Name:
Describing the practical – equity and parity in metadata for practice research Recording
Description:
Describing the practical – equity and parity in metadata for practice research Recording
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/447103ef-756b-48a0-88f9-e38ef8ca169c/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_3.jpg
Duration:
T00H48M47S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/447103ef-756b-48a0-88f9-e38ef8ca169c
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/447103ef-756b-48a0-88f9-e38ef8ca169c/Describing the practical-NISO Plus.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=%2BHCNrS7GTl6UrtkL%2BbASWKWve3%2FHO5eZWkyQ7WKNiqQ%3D&st=2024-10-25T18%3A48%3A20Z&se=2024-10-25T20%3A53%3A20Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining our session describing the practical equity and parity and metadata for practice research.
In this session, our panelists will describe their recent work on evolving a metadata schema within a repository, including support for practice research. You'll hear about performing in co-production with researchers and infrastructure stakeholders, the contributions of all those involved, and, of course, their key findings and recommendations. Please use the chat to enter your questions and comments during the presentations and we look forward to a robust discussion afterward.
With that, I'll hand it off to Adam. Awesome Thanks so much for the introduction. So this is, as I've been introduced the describing the practical equality and parity imperative metadata for practice in research. I your introductory host Adam bylsma and also presenting will be Jenny Allen and Rachel not necessarily in that order. So in the next slide, we will be giving a brief overview of what is coming up.
So we'll talk about our recent work, especially on evolving and metadata schema, where that's come from, why we've done it, and basically the focus of the work on practice research and we'll discuss about the important aspect of that work as co-production. We will show some of our key findings and the recommendations that come from those findings.
We will be looking at the recommendations and how those recommendations being put into practice will provide a better environment for the research, not just for practice, but for. All kinds disciplines of research. So although we have focused on practice, research and.
You will see the theme through this presentation as we believe it's kind of a key thing to support the work that we've done around practice. Research lifts all research and the support for practice research enables a better research environment for everyone. And then from looking at these product recommendations, what we want to do is at the end of you listening to us, we really like to have a discussion capturing all of your perspectives and experiences, and we want to then take that forward to inform the work that we're doing.
So what exactly do we want to discuss? Well, we hope that you'll listen to. What we have to present. And then we can discuss, first of all, how we ensure there's a pragmatic sense of this. Well, lots of big. So in the particularly arts and humanities repositories, we've got these amazingly descriptive specialist vocabularies and taxonomies.
So how do we get from there to these common ontologies and ways of sharing and facilitating discovery and kind of global metadata? So how do we ensure that bridge between the very kind of. Specialist descriptive rich places where we store our research objects to allow a common way of discovery and further work across of local spaces.
How do we ensure those schema embrace parity or versus first type of first research and across all disciplines and then feeding out those two discussions? How do we take these schema enabled repositories to be the places where research, preserve access, discovery and of course, most importantly from that then utilized and built upon. So, you know, at the back end, we've got to of course, ensure there's the preservation and the deposit, but also were looking at the risks, the further utilization and those aspects as well.
So think about these questions, think about these issues. As you listen to the rest of this recording, I'll hand over to Jennifer. OK thank you, Adam. Baby bear with me. I was just trying to find my unmute button. OK, so I'm Jenny Evans. I'm research, environment and scholarly communications lead at the University of Westminster, based in London.
And I led this project. So what we thought we'd do is start by building some foundations. How how do we get to practice research voices? So firstly, I think actually just some kind of a bit of a briefing note around what features are kind of are part of non-traditional or non text research outputs that are different to those kind of text based static outputs that we see in, particularly in the scientific research disciplines.
So that often non texts but they're not always so non-traditional practice research researchers do create text as well as text and non text. They're trying to represent performance or other live events. And so therefore actually what you capture in a repository is remediated. It's not actually the performance of live events. So that time based piece is really important.
