THE WELCH COMPANY
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111-2496
415 781 5700


S U M M A R Y


DIARY: June 14, 1999 12:33 PM Monday; Rod Welch

Received call from NSF to solve proposal submission problems.

1...Summary/Objective
2...Need Re-submission of Technical Proposal; Difficulties with FastLane
3...Cover Sheet Missing Information, Needs Signature
4...NSF Wants Re-submission of Proposal Using Conventional Printed Media
5...Conventional Printed Media Conflicts with Goals of Proposal
.....1638 received fax from Joe with instructions to fill in
6...Proposal Reviewed Online Demonstrates Meaning of Intelligence
7...Proposals Can Recommend Reviewers and Provide Access via Internet
8...Landauer and Wideman are Possible Reviewers


..............
Click here to comment!

CONTACTS 
0201 - National Science Foundation          703 306 1234
020101 - Mr. Joe Hennessey
020102 - FastLane SBIR Registration
020103 - ENG/DMII
0202 - National Science Foundation          703 306 1234
020201 - Ms. Cheryl Albus

SUBJECTS
Cover Submit via FastLane
Title of Proposal
Proposal ID Kit Number
Proposal
FastLane Down for Maintenance
FastLane Could Not Print Cover,

1108 -
1108 -    ..
1109 - Summary/Objective
1110 -
111001 - Follow up ref SDS 21 0000, ref SDS 20 0000.
111002 -
111003 - The technical proposal submitted to NSF on 990609 through Rick
111004 - Shindell has been miss-directed.  NSF did not notice the technical
111005 - proposal was also linked in the letter they received on 990611.
111007 -  ..
111008 - Submitted another letter, ref DIT 1  to Joe Hennessey at NSF with
111009 - direct link to the technical proposal, ref DIP 10, and to this record
111010 - for clarification of background.
111012 -  ..
111013 - Joe and Cheryl called back and requested re-submission of proposal in
111014 - conventional printed format. ref SDS 0 0783  Discussed need for
111015 - reviewers to have experience with "knowledge space" in order to
111016 - evaluate proposal.  It was suggested proposals can recommend
111017 - reviewers, and can give the address of web sites which reviewers can
111018 - research, if they wish.
111019 - ..
111020 - Received via fax, copy of NSF form 1207, with Joe's request to
111021 - fill out missing information. ref SDS 0 4662
111023 -  ..
111024 - Submitted ref DIT 2 linked to ref SDS 0 0783 below to confirm these
111025 - instructions.
111026 -
111027 -    [On 990614 received response from Joe. ref SDS 23 0001]
111028 -
111030 -  ..
1111 -
1112 -
1113 - Progress
111401 -  ..
111402 - Need Re-submission of Technical Proposal; Difficulties with FastLane
111403 -
111404 - Joe Hennessey called to ask for the technical proposal, ref DIP 10, we
111405 - submitted to Rick Shindell on 990609, ref SDS 19 0045, via our letter,
111406 - ref DIP 11, because NSF's FastLane online proposal preparation system,
111407 - was down for maintenance.
111409 -  ..
111410 - Cheryl received our letter sent on 990611, ref DIP 13 1645, notifying
111411 - NSF that we had to submit the proposal to Rick because FastLane was
111412 - down; however, NSF has not received the technical proposal which Rick
111413 - forwarded to Cheryl on 990610. ref SDS 20 0001
111415 -  ..
111416 - Joe asked if we submitted the original and 9 copies to NSF by mail?
111417 - ..
111418 - I explained having sent the original of the technical proposal,
111419 - as shown in my cover letter on 990609, ref DIP 12 2394, but we did not
111420 - include 9 copies. ref SDS 19 4592
111422 -  ..
111423 - He said that is not a big problem.
111424 - ..
111425 - Joe asked if we submitted the cover page and certification page
111426 - printed and signed with the technical proposal?
111428 -  ..
111429 - I explained we could not do that because it required printing the
111430 - pages created on FastLane, and FastLane would not let us print it, as
111431 - reported on 990609. ref SDS 19 0332
111433 -  ..
111434 - Joe said a number of other people had the same problem.  NSF is
111435 - working to fix this bug.
111437 -  ..
111438 - He said the fact that we got a 996... proposal number, shows we used
111439 - FastLane correctly. ref SDS 19 4560
111441 -  ..
111442 - Joe requested another submission of the technical proposal to his
