drake@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (John Drake) (09/13/90)
I would like some brief information about bionet. It seems to me that there is an organization of some sort behind the bionet. newsgroups, and it is this organization that I would like to know more about. Is it formal, does it have meetings, who can I contact etc etc
gilbertd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Don Gilbert) (09/15/90)
In my view, _this_ is bionet, an electronic medium of newsgroups for information exchange for research biologists. There is no physical organization in a building somewhere (although many people and computers around the world are involved). Usenet, originally a news network of and for Unix users, is the main electronic "organization" in which bionet news exists. Dave Kristofferson of Intelligenetics has been the main force behind organizing and maintaining these bionet groups, with help from others such as Rob Harper, in the 2 years that I've been reading the groups. There was an goverment-sponsored computing resource called Bionet which included these newsgroups, a central computer with molecular biology computing resources, and other services, which was run by Intelligenetics. This larger resource reorganized about 1 year ago; now the bionet newsgroups have achieved an independent life inside of Usenet and world-wide internet of electronic news. -- Don Don.Gilbert@Iubio.Bio.Indiana.Edu biocomputing office, indiana univ., bloomington, in 47405, usa
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (09/15/90)
BIONET was formerly the National Computer Resource for Molecular Biology, a timesharing service run by IntelliGenetics, Inc. for the NIH. As part of its service, BIONET ran a series of bulletin boards and gatewayed them into USENET under the bionet heirarchy. Later BIONET merged with SEQNET in the U.K. and BIOTECH at UMDC to form the international BIOSCI network which is currently a collaborative effort between GenBank at IntelliGenetics (which took over the newsgroups from BIONET after the BIONET grant ended in 1989), SERC labs in Daresbury, U.K., the Biomedical Center at the University of Uppsala, Sweden, and the University College Dublin. Even though BIOSCI is the new name of the network, for technical reasons the names of the USENET groups remained under the bionet heirarchy. There is no formal organization running BIOSCI; just a group of dedicated souls who stay in contact by electronic mail and oversee operations at the four main distribution sites. You can contact people at each site through the following addresses if you have questions about BIOSCI/bionet. Address Location Network ------- -------- ------- biosci@irlearn.ucd.ie Ireland EARN/BITNET biosci@uk.ac.daresbury U.K. JANET biosci@bmc.uu.se Sweden Internet biosci@genbank.bio.net U.S.A. Internet/BITNET The last address in the list directs mail to me. -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net
UNASMITH@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Una Smith) (09/16/90)
John Drake asks:
I would like some brief information about bionet. It seems
to me that there is an organization of some sort behind the
bionet. newsgroups, and it is this organization that I
would like to know more about. Is it formal, does it have
meetings, who can I contact etc etc
Perhaps the bionet newsgroups are ready for a discussion of what they
(we) are, and their purpose. I hope so, since I'd like to talk about
these issues. Over the past year I have received a subscription list
about conservation biology. For some reason that I can not guess, this
conservation list, CONSLINK, has been a virtually lifeless portal through
which trickles press releases. My two small attempts to start a topic
died quick deaths; the only responses I received made some comment on
the fact that I had posted something, but had nothing else to say.
Bionet, on the otherhand, has been somewhat more lively, although it
continues to be a vehicle for polite requests for help with (1) using
the network itself, (2) tracking down references, and (3) getting off
subscription lists. Of course, this is a generalization, but I think
it is fair to say that the bionet newsgroups could become much more than
they are now, should the participants wish them to do so.
Any comments? Should I go on, or does everyone just want to get the
job at hand done, and leave the philosophical discussions to the coffee-
shop crowd?
