Subject: Alpha Draft -- Best I can do Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:04:44 -0500 From: Geoffrey Fox Reply-To: gcf@npac.syr.edu To: Joe Thompson , Willie Brown , Larry Dennis , Peter Dragovitsch , Ian Douglas , Carole Hayes , Chris Lacher , "Dr. Sara Stoecklin" , "James Turner Jr." , Roscoe Giles CC: Geoffrey Fox , Cecelia Farmer BCC: gcf@npac.syr.edu Thank you for all your contributions! I have put the current draft on the Web at http://www.new-npac.org/users/fox/disteditrproposal/alphadraft/draftmar31-00.html (disteditr passwd success) and attached Word Version Although it is rough, I think this version has drafts of all key sections and so we should be able to evolve to good final version! I will put on web before meeting Monday at Noon at FSU, all changes I get by 9 am Monday. Anything before noon Sunday appreciated as I will get before trip to Tallahassee Don't worry about length as too long at Font Size 12 (used for clarity) but OK at point size of 10. As expected, I think the main problem is lack of referencing (integration) between sections. Please review yours and other sections for this issue. Here are some quick suggestions 1) I think we probably do not use the "Courseware Repository" as an integrating idea as much as we should. It needs to be put in older sections. 2) Section 5.2 is nice but needs to reference earlier Sections 3) Section 6.1 needs Fox's results from Previous NSF 4) Section 6.4 needs to be made compatible with NSF "Previous Results" syntax 5) In general Section 6 needs to be made more uniform. I think some of nice material now in section 2.2 could go in sec. 6.1 as part of FSU description. 6) Then 2.2 could add more relating FSU testbed to our project. 7) We need to add some more references (present in end list) explicitly to text. Currently referencing not very uniform in density. I can fix non uniform style but can't add references to others sections. 8) Other sections need to refer more to 3.1 and 3.2 and vice versa 9) Need some discussion of NSF PACI EOT and relevance 10) I wonder if we should include either in section 6 and in senior personnel the initial NBCU's apart from FAMU JSU This is Morgan, North Carolina A T and T, Elizabeth City, Moehouse, Spelmann 11) Please suggest section 4 improvements. Should I add a "system architecture" picture. Is it too obaque/lost at end of proposal? 12) Do we need more in Sections 5.1 and 5.3/ Perhaps Roscoe could enhance 5.3 with EOT words thank you --------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: draftmar31-00.doc draftmar31-00.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword) Encoding: base64