[ *** This list is for use by the OOR nsf-07061 team only - please do not share
or forward message without consent from the team! *** ] (01)
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Bargmeyer wrote: (02)
>
> [ *** This list is for use by the OOR nsf-07061 team only - please do not
>share or forward message without consent from the team! *** ]
>
> Ken,
>
> The summary looks good. I have a couple comments.
>
> 1. Is it written in one of the fonts approved by NSF? It looks like a serif
> font to me and I think the fonts approved by NSF are sans-serif fonts. I
> believe that Sylvia Spengler, one of the Program Officers for this
> solicitation, does not like serif fonts such as Times New Roman. The NSF
> Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide - (NSF 07-140) lists the
> following fonts:
> a. Use of only the approved typefaces identified below, a black font color,
> and a font size of 10 points or larger must be used:
> . For Windows users: Arial, Helvetica, Palatino Linotype, or Georgia
> . For Macintosh users: Arial, Helvetica, Palatino, or Georgia
> . For TeX users: Computer Modern
>
> There may be an update to that somewhere, but I have not seen it. (03)
I was going by the NSF GPG where it states at
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf08_1/gpg_2.jsp#IIB (04)
"2. Proposal Margin and Spacing Requirements (05)
The proposal must be clear, readily legible, and conform to the following
requirements: (06)
a. Use one of the following typefaces identified below: (07)
* Arial10, Courier New, or Palatino Linotype at a font size of 10
points or larger
* Times New Roman at a font size of 11 points or larger
* Computer Modern family of fonts at a font size of 11 points or
larger (08)
A font size of less than 10 points may be used for mathematical formulas
or equations, figure, table or diagram captions and when using a Symbol
font to insert Greek letters or special characters. PIs are cautioned,
however, that the text must still be readable; (09)
b. No more than 6 lines of text within a vertical space of 1 inch; and (010)
c. Margins, in all directions, must be at least an inch. (011)
These requirements apply to all uploaded sections of a proposal, including
supplementary documentation." (012)
I used 11 point Times New Roman. I then printed the summary and measured
the number of lines vertically as well as the margins. I would be happy
to use a different font if that would be preferred by the PM. (013)
What is the decision about the font to use? All votes must be in by 8pm
Tuesday.
>
> 2. Broader impact:
>
> I understand that it is usually important to emphasize the educational
> opportunities in this section. That is, to state that the project will
> provide exceptional opportunities for graduate student research and
> education in advancing information and computer science techniques and
> technologies. Also state here, that an aggressive effort will be undertaken
> to recruit students from underrepresented groups, including minorities and
> females. (014)
I have the "exceptional opportunity" part in the summary. What is missing
is a statement about underrepresented groups. Northeastern has been very
good at recruiting minorities and females. One of my recent students was
not only a black female, she also won the CRA award for best
undergraduate. (015)
If you could come up with some good wording here, it would be helpful. (016)
> The guidance in NSF Solicitation (NSF 07-601) reads: (3) describe the
> broader impacts of the proposed work, including any exceptional
> opportunities for progress in research and education that may arise from the
> planned structure, composition, and/or organization of the proposed Partner,
> the educational and training activities, and plans for achieving a diverse
> organization serving a wide variety of users and communities. (017)
I think we satisfy this, although it would help to discuss it more in the
project description. (018)
> 3. Sustainability
>
> The summary emphasizes the sustainable technology approach. I think NSF is
> more interested in sustaining the DataNet itself. I think that our approach
> is to develop an OOR that can be adopted by diverse and dispersed
> organizations. In the long term, each organization would implement the OOR
> to support its own mission. (019)
This is a difficult one for any proposal. How can one support something
after the funding has ended? Our argument is that an infrastructure will
be self-sustaining only if it is considered to be essential by
communities. The Internet started out as an ARPA project, but when
funding ended it continued because the organizations that used it realized
that it was an essential infrastructure. (020)
> 4. Format
>
> I know that many proposals, sent to NSF, break the one page summary into two
> sections with the headings:
>
> . Intellectual merit
> . Broader impacts (021)
Yes, I know about that. The last paragraph deals with broader impacts
explicitly, but other parts also deal with it implicitly. (022)
Should I explicitly mark the two parts? (023)
> These two topics must be addressed in separate statements. The directions in
> the proposal preparation guidelines (NSF 07-140) read:
>
> The proposal must contain a summary of the proposed activity suitable for
> publication, not more than one page in length. It should not be an abstract
> of the proposal, but rather a self-contained description of the activity
> that would result if the proposal were funded. The summary should be written
> in the third person and include a statement of objectives and methods to be
> employed. It must clearly address in separate statements (within the
> one-page summary):
> . the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; and
> . the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity.
> ... Proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria
> within the one-page Project Summary will be returned without review.
>
> I know that it is hard to get everything into the one-page summary. (024)
I have been working on it for 2 days now... (025)
The summary as I have written it is self-contained. It was never an
abstract. However I did not realize that it had to be in the third
person. I will fix that.
>
> I note that there is a new guidance document from NSF. A revised version of
> the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), NSF 09-1, was
> issued on October 1, 2008 and is effective for proposals submitted on or
> after January 5, 2009. It should not apply to this preliminary proposal, but
> is good to know about.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> ----Sent by--------------------------
> Bruce Bargmeyer
> University of California, Berkeley
> and
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> 1 Cyclotron Road, MS 50B-2231A
> Berkeley, California 94720
> Tel: +1 510-495-2905
> Fax: +1 510-486-4004
> email: bebargmeyer@xxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oor-nsf07601-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:oor-nsf07601-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Baclawski
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:39 AM
> To: oor-nsf07601
> Subject: [oor-nsf07601] New version of the summary
>
>
> [ *** This list is for use by the OOR nsf-07061 team only - please do not
> share or forward message without consent from the team! *** ]
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-nsf07601/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/community/project/OOR/nsf07601/
> Wiki:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_Proposal/Nsf_07601
> (026)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-nsf07601/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/community/project/OOR/nsf07601/
Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_Proposal/Nsf_07601 (027)
|