Often the research element can be embodied in the work. Or it might need evidencing by a narrative alongside that work. So this is really important in terms of how we talk about our findings at the end process is as significant as product. So it's not just about the end product of this research, but it's about capturing the process as you kind of carry out that research activity. And finally often involves a range of contributors, as all research disciplines do.
But for practice, researchers are recognizing and acknowledging contributors, not only collaborators, but also participants is really important to them. So some definitions, we're very mindful. This is a very UK kind of terminology we're using today. So so we just wanted to point out some definitions. So practice research are primarily, but not solely carried out in the arts and humanities. It does happen in medicine and in health, education and other disciplines.
But today we're giving the UK reports were published in 2021 by James Brolin. Austin Zane are an umbrella term that describes all manners of research where practices the significant methods. So this includes these new numerous disciplines, specific formulations. They're all a bit different. And that's what's so tricky.
So sometimes you it's referred to as practice led research or practice as research practice based research. But this umbrella definition also this idea of research narrative, which is really important to this community and actually our findings and our recommendations. So just to define those, where did this come from? This came from originally.
There has been a lot of work done in the UK. There are a whole collection of just funded projects probably, I guess 10 or 15 years ago. Culture capture cultivate around supporting arts and Humanities Research very much focused either on publications, repositories or data repositories. So they tend to be driven by the technology rather than what researchers wanted.
So what we did at Westminster, we worked with the repository and the team at play now case to build a single open source repository that meets the bare principles, captures all research outputs for these researchers having talking about their research holistically, rather than forcing them to think about whether or not its publication or data is really important. Our approach to development was this idea of co-design, so collaborating with our art and design and architecture communities and starting with their requirements.
So we captured these publications, data and practice, research outputs and the narrative, and you can see in the right there, that's one of our practice research portfolios. What does practice research look like in a global repository? So we have this idea of a non text or artifact output type. So I'm talking about these now because we'll reference back to these ideas throughout the presentation, the exhibition or event output type, this idea of a dynamic collection or portfolio, including the research narrative and just referencing again those contributor roles and how important language is to this discipline.
We've got a case study published that you can look at after this session. We'll put some links in the chat as well while the recording is going. So this practice research reports had some recommendations around the idea of a project or a collection or a portfolio, this single practice research item type and a kind of this idea of component files, this idea of use of addition.
So, so some of the work that informs practice research voices came out of the recommendations from the reports alongside this, and this is where we began working with jyske and Adam and his, his colleagues was, was looking at the discoverability landscape, which is actually really not very fair to practice. Research is very grounded in scientific research, just sort of simple things.
Google Scholar only indexes a single file of PDF less than five megabytes. So as soon as you start talking about multiple file outputs and large file sizes, they're just not even in the ballgame. And going back to that idea of interoperability, how do we make things like ORCIDs work with this community? So for me, as at the time a more academic librarian rather than my current role, how do I get on board these communities to use tools like ORCIDs when actually when they go and look at them, they can't see their research reflected in the structure.
So last year, a year ago now, I can't believe it's been a whole year. It's been a busy year and I see. Plus 2022, we left the community with a call to action to look at data site credit raid orchids, seo, a core crossref and redox as ideas of standards, open standards that we could have conversations about in terms of how they connected up with practice research. And so this is where we reach and we, we get to the practice research versus scoping project.
This is one of two projects funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Early last year, January 2022 are scoping future data services for the Arts and humanities. So we had a cross institutional team. We kept down kind of core Westminster desk team and voice and brought on board the British Library and King's College London as well. So we had a really good representation of different types of institution with different types of research outputs.
And, and really for me, this was really a really important part of this work is about working in collaboration. So we have our kind of experts metadata data, library research, data management, research management, communities, libraries, persistent identifiers, community and our researchers. So the goal of this project was to scope a national practice research repository using the work we've done in the loco's repository.
And that was so we had a test case repository we use throughout the project. And moving to a repository, discoverability and interoperability landscape, that's a very long sentence with lots of syllables in which these disciplines are embedded in the open standards landscape rather than other. And actually primarily, I would say actually and our key priority is bringing together all of these voices from all of the different communities to have their say and to bring their thoughts.
