francis at monod.Biol.McGill.CA (Francis Ouellette) writes:
>problems with:
>>Because of the copyright restrictions I
>>don't think that we can legally get into the game
>If only abstracts are pre-published ... maybe the journals would not
>care (as mentioned above). And what if this was the abstracts of
>soon_to_be_published articles?
This was my original intent, but I think that Don Gilbert and I can
work around the difficulties with an expanded format.
>3)
>>mentioned that the physicists are all using the TeX word processing
>this is a problem. Unlike other people in this group, _I_ do not use
>LaTex, or any other bouncy material =:-) ... seriously, I would learn
>it if it became the standard ... I have managed without so far ...
>maybe I am missing the boat, but from my limited experience on bionet,
>I can see that getting most biologist to use LaTex would be a
>challange, to say the least. BUT ... as a follow up to my example a
>few lines ago ... there are a lot of C. elegans people learning to use
>a Unix box, so they can use ACeDB ... so I guess the lesson here is to
>not underestimate the users!
Your attitude is more representative than Tom Schneider's I believe.
Having run BIONET and GOS previously and having trained many bench
scientists in the use of IG's software and even the Emacs editor, I
just don't see anything that is not WYSIWYG catching on in a big way.
I liked Don's RTF suggestion much better, but even here I would bet
that most MS Word users never knew that (1) this was an option and (2)
what it is used for.
>I must admit that I would have problems selling the idea to people on
>my floor. Not that I would not try, but it would be difficult.
>Maybe the C. elegans people should create their bionet group and try
>submitting their articles in such a forum ... what do the C. elegans
>people think of this?
Excellent suggestion. Is anyone from C. elegans reading this
newsgroup?
>>P.S. - Unfortunately nowhere in the Science article is there any
>>mention of what other scientists outside of physics are doing on the
>>net 8-(.
>Maybe this is your chance David to write a letter to Science and point
>this out to them?
They didn't print our last attempt but I think that you are right
here. I'll put together a letter. Maybe if several people do this at
least one of them will get in print 8-)!!
Dave
