The key comments of the reviewer has been given in double quotes and 
the corresponding changes made to the paper have been explained.

"Of course you should describe how your work improves on the previous 
literature."

A separate section (section 8) for related work has been added to compare our 
model with the existing works in the literature. 

"Firstly the authors need to discuss the grain size of the tasks they are
producing the programming model for."

The grain size of the model has been discussed explicitly. In the table
at the end of the related works section (section 8), one of the key issues for
the comparison is the grain size. 

"Further key references are missing. I suggest adding a reference to Opus, 
OpenMP, and also to literature on load balancing such as the work at San Diego 
from Fran Berman."

References to Opus, Fx, Data Parallel Orca and Braid have been added.
This paper does not specifically address load 
balancing as an issue. We used the load balancing strategy of ARC ( Reference 9)
without any changes. Further the scheduling  schemes that are referred in 
section 6 are based on the probabilistic completion times of the tasks, not 
dependent on the application. Whereas the work of Fran Berman targets scheduling
from an application perspective. Hence, we have not added a reference to the 
load balancing work by Fran Berman. These scheduling schemes are mainly 
targeted at scheduling the various arms of the task graph in an integrated 
task-data parallel model. These strategies do not stem from a perspective of 
scheduling for load balancing and hence this is very different from the OpenMP
scheduling scheme.

 