Because what I certainly was experiencing over the years is that I was speaking at events in multiple communities. So there were all of these communities having connected but disconnected in the same sort of instance conversations. So we had three workstreams throughout the project. One was that repository space I've just spoken about, so we set up a test, or at least set up a test instance of their repository that was based on the Westminster research repository.
So it had that practice research capability and it's so that we could actually talk to our participants and actually iterate as we went throughout the project. So that was the sort of starting point because we already knew that we had a repository that did what we thought was some of this work already. What was different about practice research voices is it scaled from Westminster's art and design approach to the research excellence framework of portfolio to see what it looked like for other types of institutions and disciplines.
Secondly, the metadata and persistent identifiers piece and this idea of open standards and I'll probably say this more than once today, one of the many reasons open standards are so important here is we had at least one of our communities asking for their own special web of Arts community standard and a closed standard at that. So we were very keen to articulate to the discipline communities that there were already standards that did work a little bit or a lot or could do with the right conversations happening.
And finally talking about this, creating the practice research community of practice, which leads me nicely on. So we did throughout the project we pulled together. It was a scoping project that lasted for six months. We didn't have a lot of time to be as inclusive as I certainly would have liked. But through our connections, we pulled together an external advisory group that represented all of the stakeholders for research, data management, digital preservation repositories, librarians, research managers, records managers, archivists.
All of those voices were part of our community advisory group so that we at least had a sense check on what we were doing and really embedded community in this work and this is where hopefully you can see this. OK on the screen, we have a diagram or a map of our voices, community of practice. And as you can see, I've mentioned quite a few of these already, not just and really like this idea of communities, of communities.
So metadata communities. So you have redox, you have taxonomy, you have the credits community, you have the ISO community, you have crossref. There are just so many communities with a stake in this work. So, so actually giving those communities a space to come together and, and converse with us and have their say was really, really important to us.
And on that note, I will stop talking and hands onto Adam for the next few slides of perhaps particular interest to the community here. And one of the central themes of this talk is that second workstream that Jenny's just talked about. So the metadata workstream looked at how we capture, embed and share the information about the practice research objects within the repository.
Um, some what we managed to do within the remit of the short term scoping project was to hold a workshop, which we did both preparation for by consulting with the advisory group and community on where to focus both. Engagement and development will.
Again, as we've already said and I. Well, there's here today we'll say this again on ensuring that we engage with grew and develop together the open standards that were being already embedded in infrastructure to ensure that we have a place within those schema within the community developing them and that.
We basically moved away from being other within the schema and those schema were enriched and able to capture that information and where new technology and infrastructure were being developed, that we were involved in those processes. So for the actual workshop itself, we worked with data sight with raid and credit to discuss both the issues that had arisen in our initial kind of discovery phase of the work.
We had both presentations from representatives of those three infrastructure groups, and we also had a presentation from the researcher practitioner perspective. So there is a blog post all about the workshop and the resources there. So all of those and again, that will be in the chat and will be available in discussion afterwards and you know, make sure you have a look at that.
It's really important. What we're going to do over the next few minutes is go over the kind of key points from that workshop. So in the next few slides, next one coming. Now look over that. So prof. Helen Bailey King's. This is one highlight from a number of things that we've captured from her presentation research perspective.
I think you can read that for yourself. Really interesting is about, you know, the ecosystems are multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and the outputs integrate in multiple domains. So, you know, the portfolio model is. About the practice itself was very, very complete. And I think one of the things that always stood out for me is quite a lot of the.
Main repository culture previously has been of these kind of, if you like, terminal objects. So there is our text report, there is a document, there's a thing. And one of the things that you can take from this thing, from Holland is that this idea of being able to deposit a multitude of things in a portfolio, capturing a lot of different things, because as you develop these kind of practice outputs, they're not one thing.
