Referee 1 *******************************************

E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor)  ------------------------------
This paper is a very interesting short sketch of a developing
project. It describes quite well the modules and interactions with
other tools. What is missing is reference to related work which would
help to see what is so specific about the project. Furthermore the
concepts and ideas behind the modules and tools have to be added.
The authors mention their object oriented approach at several places, but
they don't elaborate it further. 

If this short sketch is worked out into a full paper it may be
very interesting.


F: Presentation Changes

The paper is not formatted according to the guidelines of CPE special
issue, an abstract is essential. 
The authors should read the instructions at 
http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/1040-3108/ and get the
appropriate style files.

More information about the similarities and differences between the
Perl CoG and the other CoGs should be provided. Do they have the same
design and architecture? What are the reasons for possible
differences? What is special for Perl?

Figure 1 shows the architecture of a portal developed with a different 
toolkit (GridPort). The authors state that the architecture
would be the same if the Perl CoG had been used. Nevertheless the
relevance of this figure for a paper about the Perl CoG is unclear. 
Would the architecture differ if a non Perl toolkit had been used for
the implementation?

Since the Globus client utilities are required for the Perl CoG the
statement "the requirements for the Perl CoG are minimal, and the
installation is simple" is a contradiction to the earlier statement
"the installation of the Globus client utilities may present some
challenges".

The whole section 3 resembles more an installation instruction than a
scientific paper. We recommend to remove this section and to include
the relevant information provided here in the description of the architecture.

In section 4 the handling of interactive and batch jobs are
described. In the presented context is is not clear what the
differences between these two kind of jobs are and why only the batch
jobs have been wrapped in a object oriented module. 

The authors should describe what distinguishes the RSL module from a
string class library. What abstraction level is provided to the user?
Is it the responsibility of the user to get a correct RSL string or is
this guaranteed by the RSL module in an OO style fashion? 

Only the search and RSl modules are pure Perl implementations, all
others are simple wrappers to the underlying Globus utilities. Since
the potential benefit of a pure Perl implementation is huge and also
mentioned by the authors it would be very interesting why this
approach was taken by the Perl CoG developers. Was it a matter of
convenience for the developers or are there more fundamental issues
involved?

Referee 2 *******************************************

Overview :

This paper describes a Perl implementation of a Commodity
Grid Toolkit ( Cog Kit ). The paper explains why such kits
are needed and why a Perl implementation is necessary.

Review :

Having seen presentations on this excellent project, this
paper does not seem to do it justice. Basically the paper is too
short to adequately explain the various components and the design
decisions. Perl is probably the most widely used scripting language
and is absolutely appropriate for system level tasks. The marriage to
Grid technologies is natural. Some of the advanced features of Perl5
could be explained better ( where appropriate ) that show why it's
a stable yet modern scripting language. A more in-depth explanation
of the Perl CoG Kit models is necessary.

Module creation is discussed. A utility to convert 'C' headers to
stubs is currently being used. As mentioned in the future plans,
a move to SWIG is planned. This is a wise decision.

Basically, this is an excellent project and a Perl implementation
is extremely attractive. The paper just needs to go into a bit more
depth on the details.

Recommendation :

Publish with modifications.

Referee 3 *******************************************