a very active area for DH, and it's actually a nice example of how open standards can build on each other. If we think of the Semantic Web stack or the layer cake and how those different frameworks interact to better connect and enable querying access and discovery and machine actionability.
DANIEL BANGERT: In the glam sector, more generally, there's also initiatives like the International Image Interoperability Framework or IIIF, as well as encoding initiatives for text and also music. And these were all established to solve challenges related to accessibility and interoperability and are supported by a strong community that develops and adopts its specifications.
DANIEL BANGERT: And particularly, in the creation of digital editions, for example, and in music where you have objects, which can be represented in many different ways. And you might want to be able to display and connect all of these representations. I think TEI, in particular, is a good example of a successful international community of practice that is now very long standing.
NATASHA SIMONS: All right, so that leads us into community needs. So, we all know the challenge with standards is that there are a lot of them, and it's not as good. It's not simply a matter of setting up a standard and saying, this is the standard. It's really about community of adoption of the standard. That's where it really takes off. So how do we actually identify community needs and build consensus on what becomes a standard?
NATASHA SIMONS: Who would like to dive in there?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well, I believe that widespread adoption of a community practice is a sign that the next step is to define the standard. So this could be developed as a new standard or a specificity of an existence. These community practices sometimes act as the basis on which the standard is defined. This happened, for example, with the JATS vocabulary, which evolved from the apartment XML specification.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: And it was widely used and it became a de facto standard for the community. So later, it evolved to the NISO Z39.96 standard, for example.
NATASHA SIMONS: Do you have examples too, Daniel, in your experience?
DANIEL BANGERT: I think, just the more-- maybe more general point around community needs and building consensus, I think part of that is creating a space for that to develop. And I think we see that in some organizations. that allow people to come together under a certain interest. In Ireland, we have the National Open Research Forum, for which I hold a coordinating role.
DANIEL BANGERT: And this is a space that's been created through communication, consultation, and cooperation among key stakeholders in the research system, so higher education bodies for such performing organizations, funders, and library groups. And we've worked together to develop a national strategy around open research. And we're now in the process of mapping out where we are in areas, including infrastructure, so where are our current gaps.
DANIEL BANGERT: And as our strategy includes a commitment to applying open standards as well as other recognized certification mechanisms and specifications, utilizing open source systems wherever possible, we hope to be in a position, work through the next year, to understand where standards should be adopted across the sector. So I guess that's more on the development, on the adoption side rather than development.
DANIEL BANGERT: But by setting a strategic direction, I think, and having the community agree on certain principles and how to move forward, this gives us the ability to have that broader conversation, build consensus, and specify how we should move forward in a more coordinated manner, which is important, I think, for the national context.
NATASHA SIMONS: Yeah, so from my point of view as well, standards are there to solve common problems that we have, common challenges. So I think about how the ORCID, as a standard identifier for researchers, was adopted in Australia, which was about getting the key players in the research sector in a room together and on a national level and saying, well, what is the problem here? What problem do we have? And the problem is, we need to consistently and persistently identify researchers and connect them with their works, so that we can use them in funding applications.
NATASHA SIMONS: We can make sure that the credit is due to those researchers. And the research institutions also want that credit forwarded on to them. There are researchers that are associated with their institutions. And so from there, it was then, well, what is the solution? Well, we have ORCID. We have a national identifier for research. As we have other identifiers, which one might it be?
NATASHA SIMONS: And it was coming to the consensus that actually we needed a global, open, persistent, identifier for researchers that had some very good functionality and researcher control of their records, and that's where ORCID fitted the bill. And then we went on national approach to ORCID and a consortium was set up to get the adoption going. So that's an example, from my experience, about how you would build community consensus around a particular problem and implement a standard very widely.
NATASHA SIMONS: Because, obviously, the more widely it's adopted, the more the uptake is going to be. You get more benefits from more people adopting it. Ian, do you have anything that you would like to add to the discussion?
IAN DUNCAN: Yeah, I was just thinking that the question is interesting question especially on how do we identify our community needs and build consensus. It's really the community identifying their own needs and how do we sort of help guide best practice and commonality and reuse of the components. Because one of the-- I guess in some community stages, the richness of different standards is what they want and a standard is a compromise.