They're capture of a process that are capture of multiple different things. And as Janice already mentioned, there's remediated work, there's work across time, there's work of process as well as outputs. And all of these things are important and part of a piece of research. So it's really interesting when you look at again, there's more of Helen's perspective in the actual URL.
And I did. Really recommend people to go and try and digest some of that. OK so on the next slide we had after we go, next slide we have the three. So we had credit placed second. Right on the next slide, we can see the points from just data site. And so he was just making some points from looking from some earlier discussions that we had about how data could support the portfolio and some other of the types around.
The schema that were built into the repository at the time around, kind of like source types themselves, but also about creative contributors. So the third stream which we'll touch on here, and there was about kind of, you know, how do we map those collaborators? How do we map those kind of people who are involved?
In the practice research and how does that work? So is that something that actually could be captured within the data scheme itself or is that something that actually crosses over to credit and the way that contributions are actually acknowledged? So those relationships also. Are they adequately reflected portfolios? Collections they map incorrectly.
Exhibitions they map incorrectly. You know, again. There's a lot of questions about how the collection of portfolio kind of maps, is it itself a collection? Is it something, is it a container or is it more a narrative? And if you kind of read down that second half of those set of questions brought up by data size itself is actually, you know, there's lots to do as a portfolio record, evolve over time, as a portfolio conceptually, as a research activity.
So maybe, you know, the portfolio itself isn't really something that you capture as a DIY with a lot of versions or maybe it's more range. So the research activity items are not something that we'll talk about in a moment. So but next, look at credit. I think if I remember the older slides, I mean, actually, when you talk about right now, that was even about see, we did this like so much better than I remember.
So rate is the research activity identifier and unique and persistent identifier for research. Right you've heard me talk at all in the last couple of years. You'll have heard me go on about this quite a lot. So you can envisage rate as either an envelope. I usually talk about as a washing line and some people talk about as a canoe. I'm not sure.
Still not quite sure I understand the canoe. But anyway, so the great thing about right is that it is an identifier that can contain other identifiers and it contains them in a chronological order. So it has this idea about time bounded and has this idea about containing. So it allows you to organize a narrative of things and processes. And we had assignments come in, discuss, raid, give a brief overview and some plot points of raid and research and practice research at our event.
And then on the next slide, of course, we would do it that way. But we also had a presentation on credit and on its rules, which were, of course, in version one entirely from them. Now, as this is a NISO presentation, you will, of course, I'll note that credit is now a NISO standard has been adopted and those 12 stem roles are now fully embedded in version one and there is currently version 2 and the discussions around the evolution of credit ongoing and the working group has been set up.
So we are very much involved inputting into the evolution of that standard. The heartflow repository has a full set of roles and obviously some other infrastructure has their own set of roles and as well as the rules themselves. There are also and we might come on to discuss this in a bit. So not only the roles but how those roles are integrated and utilized within infrastructure themselves is, is as important as the actual kind of like taxonomy ontology of the roles themselves.
So there's that as well. So moving on. Excellent thanks, Adam. So I think Jenny and Adam of summarize quite nicely. We've got a number of challenges here. We're trying to extend the schema so that we can cover and support these open standards. We talk about we talk about the diversity of research outputs and the projects that are involved, often multidisciplinary.
It's not just about a single file, it's about multiple files. It's about the journey of the research as well and the challenges that brings trying to fit into a standardized schema. Got the additional challenge. I guess it's a challenge, but also it's a great thing is that the platform on which the use repository is built is incredibly flexible, which gives us a number of challenges in that we can support almost anything, which is when you're trying to make decisions around what is the right way forward, what does the schema look like, creates an additional burden because we can support almost anything.
So this because of this, it took somewhat longer than we anticipated to actually articulate what the schema should look like. We also had the additional challenge of sometimes using the relevant language for the object you're talking about or the output you're talking about. Publisher doesn't always apply to a practice based research output, but you want to fit that data into a standardized schema.
