Thesis/Resh02Feedback

See below for the good news...

My reaction to the reviewer's comment is that we should make clear that nothing restircts the choice of a particular schema for a community, and that in a darwinian way, only the ones that are popular survive. This way there is no need to standardaize a schema.

Good job all! Given my current budget I should be able to provide support for Aloke, and if my NSERC application is successful, maybe I can also accomodate Neal. But Neal will have many conferences in his future as a grad student anyway :)

Cheers,

Babak.

 Subject: 
       RESH'02
   Date: 
       Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:29:09 -0800
  From: 
       "Pedone, Fernando" <fernando_pedone@hp.com>
    To: 
       "'Babak Esfandiari'" <babak@sce.carleton.ca>

Congratulations, the following paper has been accepted for the IEEE Workshop on Resource Sharing in Massively Distributed Systems (RESH'02), to be held in conjunction with the 22nd ICDCS in Vienna, Austria.

"U-P2P: A Peer-to-peer System for Description and Discovery of Resource-sharing Communities"

At the workshop you will be given 25 minutes to present this paper, followed by 5 minutes of question/answer session. The final copy of your paper is limited to 6 pages of two-column IEEE style formatting. Please keep in mind that this page limit is strict. The camera-ready copy of your paper will be due March 31. You'll be receiving soon the author kit from IEEE. Please take the reviewers suggestions into account while preparing the final version of your paper. Finally, in order to appear in the proceedings, at least one author is requested to register for ICDCS and attend the workshop to present the work.

Best regards,

Fernando Pedone, Christof Fetzer, Felix Gaertner, and Pascal Felber

• PAPER #2 ******************************

Author(s): ___Mukherjee et al Title of paper: __U-P2P:A peer-to-peer system for ....

1. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION

Use the following rating:

  1: Excellent
  2: Very Good
  3: Good
  4: Fair
  5: Poor

_4__: Originality

_3__: Technical quality

_2__: Presentation / clarity

_2__: Significance to the field

_1__: Significance to the workshop

2. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION

_3__ (1: Strong Accept, through 5: Reject)

Reviewer's confidence in the rating:

_1__ (1: High, through 5: Low)

3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

Please put your comments and suggestions regarding the paper below. Particular attention should be given to details that guide possible revisions or explain reasons for rejection.

On the upside the paper raises an important point that is currently not addressed to a sufficient extent in P2P systems, in particular in file sharing applications: the use of semantics, or better of agreed schemas. The proposal of using XML and XML Schema follows naturally. On the downside the paper does not really mention any specific technical challenges that arise when using schemas in P2P system. Rather the proposed ssytems looks like any other web-based application for accessing a repository. The only point where the specific problem of P2P is mentioned is on distributing searches among servers, however this possiblity was not implemented.