Search

This presentation was delivered at Open Repositories 2023 Conference as part ofPanel 5: Supporting Trusted OA Usage Data Reporting and Analytics through Shared Infrastructure.

The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) will soon upload its 60 millionth page of open access biodiversity literature onto the BHL website and the BHL's Internet Archive Collection. The BHL’s massive repository of free knowledge includes content that is available nowhere else online, as well as accessible versions of content that are locked behind paywalls elsewhere. If we are to continue to expand our understanding of life on Earth, we must ensure that the foundation of biodiversity knowledge provided by BHL is discoverable by the tools we rely on to navigate the ever-expanding internet. These tools – search engines and their algorithms – preferentially deliver (and rank) content with good metadata and persistent identifiers (PIDs). In modern online publishing, PID assignment and linking happens at the point of publication: DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) for publications, ORCIDs (Open Researcher and Contributor IDs) for people, and RORs (Research Organization Registry IDs) for organisations. The DOI system provided by Crossref (the DOI registration agency for scholarly content) delivers reciprocal citations, enabling convenient clicking from article to article, and citation tracking, enabling authors and institutions to track the impact and reach of their research output. Publications that lack PIDs, which include the vast majority of legacy literature, are hard to find and sit outside the linked network of scholarly research. This makes it nearly impossible to determine whether they are being cited, let alone viewed, mentioned, shared or liked. At TDWG 2020, Page 2020, Kearney 2020, Richard 2020 (and 2019, Page 2019b, Page 2019a, Kearney 2019b, Kearney 2019a and 2018, Kearney 2018), we emphasised the need to bring the historic biodiversity literature into the modern linked network of scholarly research. In October 2020, BHL launched a new working group to do exactly this. The BHL Persistent Identifier Working Group (Team #RetroPID) brings together expertise from across BHL’s global community. Over the past year, we have worked tirelessly to make it easier to find, cite, link, share and track the content on BHL, adding article-level metadata to journals and retrospectively assigning DOIs (#RetroPIDs). Most importantly, we have developed the tools and documentation that will enable the entire BHL community to take contributed content from “just” accessible to persistently discoverable. This paper will detail our efforts to retrofit the historic literature (a square peg) into the modern PID system (a round hole) and will present both the achievements and the challenges of this important work.

In recent years, researchers, librarians, publishers and funding bodies have come to realise the importance and potential of using Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for data to support Wilkinson’s FAIR principles of data. The DOI system was originally developed to provide persistent linking for citable and traceable referencing to static datasets in scholarly literature. Nowadays, DOIs and other persistent identifiers can also be assigned to dynamic datasets and data products and used as a means to recognise, acknowledge and reward the originators of the data. Initial metrics available for data citation allow data providers to demonstrate, justify, motivate and account for the value of the data collected by institutions and individual scientists. The South African Radio Astronomy Observatory (SARAO) has become interested in using dataset DOIs as a tool to accelerate its data visibility, discovery, usability, usage reporting and acknowledgement. A pilot project for the attribution of DOIs to SARAO’s datasets in radio astronomy, fundamental astronomy and geodesy is currently under way. Objectives of this project are to develop user-friendly systems towards data discovery and visibility, thereby ensuring usability and acknowledgement via the DOI-linked citation while providing SARAO with a usage reporting tool. In addition, methods of linking our publications with our datasets are being devised. We present progress made with the pilot project and wish to create awareness of the advancement of open data and open science platforms in radio astronomy, fundamental astronomy and geodesy, both locally and internationally, in the use of DOIs as persistent identifiers., {"references":["Australian Research Data Commons. 2019. Digital object identifier (DOI) system for research data. https://ardc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Digital_Object_Identifier_DOI_System_for_Research_Data.pdf","Bruyninx, C. 2021. FAIR Assessment metrics. FAIR-GNSS. National Funding for 2021-2022 [presentation]. Adapted from Devaraju, et al. (2020). FAIRs FAIR Data Object Assessment Metrics (Version 0.4). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4081213","Elger, K., Coetzer, G., Botha, R. and GGOS DOI WG. 2020. Why do geodetic data need DOIs? First ideas of the GGOS DOI working group. EGU General Assembly. https://www.egu2020.eu/","National Research Council. 2012. For Attribution: Developing Data Attribution and Citation Practices and Standards: Summary of an International Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13564","Wilkinson, M. D. et al. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Science Data, 3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18"]}

