Reviews For Paper
| Track |
Semantic Web in Use track |
| Paper ID |
13 |
| Title |
Mashup Semantics in Second Life @ VU |
| Masked Reviewer ID | Review Answers |
| Reviewer 1 |
| Question | |
| Relevance to ISWC + ASWC 2007 In Use track |
Medium
|
| Clarity of presentation |
Medium
|
| Appropriateness of technical solution |
Low
|
| Depth of assessment |
Medium
|
| Overall rating |
Weak reject
|
| Reviewer confidence |
High
|
| Summary of the paper |
The paper surveys some technical and non-technical issues regarding the
creation of mashups for Second Life, and describe some ideas on hot to
make use of such maships in VU @ Second Life. |
| What are the strong points of the paper |
The subject is extremely important, and very relevant for Semantic Web.
|
| What are the weak points of the paper |
Unfortunately the technical depth is very low. The paper only really
touches on Semantic Web uses in a couple of places inside the survey.
It is unclear whether any of the planned mashups would involve Semantic
Web technology at all. Indeed, some of the technical details seem to
indicate it would be very hard to do so (e.g., no XML processing in the
Second Life scripting language) |
| Detailed comments for authors |
Another problem with the paper is that it reads like a bad mashup of
parts created by different authors and not very well integrated.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 are compelling, if weak in technical content.
Sections 4 and 5 are (relatively superficial) surveys that are not well
tied together either to each other or the rest of the paper. Section 6
explains the planned mashups (not implemented yet!), and finally gets
into Semantic Web issues, but I cannot understand precisely how the two
are related - that is, which Semantic Web technologies would be used to
realize which application, and how. Section 7 is another disconnected
part - interesting method, but what is its relevance for doing mashups
using Semantic Web technologies? |
|
| Reviewer 2 |
| Question | |
| Relevance to ISWC + ASWC 2007 In Use track |
Low
|
| Clarity of presentation |
Medium
|
| Appropriateness of technical solution |
Low
|
| Depth of assessment |
Medium
|
| Overall rating |
Reject
|
| Reviewer confidence |
Medium
|
| Summary of the paper |
The paper discusses the use of web services to build applications in
the Second Life virtual environment. |
| What are the strong points of the paper |
Well-written and interesting as an introductory overview of using web
services in Second Life. |
| What are the weak points of the paper |
Too much of the paper is introductory in nature and those parts which
describe original work do so at only a high levle. Furthermore, it is
not clear that semantic technology is used. |
| Detailed comments for authors |
As mentioned above, far too much of the paper is introductory. It is
not clear that semantic technology is used in those applicaiton which
are outlined. Thus the paper is outside teh scope of the conference. |
|
| Reviewer 3 |
| Question | |
| Relevance to ISWC + ASWC 2007 In Use track |
Low
|
| Clarity of presentation |
Medium
|
| Appropriateness of technical solution |
Medium
|
| Depth of assessment |
Medium
|
| Overall rating |
Reject
|
| Reviewer confidence |
Medium
|
| Summary of the paper |
This paper talks about a series of experiments - some real, some
hypothesised - about the use of second life in education. It's an
interesting and worthwhile piece of work, but I don't really see its
relevance to ISWC |
| What are the strong points of the paper |
Interesting, describes quite a lot of work, well motivated and generally clear.
|
| What are the weak points of the paper |
There's very little semantic web in here - and what there is is
speculative and certainly not implemented. It's a good paper, just not
a relevant paper. |
| Detailed comments for authors |
If rejected this paper is certainly good enough to send elsewhere, perhaps with minor tweaks
- section 1 - would be good to have some figures for adoption of
2nd life particularly as you claim it's "overtaking the world"!
- Your description of web2.0 is very technology centric. What
about 'the writeable web' and emphasis on large scale communities? What
about social interaction and tagging? Even the technology is
controversial - you don't have to use javascript (could use
flash/flex).
- top of p6 type 'by' not 'bij'
- bottom of p6 typo 'semantic' not 'sematic'
- section 5 - don't understand the 'touch' workflow. So it grabs a
photograph from flickr. What does it do with this photograph?
- section 7 - 'we may apply (a user's) rating to all features of
this item'. That's rather dangerous! If I like a blue hat, doesn't mean
I like all blue things?
- didn't follow the bit on matrices.
- all of the rating discussion is not really semantic web relevant (but sounds interesting).
|
|
|