From: kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson)
Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.bio-matrix
Subject: Re: Bio Matrix conference.
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:52:13 GMT
Distribution: bionet
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology

brianf@dna.uvm.edu (Brain Foley) writes:

>At the Biomatrix conference in Waterville Valley New Hampshire a
>couple years ago, GenBank was hardly mentioned.  All sorts of other
>biological databases were talked about.  One person had a database of
>all the legumes in the world (where they grow, what they look like,
>what soil type they live in...) another person had a database of video
>images of sea life, the types of databases were incredibly diverse.

Part of the problem is also that many people want to go off and
reinvent the wheel by setting up their own database instead of working
with existing organizations.  After all, it is so much easier and less
painful to invent one's own nomenclature, etc., than to have to fly to
an international standards committee meeting and sit (half-asleep due
to jet lag) around a table and argue about the meaning of words.
However, barring such efforts, one is left with the kind of problems
that Tom always rages at.

Please remember that currently data comes from three different
organizations who in turn receive it from scientists all over the
world.  Trying to standardize such data input is a gargantuan task.
We tried to put a dent in it with Authorin, but unless ALL entries
into the database are created using software which enforces strict
adherence to standard nomenclature (and such standards don't usually
exist) these problems will persist and grow.

Tom, NCBI is composed of humans as is every other organization.  If
they make mistakes that were easily avoidable then I would agree that
you would have a case.  I would not, however, expect them to resolve
the features problem in a year, particularly since they have only been
officially in charge for 2.5 months.  I think that the reality of what
it means to be in charge of GenBank versus being an external spectator
is clear to them now, but *you* might benefit from closer involvement.
I would urge you to take David Lipman up on his repeated invitations
to visit them and discuss your concerns.  If your reply is that you
are too busy, then my response is that, by your own admission, you are
going to be a *lot* busier in the future if you don't respond to their
invitations.

>Why are all these people not using bionet.molbio.bio-matrix to discuss
>their latest exciting topics?  Is there a journal of bio-information
>that I should be reading instead?  Is CABIOS really all that there is?

Perhaps Dan Davison can comment on this but I am getting the distinct
impression that BIOMATRIX is a dead organization (I'm referring to the
society, not just the newsgroup).  They tried to collect dues a while
back and I am not sure if anyone responded.

>How can we get the other computer-savy biologists to start
>speaking up?

I will say, only partially in jest, that newsgroups have some
similarity to the high school prom.  Everyone is always waiting for
someone else to be the first out on the dance floor at the start of
the dance.  Why not post some of your own work to BIO-MATRIX and try
to revive the group?  In the past that has usually worked wonders on
that newsgroup.

				Sincerely,

				Dave Kristofferson
				BIOSCI/bionet Manager

				kristoff@net.bio.net