From psi03@iis.nsk.su Thu May 15 08:33:12 2003
Return-Path: <psi03@iis.nsk.su>
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 <christian.heller@tu-ilmenau.de>; 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
 


