[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
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
suggestions:
Strengths:
o Good overview of specific work done to date
o Control approach is relevant and important
Weaknesses
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
expanded.
---
The numbers in brackets are mine to assist in my commentary.
My comments regarding theirs.
General:
IMO, all of the "deficiencies" are dependent on the 3 page
limit that RESNA adheres to.
Specific:
[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.
Comments?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Zunaid Kazi kazi@asel.udel.edu
AI & Robotics http://www.asel.udel.edu/~kazi/
http://www.asel.udel.edu/~kazi/bangladesh/
---------------------------------------------------------------------