- Una
- Una UNASMITH@PUCC : BITNET
unasmith@pucc.Princeton.EDU : Internet
una@tropic.Princeton.EDU : Internetsteffen@merlin.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen) (09/17/90)
In article <11731@pucc.Princeton.EDU> UNASMITH@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: > >Perhaps the bionet newsgroups are ready for a discussion of what they >(we) are, and their purpose. I hope so, since I'd like to talk about >these issues...Bionet ... continues to be a vehicle for polite >requests for help... I think it is fair to say that the bionet >newsgroups could become much more than they are now... Any comments? I, for one, enthusiastically encourage such discussions. Perhaps someday the bionet newsgroups will become so busy that such discussions will become an annoyance, but in my opinion that is far from true at present. Further, I think that > 80% of the readership of these groups are computer enthusiasts. That is, I think the readership (or at least those who post) is not broad based nor is it representative of the biological community. This has a couple of consequences: 1) The potential usefulness of the groups is limited by the absence of a critical mass of expert opinion. 2) Thus, it is in the interest of those of us who use these groups to discuss how to make them so easy to use that anyone can use them and so useful that this critical mass will be FORCED to take part, just for professional survival. 3) Being that most of us are computer enthusiasts, we are the people who would be most interested in thinking about the problem. These was a mini-discussion (micro-discussion?) of some of these issues on bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts a few weeks back. One issue raised there is that access to the groups still is a bit too user-hostile to make joining by the people whose expertese is in biology not computers. A second was how one should best respond to questions so as to minimize noise (noise?) while maximizing information flow. The consensus reached is that for many questions, the appropriate approach was: 1) Post the question, requesting response by email. 2) The questioner should collect, summarize and post the response for general edification. This seems to work rather well. An area of difficulty which remains for me is access to collections of data; both deliberate collections, such as Dr. Richard Roberts restriction enzyme database (for the helpful among you, you don't need to post or send me instructions, I know how to do this, its just rather clumsy and I have to look it up how to do it every time and frequently I just don't bother) as well as past issues of messages. It would be better yet if the past issues could be edited and summarized by someone and made available in a very trivial way. As David Kristofferson would/will be quick to point out, all of these desiderata cost money that the government is loath to provide. -David Steffen-
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (09/18/90)
> Bionet, on the otherhand, has been somewhat more lively, although it > continues to be a vehicle for polite requests for help with (1) using > the network itself, (2) tracking down references, and (3) getting off > subscription lists. Of course, this is a generalization ... Instead of a generalization, I would say that this is a falsehood. Anyone who regularly follows, for example, the METHODS or BIO-SOFTWARE newsgroups will see a lot of useful information exchange going on even though all of the responses are not always posted to everyone. Although some BIOSCI groups are inactive, your characterization of the newsgroups as a "generalization" is unfair. Una, you have approached me about this CONSLINK issue in the past and my response remains the same. Anyone is free to propose a new newgroup by sending a proposal to BIONEWS at any time. We request only that the proposer only have sufficient interest to be prepared to serve as a moderator (in the sense of someone who stimulates discussion ... we do the newsgroup maintenance.). The proposal is then put out to a vote. If it gets 40 votes in 60 days we create the group. In the case of CONSLINK my feeling is that conservation, although a worthy topic, has not attracted a big following in this arena. Our one attempt on BIOSCI in this area, the BIO-CONVERSION newsgroup, has fallen close to the bottom of the list in activity and will be shutdown in the not-too-distant future. Furthermore, the fact that you have not been able to get a discussion going in CONSLINK's other format (a BITNET mailing list if I recall?) does not make me optimistic for its success here either. However, it is not my opinion but the vote of our users which decides these things. If you want to start a CONSLINK newsgroup, send in your proposal along with your agreement to moderate it and we'll put it out to a vote. -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net
clark@mshri.utoronto.ca (09/19/90)