111443 - email address...
111444 -
111445 -                       jhenness@nsf.gov
111446 - ..
111447 - We noted that Rick Shindell forwarded the technical proposal to
111448 - Cheryl as shown in his letter on 990610. ref DRP 7 1650
111450 -  ..
111451 - My letter on 990611 sent to Cheryl has a direct link to the technical
111452 - proposal in para 2. ref DIP 13 2135
111454 -  ..
111455 - This reflects the confusion caused by "information overload" which our
111456 - proposal on Communication Metrics solves. ref DIP 10 1069 and also at
111457 - ref DIP 10 5561  Nominally, the need for adding "intelligence" to
111458 - management is hard for people to grasp. ref DIP 10 9766  Today's
111459 - experience may help focus the goal and opportunity that this research
111460 - addresses.
111462 -  ..
111463 - Joe advised that Cheryl gave him a printed copy of my letter dated
111464 - 990611, so he cannot open the technical proposal using the Internet
111465 - link.
111466 - ..
111467 - He will ask Cheryl to forward my letter online, so he can get
111468 - the technical proposal.  He asked me to send him an additional letter
111469 - to further facilitate his direct access.
111471 -  ..
111472 - Submitted ref DIT 1 to Joe Hennessey at NSF with direct link to the
111473 - technical proposal. ref DIP 10.
111475 -  ..
111476 - Joe will send acknowledgement NSF has received the proposal.
111477 -
111479 -  ..
1115 -
1116 -
1117 - 1401 Joe called back
1118 -   ..
111801 - He received my letter ref DIT 1 and was able to open the
111802 - technical proposal. ref DIP 10 6781
111803 - ..
111804 - He asked initially to verify the proposal number.
111806 -  ..
111807 - The proposal number 9961176 was issued by FastLane when we submitted
111808 - the other parts of the proposal on 990609. ref SDS 19 4560
111810 -  ..
111811 - Joe said he reviewed the technical proposal, but did not know where
111812 - the other parts of the proposal are located.
111814 -  ..
111815 - I explained they are prepared online in FastLane, and that this is
111816 - established by Fastlane having issued a proposal number.
111818 -  ..
111819 - Joe noted that Fastlane will not give a proposal number unless these
111820 - other parts have been submitted online.  So he knows we have complies
111821 - with NSF requirements; however, he has been unable to locate these
111822 - other parts under proposal 9961176 in FastLane.
111823 - ..
111824 - He will do further research to get everything pulled together.
111826 -  ..
111827 - He may call back to have us re-submit everything, so it is all part of
111828 - a single submission.
111829 -
111831 -  ..
1119 -
1120 -
1121 - 1451 Joe called back
1122 -
112201 - He has not been able to find the proposal number 9961176 in FastLane.
112202 -
112203 - He asked if I might have entered the number incorrectly.
112204 - ..
112205 - I indicated that is possible.
112206 - ..
112207 - We logged onto FastLane together.
112209 -  ..
112210 - Initially, we tried to check on proposal status for 9961176.
112212 -  ..
112213 - FastLane said there is no proposal for that number.
112215 -  ..
112216 - We tried Proposal Preparation.
112218 -  ..
112219 - I gave Joe my NSF registration information, so we could this together.
112221 -  ..
112222 - We got into the system, and clicked on an option to
112223 -
112224 -                 View Submitted Proposals
112225 - ..
112226 - This took us to a screen that shows our proposal number 9961176.
112227 - ..
112228 - Joe tried to print the proposal.
112230 -  ..
112231 - He got the entire proposal produced in Adobe as a series of pictures,
112232 - which is what I got on 990609.  The system would not print the
112233 - proposal for him, which happened also on 99609. ref SDS 19 0332
112235 -  ..
112236 - Joe will review this problem with technical folks familiar with
112237 - FastLane.
112239 -  ..
112240 - We considered re-submitting the entire proposal, so it is part of a
112241 - single environment, rather than split up, as it is now, under NSF
112242 - requirements, explained on 990609. ref SDS 19 1350
112244 -  ..
112245 - Joe feels this is a good possibility.
112246 -
112247 -
112248 -
112249 -
1123 -

