Subject: CCPE Portal C541 From: "Didier, Brett T" Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:34:43 -0700 To: "'gcf@indiana.edu'" CC: "Schuchardt, Karen L" X-UIDL: 3b59c694a01a0000 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (mbox gcfpc) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sun Oct 14 17:39:08 2001) X-From_: fox@mailer.csit.fsu.edu Sun Oct 14 17:36:48 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gcfpc@csit.fsu.edu Received: from dirac.csit.fsu.edu (dirac.csit.fsu.edu [144.174.128.44]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B21423A0A for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:36:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by dirac.csit.fsu.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7) id RAA57910; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200110142136.RAA57910@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> Replied: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:59:41 -0400 Replied: "Didier, Brett T" Delivered-To: fox@csit.fsu.edu Received: from mask.uits.indiana.edu (mask.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.6.184]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90C223A1B for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from relay.pnl.gov (relay.pnl.gov [130.20.128.34]) by mask.uits.indiana.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/IUPO) with ESMTP id f8EMX5p06794 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from vscan2.pnl.gov ([130.20.64.141]) by pnl.gov (PMDF V5.2-33 #42505) with SMTP id <01K8BYSX3N028WZE1J@pnl.gov> for gcf@indiana.edu; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:34:51 PDT Received: from 130.20.128.21 by vscan2.pnl.gov (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT) ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:34:51 -0700 Received: by PNLMSE1.pnl.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:34:50 -0700 Message-id: <29E6E93D92576F4DB85FE89FF2C23F44C1764A@pnlmse03.pnl.gov> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Resent-To: Geoffrey Fox Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:36:45 -0400 Resent-From: Geoffrey Fox A. General Information Paper Number: C541 Date: Sept 10, 2001 Paper Title: Programming Environments for Multidisciplinary Grid Communities Authors: Naren Ramakrishnan, Layne T. Watson, Dennis G. Kafura, Calvin J. Ribbens, Clifford A. Shaffer Referee: Karen Schuchardt/Brett Didier Address: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PO Box 999, Richland WA 99352 C. Recommendation: Accept provided changes are made D. Referee Comments to Editor This paper has some interesting and applicable theoretical and technical content. Although it could be accepted as is, I believe it could be substantially improved by reducing the size and scope. As currently written, it falls short of the desirable goal of making it easy for the reader to read. E. Referred Comments to Author and Editor This paper presents scenarios that motivate research in developing new models for multidisciplinary science. Multidisciplinary communities are characterized and a high level architecture presented. Five existing problem solving environments are described. Several core technologies/approaches for building multidisciplinary GCEs are then described. This paper contains significant interesting and applicable content especially sections 1.3, 1.4, and section 3. It could be improved by condensing it significantly, especially section 2 which is not well motivated (I'm going to tell you about 5 PSEs because...?) and with the exception of S4W, not tied in well with following sections. A reader will be tempted to skip it. The reader will not become experts in these areas or applications. The depth of discussion distracts from the informative content of the paper. Since the paper is quite long, I would suggest discussing only one in depth and capture the key points about the others in a short paragraph. References need to be ordered. The abstract could be "abstracted-up" one level. It currently reads more like an outline or roadmap than expected. Grid computing is a broad term and should be defined for the context of the paper. The first sentence of the abstract asserts the maturity of grid computing. This is not an easily accepted statement. In the opening of the introduction, a shift from lower level application scheduling and execution to higher level problem solving is asserted. Its very debatable whether this is happening yet. The reference to "The Grid" book makes it even less convincing since it was published in 1998 and the early work to develop infrastructure was just starting. Also, the paper is really about early research into supporting higher level problem solving so it seems to contradict this statement. Good motivating content in 1.1. Sections 1.3 and 1.4 reflect substantial work and derived concepts. As such aren't appropriate content for an Introduction section. The content is good however. Section 3.1 last sentence - this is a strong statement without any references. It's not clear what the "traditional approaches" are. Section 3.1, third to last paragraph. "The modeling and performance requirements in a multidisciplinary GCE mean that both approaches are too restrictive." Again a strong statement. Is this proved? Also the reader has to go back and search for what two approaches are being referred to. Perhaps this is because the paragraph contains too many references for the first category. I would suggest that the approach used for the second category (i.e. just reference numbers) would be sufficient and allow the main point to come through. Figure 12 and the couple sentences referring to it could be left out. At this point in the paper, domain specific content confuses the discussion. F. Presentation Changes The style seems a little informal for a journal - for example the repeated use of "we" in 1.1 paragraph 1 and "we" and "our" in section 1 in general. This portrays casual conversation about experience. In general, it would help to talk to the figures more. The reader has to do quite a bit of work to figure them out and make the connections to text. Make it easy for the reader. Forward and backward references (e.g. See section xxx) didn't help and were distracting. I suggest they be removed. Organize content or rephrase so they are not necessary. The attempt to cover too much ground and refer to too much other work lessens the paper by reducing readability and drowning the main points. Last two paragraphs of the discussion are hard to read and don't add to the paper. Are discussions of future work appropriate for a journal article? I suggest they be removed. .