David Steffen writes (in response to a comment that the bionet newsgroups could become a vehicle for more interesting discussions than now occur): [Original posting deleted] [first part of response deleted] } These was a mini-discussion (micro-discussion?) of some of these }issues on bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts a few weeks back. One issue }raised there is that access to the groups still is a bit too }user-hostile to make joining by the people whose expertese is in }biology not computers. A second was how one should best respond to }questions so as to minimize noise (noise?) while maximizing }information flow. The consensus reached is that for many questions, }the appropriate approach was: }1) Post the question, requesting response by email. }2) The questioner should collect, summarize and post the response for }general edification. }This seems to work rather well. Let me add my two bits worth. I vaguely recall this discussion, but I don't remember that the conclusion was as clear cut as this. If it was, I should have spoken up then. Have you ever been to a seminar where, during the question period at the end, a member of the audience gets up to ask a question of the speaker, then finishes it off by saying "Don't give the answer out loud so everyone else can hear it; write it on a slip of paper and pass it to me later!"? These newsgroups should be like large round-table discussions, where everyone has a chance to say their piece, and hear what other people have said. Often, in other newsgroups (for example, info-vax on Bitnet), a question arises for which several people respond, each with a different but equally valid solution. Often someone proposes a solution that is, shall we say, sub-optimal, and someone else replies to point out the flaw or an unanticipated side effect. Often a question is asked that I would like to know the answer to as well. If all the responses go to the original poster, rather than to the newsgroup as a whole, all these opportunities for information exchange are lost. Consider the current thread of discussion. If none of the responses to the person who first asked about Bionet had been to the net, this discussion about how they should be used would never have arisen. To summarize, please please please always respond to the net, not to the original poster (or at least as well as to the original poster). To address the other two points raised by David, one way to cut down on the 'noise' is to not quote the whole original posting and all the replies to it. Just the bit that is relevant to the point(s) to be made should suffice. In terms of making it easier for network novices to get involved in newsgroup discussions, it might help to have the return address of the *newsgroup* as part of the message. For example, I wanted to reply to this last night when I first read it, but I had to get the address of BIONEWS from my office before I could respond (I don't keep it on line). Here is what the header looks like that I receive: }Date: 17-SEP-1990 12:54 Expires: 1-OCT-1990 00:00 }From: edu%"steffen@merlin.bcm.tmc.edu" }Description: Re: What/who is bionet } }Received: From STANFORD(MAILER) by UTOROCI1 with Jnet id 0992 } for BB_01@UTOROCI; Mon, 17 Sep 90 12:41 EST }Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 17 Sep 90 09:41:14 PDT }Received: by genbank.bio.net (5.61/IG-2.0) } id AA28492; Mon, 17 Sep 90 08:18:13 -0700 }Received: by genbank.bio.net (5.61/IG-2.0) } id AA28417; Mon, 17 Sep 90 08:15:35 -0700 }Message-Id: <9009171515.AA28417@genbank.bio.net> }To: bionet-news@bcm.tmc.edu }From: steffen@merlin.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen) }Subject: Re: What/who is bionet }Date: 17 Sep 90 14:58:26 GMT }Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu }Nntp-Posting-Host: merlin.bcm.tmc.edu Perhaps Dave Kristofferson could modify the newsgroup so that the appropriate return address is included? One further point. The return address of the poster is often not decipherable by a network novice, so why not include it after you signature to make it easier? Steve Clark clark@mshri.utoronto.ca (Internet) clark@utoroci (Netnorth/Bitnet)
harper@finsun.csc.fi (Robert Harper) (09/19/90)
In <9009190312.AA08209@lash.utcs.utoronto.ca> clark@mshri.utoronto.ca writes: > Perhaps Dave Kristofferson could modify the newsgroup so that the >appropriate return address is included? One further point. The return >address of the poster is often not decipherable by a network novice, so why >not include it after you signature to make it easier? The set up at BIONET is that when anyone replies to a posting it goes to the original poster rather than the list. I suppose this is a throw back to the old days of BIONET, where you had to protect a scientist from making a fool of himself in public. On the BIOSCI lists at IRLEARN the default is REPLY to LIST... so if any one on BITNET/EARN reads a message in their mailbox and does a REPLY to it then it will automatically be distributed to all the subscribers. I suspect however that many people in North America read the BIOSCI BBOARDS as NEWSGROUPS on some USENET newsreader. In which case a REPLY sends the reply back to the original poster. If people would use the FOLLOWUP command then their reply would go back to the NEWSGROUP, and a POST would allow them to enter a NEW entry. KEYWORDS: LISTSERV/LISTS, USENET/NEWSGROUPS, BIOSCI/BBOARDS Rob "never mind the quality feel the width" Harper
UNASMITH@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Una Smith) (09/19/90)
