1. Evaluation Of: BioPerl

2. The overall quality of the group project
     1 - 10 (best):  7

3. Content:
     1 - 10 (best)  7

4. Organization:
     1 - 10 (best)  7

5. what you liked most;
     Examples of what BioPerl can do from a practical standpoint.
A difficult topic to make interesting.

6. what is missing in your opinion
     describe:  
There were several places where  specific modules were demonstrated but a clear overall understanding or “map” of the bioperl package was not really presented.













1. Bioperl Group
2. 9
3. 9
4. 10
5. I liked the way that they presented with sample code inserted.  I
also thought they gave good examples of how Bioperl can be used and
why it should be used in a lot of situations.
6. I would have liked to see a few implementations of Bioperl.  I
tried several of the codes they presented and could not get some to
work for some reason.  If they would have run them for us, it would
make me a stronger beleiver in Bioperl.


IV	Group: BioPerl
	The overall quality of the group project: 9
	Content: 10
	Organization: 9
	What we liked most: The use of modules/tools that we can use for sequence storage and manipulation
     	What is missing, in our opinion: They could have presented actual running code to show BioPerl modules in action, and compare to them to Perl.

1. The name of the group being evaluated: Bioperl Group

2. The oevrall quality of the group project: 7

3. Content: 9

4. Organization: 6

5. what you liked most: useful and informative, presentation is a good
reference,

6. what is missing in your opinion: repetitive, too much code to follow,
too fast, too many slides,

--------------------

1. Evaluation Of: BioPerl

2. The overall quality of the group project
     1 - 10 (best):  7

3. Content:
     1 - 10 (best)  7

4. Organization:
     1 - 10 (best)  7

5. what you liked most;
     Examples of what BioPerl can do from a practical standpoint.
A difficult topic to make interesting.

6. what is missing in your opinion
     describe:  
There were several places where  specific modules were demonstrated but
a clear overall understanding or “map” of the bioperl package was not
really presented.



	1. The name of the group being evaluated:  BioPerl

	2. The overall quality of the group project:  8

	3. Content:  10

	4. Organization:  10

	5. what you liked most:  
		The presentation presented software that we can actually use for problems in our class!
	
	6. what is missing in your opinion:  Nothing.

Group 4            8.5                    9.0                    8.0
Demonstration of the functions                    Probrably tree part
(BioPerl)


I. The name of the group being evaluated:
	BioPerl
1.The overall quality of the group project: 10
2.Content:   10  
3.Organization:     10
4.what you liked most: the same 

 
  Evaluation for the Bioperl group
  
  1. The name of the group being evaluated:
  Bioperl
  
  2. The overall quality of the group project
       1 - 10 (best)
  9
  
  3. Content:
       1 - 10 (best)
  9
  
  4. Organization:
       1 - 10 (best)
  8
  
  5. what you liked most;
  - the example code and some results
  
  6. what is missing in your opinion
  - some slides are not well organized and topic of the presentation
 is not
  easy to follow