IAN DUNCAN: Exactly what you were saying Natasha, there was an early Australian identifier being developed and ORCID isn't exactly the same. But there was discussion in the community about, well, will this do enough of what we want? And, does it have the additional benefit so that international exposure and international applicability to make it worthwhile losing perhaps some of those extra little bells and whistles that we wanted for our one.
IAN DUNCAN: So I think, for example, for organizations that take a national view of standards, the fewer standards the better because that just makes all those systems easier. But for each individual community, they want that richness and the precision of everything that they want in a standard. So the question is how do we bring all of those communities together? So it's this sort of cross community rather than within the community discussion.
IAN DUNCAN: That's also really important as well, I think.
NATASHA SIMONS: So that's an interesting perspective, Ian, and it comes across as well that you situate yourself outside of the communities that you're helping to facilitate or helping to come arrive at a common standard. I wonder if Daniel and Arianna have a similar position there or if you're actually embedded in the communities that are deciding which standards to use?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Well in my case, as I said before, I work very closely with the community of journal editors which implement the JATS standard, for example, and with another group that are working to make these standards more specific. Because sometimes, and perhaps we will discuss this later, sometimes the standards are a little bit flexible, so we have to agree on other terms or specificities in order to implement a precisely the standard inside a community.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: So this is my experience for the journal publishing sector.
DANIEL BANGERT: OK, in the Irish context and in my role working with NORF, the National Open Research Forum, we're taking a perspective on where the opportunities are for a coordinated approach and that might not always be the case. In certain instances, communities may need to move in certain directions and/or the institutions may need to act on certain mandates.
DANIEL BANGERT: But in others, there could be a very clear case for where we can apply something across the board to actually connect the systems, connect people, connect into more global or regional initiatives. So I think it's--
NATASHA SIMONS: OK, those--
DANIEL BANGERT: --finding those opportunities.
NATASHA SIMONS: Yeah, that's great. So we're reflecting on the challenges of building some national scale open research infrastructure, which is going to be different in different countries. So could you describe your National Open Research Infrastructure and how it interacts with some regional and possibly some global research infrastructure as well? Ian, do you want to jump in there?
IAN DUNCAN: OK, so I guess-- and maybe we do at ARDC. We're a national infrastructure and so, and cross discipline, right? So we occupy an interesting space here where, really, everything we do has to be national and has to be collaborative and, generally, not suited to just one discipline. So we have some research infrastructures. For example, our research cloud, which links into international clouds as well.
IAN DUNCAN: So the NEC, the Research Cloud, OpenStax, Federated Research Cloud, uses standard identifiers where it can. So we do try to-- it's a very Australian expression, eat your own dog food, and try to apply what we're saying to other people that they should do as well. We run some of the national identifier services as well. So ORCID is run by our colleagues at the Australian Access Federation, but we run a number of identifiers nationally here as well.
IAN DUNCAN: But also, what's really interesting is aligning those and integrating those with government identifiers. So within Australia, the government is recognizing the value of consistency across their data sets. And so they have a sort of semi-formal identifier structure set up there and trying to align in there. So those identifiers and standard infrastructures are really important for us.
IAN DUNCAN: And then across all of our activities where we're sort of producing data sets with partners in the sector, we're trying to apply consistency across all of those, and that's actually harder than it sounds. So making sure that our partners do walk and talk fair at the same time as writing it down on the application forms, making sure those things actually get applied. Because again, and I think this is one of the real challenges is, being a good data steward doesn't necessarily pay.
IAN DUNCAN: You don't necessarily get the reward today from that, but you hopefully will get a reward later on. We may touch on that later on. So they're some of the, I guess, national infrastructures that we do. The identifiers, obviously, we pull in from the International ones. And the cloud ones, we work with our colleagues at the high-performance computing centers who also-- we try to make sure that those are nationally and internationally consistent as well.
IAN DUNCAN:
NATASHA SIMONS: Daniel, you can go to you?
DANIEL BANGERT: Sure, yeah. That is an interesting question as we're in the middle of doing some landscaping work nationally to outline our progress in certain areas of open research, including the access to and preservation of research and fire our national infrastructure. So in broad terms, I think I can maybe mention a few parts of the infrastructure picture in Ireland, so this includes networking and computing infrastructures.
