RESNA 1996 Paper

I am not sure whether I had informed everyone that the paper we
submitted for RESNA 96 has been accepted.

I am taking this opportunity to add the reviewers comments and


    o Good overview of specific work done to date
    o Control approach is relevant and important

    o Paper as written does not describe any research issues
      and only the test-bed development [1]
    o More detail on components would be useful [2]
    o What specifically is being done in this project to
      overcome weaknesses of similar projects performed
      earlier by Cannon and Michalowski? [3]

Additional suggestions:

    Description of research issues and evaluation plan should
    be added. [4] Justification and motivation could be


The numbers in brackets are mine to assist in my commentary. 

My comments regarding theirs.


IMO, all of the "deficiencies" are dependent on the 3 page
limit that RESNA adheres to.


[1] The description of the project overview took up most of
    the allocated space limit. Last year we had a surfeit of
    research issues and very little on the actual implementation.
    That paper was rejected.

[2] Space limitation related. 

[3] I think this should have been obvious in the paper. The
    underlying object-oriented knowledge-base artitechture
    was chosen specifically for this reason. I submit that
    in the next papers we write, we should focus a bit more
    on comparing between our system and theirs.

[4] Same as in [1] and [2]

[5] Again space limited problem. Though, IMO again, our justification
    in the paper was of appropriate size.

Zunaid Kazi                                        kazi@asel.udel.edu
AI & Robotics                         http://www.asel.udel.edu/~kazi/