L’attribution d’un identifiant pérenne – c’est-à-dire d’un DOI – à un jeu de données nécessite quelques prérequis. La fiche intitulée « Les bonnes pratiques en matière de DOI à l’Observatoire de Paris » explique ce qu’est un DOI, à quoi il ressemble et présente les différentes métadonnées qu’il faudra renseigner pour attribuer un DOI à des données.

The first description and illustration of the duck-billed platypus appeared in the scientific literature in 1799. Since its international debut, the platypus has fascinated the scientific community. The past 200 years of scholarly literature is peppered with journal articles containing taxonomic revisions and details of the bizarre biology and behaviour of this paradoxical species. Yet, despite the fact that much of this historic literature is now accessible online, it is almost impossible to find. This is because, unlike contemporary scientific publications, much of the digitised historical literature lacks article-level citation data and digital object identifiers (DOIs). This paper will detail the work the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) is undertaking to bring the world’s historic literature into the modern linked network of scholarly research. It will present three case studies – three “lost” platypus articles from three very different publications – to demonstrate how the retrospective registration of DOIs is critical to making legacy literature discoverable, citable and trackable. This paper will also discuss the responsibility and accountability that comes with assigning DOIs, including best practice for out-of-copyright and orphaned content, and the issues that arise when the definitive (DOI’d) versions of public domain journal articles are locked behind paywalls.

The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) is a global consortium of over 460 contributors who have specifically chosen the BHL as the online platform to host their digitised biodiversity heritage literature. In 2018, staff from BHL Australia (a project funded by the Atlas of Living Australia and hosted by Museums Victoria) travelled across the Tasman Sea to work with the Auckland War Memorial Museum (Tāmaki Paenga Hira) to start a new branch of the BHL – BHL New Zealand. The Auckland War Memorial Museum has a novel approach when it comes to its own online content. They believe that the best way to amplify their collections is not via their own website, but via external collaborations. Acknowledging that their own website cannot best serve the many different types of content they curate and create, they seek the external platforms that can – platforms that have the specific functionality required to make each type of content findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR), and that will reach and impact the greatest audience. When the Auckland Museum was seeking the best platform for their biodiversity heritage literature, they were attracted by the BHL's functionality (such as Full Text Search, Optical Character Recognition and Global Names Recognition and Discovery); the extended discoverability and interoperability enabled via the BHL's partnerships (such as with the Encyclopedia of Life, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, and the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities); and BHL's massive audience. However, the BHL is not the only platform hosting biodiversity heritage literature. Commercial publishers are rapidly uploading the back issues of the journals they host. There are now thousands of out-of-copyright journal articles on websites such as Wiley Online Library and Taylor & Francis Online. Historic literature is not the primary focus for these publishers, but the functionality they provide for journal articles has brought the historic publications they host into the modern linked network of scholarly research. Every article on their websites, whether it was published 200 years ago or today, receives a Digital Object Identifier (a DOI). A DOI is a unique permanent identifier assigned to a piece of online content (usually) at the time of its publication – a persistent link that should be included in every citation of that piece of content. In an ideal world, the DOI system would enable readers to link from article to article in a never-ending trail of knowledge. However, a significant proportion of our historic literature still sits outside this linked network, representing dead ends (or at least annoying setbacks) in the quest for information. The other invaluable benefit of DOIs is that they provide citation metrics, allowing authors, publishers and institutions to track the use and impact of their publications. The historic literature is the foundation upon which our understanding of biodiversity is based. It is critical that this foundation is easily discoverable, openly accessible, persistently linkable and unambiguously trackable. The BHL – the world's largest online library of biodiversity heritage literature – has an enormous role to play in ensuring that this literature is brought into the DOI system, and that publishers and researchers continue to have the option of an online platform that not only provides the best functionality for biodiversity heritage literature, but also open access to it.