So it makes sense. It's usable across those open standards. So lots of challenges there, really. But what we have to do is identify what is and isn't in the schema. What is part of, for example, the portfolio display? What do we display visually on screen? What's part of the data we captured which creates, again, challenges for us to work through?
As part of the schema design. We also mapped this across the British Library shed research repository for cultural and heritage organizations to see where the similarities were, how our designs were mapping against a real life use case. And we're going to talk a little bit more about that later. At this point, I'd like to hand over to Rachel. Thank you, Alan. So, yes.
Hello, everyone. I'm Rachel kotecki. And I'm in the unique position of being able to be part of both of the practice research based projects funded by HRC that Jen is already mentioned. So both PR voices and sparkle. So what is sparkle? If we go on to the next slide, we can see that it stands for sustaining practice assets for research, knowledge, learning and education.
But sparkle is a much NISO acronym. This was led by the University of Leeds, our colleagues Tom Jackson, Scott McLaughlin and Claire Knowles. I was involved from the British Library side again looking at the contribution of research and cultural heritage organizations and the fact that we undertake a lot of practice that actually has outputs that are useful to humanities and based research.
And the digital preservation coalition and Edina were also partners on their sparkle took a slightly different approach in terms of the angle of the questions that we were asking. So we actually gave folks a bit of a blank sheet of paper in terms of what infrastructure they actually need for practice based research. Again, we spoke to infrastructure providers, information and knowledge management colleagues as well as the practice researchers themselves gave them this blank piece of paper and asked them what features of infrastructure that supports practice, research do they see themselves needing?
And actually we see a lot of the features of that infrastructure outlined in a bit of detail in this diagram. I am not going to go into every single box that is on the sheet, but actually the colors represent the kinds of angles that the evidence we gathered was coming from, whether it was from the researcher based angle, which I think is the yellow parts of the boxes, or whether it was from the infrastructure side, which is more green.
And actually you'll see a few items here that we heard from both sides of that description, if you like. So about the position of a researcher and the institution and whether they are neutral in the way they're presenting their research. And some of those arguments came out quite strongly in both sides about infrastructure hosted by a given organization and whether that organization itself can be neutral, et cetera.
So if we go on to the next slide, this combines with and matches quite nicely with some of the findings that we have from PR voices as well. So we found that actually the work undertaken in both projects included a lot of community engagement and that is going to be super important going forward in building any of this infrastructure. And so therefore we need to co-design with the community on an ongoing basis.
Their needs will continue to change. What we can technically do as infrastructure providers will change, and we need to bring those two discussions together as the work builds and continues. The platform needs to be interactive. It needs to be a concrete part of that community that is really part of their workflow in order for them to not just be able to trust it, but actually work with it on a daily basis.
Because we are talking about being able to share their research ongoing throughout a research project, not just at the end, not just as an end point of the work that we're doing, which obviously we've heard a lot about already. The open standards must underpin that work in order to create interoperability. So we don't want to create another silo that practice research, fits in.
And so open standards help us to bring in outputs of practice research and those conversations alongside all the other outputs of research that we see in more traditional formats as well. And finally, we have these ongoing challenges such as sustainability, expertise and preservation, especially preservation of all kinds of different formats, which again that co-design with the community will be an important way of overcoming some of those challenges, as well as making sure that we continue to invest in not just the technical capability, but the capacity of the people involved in this work as well.
So I think we have one more slide. Or is that me? No, we do. So non-traditional research outputs, as we've already seen. They are usually not text. And actually, these features that you've seen earlier on in the preservation were just kind of underlined by the work and the research done across both projects and the, you know, presenting time based or performance based materials as significant research outputs and bring them alongside.
Actually, some of the more traditional outputs of research will be an important aspect to deliver in terms of the infrastructure going forward. I won't repeat any of the things that you've seen here. Moving on, but now I can hand over to Adam. OK Thanks very much, Rachel. OK so I'm going to talk more specifically about some of the findings relating to the more technical stuff that data heads and so on.
