NCEP corrections to Proposal 3 as of November 14, 2000
November 15, 2000

Page 1, section (I) 1:
Change 'i nteroperability' to 'interoperability'

Page 9, section (I) 3.4.1:
In the first sentence, 'we' should be 'the DAO'

Page 11, section (I) 3.4.4:
This section is weak.

Page 13, sections (I) 3.8 and 3.9:
Clean up as noted.

Page 16, section (II) 1.2:
Is this adding one more person, the integrator, to the proposal?

Page 32, section (V) milestone I:
Replace 'utilize' with 'prototype' in the first sentence.  (2002 comes soon.)
Replace 'base' with 'structure'.  (We are talking about an internal
data structure, not an external file structure.  The file I/O and decoding
would take longer to adapt.)

Page 34, section (V) milestone J:
Delete phrase 'as well as to access observational database'.

General comments:
The '[?]' annotations should be fixed.
All over, 'mitGCM' needs to have consistent usage
and be defined before first usage.
The MIT contribution does not relate well to the rest of the proposal.
If MIT does not meet its milestones, does that mean no one will be paid?
Their is no record of how funds will be allocated to the co-I institutions.
Shouldn't that be itemized in the milestones section?