Conference Call - Update

[Vincent, Leszek]

Hi again colleagues

Regarding the phone conference considered for next week - thanks for your responses. 

One change: I'd like to move it forward by 1 hour - to 3 p.m. (CST). Can  the rest of you accommodate this?? I'll email you the connection details later in the week (as before).

As mentioned in the email yesterday, I'd like the focus of this conference call to be on the proposal I'm drafting, for funding for the Plant Ontology Consortium, to be submitted to the NSF (by June 28). 

I've provided some 'Guiding Questions' below to facilitate the development of your contributions to the conference call. Besides being able to air your thoughts on these questions, the conf. call will probably stimulate other thoughts - you're encouraged to share these with me either after the call (email) or even before if that suits you better (email) of if you won't be able to participate in the conf. call (e.g. IRRI folk) - (email).

TAIR folk - I know that you aren't able to be collaborators of the POC at this time (although very much associated with the work of the POC). But I do want to keep you 'in the loop' of our ongoing dialogue. So feel free to 'listen in'. And do feel free to respond to any of the 'guiding questions' - your ongoing input is highly valued & much appreciated.

Attached to this note is a copy of the previous proposal to the NSF (sorry about the size!). The resubmission is likely to be significantly different although built, in part, on the previous (attached) proposal. Most of the pages probably don't need to be perused (sighs of relief...). Probably pages 1-8 (Project Description) & some of the Budget summary pages would be most appropriate for reading.

Guiding questions:

1. What evidence would you like to see included in the proposal (or linked to?) to demonstrate that we can go beyond a controlled vocabulary to a full ontology?

2. The previous submission was criticized for not including more of the GO philosophy in the proposal. What else of the GO philosophy do you think should be included to cancel this perception?

3. To quote from the Panel Summary of the previous submission: "There is a need to identify the major systems descriptions that will be revised or created de novo to cause a plant ontology to form." What's your response to this perceived "need"?

4. Please comment on what plans you would like to see in place to make the 'consortium' real.

5. I'll be structuring the budget so that it fits within (or close to within) the $500,000 figure. What components of the previous budget do you consider essential/should be kept? What new component(s) would you like to see included?

Thanks for your ongoing participation in the POC - pushing back the frontiers towards interoperability.

Sincerely,
- Leszek Vincent
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
P. Leszek D. Vincent Ph.D., FLS
Plant Science Unit, Dept. of Agronomy, 209 Curtis Hall,
University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211-7020, USA.
Ph: (573) 884-3716 (Agronomy); Fax:(573) 884-7850;
Ph/Fax (Home): (573) 441-1228; 
Email: Leszek at missouri.edu
Plant Systematist on the Maize Mapping Project - NSF award 9872655 -
(http://www.maizemap.org/ and  http://www.agron.missouri.edu/)
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Complete_POC_proposal.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1258496 bytes
Desc: Complete_POC_proposal.pdf
URL: <http://brie4.cshl.edu/pipermail/gramene/attachments/20020605/d6af248e/attachment.obj>