>Steve Clark< [I deleted Steve's comments about private mail vs. public postings.] > To summarize, please please please always respond to the net, not >to the original poster (or at least as well as to the original poster). Were the bionet newsgroups of the type having lots of traffic along particular "threads" of discussion, the general awareness of certain standard questions would be high. Thus the new reader who asks "how do I do [infinitely familiar trivial or not so trivial task], might best be answered via private mail. It generally seems to work out well in other groups, with some replies going by the group, and some by private mail. (It is good form for the recipient to summarize and post private answers, but in many cases the senders of private answers *sent them privately* because for whatever reason they did not want the entire readership to see them.) Not only do we all get tired seeing the same old questions ("How do I unsubscribe?" is a good one), but we get even more tired seeing the same old answer times 'n', yet if the answers are all sent privately, the number of redundant questions goes up. Balance is what's needed. Unfortunately, balance is hard to come by. I suggest that we all try, no matter what newsgroup or subscription list we may be reading, to think before sending a reply about how to send it; by private mail or by public posting. The decision should depend on how much you like your reply (how carefully you phrased it, etc.) *and* on any other traffic you may have seen on the subject already. Toward that end, it's usually a good idea to set aside interesting notes (in a mail file or notebook) and read the rest of the day's traffic before deciding how (or whether) to answer the note. Yes, this means knowing a few more things about the software you're using, but the result is generally a significantly more sophisticated discussion. (And we all want *that*, don't we? ;-) > To address the other two points raised by David, one way to cut >down on the 'noise' is to not quote the whole original posting and all the >replies to it. Just the bit that is relevant to the point(s) to be made >should suffice. Yes! Note that I cut out most of Steve's note above, but I also tried to indicate that I'd taken a lot out. Some readers might not see Steve's original note (for a variety of reasons), so I have some responsibility to (1) fairly represent Steve's comments, in both letter and intent, and (2) to indicate where I may have altered the meaning of his message. Some people may feel uncomfortable altering in any way the form or content of someone else's message, but most regular posters to the net quickly discover that it is possible, if not highly desirable, to condense messages that have gone before. Save bandwidth, but be fair! [I have deleted Steve's comments about return paths in headers.] - Una UNASMITH@PUCC : BITNET unasmith@pucc.Princeton.EDU : Internet una@tropic.Princeton.EDU : Internet
steffen@merlin.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen) (09/19/90)
clark@mshri.utoronto.ca (Steve Clark) writes: [In response to my suggestion that responses to questions on bionet newsgroups should be made by email and a summary posted by the questioner] >I don't remember that the conclusion was as clear cut as this. If it was, I >should have spoken up then. >These newsgroups should be like large round-table discussions, >where everyone has a chance to say their piece, and hear what other people >have said. ... If all the responses go to the original poster, >rather than to the newsgroup as a whole, all these opportunities for >information exchange are lost...please always respond to the net, not >to the original poster (or at least as well as to the original poster). Well, I am willing to go along with the will of the group; I don't find the noise level on the bionet groups to be an issue yet. IMHO there is place for both approaches, however. The current discussion clearly need to be roundtable. A relatively basic question on bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts, however, could generate a lot of redundant, basic responses. If the questioner receives all responses, summarizes, and posts back to the net, what is lost? Further discussion, if necessary, can take place then. >In terms of making it easier for network novices to get involved in >newsgroup discussions, it might help to have the return address of the >*newsgroup* as part of the message. I don't know to what extent anything I do has anything to do with this; I am VERY MUCH a net novice. However, while composing this response I noticed that the newsgroup was listed as bionet.followup rather than bionet.general, so I changed it. Further, there was no followup: newsgroup given, so I added bionet.general. Was this good? Was this bad? Was this pointless? Only by the flames in my mailbox will I know. >One further point. The return >address of the poster is often not decipherable by a network novice, so why >not include it after you signature to make it easier? Good point! I have been doing this sporadically, not knowing if this is a good idea or not. I guess I should do it all the time. Incidentally, I notice you give two addresses: >clark@mshri.utoronto.ca (Internet) >clark@utoroci (Netnorth/Bitnet) Only the (Internet) one do I understand. I have no idea how someone not on Internet should reach me. Thus, I remain... -David Steffen- (steffen@mbir.bcm.tmc.edu) <= Internet P.S. My first post to the original discussion included an ill-considered anti-UNIX/rn tirade due to the fact that Pnews discarded my original message because I quoted more than I said. I just had to hand count the number of quoted and original lines to make sure this didn't happen again. Despite my boundless admiration for UNIX and all the wonderful people associated with it, it still feels wrong to me to have to do this counting.