SUBJECTS
Cover Page
Certification Page
FastLane Submit Cover and Summary Pages
Proposal

1506 -
150701 -  ..
150702 - Cover Sheet Missing Information, Needs Signature
150703 - NSF Wants Re-submission of Proposal Using Conventional Printed Media
150704 - Conventional Printed Media Conflicts with Goals of Proposal
150705 -
150706 -
1508 -
1509 -
1510 - 1513 Joe called back
1512 -    ..
151201 - Cheryl Albus joined the discussion via speaker phone, with Joe and I.
151203 -  ..
151204 - They have now been successful in printing the cover sheet, but point
151205 - out that there are parts missing.
151206 - ..
151207 - Joe will fax the cover sheet, so I can fill in missing
151208 - information and sign it.
151209 -     ..
151210 -     1638 received fax from Joe with instructions to fill in
151211 -     "checked" area for Cover page, and other documents.  This
151212 -     includes...
151213 -         ..
151214 -     a.  Principal Investigator name, education, telephone and
151215 -         email.
151217 -          ..
151218 -     b.  Cover and Certification, name, signature and "date"
151219 -
151220 -         The "date" field is not clear, need clarification from Joe.
151221 -
151222 -             [On 990615 this is a date field. ref SDS 23 0962]
151224 -          ..
151225 -         Looks like we need to sign it again at the bottom of the page,
151226 -         although that is not checked.
151228 -          ..
151229 -         Actually, this just reflects the failure of FastLane, in that
151230 -         NSF instructions provide for the Cover page to be printed from
151231 -         FastLane online so documents that require signature, can be
151232 -         signed and mailed separately.
151233 -         ..
151234 -     c.  Principal Investigator/Project Director
151235 -
151236 -         Joe has checked...
151238 -          ..
151239 -         Name, social security num, email address, telephone, web
151240 -         address,
151242 -          ..
151243 -         He does not check highest degree/year, nor fax num.
151245 -          ..
151246 -         Does this mean we don't need these fields under point a,
151247 -         above, for the cover sheet? ref SDS 0 1352,
151248 -
151249 -             [On 990615 Joe wants this filled in. ref SDS 24 1024]
151251 -          ..
151252 -     d.  Project Summary is provided.
151253 -         ..
151254 -         There is nothing checked, so presumably this is to
151255 -         facilitate a composite submission.
151256 -
151257 - "Missing information" seems to conflict with the FastLane proposal
151258 - submission process that returns errors which require correction before
151259 - submission can occur, as reported on 990609. ref SDS 19 9765  Since
151260 - our proposal was accepted, that would seem to show all material
151261 - requirements were met.
151262 -     ..
151263 -     Submitted ref DIT 2 to confirm these understandings, and
151264 -     clarify scope of re-submission to the 12 parts shown in Section 3,
151265 -     on 990609. ref SDS 19 4785
151267 -      ..
151268 -     Joe did not submit parts 7 - 12, can we assume this information is
151269 -     satisfactory, since we have not been able to print it, or does Joe
151270 -     want us to prepare it again?
151271 -
151272 -         [On 990615 Joe wants everything re-submitted. ref SDS 23 5037]
151274 -      ..
151275 -     If we use NSF "forms" do we need a typewriter to fill in the
151276 -     boxes, or can we print the stuff?
151278 -      ..
151279 -     Normally, I would make the forms into web pages and link
151280 -     everything together, but NSF seems to object to this, and it would
151281 -     take longer than 2 days.  That is why I submitted it via FastLane.
151282 -
151283 -         [On 990614 used typwriter or fill the forms out online at the
151284 -         Website, and then print from the Web page. ref SDS 23 6800]
151285 - ..
151286 - Cheryl seemed to observe that FastLane contemplates that
151287 - either...
151288 -
151289 -     a.  All parts of the proposal are submitted via FastLane; or,
151290 -
151291 -     b.  All parts should be submitted as conventional printed
151292 -         documents.
151294 -  ..
151295 - I recalled there did not seem to be a provision in FastLane to prepare
151296 - the technical proposal, as shown on 990609. ref SDS 19 0667