So as we said earlier, we prioritize. They decide grade and credits as far as the actual. Outcomes we've identified some potential updates to data site. We're working with the schema update community and. They're not in 4.5, but there were an ongoing discussions around how they might be improved.
As I said before, the credit version 2 or. However they might do that. Working group is ongoing. There's a real kind of discussion around. How? portfolio and collections map. Um, and I'll come on like the, like the outcome of that and where we kind of sit with that as part of the discussion about how that kind of came out whenever we looked at the comparison between the British Library scheme and the Westminster scheme.
So I mean, the short answer is we don't think so. But this is a longer and more complicated set. And then the final kind of findings are the support volume better to rate in general? Yes I think there are some other questions around exactly how our portfolio maps and where we are taking the work of what a portfolio is.
So I think some of the. Um, questions of the last two is portfolios in this collection. And I think that depends on how you define those two things and does a portfolio better trade. That's certainly depends on partially the answer to that previous question and partially on those implementations. I think that could certainly be part of the discussion that we're having after this.
So if you look on the next slide, the thing that did then come to is like we start to think about the actual framework. So we as part of kind of the suggestion coming out of the two report of. Is there such thing as a project item type or a collection or a portfolio? Well Yeah.
So there's. Definite need to capture individual objects on an ongoing basis and bring them together. And for all of those things, you need a portfolio of some kind that builds on the idea of this collection and overlays narrative and context, right? So going back to those last two questions, you need a thing to collect stuff together and you need a thing to have the idea of narrative and that kind of chronological thing embodied in it.
So you need to move away from just this idea of capturing an object, a kind of a terminal thing, you know, the final report, the research papers or whatever. And you need to have a more nuanced ability to collect stuff together, to have things, and to perhaps also be able to collect this process, this idea of either a theme or a collection that has a narrative context.
And one of the other things that we highlighted here from Helen's researcher insights is that, you know, this idea of this iterative process, the portfolio sits inside your research, you know, not just about retrospection. And, you know, this kind of idea that capturing the process as you go along helps you with insight.
It helps you as part of your process to be able to capture and to collect as you move through the research process itself. So if we move on to the next thing here, this is part of the actual kind of final schema that we got from PR voices. And I want to show you here, partly because I spent a hell of a lot of time doing it and partly because I just wanted to show the first diagram.
Again, we've got better high resolution images at least to make available. That's the portfolio in all of its glory. And then the second we've got the exhibition and the third is the artifact. But just so there are the nuances over the attributes and. And the different kind of things that you capture about these key outputs for practice research.
And again, I'd be really interested to discuss some of the things maybe after or maybe later, but some of these things that we develop are things that we're moving forward in kind of the general kind of vocabulary and schema discussions in kind of the wider discovery and sharing piece. So that's a lot about the findings and stuff. But what I want to talk about finally was this discussion that we had to be out about British literature, about their repository and about how.
The schema and the work that we've done. It wasn't just a fit for our repository and then nobody else. And again, part of the overall idea behind. Our work is to look at ensuring, as we said before, we advance open standards. We don't like, do something for us and go, hey, our stuff works.
That's great, let's move on. But that we work at embedding advances within the community itself. So it's really important to do kind of a sense check and discuss with others about how that works. So I had a chat with Jenny bashford, the foster lead at Beale portfolios.
They've got collections. And again, they're not the same as the portfolio. So this is, again, going back to that discussion I highlighted a moment ago. So they are doing collections of outputs things, but they are just bundles, a kind of ad hoc, post hoc things. So you've got a bunch of things and they want to kind of establish a bunch of things at the same.
And so they put a collection together, although very they'd be very interested in having portfolios and especially this kind of time and narrative element. They think they're really kind of valuable. So big thumbs up for portfolios in general, and it's something that's definitely worth exploring. The kind of work we did around the scheme of portfolios looks like it's something that could be kind of transferred across the scheme.