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (09/20/90)
In response to Steve Clark, two points: In general I think it is a good idea for people to respond to the newsgroup, but there is one exception that I would note. If someone asks a straightforward, non-controversial question (Does anyone have a mail address for Joe Schulz at NYU?) there is no need for several responses to be posted publicly. It is better to just reply to the individual. This is obviously a judgement call, but it keeps noise down if one simply asks first "what are the odds that this info will be useful to someone else other than the original inquirer?" before deciding on the route for the response. This is one reason why newsgroups are not set up to automatically echo back to everyone. Unfortunately on LISTSERV mailers where reply to the group is the default one can raise the opposite objection that one has to readdress the response to send a private reply. The header that Steve received from Dave Steffen was somewhat obscure because the posting originated on USENET software at Steffen's site instead of starting out as a direct mailing to bionews@genbank.bio.net. This is an unfortunate effect of the current set-up and I will see if we can do something about at least labeling the newsgroups more clearly when they come from USENET to mail distribution (on USENET there is no confusion of course). Regarding changing the newsgroup default reply address, this is something that we have debated among the BIOSCI managers on several occasions. I am not going to repeat all of the pros and cons here (some have to do with technical issues and standards for the diverse communications software which comprises BIOSCI), but I can run this up the flag pole once again. Don't forget that the "reply all" default occasionally causes novice users great grief by publicizing something that was not meant for open consumption. -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (09/20/90)
> The set up at BIONET is that when anyone replies to a posting it goes > to the original poster rather than the list. I suppose this is a throw > back to the old days of BIONET, where you had to protect a scientist from > making a fool of himself in public. This is part of it (although I wouldn't call it a throwback because this situation still exists with novice, and even occasionally with experienced users). I believe that there is also a legitimate difference in standards between the BITNET LISTSERV community and the Internet/USENET communities which involves non-compliance by IBM based LISTSERV mailers with other systems. I'll have to check this again with Eliot Lear here, but this is my recollection of the impasse on this issue the last time it came up many months ago. -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net
steffen@merlin.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen) (09/20/90)
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes: >The header that Steve received from Dave Steffen was somewhat obscure >because the posting originated on USENET software at Steffen's site >instead of starting out as a direct mailing to >bionews@genbank.bio.net. (I am posting this rather than writing David directly because I think this is a question many of us should be asking) David: I can post to this group via usenet or via email (bionews@genbank.bio.net). From your comment I infer that posting via usenet causes some problems. Would posting by email be better? -David Steffen- (steffen@mbir.bcm.tmc.edu)
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (09/20/90)
steffen@merlin.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen) writes: > If the questioner receives all responses, summarizes, and posts back to the > net, what is lost? Further discussion, if necessary, can take place then. Personally, I prefer real round-table discussions where everybody just replies to the whole audience of the original question. It makes for more lively discussions. In the reply-to-sender-and-he'll-sumarize mode, two basic things can go wrong. First, the sender might forget, or just not bother. This happens a lot, and I'll admit that I'm probably as guilty of it as anybody else. Second, even if the sender does produce a summary, the time lag between the original question and the appearance of the summary is usually enough to take it out of context. On top of all that, producing a good summary is not trivial. You don't want to just string all the replies together into a bundle and send them back out. At the very least, you want to edit away extra headers and all those multiple copies of your original message that people sent back to you (finding the right balance between not giving enough context for the answer to make sense and just blindly reproducing the entire original query is not trivial either). Better, is to restate the question, summarize the major points of the various replies (which may include several dissenting opinions), and then provide enough quotes to fill in the details and give proper attribution. Starting to sound like writing a review paper, no? No wonder you see so few really good summaries, it's just too much work. On the other hand, in a free-for-all round table, you get a lot of noise, a lot of duplication, people tending to go off on tangents (and/or flame wars), and often the topic of discussion drifts away from the original to something totally unrelated. Is this good or bad? I don't know, I suppose both ways have their advantages. Some people like formal sit-down dinners with featured speakers making presentations, some like cocktail parties. > In terms of making it easier for network novices to get involved in > newsgroup discussions, it might help to have the return address of the > *newsgroup* as part of the message. My understanding of bionet is that it's a melange of newsgroups, bboards, mailing lists, notesfiles, etc. Each type of media has its own constraints and traditions. While I sort of feel that while it's a good thing