DANIEL BANGERT: For instance, the services provided by HEAnet to Ireland's National Education and Research Network, and I checked the Irish Centre for High-End Computing. There's also data infrastructures like institution and domain repositories, several of which carry the CoreTrustSeal certification, and meta infrastructures like the Irish ORCID Consortium, which is a bit younger than the Australian one.
DANIEL BANGERT: I'm also wearing another hat being based at the Digital Repository of Ireland, which is part of the Royal Irish Academy. And this is a repository for Irish social and cultural data, including humanities and social science research data, as well as cultural heritage. And DRI supports national needs through its membership program and other ways of ingesting and enabling discovery of content related to Ireland and helping data discovery and preservation of this important material.
DANIEL BANGERT: But it also serves as a connection point to regional initiatives and wider audiences, for instance, by serving as a national aggregator to Europeana. I think another thing for us to consider here as a smaller country in Europe is how we connect to regional initiatives. And for us I guess the main overarching one is the European Open Science Cloud.
DANIEL BANGERT: In general, Ireland's closely followed the policy shifts set by the European Commission and others, for instance, in the development and alignment of our national strategy for open research. And this also applies to our interaction with the EOSC, which aims to create a federated ecosystem based on fair data and other open science outputs. So moving forward to benefit from these developments, national infrastructures, whether these are existing or new, will need to be compatible with the agreed rules of participation and service requirements, and that's something that's still evolving.
DANIEL BANGERT: So for this reason, experts and organizations have been contributing to these developments and will continue to have representation. So I think it's a matter of following, interacting, and again, finding, where we can align and benefit from what's happening at a broader level.
NATASHA SIMONS: Great, thank you. Arianna, would you like to add to that?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Yes, thank you, Natasha. Well, in Mexico, as in many other countries from the Latin American region, yeah, well, the open access and open research is kind of endemic. Journal publishing has been both open for readers and for authors. I mean we have an APC free open access publishing sector owned by and driven by the academic community, in this sense, universities and research institutions as well as government agencies are key components of the open infrastructure sustained at a great extent by public funds.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: In an upper layer, let's say, we have regional infrastructures like Redalyc, Latindex or Scielo, which provide added value services to journals in terms of feasibility, interoperability, metrics, and editorial workflows. Redalyc, for example, the network of [INAUDIBLE] open access journals where I am based works as a gateway to connect the Latin American research publishing, the Latin American journals to other platforms like DOAJ, like Journal Docs and many libraries around the world, aggregators, among other services.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Regarding green open access in Mexico, we have two strategies. One is the Mexican network of institutional repositories, which integrates, through harvesting processes, the information from institutional repositories. Mexico also implemented the national repository to collect the research outputs. Both of them are part of La Referencia, which is a Latin American network of national networks of repositories.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Which in turn, it is connected to Open Air, which is the [INAUDIBLE] European network for repository. So this is a kind of a complex ecosystem where the open access or open science, in general, is non-commercial and it's managed by the academic sector and where, by the way, standards are very useful to connect these lower layers, let's say, to these upper layers in terms of collectively build this research ecosystem.
NATASHA SIMONS: Great, thank you. It's really interesting to hear the differences and some of the common aspects between the national approaches. So we're coming towards the end of the speaking, question and answer panel time. So I think I just want to finish on a sort of three part question for each of you, which is, what's working well? What's not working so well? And, where are we headed with standards in open research infrastructure?
NATASHA SIMONS: So, just reflecting on some of the things that you've said during this session and thinking about where we're going into the future with it as well. Who would like to start?
IAN DUNCAN: I'm happy to start. I think one thing that's working well is demonstrating that implementing standards is not necessarily a huge cost and drivers benefit, ORCID being a really good example for that. So I think in Australia, having an ORCID is the same as driving on one side of the road. It's just a thing you do, and it's not a drama, and people understand the value in that, and I think that will percolate out across the different standards as well.
IAN DUNCAN: And so, perhaps, some of those very broad standards are working quite well. What's not working so well, I think, is demonstrating the value of applying all of those standards. So, yes, it's very clear what benefit that generates. Standardizing and describing your data at the moment is not very clear what the return for that is in Australia.
