From edoc-pc-chairs@dstc.edu.au Sat May 10 23:59:19 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 h4AM1P1t028861 for hidden; Sun, 11 May 2003 00:01:25 +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 h4AM0kxc005246 for hidden; Sun, 11 May 2003 00:00:48 +0200 (MEST) Received: from piglet.dstc.edu.au (piglet.dstc.edu.au [130.102.176.1]) by piggy.rz.tu-ilmenau.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4AM0i8j005117 for hidden; Sun, 11 May 2003 00:00:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from obsolete.dstc.edu.au (www.dstc.edu.au [130.102.181.60]) by piglet.dstc.edu.au (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4ALxOZV008790; Sun, 11 May 2003 07:59:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from www@localhost) by obsolete.dstc.edu.au (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA18359; Sun, 11 May 2003 07:59:19 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 07:59:19 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200305102159.HAA18359@obsolete.dstc.edu.au> To: christian.heller@tu-ilmenau.de From: EDOC PC Chairs Reply-To: EDOC PC Chairs Cc: edoc-pc-chairs@edocconference.org Subject: EDOC 2003: result of review X-Spam-Checked: SPAMASSASSIN: This message probably not SPAM X-Spam-Score: -0.5, Required: 5 X-Virus-Scanned: Message: ok X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.9 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Status: R X-Status: N Dear Christian Heller, thank you for your submission to EDOC 2003. Unfortunately, we have to inform you that your paper TITLE : A flexible Software Architecture for Communication AUTHORS: Christian Heller, Torsten Kunze, Jens Bohl, Ilka Philippow could not be accepted. We had to be quite selective, because the average quality of the submissions was exceptionally high this year. We appreciate your contribution and hope that the attached comments of the reviewers will help you to improve the quality of your paper. We invite you to attend EDOC 2003 in September. The program will be published soon and sent to you by e-mail. Best regards, Maarten Steen & Barrett Bryant EDOC 2003 PC Chairs edoc-pc-chairs@edocconference.org ------------------------ Reviewers Comments ----------------------------- Reviewers Familiarity: 8 Evaluation of work and contribution: 5 Significance to theory and practice: 5 Originality and novelty: 4 Relevance for EDOC 2003: 7 Readability and organization: 5 Overall recommendation: 4 **(0 = no mark set by reviewer)** Summary: Comments to the author: --------------------------------------- Reviewers Familiarity: 7 Evaluation of work and contribution: 5 Significance to theory and practice: 5 Originality and novelty: 5 Relevance for EDOC 2003: 6 Readability and organization: 5 Overall recommendation: 5 **(0 = no mark set by reviewer)** Summary: This paper tries to propose a common abstract model for three situations currently found in software architecture: Backend, DataTransfer and FrontEnd. Comments to the author: impossible to read data from Figure 5. Figure 6 is not better. Difficult to completely evaluate the paper in these conditions. Section 8 (about the authors) need to be deleted. An additional section about related work needs to be added. The idea of building an abstract model of three situations commonly found in software architecture is much appealing. Two remarks however: 1. This is more a pattern paper than a classical EDOC paper. I would recommend sending it to a Pattern conference. 2. The paper stays much tool general. We need to have some concrete example of how the 3 schemes are performed. Furthermore generalities like Fig. 4 should be skipped in this kind of conference paper. --------------------------------------- Reviewers Familiarity: 0 Evaluation of work and contribution: 0 Significance to theory and practice: 0 Originality and novelty: 0 Relevance for EDOC 2003: 0 Readability and organization: 0 Overall recommendation: 0 **(0 = no mark set by reviewer)** Summary: Comments to the author: --------------------------------------- Reviewers Familiarity: 7 Evaluation of work and contribution: 4 Significance to theory and practice: 3 Originality and novelty: 2 Relevance for EDOC 2003: 5 Readability and organization: 5 Overall recommendation: 3 **(0 = no mark set by reviewer)** Summary: The paper describes a software framework and its application in an open source software project. The framework provides support on persistence and communication pattern mappings. Comments to the author: - remove references from the abstract - well done, in terms of applying existing knowledge --------------------------------------- ============== END OF REVIEWS ===============