I’m almost caught up!
We do have two days, if I remember
correctly, for revisions. So, as long as we get this in we have some time to
revise.
Is there anyone out there that hasn’;t
been added to the Google Docs and would still like to be?
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: public-semweb-lifesci-request w3.org
[mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-requestw3.org] On
Behalf Of William Bug
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:47 AM
To: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
Subject: correction: pending Soc.
for Neuro abstract - due: Tues. 5/15 by 5 PM EDT
Ooops - my bad.
Got my wires crossed with another meeting submission
I'm working.
I'd also add the last 8 hours of submission time tend
to be a really big problem. SfN in the past hasn't paid nearly enough for
the hosting service they use. There are ~15K presentations for 30K of
participants at a typical SfN annual meeting. You can imagine the sort of
last minute crunch that can cause. Last year, when trying to login in to
the abstract submission system on the last day (two phase login to actually get
to the content management/editing system), each phase of the login could take
> 20 minutes to return when you clicked on it, if it didn't time out
altogether.
; rules
for submission
; submission
instructions
Here's a new comment they've added this year to author
submission instructions:
"We strongly suggest that you enter the
submission site and begin your submission well in advance of the deadline. The
submission process is very detailed and requires the entry of very specific
information (including email addresses of co-authors and their conflict of
disclosure information). The primary cause of error in abstract submission
occurs when the user is not familiar with the submission site and must rush to
submit the work on the last day that the site is open.";
This means we're really going to have to resolve
authorship on Monday. I hope that's not impractical.
On May 13, 2007, at 1:07 AM, William Bug wrote:
Woohoo!!!
I wish I knew that last week when filing a grant
progress report. 
But seriously Kei, that's wonderful news.
To jump on the momentum bandwagon, on Don's request,
I've distilled the Banff presentations and written a SfN abstract (due this
Thu) combining that as best I could with a summary of what Matthias & Don
had written already.
SfN abstract limits are measured in characters (2300
chars - minus white space) - but including title, abstract, authors, and
address. This current summary at the top of the Google Doc we'd been
nurturing through last week (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgk2mvhp_0fmftbb)
is now up to ~3800 chars without authors and addresses (NOTE: citations are not
necessary, nor are they typical for SfN abstract submissions).
Right now, Don, Matthias, Alan, Susie, and I all have
access rights to the doc. Anyone wishing to participate, please don't
hesitate to ask to be added to the list of collaborators. All you need to
do is pass on an active Google account email, and any one of us can add you as
a collaborator. If you don't want "write" access but only want
to read what's there, you can be added as a 'viewer'. They've also
recently added the ability to add all the members of a mailing list as
collaborators or viewers (up to 200 people - and only 10 can edit simultaneously
- see http://docs.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=66343&topic=8628)
Hopefully, this summary abstract can provide a final
high-water mark from which over the next few days we can distill a trimmed
abstract coming in under the wire.
To be honest, I think we have enough here for 2 SfN
submissions - but I'm not certain yet how to split it - or whether we should
just trim it to one. We'd also need a second SfN member/sponsor to be
first author beyond what Don has committed to do for this abstract. I'm
committed on another abstract, and you can only be "presenting";/first
author on one abstract. "Presenting";/first authors must be SfN
full or student members.
We should also give some thought as to which sessions
we'd want to submit to, and whether we'd want to request to give a talk or a
poster. The typical thing when you have >1 submission on a related
research effort is to have one of each.
Congratulations again to all - both on the successful
Banff demo, Banff HCLS session, and the actual publication of the BMC
manuscript!
On May 12, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Kei Cheung wrote:
Adding to the milestones, the SWHCLS paper was just
officially published in the special issue "Semantic e-Science in
Biomedicine" of BMC Bioinformatics.
See the URL below.
Let's keep the momentum going!
Thanks to all who worked hard to pull this off!
It's hard to get the full impact just perusing the
slides, but it looks to me that you pulled together a very compelling demo that
examined several questions of biological relevance to neuroscientists studying
neurodegenerative disease (AD in particular).
I also really like the list breakdown of tools to
target different aspects of the overall development - e.g., Pellet, Jena,
Perfuse, etc.
I think this will be a fantastic base to build off for
ISMB (and SfN).
On May 11, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer
Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
Philadelphia, PA
19129
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological
Engineer
Laboratory
for Bioimaging ;& Anatomical Informatics
Department
of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel
University College of Medicine
Philadelphia,
PA 19129
Please
Note: I now have a new email - William.BugDrexelMed.edu">William.BugDrexelMed.edu
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological
Engineer
Laboratory
for Bioimaging ;& Anatomical Informatics
Department
of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel
University College of Medicine
Philadelphia,
PA 19129
Please
Note: I now have a new email - William.BugDrexelMed.edu">William.BugDrexelMed.edu
|
