From: Web3D 2007 - CyberChair [osvaldo@unipg.it] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:23 PM To: eliens@cs.vu.nl Cc: cyberchair@web3d.unipg.it; osvaldo@unipg.it Subject: Web3D 2007 Notification Dear A Eliens, Thank you for your submission to Web3D 2007 Symposium. We are pleased to inform you that your paper, titled "3D Digital Dossiers -- a new way of presenting cultural heritage on the Web " has been accepted with some modifications (see reviews) for presentation at Web3D 2007 and publication on the Web3D 2007 Proceedings (published by ACM). However, the acceptance and inclusion of your paper in the proceedings is conditional on ALL the following requirements (please, read carefully): 1) REVISION. Your paper must be revised following all the reviewers' comments. Take reviewers' comments into very careful consideration in making your final revisions. 2) CAMERA-READY PREPARATION. You must prepare the camera-ready version of your paper according to the detailed instructions for authors that can be found at: http://www.siggraph.org/publications/instructions/author-instructions.pdf under the 'Conferences sponsored by ACM SIGGRAPH' heading. 3) PAGE COUNT. The camera ready version of your paper (in PDF format!) must be no longer than 4 pages including appendixes and figures, and the pages of your paper must be not numbered. If it is longer than the allowed limit, we will not be able to include it in the proceedings. 4) COLOR PLATE. Besides preparing your 4-pages paper, if you have colour figures, separately prepare an additional 1-page color plate, following the instructions at: http://www.siggraph.org/publications/instructions/author-instructions.pdf The color plate section will be at the back of the proceedings. 5) SUBMISSION OF YOUR FILES and COPYRIGHT TRANSFER (DEADLINE: Feb 3rd, 2007) Camera ready version of your paper in PDF format must be submitted, by Feb 3rd, 2007 (hard deadline), through the electronic submission page: http://es.web3d.unipg.it//submit/phase3.php You should use the same login name and password as used for the initial submission of your paper: Login: E00-116405529030017 Password: eliens@cs.vu.nl In addition to the electronic files, the publisher needs a signed hard copy of the copyright transfer form (download it from: http://www.siggraph.org/publications/instructions/acm-copyright-form.pdf ) Please complete & fax the copyright form to Stephen Spencer (+1-206-543-2969) as soon as possible. Stephen must receive copyright form NO LATER THAN February 3rd, 2007. 6) DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS (DEADLINE: Feb 3rd, 2007). To approve publication, the Program Chairs need also a description (ASCII or PDF file) of the changes you have implemented to answer reviewers' comments. Send the required file to: ranon@dimi.uniud.it (Roberto Ranon) AND npolys@vt.edu (Nicholas Polys) NO LATER THAN Feb 3rd, 2007. Please, be sure to follow ALL the instructions above very carefully in order to have your paper included in the proceedings. When the conference program will be finalized, you will receive instructions about the presentation of your paper. Please, acknowledge receipt of this notification ASAP. Finally, we inform you that the early registration deadline for Web3D 2007 expires on Feb 28th, 2007. Please register as soon as possible following the instruction that will be given at the address: http://www.web3d.org/web3d2007/register.html Congratulations on having your paper accepted. We look forward to seeing you in Perugia, Italy, Best Regards, Nicholas Polys and Roberto Ranon Program Chairs of Web3D 2007 ==================================================================== REFEREE MESSAGES: ==================================================================== *=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*= First reviewer's review: >>> Readability <<< Very good >>> Originality <<< Very good >>> Significance <<< Very good >>> Relevance <<< Very good >>> Rating <<< Very good >>> Comments <<< The paper is very interesting and well presented. It deals with a first application of an approach and a concept (in particular the digital dossier and its 3D visualization) of great interest and susceptible of many applications in the CH domain. It shows the limits of novel developments, i.e. it identifies problems and issues some of which may require further work to be solved; nonetheless, it deserves publishing because it is valuable as it is, it may stimulate further research in related fields (for example the usability issues very clearly stated in chapter 6) and push a similar approach in parallel domain, for example presentation of monuments or the more general topic of presenting material and immaterial heritage together. I have some concern about the use of DublinCore for metadata. It has been shown that it is unsatisfactory in the heritage domain and such a good novel approach would deserve a much better metadata treatment. For example, CIDOC-CRM is probably much better suited for the paper goals. I understand that there is the need of dealing with INCCA legacy data, but CIDOC-CRM CORE has been devised exactly for this purpose - see cidoc.ics.forth.gr for details. Similarly, using an envelope as METS or MPEG12 to keep all the information together might be useful. However, this goes well beyond the scope of the paper, so the above comments do not affect the positive evaluation. Perhaps, but not compulsorily, the authors could introduce a sentence in chapter 7 (eg on top of page 6) to show there awareness of the standardization issues. >>> Points in favour or against <<< + novel approach to art and heritage presentation + suitability for + other CH heritage applications + cleariness of presentation + good mixture of art/heritage and technological expertise - lack of generality, as the solution works well in their case but may need adjustment when extended to others (but they may deal with this in a next paper!) =*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*= Second reviewer's review: >>> Readability <<< Very good >>> Originality <<< Barely Acceptable >>> Significance <<< Acceptable >>> Relevance <<< Barely Acceptable >>> Rating <<< Barely Acceptable >>> Comments <<< The paper describes a way of using 3D to present various kind of materials (text, images, videos, 3D models) related to an artist's work. The idea is to use concept graphs to navigate among the different items by following conceptual links, and then to present the materials using a three-pane visual display to show video, images and text at the same time. While the main ideas and the implementation look interesting, there are two issues with the paper (which, apart from those, is generally nicely written): - apart from using 3D models for the artwork, I found it difficult to justify the choice of using 3D for displaying the conceptual graph (which is laid out in 2D) and for the three-pane display (putting the three panes in the same plane, i.e. using a 2D visualization, would avoid distortions). In other words, the same interface could have been displayed using some 2D technology (e.g., Flash) with the advantage of having far more readable text. The authors claim that their visualization is better (for this kind of application) than cone trees, but cone trees are not the only kind of 3D graph visualization, so examining and comparing other kinds of 3D graph visualizations might better substantiate their choices. For example, the authors might want to consider visualizations surveyed in: I. Herman, G. Melancon, and M. S. Marshall. Graph visualization and navigation in information visualization: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 6(1):24-43, 2000. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/herman00graph.html - from page 7 to the end of the paper (almost 3 pages), all that is described are possible choices and design notes for future work, which more suited to a workshop-like publication. Why not expand the user evaluation part instead? Minor issues: - most figures are too small and at a too low resolution - the part describing the algorithm to lay out the graph is too long and difficult to follow: wouldn't be better to use some diagrams and/or pseudo code to explain the algorithm? also, is this a new algorithm or an instance / variation of some 2D graph layout algorithm (see the above reference)? >>> Points in favour or against <<< see above =*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*= Third reviewer's review: >>> Readability <<< Barely Acceptable >>> Originality <<< Barely Acceptable >>> Significance <<< Barely Acceptable >>> Relevance <<< Acceptable >>> Rating <<< Barely Acceptable >>> Comments <<< Presentation of cultural heritage on the Web is an important topic. The authors describe their experiences from implementing "3D Digital Dossiers" for presenting artists' works and related information. There is a lot of research on presenting CH in digital/3D forms. It would be very useful if authors made references to recent comparable works in this field, and explained how their approach is different or better. Referencing projects from 1991 or 1995 does not really make much sense. It is hard to say what is the contribution of the paper. What is the novelty here? The only real contribution seems to be the experiences from implementing/employing the system. However, the system implementation is not really well described and the methods of presentation of the artists' works are questionable. For example, why are the navigation graphs presented in a 3D space? I do not see any motivation for this. They are flat 2D structures. Even the authors say in Section 9: "With the Casus 2005 group there, was however, a strong resistance against using 3D for the concept graph navigation mechanism". Why do the authors use a 3D space for presenting pictures, videos and text? 3D should be used where it is needed. What does 3D offer here? Even if one could argue that for the appeal of a 3D space it makes sense to present pictures and videos in 3D, presentation of text is really hard to defend. The only real value of 3D is visible when presenting artists' installations, however the section is very short and the pictures are small. Quite disappointing is the fact that the list of possible media types if fixed. What if an artist/author wants to use other media types, e.g. QuickTime VR? It is not described how the contents is managed. What happens when somebody wants to add a piece of information - e.g. an image to the collection. Have all related items to be updated? - I hope not. There are lots of grammar and spelling errors in the text. I suggest that authors read their paper before even the initial submission. Examples: Section 2: "many problem", "information visualization" - new paragraph; Section 3: "he digital", Section 5: "grouop", "Picture and Picture"; Section 6: "iIn particular"; Section 8.2 refers to section 6b (which does not exist), etc. Finally, I think that is better to refer to metadata and not meta-information. >>> Points in favour or against <<< + implemented system + described experiences/results + interesting form + of presentation - poorly described related works - not clear what is the real contribution - presentation of 2D data in 3D without clear advantages - paper not well written - structure and many errors =*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=