151298 -  ..
151299 - Cheryl advised the technical proposal can be submitted as a PDF file,
151300 - by clicking on "Description of Proposal" in FastLane.
151302 -  ..
151303 - I recall clicking on this option in FastLane and did not get the
151304 - impression that this was for the technical proposal, with a table of
151305 - contents, and the 12 parts shown in NSF instructions section 3.  It
151306 - seems strange that this section in FastLane would cover parts 1 - 5 of
151307 - the technical proposal, and not specifically state this scope.
151308 - ..
151309 - In any case, Cheryl and Joe feel we should submit a conventional
151310 - printed proposal using Attachments downloaded from the NSF website,
151311 - shown in NSF instructions, and which were not available on 990522.
151313 -  ..
151314 - They feel this will help NSF solve the problems they now have of
151315 - divided information, where some infomration is on FastLane, and other
151316 - is in a printed format and on the Welch website.
151317 -
151318 -     [On 990615 Joe confirmed he wants everything submitted again, as
151319 -     shown at ref SDS 23 0899.
151321 -      ..
151322 -     [On 990615 problem is not solved because all NSF forms are not
151323 -     available from NSF website, Cover page, Attach B, ref SDS 24 1539
151324 -     and Project Summary, Attach C, ref SDS 24 4816, both require
151325 -     online preparation. which we did on 990609. ref SDS 19 1078]
151327 -      ..
151328 -     [On 990616 resubmitted proposal. ref SDS 25 0001]
151329 -
151331 -  ..
151332 - Proposal Reviewed Online Demonstrates Meaning of Intelligence
151333 -
151334 - We considered briefly the advantage of submitting the technical
151335 - proposal in its present form as a web page, rather than an Adobe PDF
151336 - file, in order to help the reviewer grasp the essence of the
151337 - innovation and its benefits, as set out in para 2 of the proposal
151338 - submitted on 990609. ref DIP 10 1069
151339 -
151340 -     [On 990615 part 2 was amended. ref SDS 24 4928]
151342 -      ..
151343 -     [On 990616 proposal submitted by conventional printed media, and
151344 -     online via Internet. ref SDS 25 0899]
151346 -      ..
151347 -     [On 990621 Joe recognized proposal was available for review online
151348 -     via Internet. ref SDS 26 5440]
151350 -  ..
151351 - Cheryl pointed out that NSF does not permit submission of proposals
151352 - using HTML, per above. ref SDS 0 0561  Instead, NSF uses Adobe Acrobat
151353 - so it can give printed documents to reviewers, because many do not
151354 - have access to web browsers.  PDF files are the accepted form of
151355 - electronic submission because PDF is an inert picture of a document.
151357 -  ..
151358 - Accordingly, it would not help to submit the technical proposal as a
151359 - PDF file because that would deny access to links reviewers need in
151360 - order to understand the proposal. ref DIP 10 1069
151362 -  ..
151363 - This presents a significant challenge to help researchers navigate the
151364 - path for discovering advantages of improving alphabet technology by
151365 - integrating time and information.
151367 -  ..
151368 - Our proposal is to research application of, and developing support
151369 - tools for, a "continuous knowledge stream," ref DIP 10 1069, which
151370 - supplants conventional printed documents email and enhances use of the
151371 - Internet, as planned on 990225. ref SDS 6 0788  Knowledge space
151372 - emulates human thought processes which link chunks of information into
151373 - chains of chronologies that impart cause and effect, i.e.,
151374 - "knowledge."
151376 -  ..
151377 - One derivative of knowledge space is clear, concise, complete
151378 - communication, ref DIP 10 1069, explained on 990419. ref SDS 8 2601
151379 - ..
151380 - How do we convey this capability using conventional printed
151381 - media?
151383 -  ..
151384 - If a reviewer cannot experience this environment using the Internet,
151385 - then there is no hope that the proposal will be understood.  The ideas
151386 - will appear theoretical and beyond the reach of technology, since no
151387 - one else has accomplished this objective.
151388 -
151389 -     [On 991213 proposal seems not to have been reivewed online.
151390 -     ref SDS 30 0788]
151391 -
151392 -
151393 -
1514 -