to get the word out in as many fora (plural of forum?) as possible, I can't help but think that the conflicting media just don't mesh very well. Many of the messages I see on the bionet newsgroups appear to be unconnected, or somehow disembodied, almost as if I'm not hearing all of a conversation. I wonder how much of that is because of media mismatches. I barely understand how it's all pieced together (and that's what I do for a living), so how can Joe Biologist be expected to deal with it all? > while composing this response I noticed that the newsgroup was listed > as bionet.followup rather than bionet.general, so I changed it. Yeah, I got bit by that a few weeks ago (you, apparantly, are a lot more observant than I am; I didn't notice it until a few days later when a few of us were trying to sort out why a message I posted got seen by some people but not by others). It's a holdover from the dim dark days of usenet history. There was once a group called net.general, which was to be used as a sort of emergency channel. All followups to net.general were supposed to go to net.followup, and many bits of news software turned followups to articles in X.general to X.followup automagically. A lot of that software is still around, and probably will be for a long time. > One further point. The return address of the poster is often not > decipherable by a network novice, so why not include it after you > signature to make it easier? Hah! The return address is often not decipherable by a network wizard either. I've seen machine-generated addresses with enough @'s, !'s, :'s (and ::'s), and %'s in them to make your head spin. > Only the (Internet) one do I understand. I have no idea how someone > not on Internet should reach me. Thus, I remain... > -David Steffen- (steffen@mbir.bcm.tmc.edu) <= Internet I'm not a real authority on these sorts of things, but here's my understanding of how email addresses should work. The address you give is not so much an Internet address as a Doman Name System (DNS) address. While domain names certainly started on the Internet (and I would guess that the majority of domain names do actually correspond to machines on the Internet, there is no requirement that a site be connected to the Internet to have a domain name. Many uucp or bitnet sites have domain names. Some site that is on the Internet has agreed to put their domain name in the appropriate network database in such a way that appropriately smart mail software will automatically send mail for the non-Internet site to an intermediate Internet site, which in turn promises to deliver (via some unspecified method) the mail to its final destination. Sort of like an "in care of" on regular paper mail, except that you don't have to spell out who it is in care of, the mail system takes care of that for you. Part of the problem is the DNS has not yet universal. This is a polite way of saying that the current state of email addressing is still a bit of a mess, and somewhat of a black art. What does this have to do with your real question, i.e. "what do I tell people they should type to reach me?" Unfortunately, the answer is that there is no way you can predict what somebody else will have to type to send you mail! You don't know what type of software they are using, nor what type of network connections they have (and, unless they are mail gurus, they probably don't either, nor should they). The best you can do is tell them "my domain name is roy@phri.nyu.edu. Try using that. If it doesn't work, seek out your local mail guru or system adminstrator and ask him or her how to transform that into something which fits your local conventions." I would argue that you should never tell somebody that your address is something which has any more than one @ in it, and if it has an @, then it shouldn't have any !'s, %'s, or :'s. That's a hybrid address, and just asking for trouble. For example, all the folks at Los Alamos seem to give out their addresses as something like "person%life@lanl.gov". Why they do that, I don't know, since as far as I can tell, "person@life.lanl.gov." is a perfectly valid domain name, and much less likely to be misunderstood or munged by over-eager mailers. > Pnews discarded my original message because I quoted more than I said. Volumes have been said on this topic on the news adminstrator newsgroups over the past few years. In an attempt to urge people to be more selective about how much text they quote (see my comments above about providing just the right amount of context), various news software writers have put things in the news software to make sure the volume of new stuff is greater than the old. Mostly this was intended to prevent people from quoting a whole 100 line article and adding "Me too!" to the end as their only original contribution. I won't say more about it other than to say that many informed experts insist that this is a good thing, while just as many insist it isn't. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (09/21/90)
> I can post to this group via usenet or via email > (bionews@genbank.bio.net). From your comment I infer that posting via > usenet causes some problems. Would posting by email be better? > -David Steffen- EMPHATICALLY NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dave, you are helping lead the wave of the future by utilizing newsreading software. BIOSCI's more inconvenient features are still due to the necessity of combining a variety of different communications systems. I would encourage anyone who is still using e-mail for reading newsgroups to try to get their computer center to switch to USENET-style news. There are public domain packages available for this as has been described many times in the past on this newsgroup and others. We at GenBank On-line Service are happy to help people make this transition if they reuqire assistance. Let us at BIOSCI worry about how to resolve some of these more confusing points about header information during this period of technological transition, but please don't move backwards yourself!! -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (09/21/90)
