[Gzz] address@hidden: ACM HT03: Short Paper Results]

[Tuomas Lukka]

Short papers also 25%...

        Tuomas

----- Forwarded message from Les Carr <address@hidden> -----

Return-Path: address@hidden
Received: from jokotaas.iki.fi (jokotaas.iki.fi [212.16.100.2])
        by mailhost.it.jyu.fi (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5D6f1jX017133
        for <address@hidden>; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:41:03 +0300 (EETDST)
Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.70.1])
        by jokotaas.iki.fi (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D6f1O23174
        for <address@hidden>; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:41:01 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ns1 [152.78.68.1])
        by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10373;
        Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:40:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (IDENT:address@hidden [152.78.68.162])
        by pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09084;
        Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:40:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Les Carr <address@hidden>
Received: (from address@hidden)
        by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5D6eqP31561;
        Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:40:52 +0100
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:40:52 +0100
Message-Id: <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: ACM HT03: Short Paper Results
X-Virus-Scanned-By: amavisd-milter at it.jyu.fi

I am sorry to inform you that your submission
(paper 174, Bridging  Javadoc and design documentation via UML diagram image 
maps) 
has not been chosen as a short paper for the ACM Hypertext 2003 conference.
The quality has remained high with 25% of submissions being accepted,
and despite the short timescale, most submissions were reviewed by
four referees.

Thank you for your interest in HT03. We are anticipating a lively conference
and would value your participation.
---
Les Carr & Lynda Hardman
HT03 PC CoChairs

===================== REVIEWS ====================

Score: 4
         Whilst the approach sounds interesting, many of the details
         that would really be useful have not been included in the
         paper. For example, the process for indentifying and
         managing the document links is largely ignored. It is also
         unclear whether the approach for constructing the diagrams
         etc. is predominantly manual (in which case it would seem
         prohibitively expensive except in trivial cass where it
         is not needed). There is also no information on an evaluation
         of the usefulness to users etc.

Score: 5
         Sort of a nifty project in some senses, but on te other
         hand, hard to see if this is really a research contribution
         or not...

Score: 7


Score: 4
         First, let me say that I really enjoyed reading this paper.
         I liked your style.  I found the illustrations refreshing.
         I found your motivation in the introduction right on the
         mark --- and: I would love to have this solution for our
         developments.  All said, I had many reasons why I would
         have liked to accept this paper. The problem is that the
         entire paper, as written, should serve as the introduction
         to the real paper that you should have written. The HT
         paper that I would have accepted would have devoted 1 page
         describing your approach and one page providing *results*
         - showing that this approach really improves the development.
         This is the real contribution of your research.  You spend
         great detail on the tool and its relevance for software
         development.  But your domain is Software Engineering and
         Hypertext. You describe how to navigate to the relevant
         UML-designs, but almost nothing addresses its impact on
         the development. I am pretty sure that the implementation
         was quite a lot of work, but

----- End forwarded message -----