Subject: CCPE Portal C531 From: Anand Natrajan Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:30:27 -0400 (EDT) To: gcf@indiana.edu X-UIDL: 56b0ee3d6d1b0000 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 17:42:34 2001) X-From_: fox@mailer.csit.fsu.edu Sun Oct 14 17:41:28 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 A0EB623A07 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:41:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by dirac.csit.fsu.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7) id RAA27550; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:41:26 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200110142141.RAA27550@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> Delivered-To: fox@csit.fsu.edu Received: from fins.uits.indiana.edu (unknown [129.79.6.185]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DDF23AC2 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ares.cs.Virginia.EDU (ares.cs.Virginia.EDU [128.143.137.19]) by fins.uits.indiana.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/IUPO) with ESMTP id f8KIU8o00186 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from viper.cs.Virginia.EDU (viper.cs.Virginia.EDU [128.143.137.17]) by ares.cs.Virginia.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2/UVACS-2000040300) with ESMTP id OAA02935 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (an4m@localhost) by viper.cs.Virginia.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA24496 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:30:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: viper.cs.Virginia.EDU: an4m owned process doing -bs Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-To: Geoffrey Fox Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:41:26 -0400 Resent-From: Geoffrey Fox CandC:PandE Referee Report Form *********************************************** Electronic Transimission to gcf@indiana.edu strongly preferred. Referees Home Page: http://aspen.csit.fsu.edu/CandCPandE/ Email gcf@indiana.edu for URL of full paper to be reviewed. WILEY Journal Home Page John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Baffins Lane, Chichester West Sussex, PO19 1UD, England Telephone: (01243) 779777 Fax: (01243) 770379 REFEREE'S REPORT Concurrency and Computation:Practice and Experience ********** A: General Information Please return to: Geoffrey C. Fox Electronically Preferred gcf@indiana.edu Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience Computer Science Department 228 Lindley Hall Bloomington Indiana 47405 Office Phone 8128567977(Lab), 8128553788(CS) but best is cell phone 3152546387 FAX 8128567972 Please fill in Summary Conclusions (Sec. C) and details as appropriate in Secs. D, E and F. B: Refereeing Philosophy We encourage a broad range of readers and contributors. Please judge papers on their technical merit and separate comments on this from those on style and approach. Keep in mind the strong practical orientation that we are trying to give the journal. Note that the forms attached provide separate paper for comments that you wish only the editor to see and those that both the editor and author receive. Your identity will of course not be revealed to the author. C: Paper and Referee Metadata Paper Number C531: Date: Wed Sep 19 11:58:38 EDT 2001 Paper Title: The Grid Portal Development Kit Author(s): Jason Novotny Referee: Anand Natrajan Address: Dept. of Comp. Sc., Univ. of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904 Referee Recommendations. Please indicate overall recommendations here, and details in following sections. REJECT D: Referee Comments (For Editor Only) ------------------------------------ It seems as if the work has merits. However, the technical and stylistic presentation of the paper is very shoddy. From the paper I get very little understanding of the project or interesting features of the project. E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor) ------------------------------ This paper describes a development toolkit for building grid portals for applications. The toolkit is built on top of Globus middleware using Java. The paper is restricted to discussing features of Java that the toolkit used. For example, most of the meaty Section 2 is devoted to describing server pages, servlets and Java beans. While such a discussion is certainly necessary, it should not be the major focus of this paper. Instead, the paper should bring out interesting grid-related issues in the development of the toolkit. Likewise, it's not clear what the reader is supposed to glean from Section 3. The section does not show techniques by which the toolkit can be used by others; it does not show how the toolkit was used in example; it does not contain any evaluation metrics for the toolkit or portals developed using it. Perhaps the missing Section 4 contained all of these points, but since I did not receive a Section 4 (and couldn't tell if a Section 4 existed, because pages were unnumbered), I can't evaluate the work presented here. In general, when presenting Related Work (Section 5), the aim is to compare and contrast the work in the paper with others' work in the same area. In this paper, Related Work is used to describe invocations of the toolkit. In other words, Section 5 is more a Deployment section than a Related Work section. No related work is presented in the paper. >From my reading of the paper, I understand that developing a grid toolkit is an important task. I believe that the toolkit developed by the author is probably a useful one. However, the presentation of the toolkit in this paper leaves much to be desired. Hence, the reject. F: Presentation Changes There are several suggestions for improving the presentation in this paper: * Fill the empty citations. Currently, they are all "[]", which is extremely shoddy. * Improve the grammar. There are several split infinitives ("to better utilise"), run-on sentences (page 2, middle para, 2nd sent.), missing hyphens ("... for building customised application-specific portals..." - hyphen added by me), disagreement in numbers ("All other resources... forms the third tier"), missing commas ("e.g.," - comma added by me), incorrect usage ("is comprised of"), etc. * Remove informalisms. Phrases such as "tweaking of the web pages", "at the heart of", "on the fly", etc. should be replaced by appropriate technical phrases that describe the concept better. * Correct spelling and capitalisation errors. "coomand", "idf", "cpu", etc. * Insert missing components. Blank sites, missing Figure 1, missing Section 4, Related Work, etc. * Define terms before usage. "ANT", "idf", etc. .