SUBJECTS
Reviewers, Section 4.2

1603 -
160401 -  ..
160402 - Proposals Can Recommend Reviewers and Provide Access via Internet
160403 - Landauer and Wideman are Possible Reviewers
160404 -
160405 - How can people, even learned members of the academy and industry,
160406 - grasp advantages of an environment for which they have no experience,
160407 - and which is counterintuitive, as noted in the proposal, based on 15
160408 - years of experience? ref DIP 10 4774
160410 -  ..
160411 - Explaining advantages and efficiencies of "self-evident benefits,"
160412 - requires inordinate composition that is otherwise grasped immediately
160413 - by using the environment.  It is like trying to explain the alphabet,
160414 - without showing people the letters and sets of arrangements that give
160415 - it power.
160417 -  ..
160418 - We propose a fundamental advance on the utility of the alphabet, by
160419 - integrating time and information. ref DIP 10 1476 and ref DIP 10 3528
160420 - Reviewers need skills, experience or at least exposure to cognitive
160421 - science and alphabet technology, under analysis on 990218. ref SDS 5
160422 - 7790
160423 -
160424 -     [On 991213 proposal was reviewed by panel on "intelligent
160425 -     systems." ref SDS 30 0788]
160427 -  ..
160428 - We can spend 500 pages explaining human thought processes, and how
160429 - "automated integration" in SDS emulates important aspects of
160430 - "intelligence," reviewed on 990603 on Miller's paper. ref SDS 7 6120
160431 - But, no one will have a clue what this means, because meaning, as
160432 - Landauer points out in his LSA paper, depends on frequency of
160433 - contiguity (see review on 960321. ref SDS 2 2882, which relates to
160434 - human experience.  Since no one has experience with the SDS knowledge
160435 - space, it can have no "meaning."
160437 -  ..
160438 - People, indeed sophisticated, experienced executives, feel that
160439 - explanations about using technology to leverage human intelligence is
160440 - "off the wall," "incredible" and does not impart "clear and concise"
160441 - meaning, as reported on 990505. ref SDS 15 9044
160443 -  ..
160444 - Experience shows that some people who encounter SDS records on the
160445 - Internet, immediately grasp a large part of the meaning, in the form
160446 - of "self-evident benefits" of knowledge space, as related by Tom White
160447 - at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in his report on 981104.
160448 - ref SDS 4 4320
160450 -  ..
160451 - How can we impart self-evident "meaning" about delivering intelligence
160452 - on the Internet, to an NSF reviewer, if the reviewer does not use the
160453 - Internet?
160455 -  ..
160456 - Cheryl advised that proposals can solve this problem by citing links
160457 - which reviewers can access, according to their time and preference.
160458 -
160459 -     [On 990615 Joe confirmed that the proposal should cite a URL in
160460 -     order for Reviewers to understand the methodology and appreciate
160461 -     that the system already exists. ref SDS 23 1044]
160463 -      ..
160464 -     [On 990616 did this. ref SDS 25 0899]
160466 -      ..
160467 -     [On 990629 Sarah did not get letter on reviewers. ref SDS 27 5265]
160469 -      ..
160470 -     [On 990729 Mark Haselkorn comments. ref SDS 29 6984]
160472 -      ..
160473 -     [On 991213 proposal seems not to have been reivewed online by NSF.
160474 -     ref SDS 30 0788]
160475 - ..
160476 - Joe suggested that we recommend a reviewer, as provided by NSF
