NSF WWW Workshop, Fox Position Paper: General Recommendations

  1. Don't let WWW flop (i.e., help fix any serious problems that arise), e.g.:
    1. encourage use of caching in the networks
    2. encourage improved protocols that reduce traffic and delays
    3. encourage better integration of indexing and search technology
  2. See that Computer Science research results that relate directly to the WWW (e.g., in AI, digital libraries, electronic publishing, HCI, hypertext, information retrieval, multimedia, HCI) can easily find their way into WWW:
    1. so that current problems of WWW can be corrected in time
    2. so that research results can more quickly work through the technology transfer cycle, and "prove themselves" in real use
  3. Use WWW in whatever ways it can be applied (e.g., as suggested in various of the position statements) to save the time of NSF staff as well as of those who prepare, review, and carry out research projects --- to make NSF efforts more efficient (with no loss in quality), e.g.:
    1. provide "templates" and online forms to help simplify and organize all data entry, submissions, reviews and other information handling
    2. have online searchable and browsable versions of all procedures and announcements, databases of PIs/projects/reviewers/panelists, ...
    3. have online "frequently asked question" and other explanations to help staff and outsiders more quickly find answers to common questions
  4. Use WWW to help with rapid dissemination of CS research findings:
    1. having sets of pages for each funded project, with similar structure, so one can easily find the important parts of each
    2. having all reports and papers related to the project be online and directly accessible (possibly inside a TR or publisher's WWW repository, or, at worst, as bibliographic citation plus abstract) --- this calls for liaison with CS technical report, CS digital library, and CS thesis/dissertation projects
    3. having online demonstrations, visualizations, simulations, animations, movies, code archives, documentation, and other related results
    4. having multiple views, for differing levels of expertise/education, e.g., K-12, undergrad, grad, researcher, layman, patent lawyer
    5. having indexing, classification, clustering, summarizing, abstracting, and other tools or meta-information to aid access