[Biopython-dev] BOSC 2012 - Biopython Update

[Peter Cock]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Eric Talevich <eric.talevich at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for this. I'll keep it as LaTeX, since it already looks nice.
>
> 1. Several parts say "[to be revised prior to BOSC]" -- I take it we
> have the option of updating our abstract shortly before BOSC, and this
> is a note to the conference organizers that we intend to do so? To
> save space and reduce distraction, should this be a footnote instead?

It is common for BOSC abstracts to be revised following review prior to
acceptance (almost like a tiny paper), and yes, that was my intention.
Do you think something like [to be revised during abstract review]
might be clearer? I think this makes a lot of sense for the project
update talks in particular - but that stage for example we'll have the
GSoC students selected.

> 2. To save space: Do we need the line "Bioinformatics Open Source
> Conference (BOSC) ..." after the author names?

I like it to make the page self contained, useful if we post it as a lone
PDF file. The text could be smaller certainly if required - likewise the
logo could be shrunk a little.

> 3. Again to save space, and make room to cite the Phylo paper: can we
> drop the citation for TogoWS, and add a few words of description in
> the main text where it's mentioned? (We don't cite PAML, HMMer, etc.)

Fair point, I was thinking in terms of audience recognition. PAML
and HMMer are quite well known and relatively old/mature.

If the Phylo paper is accepted in time to be added to abstract then
of course we'd want to include it. But right now using a couple of
lines for a 'submitted' citation seemed overkill to me. But if you can
get it to fit nicely, please go ahead.

> 4. How do you feel about dropping inline citations, and just have a
> list of \nocite references at the bottom? In a one-page abstract, it
> should be easy enough for readers to figure out what's what.

If you prefer, or use the [1] style?

Peter