From: John Leggett (leggett_at_csdl.tamu.edu)
Date: Thu 02 Jul 1998 - 09:40:28 CDT
Yes, I would like to agree with Wendy also...
I think the demo should be explained for the community's benefit.
I can't quite figure out the best mechanism though...since the demo was done at this year's conference...and presumably since progress will be made by next year's conference....what do you report on? Last year's results, this year's results which built upon last year's results, or last year's results + an addendum for the progress made this year?
I think I would like to see a paper with pretty diagrams and clear explanations that would stand up to the peer review process ... and then if accepted (which I would think it would be if written well) the most appropriate outlet at the conference may be more as a Tech Briefing in a session by itself .... rather than one of three papers in a session.
So, I guess I am suggesting a paper (because, as you all knew already before the old fart's keynote, our literature is all that survives) and a tech briefing ... if the quality is there.
The authors of the paper could/should/might be the pricipals in the OHP/NAV protocol and demo effort, with all other OHSWG members cited in a footnote or better yet maybe in the acknowledgements. This is/will/could be a touchy subject ... my experience with Dexter tells me this ... BUT, I believe the message is important and fundamental to the field ... so these things should be worked out for the benefit of the field.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 13 Aug 2002 - 07:20:58 CDT