CALL FOR DISCUSSION: BIO-WWW/bionet.software.www
doelz at comp.bioz.unibas.ch
Mon Jun 6 12:53:21 EST 1994
In article <1994Jun6.103645.237 at sci.wfeb.edu>, macrides at sci.wfeb.edu (Foteos Macrides) writes:
|> In article <CMM.0.90.2.770626592.kristoff at net.bio.net>, 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 bionet.software.www 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