> However, while composing this response I noticed that the newsgroup > was listed as bionet.followup rather than bionet.general, so I changed > it. Further, there was no followup: newsgroup given, so I added > bionet.general. Was this good? What you are experiencing is a bug in your particular version of the news software. You took the correct action of editing the address as above but, when the software is working correctly, you should have your followup automatically addressed to the correct newsgroup. If you see "bionet.followup" in your mail header when composing your followup to a message, you need to get a patch for the program. Eliot Lear is on vacation this week, but I'll ask him to post something about this when he gets back. He can also be reached at lear@genbank.bio.net. -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (09/21/90)
> My understanding of bionet is that it's a melange of newsgroups, > bboards, mailing lists, notesfiles, etc. Each type of media has its own > constraints and traditions. While I sort of feel that while it's a good > thing to get the word out in as many fora (plural of forum?) as possible, I > can't help but think that the conflicting media just don't mesh very well. > Many of the messages I see on the bionet newsgroups appear to be > unconnected, or somehow disembodied, almost as if I'm not hearing all of a > conversation. I wonder how much of that is because of media mismatches. I > barely understand how it's all pieced together (and that's what I do for a > living), so how can Joe Biologist be expected to deal with it all? Roy, Because there are various powers in DC right now that are debating the future of biological computing, especially as it impacts the Genome Project, I am always senstitive to these kinds of postings because they are fodder for people who want to tear things down without taking the time to understand why they developed into their current state. Although I know that this is not your intent, your casual remark might be wrongly seized upon by others. I believe that it is extremely important that these points be clearly understood since there is always a tendency in science for "someone who knows better and can do it right" to slander past efforts by spreading misinformation. The net result is often that the hubris of the new group leads them to rediscover the problems that were already tackled by the previous group. The biggest losers turn out to be the ***end users*** who are deprived of a system that works, despite its obvious (but explanable) flaws, and left with another operation that winds up reinventing the wheel ... only to find out to their embarrassment what they could have learned if there had been an open and honest exchange of views in the first place. Unfortunately in turf battles openness is a rare commodity. These newsgroups have always been dear to my heart because they are an antidote to "politics as usual." You are correct that BIOSCI is an amalgam of USENET groups and mailing lists on Internet, BITNET, EARN, and JANET. There is a very good reason for that and the complexity need not concern "Joe Biologist" (that much maligned whipping boy ... someday someone is going to have to start giving him/her some credit). All "Joe" need keep handy to use the system is the list of newsgroup addresses at his/her regional BIOSCI node. Beyond that the rest of the network complexities may be ignored, but I will explain below why they exist. The reason is simply to attain BIOSCI's goal of widespread international coverage *now*, not 10 years from now when "everyone will have a workstation on their desk." Were we to cut out mail and use only USENET you can rest assured that the reach of the newsgroups would be so severely limited as to render them completely ineffective. A large number of sites still depend only on e-mail access and will continue to do so for some time. You may or may not be aware, however, that the European members of BIOSCI that are participating in EMBNet, the networking effort centered at the EMBL and designed to help share sequence data and information in Europe, are actively moving towards adopting the USENET model (primarily using the public domain package ANU-News on VAX systems at present). This is obviously going to take some time still, but we are left with the obvious choice: do we cleave the users into those using mail and those using news software or do we use a certain degree of chewing gum and bailing wire during this transition period to keep them together. If one's goal is to produce a beautiful technoloigcal structure, then one will decide to keep them separate. If one's goal is to get ***people to talk to each other*** via electronic channels, then one tries to weld the systems together and evolve towards something better as technology becomes more widespread. Our choice at BIOSCI has been obvious. You might be interested to know that during my survey of BIONEWS usage earlier this year, many JANET users in the U.K. were only able to respond to my queries in the U.S. by using the BIOSCI relay addresses set up at the BIOSCI SERC Daresbury lab. If we did not have the mailing machanism in place there, a good part of the U.K. would have been completely unable to respond. USENET alone would have been useless. The same is true for the hundreds of scientists on BITNET in the U.S. Do we leave these people out in the cold too? Or do we opt for purity and just let the people on BITNET stick with LISTSERV software which handles news by sending out mass mailings? BIOSCI has successfully combined all of these services (and it has not been without its headaches which most of the readers never see). Not only that, it has been one of the most community-spirited international collaborations that I have seen in science. The BIOSCI node at University College Dublin runs LISTSERV software on an IBM mainframe