Report for The Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) Data avalaible at:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2643367 Research into publication cultures commissioned by VSNU and carried out by Utrecht University Library has detailed university output beyond just journal articles, as well as the possibilities to assess open access levels of these other output types. For all four main fields reported on, the use of publication types other than journal articles is indeed substantial. For Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities in particular (with over 40% and over 60% of output respectively not being regular journal articles) looking at journal articles only ignores a significant share of their contribution to research and society. This is not only about books and book chapters, either: book reviews, conference papers, reports, case notes (in law) and all kinds of web publications are also significant parts of university output. Analyzing all these publication forms and especially determining to what extent they are open access is currently not easy. Even combining some the largest citation databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions) leaves out a lot of non-article content and in some fields even journal articles are only partly covered. Lacking metadata like affiliations and DOIs (either in the original documents or in the scholarly search engines) makes it even harder to analyze open access levels by institution and field. Using repository-harvesting databases like BASE and NARCIS in addition to the main citation databases improves understanding of open access of non-article output, but these routes also have limitations. The report has recommendations for stakeholders, mostly to improve metadata and coverage and apply persistent identifiers.

This presentation was delivered on Day 2 of the Authority Management of People Names workshop at theMobilising Data, Policies and Experts in Scientific Collections Meeting, in Sofia, Bulgaria (12-13 March 2019). &nbsp

Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) have revolutionised the way we locate, access, cite, share and track scholarly content. Every journal article that receives a DOI becomes part of a great linked network of research. Efforts are now being made to bring the historic literature, much of which is now online, into this linked network. However, as there are no rules or guidelines around registering DOIs for out-of-copyright content, this is raising serious issues around access. Crossref’s Member Obligationsstate that “You must have the necessary rights for the content you register”. There is no mention of how members should proceed if there are no rights. This means that, under the current DOI system, anyone can assign a DOI to an out-of-copyright journal article, and there is nothing stopping them from putting “their” DOI’d version of that out-of-copyright article behind a paywall. The major scholarly commercial publishers have now uploaded and assigned DOIs to thousands of out-of-copyright articles, many going back as far as the 1700s. If you want to access them, you need to pay (these include articles byCharles DarwinandAlfred Russell Wallace). In many cases, open access versions of this content exist on other websites (such as on theBiodiversity Heritage Library), but anyone citing these articles must quote the DOI (as per their Crossref agreements) and thus point their readers to the versions behind paywalls. There is no doubt that bringing this historic literature into the DOI system has made it infinitely more discoverable, citable and trackable, but at what cost?

The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) is a global consortium of over 460 contributors who have specifically chosen the BHL as the online platform to host their digitised biodiversity heritage literature. In 2018, staff from BHL Australia (a project funded by the Atlas of Living Australia and hosted by Museums Victoria) travelled across the Tasman Sea to work with the Auckland War Memorial Museum (Tāmaki Paenga Hira) to start a new branch of the BHL – BHL New Zealand. The Auckland War Memorial Museum has a novel approach when it comes to its own online content. They believe that the best way to amplify their collections is not via their own website, but via external collaborations. Acknowledging that their own website cannot best serve the many different types of content they curate and create, they seek the external platforms that can – platforms that have the specific functionality required to make each type of content findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR), and that will reach and impact the greatest audience. When the Auckland Museum was seeking the best platform for their biodiversity heritage literature, they were attracted by the BHL’s functionality (such as Full Text Search, Optical Character Recognition and Global Names Recognition and Discovery); the extended discoverability and interoperability enabled via the BHL’s partnerships (such as with the Encyclopedia of Life, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, and the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities); and BHL’s massive audience. However, the BHL is not the only platform hosting biodiversity heritage literature. Commercial publishers are rapidly uploading the back issues of the journals they host. There are now thousands of out-of-copyright journal articles on websites such as Wiley Online Library and Taylor & Francis Online. Historic literature is not the primary focus for these publishers, but the functionality they provide for journal articles has brought the historic publications they host into the modern linked network of scholarly research. Every article on their websites, whether it was published 200 years ago or today, receives a Digital Object Identifier (a DOI). A DOI is a unique permanent identifier assigned to a piece of online content (usually) at the time of its publication – a persistent link that should be included in every citation of that piece of content. In an ideal world, the DOI system would enable readers to link from article to article in a never-ending trail of knowledge. However, a significant proportion of our historic literature still sits outside this linked network, representing dead ends (or at least annoying setbacks) in the quest for information. The other invaluable benefit of DOIs is that they provide citation metrics, allowing authors, publishers and institutions to track the use and impact of their publications. The historic literature is the foundation upon which our understanding of biodiversity is based. It is critical that this foundation is easily discoverable, openly accessible, persistently linkable and unambiguously trackable. The BHL – the world’s largest online library of biodiversity heritage literature – has an enormous role to play in ensuring that this literature is brought into the DOI system, and that publishers and researchers continue to have the option of an online platform that not only provides the best functionality for biodiversity heritage literature, but also open access to it.

