[Biopython-dev] BOSC 2012 - Biopython Update

Eric Talevich eric.talevich at gmail.com
Fri Apr 13 15:40:06 UTC 2012

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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

Here's an updated draft. How does it look?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Biopython_BOSC_abstract_2012_draft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 262728 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython-dev/attachments/20120413/7c3bda8f/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Biopython_BOSC_abstract_2012_draft.tex
Type: application/x-tex
Size: 5573 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython-dev/attachments/20120413/7c3bda8f/attachment-0002.tex>

More information about the Biopython-dev mailing list