Difference between revisions of "17.04.2014 BiolDiv"
(→BiOnym paper) |
m (→BiOnym paper) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
1 Introduction | 1 Introduction | ||
Finished. | Finished. | ||
| + | |||
2 Overview | 2 Overview | ||
Mainly Nicolas must complete that part. To be done first days of May. | Mainly Nicolas must complete that part. To be done first days of May. | ||
The goal is not to test all possible tools, but to detail only Tony Rees' Taxamatch and have a good understanding of BioVel workflow. | The goal is not to test all possible tools, but to detail only Tony Rees' Taxamatch and have a good understanding of BioVel workflow. | ||
| + | |||
3 The BiOnym Approach | 3 The BiOnym Approach | ||
| Line 32: | Line 34: | ||
PLEASE CHECK and remove if not relevant anymore: I did not note so I do not remember if Fabio had finished the part on matchers and matchlets at that time (?). | PLEASE CHECK and remove if not relevant anymore: I did not note so I do not remember if Fabio had finished the part on matchers and matchlets at that time (?). | ||
| − | + | - Subsection 3.7 Post processing | |
To be completed by Edward and Nicolas separating what should be here from what is the prospective for future work in the section Dicussion. | To be completed by Edward and Nicolas separating what should be here from what is the prospective for future work in the section Dicussion. | ||
| + | |||
4 Results | 4 Results | ||
| Line 40: | Line 43: | ||
To be reviewed. | To be reviewed. | ||
Nicolas said that except for proof reading, he will not comment on the content most probably. | Nicolas said that except for proof reading, he will not comment on the content most probably. | ||
| + | |||
5 Discussion | 5 Discussion | ||
Nicolas precised how the outline of the section is structured: | Nicolas precised how the outline of the section is structured: | ||
| − | + | - List of subjects to be treated in italics first, ... | |
| − | + | ||
| + | - ... that are reorganized + additions in a subsection outline after (so the same things are repeated). | ||
Edward suggests to leave as is until we have written the subsection. | Edward suggests to leave as is until we have written the subsection. | ||
| Line 50: | Line 55: | ||
In any case GP will wait for the first draft completed for revision. | In any case GP will wait for the first draft completed for revision. | ||
| + | |||
6 Conclusions | 6 Conclusions | ||
Revision as of 07:47, 24 April 2014
Meeting 17 April 2014, 11:00 am
Google Hangout
Present: Fabio, Nicolas, Edward, Lino, Anton Excused: Casey
When we say finished, it is about the content, not the layout that will be done when content is achieved.
Nicolas precised he cannot work on it before the end of April due to the final reporting for BioFresh.
BiOnym paper
- The paper was reviewed section by section.
1 Introduction Finished.
2 Overview
Mainly Nicolas must complete that part. To be done first days of May.
The goal is not to test all possible tools, but to detail only Tony Rees' Taxamatch and have a good understanding of BioVel workflow.
3 The BiOnym Approach
First draft completed.
Revised by Nicolas up to 3.4.
To be revised by Edward.
Review if some parts should not be in the discussion section. However as already noticed, it is a methodology paper that requires adaptations of the usual scientific paper outline. Moreover, it is a technical report and the usual outline may be recovered for scope-restricted journal articles.
PLEASE CHECK and remove if not relevant anymore: I did not note so I do not remember if Fabio had finished the part on matchers and matchlets at that time (?).
- Subsection 3.7 Post processing
To be completed by Edward and Nicolas separating what should be here from what is the prospective for future work in the section Dicussion.
4 Results
First draft completed.
To be reviewed.
Nicolas said that except for proof reading, he will not comment on the content most probably.
5 Discussion
Nicolas precised how the outline of the section is structured:
- List of subjects to be treated in italics first, ...
- ... that are reorganized + additions in a subsection outline after (so the same things are repeated). Edward suggests to leave as is until we have written the subsection.
Nicolas invites GP and Fabio to add their own subsections as necessary.
In any case GP will wait for the first draft completed for revision.
6 Conclusions
It is decided to limit the size of that section as the document is a technical report.
Conclusions may be more elaborated in a journal article.
- Deadline
The content of te document should be ready for May 15, 2014.
Next meetings
Thursday 24 April 2014, 11:00 am (changed since to 10:00 am) European time for discussion on the paper.