Wikipedia may have become the world’s principal source of information, but it is not a reliable source. Wikipedia itself is quite explicit on this point. The Wikipedia article entitled Wikipedia is not a reliable source clearly states that, because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, at any time, “any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong” (Wikipedia 2019a). Despite this, Wikipedia continues to gain status as a trusted authority on, well, everything. It does not, however, have authority on its own; it has authority because it links to authoritative sources. Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy (Wikipedia 2019b) states that: all material in its articles should be “attributable to reliable and published sources”; and all quotations and any material likely to be challenged “must be supported by inline citations”. all material in its articles should be “attributable to reliable and published sources”; and all quotations and any material likely to be challenged “must be supported by inline citations”. This does not mean that Wikipedia is always right; rather (according to the Wikipedia article Wikipedia is wrong) that “the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth” (Wikipedia 2019c). What this does mean is that Wikipedia is riddled with citations to the primary literature. Thus, articles about the world’s species reference taxonomic descriptions (and subsequent revisions), as well as scientific papers about physiology, evolution, behaviour, ecology, conservation, etc. In order “to facilitate the verification of sourced statements”, Wikipedia’s Scientific Citation Guidelines encourage editors to, wherever possible, include links to scientific articles in the form of DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) (Wikipedia 2019d). A DOI is a unique, permanent and persistent identifier that is assigned to a fixed piece of online content (usually) at the time of its publication. The DOI system creates a reciprocal linked network of scholarly publications that allows researchers to click from article to article in a never-ending trail of knowledge (whether those articles are in scientific journals or on Wikipedia). This linked network functions seamlessly for modern scientific publications, because DOIs have been almost universally adopted by scientific publishers. But issues arise when it comes to linking to historic publications. Historic literature is the foundation upon which our understanding of biodiversity is based. If Wikipedia is the world’s gateway to that literature, Wikipedia editors must be able to find it and link to it. This presentation will discuss the complexities involved in linking from Wikipedia to the legacy scientific literature, particularly the availability of that literature online, the difference between easy and open access, and what the bioinformatics community can do to help.

Overview of Purdue Libraries infrastructure, resources and partnership roles.

Research information is useful only if it can be shared—with other researchers, with research organizations (institutions, laboratories, funders and others), and with the wider community. In our digital age, that means sharing information between data systems. Persistent identifiers (PIDs) provide unique keys for people, places and things, which enables accurate mapping of information between these systems and supports the research process by facilitating search, discovery, recognition and collaboration. This article reviews the main PIDs used in research—digital object identifiers for publications, ORCID iDs for researchers, and a proposed new identifier for research organizations—as well as demonstrating how they are being used, and how, in combination, they can increase trust in research and the research infrastructure., Persistent identifiers enable trusted connections between researchers, their publications and their organizations that ultimately build trust in research, reducing the potential for errors and saving researchers time and hassle.