I didn't see any particular issues with it. It's just that it's not that the exhibition object pretty much matched. No problem. They don't have an artifact object and there are reasons for that. That's the discussion about that. Any mismatches in kind of the schema between the.
Rio and the Westminster repositories were a mixture of kind of like platform issues about the way things were expressed and culture. So, you know, might in Westminster have a particular way of describing something and that might be part of a particular object characteristic. And in the field that might just be something that's put down to something else.
And so that was quite interesting. And it's something that obviously whenever you look at of building those kind of community and sense checked taxonomies, it's something that you do need to work through. So that's something that from a sense tech point of view, those kind of discrepancies around culture are the ones that kind of do look for more interesting resolution.
There were some really interesting type of misinformation from the bill, but they were mostly from individual depositors, so they'd like create things to again describe their stuff. So they were really interesting. But there again, those kind of things that you would look at to see whether or not they were appropriate for a wider description. And again, that's that boundary between pragmatic usefulness and utility and a global descriptor and something that's for a particular instance.
And so the. Overall, I can see the final bullet point has just dropped off the bottom. Overall, you know, we agreed that the schema was good, you know, appropriate that the existing needs and that we could work with both the lobby and any structure and we could implement. Yet to describe their collection.
We could work together. So, like, validation wise, it was. You know, both heartening. And it also helped us to look at thinking about some of the next steps. OK thank you, Adam. And really just to finish off and continue on. So we I think what's been really exciting about this work is that we've actually been able to be involved in conversations ongoing around the development of the range, the research activity identifier.
So we were able to present to a meeting where we were able to raise the voices of our practice researchers and, and this idea of portfolio or theme and how it builds on the idea of collection. And as you can see, that's why we're talking here today. All of this needs further conversation. So the k report and raids call this identifier a project or idea of a project. But this is where we found a bit of a disconnect.
So the definition of a project in not only the flow repository but also generally in systems is very much a kind of research project management kind of definition. So so it means something slightly different and feel free to step in and pick up here if you need to. But so I think it was just worth us articulating this. So for example in the middle I've got the screenshot in the middle is a project record of this project in our system.
And so you can see the project record and the credit system has things like who's involved, the funder, the community that I'm aligned to within the university, who the funding source is, project stage, et cetera. And then on the right, you can see this is a public record in our repository of one of the presentations we've done about the project. And you can see that the project is, is what's in that middle screenshots and it's part of the, of the output record.
So I don't think we've got any kind of firm conclusions yet, but it just sort of really articulates the need to have ongoing and us be part of these ongoing conversations so that what's developed for the right activity identifier kind of works for all disciplines and also all information systems. Because we're not just talking about repository systems here, we are talking about research management systems. And so they need to kind of connect out to enable that interoperability between the systems.
And then I think just finally, we are also credit is in a much better place than it was a couple of years ago. It's now formalized as a standard. The community is there. They're asking for import. We've participated in a couple of focus groups actually, which weren't about practice research. But what we were able to do in those conversations is raise the concerns and the ideas that we've heard from our practice research communities.
So we finished finally. I'm sure you'll all be pleased to know it's been a long but hopefully interesting discussion today is our call to action and to inform the discussion session that we kind of move on to after this recording. So how do we ensure that we can have a pragmatic synthesis from these arts and humanities repository data to this global common global ontology, which is a few sentences mixing about there.
How do we ensure that the metadata schema embraces parity for all research and we've still got that typo across disciplines? And how do we take these schema enabled repositories to be places where research is preserved, access discovered, most importantly, used and built upon? And on that note, we thank you very much, and we look forward to discussing this with you further.
Well, thank you, Adam, Jenny Allen and Rachel, for sharing your work, your overall focus on advancing open standards and many discussion points and call to action for future conversations. So let's get started. Now everyone. Please click the Join link to meet the panelists and I and our Zoom room for further discussion.
We've captured what's in the chat here and we look forward to talking to you for the remainder of our message.