[Smartscribo] Fwd: FRUCT9 notification for paper 9

[dkorzun]

Добрый день.

Поздравляю с принятием статьи на конференцию.
Подготовьте конкретные предложения по улучшению 
текста, учитывающие пожелания рецензентов.
Также надо будет учесть и в докладе.
Обсудим на собрании.

Корзун Дмитрий Жоржевич, к.ф.-м.н., доцент
Петрозаводский государственный университет, математический факультет, 
Кафедра информатики и математического обеспечения (www.cs.karelia.ru) 
Адрес: 185910, Республика Карелия, г. Петрозаводск, пр. Ленина, 33
Каб.: 217,  E-mail: dkorzun at cs.karelia.ru,
тел.: +7 (8142) 711084, +7 (8142) 711015,  факс: +7 (8142) 711000



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: FRUCT9 notification for paper 9
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:41:44 +0300
From: Dmitry Korzun <Dmitry.Korzun at hiit.fi>
To: dkorzun at cs.karelia.ru



----- Forwarded message from FRUCT9 <fruct9 at easychair.org> -----
    Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:25:12 +0100
    From: FRUCT9 <fruct9 at easychair.org>
Reply-To: FRUCT9 <fruct9 at easychair.org>
 Subject: FRUCT9 notification for paper 9
      To: Dmitry Korzun <dkorzun at hiit.fi>

Dear Dmitry Korzun

Congratulations - your paper A Blogging Application for Smart Spaces for
FRUCT9
has been accepted as a
full paper. Your presentation slot at the conference will be 20 min
consisting of presentation of 15 min and questions of 5 min.

You can find reviews in the Easychair system under your submission record.

If you want to present a demo based on your paper please let us know asap
by
sending email to info at fruct.org with the subject 'fruct9 demo request'.

Please submit your Camera Ready paper via EasyChair by April 08, 2011 in
accordance to the guidelines given here http://fruct.org/conference9
Please pay attention the accepted papers have to be modified according
to the feedback of reviewers and re-submitted as .zip or .tgz
archive.The archive file shall include .pdf and the source document in
MS Word or LaTeX. Please make sure that all images in your paper are in
black & white.

Regards,
FRUCT9 TPC


----------------------- REVIEW 1 ---------------------
PAPER: 9
TITLE: A Blogging Application for Smart Spaces
AUTHORS: Diana Zaiceva, Ivan Galov and Dmitry Korzun

OVERALL RATING: 1 (weak accept)

The language in the paper is very fluent, and the presentation
consistent in only referring to old material and presenting the
new contributions in their own right. The issue at hand is accurately
exposed in the context of smart spaces (and ontology), and the
solution is well presented. I also feel that the prior-art
background is accurately described, atthough my knowledge in the
references in this exact field is weak.


Even though the topic is well brought forward, the rasion-d'etre
of the paper is to me a little bit obscured. The introductory
sections describe that a prototype of the multi-blogging system
exists, but no further evidence of such a prototype is given. At
another angle, there is little proof of how the ontology / event
system would work in terms of information load or processing -
a possibly interesting simulation exercise. So although the
presentation is bordering on excellent and the ontology is accurately
presented, the paper lacks in content delivery - hopefully
more time and research work will fix this issue, since this
seems like a relevant and interesting issue.


----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------
PAPER: 9
TITLE: A Blogging Application for Smart Spaces
AUTHORS: Diana Zaiceva, Ivan Galov and Dmitry Korzun

OVERALL RATING: 2 (accept)

A solid contribution, that has several minor tweaks I would like to be
fixed:

1. The chosen vocabulary and the use of it.

E.g. better words might be scalability, platform-independent and
portability
etc., than multi-device etc. I understand that it might feel nice to have
everything multi this and that but in my opinion more common words should
be
used. Like in conclusion you have the extendability.

E.g. the term requirements is used in a very loose manner. Normally
requirements
are elicitated and marked e.g. R1: The service is portable. Then you have
an
comment how that portability is addressed / and how the fulfillment of
that
particular requirement (R1) is being tested and by who. That is all part
of the
requirements management in general. Now the text does not tell the reader
how
these requirements were derived? If they are design goals, fine ...use the
word
design goals. So I would like to see them rather as design goals, unless
you
cannot present them as real requirements derived somehow and presented
like in
requirements specification (that have priorities included). Also, are
these all
requirements that the blogging application does have (I would assume much
more
could be derived), or are these requirements related to the smartness i.e.
application logic or something else?

2. Comments to the content

a) In introduction no competing approached are introduced. Yes, it might
be true
that there is no such an application but surely there are blogging
applications
that are e.g. portable i.e. can be for different clients. Same with the
all
multi-aspects.

b) In architecture chapter you introduce two problems, i.e. ontology and
synchronization. In the following model chapter you handle the ontology
well but
leave the synchronization out unless these notifications are the same.
There is
no word synchronization.

3. Writing style & placement of figures

There is a lot of 2-3 sentece paragraphs. It cuts the flow of the text. In
some
places there is no appropriate sentence to support the transfer from
paragraph
to another. If there is no real reason to have so many subparagraphs
inside
paragraph, they should be rather together. Some figures are placed before
the
explaining text ( e.g. fig 5.) and figure 7 in middle of the steps.

4. Abstract & Conclusion

Both miss the results. In the abstract, the last sentence could be
something
like 'The early results indicate that the ontology... and the
synchronization
... Similar sentence in conclusions to indicate the main results.


----------------------- REVIEW 3 ---------------------
PAPER: 9
TITLE: A Blogging Application for Smart Spaces
AUTHORS: Diana Zaiceva, Ivan Galov and Dmitry Korzun

OVERALL RATING: 2 (accept)

Good paper about implementation multi-blogging through Smart-space
approach.

I have only one note. If I understand properly, authors are considering
blogging
implementation with smart space technology as is. It causes lot's of
computation
as mentioned in part II. Do we really need to go such straight-forward? I
think
that SS and special KPs should adapt user needs to existing blog services.
In
this case SS approach can be more relevant.


----- End forwarded message -----