and services users all over Europe (and other parts of the world) who are on EARN (the European counterpart of BITNET) as well as at other BITNET sites. Unfortunately LISTSERV does not follow every mailing standard used on the Internet, and this causes some incompatibilities, BUT THESE PROBLEMS ARE TRULY INSIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO THE VASTLY GREATER GOOD that we achieved through the expanded coverage. There is, of course, another solution, and that would be to base the entire system solely on mailing lists like LISTSERV. USENET news software, however, is a superior method of keeping network traffic down, saving on disk space by keeping only a single copy of a message at each computer site for common access, and error checking for bounced messages. (This is not, of course, to say that LISTSERV has no features to its advantage.) I know that Roy knows this but am expanding on these points for the benefit of others. The BIOSCI node at the Unversity of Uppsala is already on the Internet and is using USENET style news software. Mats Sundvall there among others is heading the EMBnet effort to upgrade the systems at other EMBnet nodes to this standard. Nonetheless U. Uppsala as well as all other BIOSCI nodes must still rely on a parallel e-mail distribution system for other computer users in their regions that do not have news software. I already mentioned the critical role that SERC Daresbury plays in keeping U.K. users on JANET connected to the rest of the BIOSCI network. JANET has yet another set of network standards to deal with and one should not underestimate the value that this BIOSCI node brings to the whole. SERC Daresbury is also an EMBNet node and will be involved in the ANU-News effort according to my latest information on EMBNet progress. Finally there is our group at GenBank which came out of the former BIONET Computer Resource. We handle the routing of messages between the mail distributions at all four nodes and the USENET groups. If you are having any problems with USENET you should direct them to us currently (biosci@genbank.bio.net). Longer term we hope to have everyone migrate to the USENET model. At that point (reminds me of the communist utopia at times), there will no longer be BIOSCI nodes. All that will be needed are the newsgroups themselves which will be co-equal at all sites that particpate. The mail will "just wither away." Whether we ever reach that goal or not could be long debated. I have other more pressing things to get on with at the moment. However, as I said above, decisions in these areas should be made on full information and not on off the cuff comments complaining about how complicated things are. This does not mean that we are closed to suggestions for further improvements. We hope that our service is the best that we can provide, and we have excellent experts in mail systems, LISTSERV, and USENET systems among the BIOSCI managers. However, many of these people do volunteer their time from other projects and things can sometimes be overlooked as a result. We will always respond to constructive suggestions and continue to upgrade BIOSCI as capabilities improve. Please remember the obvious though. The latest technology and the best solution will always be the least widespread. I have seen the unfortunate effects of ignoring this obvious point in the past. The enthusiasm of experts usually needs some tempering by reality. -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net
UNASMITH@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Una Smith) (09/21/90)
David Kristofferson >>The header that Steve received from Dave Steffen was somewhat obscure >>because the posting originated on USENET software at Steffen's site >>instead of starting out as a direct mailing to >>bionews@genbank.bio.net. David Steffen > I can post to this group via usenet or via email >(bionews@genbank.bio.net). From your comment I infer that posting via >usenet causes some problems. Would posting by email be better? Which is more convenient for you? Most Usenet users have .signature files in their home directories. Most Unix mailers and rn programs will check for a file named .signature and append the contents to the end of any message you send. It is considered good form to include a signature at the end of your messages, containing at least your prefered email address and maybe some other addresses. That way, everyone can just ignore the header junk at the tops of their incoming mail files. The mailer I'm using now is supposed to do that for me; if you don't see my name and address below this sentence, you'll know I haven't set things up properly. - Una UNASMITH@PUCC : BITNET unasmith@pucc.Princeton.EDU : Internet una@tropic.Princeton.EDU : Internet
JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (09/21/90)
I have to agree that the traffic in these groups, especially in the one most closely allied to my interests (.population-bio) is appallingly slow. I suspect this is due to the lack of overlap between the "net-world" and the "science-world" for most workers in my field. Those who are, like me, conversant both with models of gene flow and how to get on the .net are, I fear, few and far between. One sign of hope here, however, is that we now have the entire Zoology Department hooked up to the backbone via the macs in every office. People still have to figure out what prayers to say to the IBM to get on the net, but it's a start, and there seems to be some enthusiasm for the project. I say, give it time. The fact that the bionet.groups exist will draw new users as net-use among professional scientists becomes a necessity. (But I DO wish I had gotten at least ONE answer to the query I posted several months ago on pop-bio....:-| ) Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056 voice: 513-529-1679 fax: 513-529-6900 jahayes@miamiu.bitnet, or jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu And what do you think you'll do, all alone with an old fish?