IAN DUNCAN: What was the last bit of question? Where are we heading? I think standards change and I think that it's an evolving system. And I think-- my hope is that we would settle on fewer, broader, standards, and I come from a research support background, not a research background.
IAN DUNCAN: And that probably thinking back on the earlier section, that may reflect why I approach these things in a particular way. But I think the standards do change and we need to be conscious that-- I was just thinking when I went to a conference in Brussels, just as Brexit was happening, and one of the questions people had was, well, once Brexit happens, can we stop having to always have conferences in English?
IAN DUNCAN: And I have to admit, my heart stopped for a moment there. I went, oh dear, that's going to cause me a certain amount of trouble. And so I think standards-- we do have standards even though we don't call them standards, across all sorts of different things. We just need to be conscious of how they can change. And I think the growth in influence of different nationalities and different global areas in different domains will apply pressures and changes to that standard environment.
IAN DUNCAN: I think it's really important for national infrastructures to make sure everyone's aware of what's happening around them. So I think part of the reason people invent new standards is they didn't realize there was one that did 98% of what they wanted already, and so making sure people are aware of those things and facilitating the application of them. So exactly the things you've been talking about in terms of being involved in those communities and pulling in the best practice.
IAN DUNCAN: I think that's exactly the spot for the national infrastructures.
NATASHA SIMONS: Terrific, thank you. Shall we go to you, Arianna?
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: Yes, thank you, Natasha. Well, I think we have made clear the benefits of adopting standards and many, many useful demonstration of the potential of the implementation of a standard across many, many tasks, especially in the web and information exchange. What I see as some challenge perhaps in the adoption of standards is, I think there's a big gap between implementing the standards and exploiting the benefits of such implementation.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: For instance, what the headway made in machinery stability, for example. Standards should be leveraged for plenty of reasons. To improve user experience, to increase the discoverability of content, to foster accessibility features, to generate more knowledge. And sometimes, I feel that there's great work adopting the standards but not leveraging the standards to achieve all the potential that these standards imply.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: So, for example, this is something that Redalyc is very focused on. Focus on taking advantage of the implementation, for example, of the JATS and Semantic Web In two basic ways by providing novel ways of rousing scientific information with knowledge representation maps and other representation of information that the standards enable. And also, providing tools to make the publishing workflow more efficient and sustainable, liberating the standardized structuring of content to automatically generate different output files for journals.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: So well this aims to lower the cost of journal production. And this is possible because we have this structure of information with a shared vocabulary, for example. So I think we have to do really liberate standards to improve many services and to improve the way we are, or the experience of the user with the information. And also, perhaps that the benefits of standards are not so evident for people who are far from integration challenges.
ARIANNA BECERRIL-GARCIA: For example, in my experience, journal editors are not aware of the importance to follow standards at publishing since they don't have the need to integrate or process information from different sources. Even though, a journal is benefited from the use of standards, they can gain visibility, they can gain discoverability and impact. So that is why it is very important to raise awareness on the benefits of following them.
NATASHA SIMONS: Fantastic, thank you. Daniel, the last word.
DANIEL BANGERT: Thanks, Natasha. Yeah, I think much of it has been covered there. But I would agree around the gap in exploiting where the benefits are and the strengths. And we mentioned, I think, diversity before and how that could be strengthened, but also in kind of the promise of some of these standards. If we think about the Semantic web, more generally, and the gap perhaps of what these systems can offer, and how they are being used, or how data is being reused or not being reused.
DANIEL BANGERT: So I think there are also some other challenges which are a bit broader around open research infrastructures more generally. These could be related to good governance practices and recognizing the strategic value and resourcing that's required. So thinking about the development, maintenance, and exploitation going forward, if there was a way to out forward that value proposition, understanding how it actually impacts on research communities, and looking for ways in which we can pool resources to move forward in a connected manner even though our regional challenges are different and there should be these points of interaction.
NATASHA SIMONS: Fantastic. What a terrific point to end on. Thank you all, Arianna, Daniel, and Ian. Wonderful session. I think there's a lot of ideas in there and I think that's really good stimulation for the discussion that we have after this presentation. So thank you very much and we'll now move on to the discussion part of this. [MUSIC PLAYING]
Form Title Download
Video
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode