Re: [Treebase-devel] ABI proposal for phyloinformatics

[Karen C. <kar...@ne...>]

Hilmar and I talked to Anne Maglia from NSF this morning. The notes
are on the "Pitches for TreeBASE_ABI" document (which is now editable
by anyone with the link, BTW). She did not see any major issues and
had plenty of advise on how to avoid common pitfalls when writing for
the ABI panel.

Summary:
1. Making the MIAPA component into a separate Innovation proposal is
probably a good idea.
2. The TreeBASE / ToLWeb piece is well-suited for a Development
proposal, and we can discuss MIAPA in this proposal as long as we have
a concrete contingency plan for the possibility that this gets funded
and the MIAPA proposal does not.
3. There is no general rule about incremental improvement vs major
re-engineering, but the goals of the proposal must be novel in some
way and have intellectual merit. A re-engineering proposal could be
computationally novel, while a proposal with only incremental
improvements must instead have novel interface components or strong
biological motivations.
4. There seems to be an empty niche for proposals that include novel
front-end as well as back-end development, but we need to make sure we
have the appropriate expertise for the former.
5. She suggests sharing the draft with someone from BIO (perhaps
Maureen Kearney) to get the user community perspective

Please fill out the doodle poll so that we can plan the next course of action!

Cheers,
Karen

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Hilmar Lapp <hl...@ne...> wrote:
> It looks like a response from NSF is still pending. There is not a lot of
> time left until the submission deadline, and I'll be out of commission for
> at least 7 days during that time starting Wed next week. So I suggest we
> start planning and get together independently of the NSF response to hash
> out over a conference call possible contributions and commitments. Here's a
> Doodle poll for scheduling.
>
> http://www.doodle.com/8zvwbidtxm9gzxcp
>
> To make sure that we can have a relatively targeted discussion, my
> suggestion would be that everyone who is willing to play a role in this
> proposal enter their availability, and come prepared for the following
> questions:
>
> 1. What aims would a proposal need to have to for you to commit to be part
> of it, and conversely, what aims should it not have. (Ideally, the aims
> would be from either pitch A or pitch B that Karen sent to NSF for
> feedback.)
>
> 2. What aims, expertise, and partners are we missing from the group. Do you
> have suggestions for how to pull those in.
>
> 3. What role are you interested in playing, for which aim(s). What kind and
> how many resources do you anticipate requiring support for to accomplish
> those aims.
>
> At the end of this, ideally we have a concrete sense for whether there are
> 0, 1, or 2 proposals that are viably going to come together, what size of
> proposal(s) we are talking about, who would take responsibility for what,
> and who else we need to reach out to.
>
> Comments / suggestions / additional items for the enumeration above welcome.
>
>        -hilmar
> --
> ===========================================================
> : Hilmar Lapp  -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :
> ===========================================================
>
>
>
>



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karen Cranston, PhD
Training Coordinator and Informatics Project Manager
nescent.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~