Chern said that the limitation on the size and term of grants has benn
lifted and that we should ask for what we want.  He is moving to 
Advanced Technology Applications (same division as Devey).

He wants one year, two year, etc milestones.  That part should be made
more specific.

The relation that he sees between SRI, Draper Lab and us is that Draper
should be the near term with the most contact with industry, SRI the
slightly farther term, with us on a longer term, with much further
evolution.  We should have some contact with industry, but he sees that
in addition to this being the selling form for his program, it represents
a chain of technology transfer from SU to SRI to Draper.  
We should thus show some degree of overlap to allow for this transfer,
and to allow comparison of approaches.  We should discuss this overlap
in the proposal.  We should also show how we are different from the other
groups.

In showing how we are different, we have not only the possibility
of further evolution, but we have the best computer science inputs.  He is
very interested in the computerized factory (there are other forces pushing
toward that direction) and sees us as interfacing assembly with the broader
computerization effort, and that we are unique in that capability.
We should stress this more, as well as the programming of robots, and
the language questions.
This way language development might be better than the APT history
which went too much to aerospace.

Some of the discussion of manipulation should be enriched.  The spinoff
to other manipulators, the computer control and its advantages, use of
tools should be emphasized.