From psi03@iis.nsk.su Thu May 15 08:33:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: from virusgate.rz.tu-ilmenau.de (virusgate.rz.tu-ilmenau.de [141.24.4.19]) by ernie.rz.tu-ilmenau.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4F6ahQe012288 for hidden; Thu, 15 May 2003 08:36:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from piggy.rz.tu-ilmenau.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virusgate.rz.tu-ilmenau.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4F6a4oq028939 for hidden; Thu, 15 May 2003 08:36:05 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mx.iis.nsk.su (mx.iis.nsk.su [194.226.177.121]) by piggy.rz.tu-ilmenau.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4F6a18j003877 for hidden; Thu, 15 May 2003 08:36:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shera (onti.iis.nsk.su [194.226.177.131]) by mx.iis.nsk.su (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4F6Zj1q030436 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 13:35:46 +0700 (NOVST) (envelope-from psi03@iis.nsk.su) From: psi03@iis.nsk.su To: christian.heller@tu-ilmenau.de Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:33:12 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: PSI03 Message-ID: <3EC39718.1443.B069B7@localhost> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Status: R X-Status: N Dear Dr. Heller, I regret to inform you that your paper has not been selected for the presentation at the Fourth International Conference "Perspectives of Systems Informatics". In April we sent this information to the first author, Jens Bohl. Seemingly he has failed to receive the letter. Please find below the referees' reports on your paper. Sincerely yours, Alexandre Zamulin, Conference PC co-chair ------------------------------------------------------------ Kind of the paper: REGULAR Paper No : 72 Author(s): Jens Bohl et al. Title: Flexible Software Architectures (estimation range 1...7) Validity: 4 Appropriateness for PSI03: 5 Significance of the work: 2 Quality of presentation: 3 Originality: 3 References to relevant work: 2 My opinion in terms of an overall score: (1-7) 1. Acceptance as a regular paper: 2 1: strong reject 2: reject 3: weak reject 4: neutral 5: weak accept 6: accept 7: strong accept 2. Acceptance as a short paper (if it cannot be accepted as a regular paper): 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competence of the reviewer: 3 1-week, 2- medium, 3-strong Comments for authors : - In the abstract you use the term "domain-independent software framework" which is either a sloppy use of the term or even a contradiction in itself. A software framework is always domain-specific. This is the essence of frameworks. - Some figures (e.g. 3, 4, 5) are not referenced in the text. - Page 2: The hierarchical MVC is not well explained. How does the communication of the MVC triads via the controllers work? - The essence of Section 3 (Fig.6) seems to be that the steps for component creation have to be undone in the reverse order during component deletion. This does not become clear from your text. BTW: I don't understand what this has to do with whole-part relations. Section 3 is not clear at all. - Fig. 7 still contains german text. - In Section 4 (and also before) you speak of episodes without explaining them. - Page 4, line 3: There is no such thing as a "standard application". - Fig.8: This is not an example of the Composite pattern. It is a node that could be part of a list, tree or graph. - What is the message of Section 5? That CYBOP builds on 3 design patterns? What is novel in this case? - I don't see how Section 6 is related to the previous sections. It just says that you have developed a medical documentation system. How does it rely on the architecture described above? Kind of the paper: REGULAR Paper No : 72 Author(s): Jens Bohl et al. Title: Flexible Software Architectures Validity:6 Appropriateness for PSI03:6 Significance of the work:5 Quality of presentation:4 Originality:6 References to relevant work:4 My opinion in terms of an overall score: (1-7) 6 1. Acceptance as a regular paper: 6 1: strong reject 2: reject 3: weak reject 4: neutral 5: weak accept 6: accept 7: strong accept 2. Acceptance as a short paper (if it cannot be accepted as a regular paper): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competence of the reviewer: 1-week, 2- medium, 3-strong Comments for authors : This is an interesting approach to a new problem. It would be interesting to know if the technique can be reused in other software paradigms. Can you for example always identify the ontologies and are problems suitable for classification as a hierarchy? Even if they are not the approach is still sound for some classes of problem. Will the paper is well written they are still some grammatical errors which could be corrected. The formatting of the paper is also not consistent. Kind of the paper: REGULAR Paper No : 72 Author(s): Jens Bohl et al. Title: Flexible Software Architectures (estimation range 1...7) Validity: 5 Appropriateness for PSI03: 5 Significance of the work: 3 Quality of presentation: 2 Originality: 2 References to relevant work: 4 My opinion in terms of an overall score: (1-7) 3 1. Acceptance as a regular paper: 3 1: strong reject 2: reject 3: weak reject 4: neutral 5: weak accept 6: accept 7: strong accept 2. Acceptance as a short paper (if it cannot be accepted as a regular paper): 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competence of the reviewer: 1-week, 2- medium, 3-strong Comments for authors : Give more background on Res Medicinae (what the project is about, what were the requirements, whether/how they were achieved). Provide concrete examples of how the use of the described design patterns promotes flexibility and extensibility. Have the text proofread. Enlarge the screenshot. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kind of the paper: REGULAR > Paper No : 72 > Author(s): Jens Bohl et al. > Title: Flexible Software Architectures > > (estimation range 1...7) > Validity: 5 > Appropriateness for PSI03: 4 > Significance of the work: 3 > Quality of presentation: 4 > Originality: 4 > References to relevant work: 4 > > My opinion in terms of an overall score: (1-7) > > 1. Acceptance as a regular paper: 3 > > 1: strong reject > 2: reject > 3: weak reject > 4: neutral > 5: weak accept > 6: accept > 7: strong accept > > 2. Acceptance as a short paper > (if it cannot be accepted as a regular paper): 5 > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > > Competence of the reviewer: > > 1-week, 2- medium, 3-strong 2 > > Comments for authors : This paper spends too much for presentation of concrete example, so concept as whole is not clear enough. I recommend to decrease illustrations and improve conceptual part and re-write as short paper. PSI03 5th International A.P.Ershov Conference PERSPECTIVES OF SYSTEM INFORMATICS Novosibirsk, 630090, pr. Acad. Lavrentjev,6 e-mail: psi03@iis.nsk.su fax: 7-3832-323494