Reinhard Doelz doelz at
Mon Jun 6 12:53:21 EST 1994

In article <1994Jun6.103645.237 at>, macrides at (Foteos Macrides) writes:
|> In article <CMM. at>, biosci-help at NET.BIO.NET (BIOSCI Administrator) writes:

|> >  moderated mailing list / newsgroup / public  archive to  be created: 
|>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >[...]
|> >          Achievements  are  exposed  on a WWW server simultaneously. 
|>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >[...]
|> for the groups, particular things that are possible with the existing Web
|> software and protocols would have to be set up.  Would you mind spelling out,
|> more EXPLICITLY what those additional, PARTICULAR things, at THAT point in
|> time, would be?

Biologists in computer world face three problems.

(1) Awareness - 	where is a particular source
(2) Changes -		are the items improved
(3) Quality - 		are items still available. 

I cannot, both resoucrewise and tecnically, promise you heaven on earth. 
What we intended to was to get a discussion forum where people can post 
their contribution as _links_ rather than typing it all in. We would like
to be in between a listing which is most onformatiove (a la Keith) and a 
full-fledged page of every detail. 
I thought to generate scripts which can automatically verify that the 
links are still alive (certainly I can't do this manually), and I can 
via the vehicle of moderation classify messages on the basis of 
subject, and put those in different (searchable) pages. 

Let me clarify that I suggested to have moderated
because of the 'quality' issue. From the discussion I concluce that 
people would like to include gopher. As I can see we are not talking 
about the same, as there are administrator issues and user issues. 
The idea with www was more on the USER side to solve the catch 22 
problem on how does a www environment get updated without suggesting
that each of us is revisiting pages periodically. 


More information about the Bioforum mailing list