Digital research objects are packets of information that scientists can use to organize and store their data. There are currently many different methods in use for optimizing digital objects for research purposes. These methods have been applied to many scientific disciplines but differ in architecture and approach. The goals of this joint digital research object (DRO) conference were to discuss the challenge of characterizing DROs at scale in volume and over time and possible organizing principles that might connect current DRO architectures. One of the primary challenges concerns convincing scientists that these tools and practices will actually make the research process easier and more fruitful. This conference included work from CENDI, the National Federal STI Managers Group, the National Federation of Advanced Information Services (NFAIS), the Research Data Alliance (RDA), and the National Academy of Science (NAS).

This paper describes analysis undertaken by UNSW Library for assigning Digital Object Identifiers to grey literature. As a ‘trusted identifier’, DOIs assist tracking and relating research artefacts, but their assignment carries responsibilities that affect workflow options. Factors to be considered include the scope of repositories and resource types, request and minting mechanisms, DOI display within landing pages and files, and restrictions on items assigned a DOI. This paper includes an environmental scan of relevant international DOI services for grey literature and outlines a model whereby requests are reviewed and actioned by Library staff. The service is provided through a web application that allows students or staff to submit DOI requests for grey literature deposited in a UNSW repository. Library staff are then able to review the submission, mint a DOI, and update the record. In addition, trusted partners within the institution have access to Mint functionality. The submission process makes the user aware of DOI conditions and the subsequent workflow meets requirements for DOI assignment, including that objects assigned a DOI be a citable, enduring part of the scholarly record. The service balances ease of use by researchers, interoperability with existing systems, and flexibility to cater to existing and future use cases.

This paper is the first in a series of best practice documents produced by Research Data Canada that will be combined with other outputs from RDC and other organizations to provide a foundation and roadmap leading towards a comprehensive national framework for research data management in Canada. It is intended to provide an overview of the current landscape of research PIDs, and will provide insights into their role in developing a more cohesive virtual research environment, supporting the preservation, discoverability, and reuse of research information. The aims of this paper are to: provide all readers, regardless of expertise, with a better understanding of the role of unique identifiers; identify best practices in the international research data management community that facilitate the development of robust and sustainable systems for identifying and linking research outputs; describe the current state of adoption of PIDs in Canada and internationally; offer recommendations to the Canadian research community about the adoption of PIDs in various contexts.

The classification of living things depends upon the literature. Access to this literature is essential to taxonomic research and to our understanding of biodiversity. There have been tremendous efforts to digitise the world’s biodiversity literature; the Biodiveristy Heritage Library (BHL) alone has uploaded over 54 million pages, all of which is freely accessible online. Our scientific literature is far more accessible than it has ever been, but that does not mean it is easily discoverable. Much of the taxonomic literature online remains outside the linked network of scholarly research. But that is rapidly changing. Taxonomic aggregators are an invaluable source of authoritative information on species names and their hierarchical classification. It is critical that this information includes citations for taxonomic descriptions, that these citations link to the published literature online and that (wherever possible) the citations include DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers). The DOI is an essential part of a publication’s bibliographic metadata and should be included (as a live link) in any reference to that content. However, the definitive (DOI’d) versions of recent publications are frequently behind paywalls. And, while much of the historic literature available online is open access, commercial publishers are uploading out-of-copyright publications onto their own websites, assigning DOIs to “their” definitive versions (the versions that must be cited in other publications, as per DOI requirements) and then locking the defintiive versions behind paywalls. This is perfectly within their rights. DOIs may be assigned to legacy publications retrospectively, providing that: a) the party assigning them owns the rights for the content, or has permission from the rights holder to assign a DOI, and b) the publication does not already have a DOI. If there are no rights attached to a piece of content, anyone can assign a DOI to it. This means that citation traffic from the bibliographies of current publications is increasingly directed towards commercial publishers’ websites, rather than towards open access versions, such as those freely available on the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL). However, taxonomic aggregators are not bound by the same obligations as publishers and may therefore choose to link to any online version of a publication (although the DOI should still be included in the citation). Many taxonomic aggregators link to the literature available on BHL. The taxonomic name profiles in EOL (Encyclopedia of Life), GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) and ALA (Atlas of Living Australia) each contain a BHL bibliography: a list of links to the pages in BHL that contain an identified mention of that taxon name. However, the lists of returned results can be long, and they may or may not include the citations for accepted names, synonyms and taxon concepts. Some biodiversity aggregators feature these key citations on the names pages (or tabs) of taxon profiles. However, where these do exist, they are usually plain text rather than links. BHL is now registering DOIs for the content it hosts and is creating landing pages for articles, containing the full bibliographic metadata, including (where applicable) the DOI. Articles are now discoverable by article title, keywords within titles (scientific names, locations, traits, etc.), author names and DOIs, and can be easily linked to (via their landing pages) by other parties. This paper will examine the issues, benefits and complexities associated with linking to definitive versions, the difference between easy and open access, the ethics of putting out-of-copyright content behind paywalls, and the future of creating order amongst the massively expanding resource of literature online.

