Subject: RE: C537 CCPE Portal special Issue From: "Tomasz Haupt" Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:57:38 -0600 To: "Geoffrey Fox" X-UIDL: eO"#!299"!ce5!!^A("! X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: Received: from grids.ucs.indiana.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grids.ucs.indiana.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g011Bf618985 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:11:41 -0500 (EST) Resent-Message-Id: <200201010111.g011Bf618985@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> Replied: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:55:33 -0500 Replied: "Tomasz Haupt" Delivery-Date: Fri Dec 21 13:49:10 2001 Received: from snorkel.uits.indiana.edu (snorkel.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.6.186]) by grids.ucs.indiana.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fBLIn9610189 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ERC.MsState.Edu (Sniper.ERC.MsState.Edu [130.18.14.12]) by snorkel.uits.indiana.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/IUPO) with ESMTP id fBLIn6X00178 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:49:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from hauptpc (Hauptpc.ERC.MsState.Edu [130.18.13.64]); by ERC.MsState.Edu (8.11.4/8.11.1/ERC-Mailhost/1.11) with SMTP; id fBLImu714344 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:48:56 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C18A1F.115F44C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200112162244.fBGMiW627377@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Resent-To: ccpe Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:11:41 -0500 Resent-From: Geoffrey Charles Fox X-UIDL: eO"#!299"!ce5!!^A("! Please find the attached improved document. Tomasz Referee 1 ******************************************* E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor) ------------------------------ >The paper needs to address the difference between Webflow and this >activity. This work does not use Webflow at all. I made reference to WebFlow work. >Can we disconnect and connect to the portal and have the jobs still running? Not at this time, it would require a valid account at ERC systems. We are working on a demo version of DMEFS. >F: Presentation Changes > >Summary: > > >Replace "this way" with Thus. I do not like the use of the phrase This way. > done. >Introduction: > > The first two paragraphs are almost two introductions, maybe the >first paragraph should > be dropped? Maybe a better connection to the second should be >established. > >Page 2: section 2. this is yet a different motivating example. I suggest >to either stick >with one motivating example or have a special section that lists and >goes in detail to each >of the motivating examples. Recommendation tighten introduction and .motivating examples. > I have rewritten the introduction. >Page 4. is the term actors used in the CS sense? This is unclear, if not >explain what it is. I removed this term from the paper as confusing. >Figure 1. Use UML I have redrawn the figure. >Grid is almost always capitalized Agreed. >Figures are unreadable, why does everyone scale gif images to unreadability? Those are full screen dumps, and do not fit the page. I have recaputured them on machine with higher screen resoultion. Anyway, the screen dump are given to give the reader some sense how the front end looks like. The details are not critical for understanding the paper. > Use vector graphics for figure 7. I have redrawn figure 7. >Referee 2 ******************************************* > >E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor) ------------------------------ >The paper describes a highly interesting project with a >focus on real applications for everyday use. > >The structure of the paper is poor and it is difficult for the >interested reader to fully grasp the concept behind the >web portal. It may be helpful to have the description of the >MCWP as chapter 4 (now chapter 5) and only after having introduced >the concepts go into the details with "Portal Design". > I do not agree; the new introduction should help. >Information about comparable projects and research work has >to be included to show how MCWP compares to other work in the >field. This should also be reflected in the referenced literature. > >It is obvious that the article was not yet formatted. We expect >this to be done before the paper is published. Currently figure 2 is >incomplete. All figures should be of much better quality. >F: Presentation Changes >In the very general introduction the author states that city planners >do make extensive use of computers. In this generality this is >probably wrong. It is also doubtful to see computational power as a >reliable source of forecast for the stock market. I have rewritten the introduction, and dropped this part. Nevertheless I do not agree. I never said that city planners making use of computers to run simulations. They use, or should use computers extensively for accessing the data. I am criticising that the data available to, and generated by scientists are not readily available to them, and grid computing environment has potential to change that. Also, Wall Street is using HPC for a very complex simulations. >In figure 1 the classification of the users into administrators, >developers, operators and customer analysts is done. In the later paper >only the general term "user" is utilized. It would be helpful to >demonstrate the usefulness of this classification if this general >term would be replaced by the more specific term defined above wherever >applicable. Agreed, and I have corrected that. >In the description of the application descriptor it would be very >interesting to get more details how the "information how to build it" >is provided. This is a subject of another paper in preparation. >In the description of the job descriptor the author refers to figure 3 >showing the analyst interface. It is not clear how this corresponds to the >job descriptor. Agreed. I have provided more explanation. >The text in the screen shots of figure 2,3,4 and 5 is unreadable. See my reply to a similar comment above. Referee 3 ******************************************* E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor) >Re: Chapter 2 >it is not obvious from the paper how tightly MCWP is coupled to DMEFS >and SPUR. I would >assume that these are initial sample applications and that the system >can be extended (how?) >to other application domains. Agreed. I have corrected that. >Chapter 3: >The term 'user' is used ambiguously. On one hand it is the generic class >of users like >developer, customer, etc on the other hand it is used where a specific >class should be >named. Agreed. I have corrected that. >Chapter 5: >The section on architecture should be expanded to explain the functions >of the tiers more concrete. It is especially not obvious if all four Tiers are considered >part of the Portal as Fig 7 suggests. >The following questions should also be addressed: >- Security, authentication, authorization >- Systems supported as back-end The system described here is based on Globus. >F: Presentation Changes > >Heading of chapter 2 should probably read: Applications Driving MCWP >Figure 2 has arrows pointing into it which should be labeled or omitted. I have changed that. > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoffrey Charles Fox [mailto:gcf@grids.ucs.indiana.edu] > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 4:45 PM > To: Tomasz Haupt > Subject: C537 CCPE Portal special Issue > > > It could well be that I mislaid it but I don't see your revised > paper for portal > special issue. I wonder when i could get this? (due date was 2 weeks ago) > Thank you > > Geoffrey Fox gcf@indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 > Phones Cell 315-254-6387 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 CS 8128553788 >