160477 - rules.
160479 -  ..
160480 - Section 4.2 explains NSF reviewer credentials, ref OF 5 0402, which
160481 - states...
160482 -
160483 -     Most reviewers are employed by universities or by the Federal
160484 -     Government. Others may be employees of nonprofit research
160485 -     laboratories, recent retirees from industrial firms, and, on
160486 -     occasion, employees of industrial organizations, including small
160487 -     business concerns.
160489 -  ..
160490 - This does not expressly indicate that a proposal can recommend a
160491 - reviewer.
160492 - ..
160493 - I have not noticed another provision in the NSF instructions on
160494 - this point.  Possibly FastLane has this instruction.
160495 - ..
160496 - Two possibilities for reviewers who have experience with
160497 - Communication Metrics, and so would be positioned to review the
160498 - proposal absent exposure to the web site, are...
160499 -
160500 -    a.  Tom Landauer
160501 -
160502 -        Dr. Landauer has written widely on making computers useful,
160503 -        based on his work at Bellcore, and expertise in cognitive
160504 -        science.  His book on "The Trouble with Computers," reviewed on
160505 -        950710, ref SDS 1 ,  and his paper on LSA, reviewed beginning
160506 -        on 960321, ref SDS 2, provide support for Communication
160507 -        Metrics.  Tom has limited experience with SDS on the Internet,
160508 -        although this can be quickly remedied.  His prior work at
160509 -        Bellcore on fisheye subject identification, ref SDS 1 0003, is
160510 -        related to SDS subject indexing that is part of the proposal.
160511 -        ref DIP 10 1148
160512 -
160513 -            [On 990629 Sarah knows Tom. ref SDS 27 5265]
160515 -             ..
160516 -            [On 990630 sent letter to Tom. ref SDS 28 0001]
160517 -        ..
160518 -    b.  Max Wideman
160519 -
160520 -        Max has written extensively in project management which is a
160521 -        key source of ideas for Communication Metrics, and particularly
160522 -        the SDS tools that support traceability to original sources.
160523 -        Max's experience with Communication Metrics, and suggestion to
160524 -        provide a mapping system, as shown on 980712, ref SDS 3 6804,
160525 -        would enable him to make the case to the NSF board on why this
160526 -        research is needed.  His notice of George Miller's paper on
160527 -        990303 provides an essential bridge to cognitive science, as
160528 -        shown at ref SDS 7 0920.
160530 -         ..
160531 -        Max is living in Vancouver, and so may be Canadian, which might
160532 -        preempt him from doing the review.  Proposals have to be
160533 -        submitted by U.S. citizens.  This issue is not set out in NSF
160534 -        instructions.
160535 -
160536 -          [On 990614 Canadian is okay. ref SDS 23 1044]
160537 - ..
160538 - Can we suggest several different reviewers, so NSF can select
160539 - one that is available.
160540 -
160541 -      [On 990614 can submit up to 6 reviewers. ref SDS 23 1044]
160543 -  ..
160544 - What is the form of this request?  Is there a specific form?
160546 -  ..
160547 - Where should it be made in the proposal.
160548 -
160549 -      [On 990614 send a separate letter. ref SDS 23 1044]
160551 -  ..
160552 - Submitted ref DIT 2 0001 linked to ref SDS 0 0783 showing questions on
160553 - re-submission.
160554 -
160555 -
160556 -
160557 -
Distribution. . . . See "CONTACTS"