This paper gives a work in progress report on the application of the TIB|AV Portal for audiovisual OSGeo content. The portal is a web-based platform for audiovisual media combining state-of-the art multimedia analysis with semantic based analysis, and retrieval. It meets the requirements by special libraries for reliable long term preservation, scientific citation via persistent identifiers, and applies metadata enhancement to enable innovative services for search and retrieval.

Rapid growth in the availability and use of digital documents has prompted the development of instruments to handle them. A most important example of these instruments are digital identifiers, which provide a codification system that allows digital items, usually up to the level of a computer file, to be singled out and located. Digital identifiers make up standardized global systems applied to specific products or areas. They are part of the very many identifiers developed to handle large numbers of items and large amounts of information for transactional purposes, which often have a global span. Digital identifiers include the ubiquitous Global Trade Item Number (GTIN), a code that unequivocally identifies trade items all around the world. The GTIN can take on several configurations depending on its application. These include: EAN-13, EAN-8, EAN-14, and UCC-12. EAN-13 is the code used for retail products in order to facilitate trade at the point of sale; its widely known symbol or graphical form is the EAN/UPC-13 bar code...

Researchers and the organizations that support research are stymied by data that are inconsistently specified. Incentives to share data go together with mechanisms to support interoperability. Both are starting to gain traction with the development and implementation of shared standards in research data exchange. The Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI) provides a peer-reviewed, open dictionary of terminology for the semantics and record-structures of research information. ORCID provides a persistent registry for researchers to obtain a unique identifier and, like CASRAI, works with the community to embed these identifiers in research workflows. Coupled with the CERIF model, which has been adopted as a structural model for research management systems by the European Commission, and CrossRef publication and DataCite dataset identifiers, these underlying exchange standards and services comprise a framework that supports open access and acknowledgement of researcher contributions. In this paper we describe a recent effort to ensure that information exchanged between systems meet the needs of both researchers and data consumers.

Keele, B. J. (2010). A primer on digital object identifiers for law librarians. Trends in Law Library Management and Technology, 20, 35-40.

Our project aims to uncover accessibility to PubMed's contents. By downloading all PubMed metadata, enriching it with missing DOIs and confronting it to our e-journal and paper collection and Open Access tools we dissect the full-text accessibility at our institution: How does the library fare, with its online subscriptions and paper collections of journals? And which portion of PubMed is accessible to the general public via Open Access (OA)?

The PID graph falls apart when it comes to legacy literature (pretty much everything pre-2000). The vast majority of historic publications lack DOIs. This means they sit outside the linked research infrastructure of modern publications, appearing in reference lists as unlinked citations (strings not things) or not at all, because they are too hard for authors to find and/or cite. The upshot of this is that our historic literature is falling into obscurity. The same is true for historic researchers. ORCIDS must be self-administered, which means they cannot be assigned to dead people. This makes it impossible to connect and track the academic output of historic individuals (and their organisations) using ORCIDs, currently the only author identifier accepted by Crossref. In 2020, the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) launched a global working group to tackle this issue — to bring the world's biodiversity heritage literature into the modern lined network of scholarly research. PIDs have the potential to make the historic literature infinitely more discoverable. But the old literature is a square peg; it doesn't fit comfortably into the shiny round hole of modern PIDs. This session will discuss the challenges, issues and solutions around retrospectively assigning PIDs to the old stuff (and will showcase the platypuses we've discovered along the way).