Críticas e Revisões

Quadro Comparativo

Abstract and Introduction are adequate?		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	OK
Conclusions/Future Work are convincing?		Yes	No	No	Yes	2-4
Figures are Adequate ?	in number and quality	Yes	No	No	Yes	2-4
Improve critical discussion ?	validation	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	3-4
Improve English?		No	No	No	No	OK
Needs comparative evaluation?		No	Yes	Yes	Yes	FAIL
Needs more experimental results?		No	Yes	Yes	Yes	FAIL
Originality	Newness of the ideas expressed	6	3	3	6	4,5
Overall rating	Weighted value of above items	6	2	2	4	3,5
Paper formatting needs adjustment?		No	No	Yes	No	3-4
Presentation	Structure/Length/English	6	4	2	5	4,25
References are up-to-date and appropriate?		Yes	No	Yes	Yes	3-4
Relevance	Paper fits one or more of the topic areas?	6	5	4	5	5
Significance	Is the problem worth the given attention?	5	5	5	5	5
Technical Quality	Theoretical soundness/methodology	5	1	2	3	2,75

Revisor 1

In this paper, the problem of categorization of web documents is studied, and a multi-faceted hierarchical categorization method is proposed. The ORGANOGRAPHS can specify multiple views to show how the content of documents is organized, so that it can help users to automatically organize the documents. The presentation of this paper is good, and it makes the reader easy to understand

Revisor 2

The paper describes a conceptual approach to information organization based on multi-faceted hierarchical organization of documents (information artefacts). The introduction provides the necessary overview and motivation by identifying the single category and re-categorization problems along with other related issues. The rest of the paper outlines the authors’ solution in what they call a ‘organograph framework’ which seems to be a description of a categorization in a formal language. Lastly, open challenges and conclusions are described, but most if not all is referred to as ‘to-be-done’. The paper seem extremely preliminary work as there is no specific proposal, no implementation and no evaluation whatsoever in the entire paper. The authors rather describe their work on a meta-level by enumerating all the aspects and challenges of the assumed solution that must be done in order for it to make sense (i.e., work). The idea is, in general, interesting and the work if successful would be interesting to the community since it addresses the crucial problem of information organization (on the Web), but the paper itself provides very little in novel ideas and approaches to be accepted. Furthermore, the premise of the paper (i.e., single classification etc. being a problem) has been identified a long time ago in library science and also in information retrieval, where automated approaches for faceted categorization have been proposed (e.g., Dakka 2005). Two of the three hypotheses presented in the introduction have already been shown to hold and need not be reconfirmed again (i.e., hierarchies are important and can be [semi]automatically derived). The aspect of sharing in isolation from their generative collections has not been sufficiently explored in the paper. As such the paper needs substance and a substantial contribution in order to be of interest. Consequently, the authors should focus on: - Updating their hypotheses with respect to the state of the art. - Provide a detailed description of what they propose. - Validate their approach/ideas. - Describe their contribution also with respect to other related work.

Revisor 3

In this paper the authors propose a framework that allows to organize a set of documents in different schemas by using a hierarchical-based approach. I think the paper lacks in many significant parts. In fact, authors list, in section 3.4, the set of open problems that they will face in future works without prove the effectiveness of organographs. The paper lacks of a solid formal background and a rigorous experimental section. In my opinion, the paper is much similar to a position paper with respect to a regular paper.

Revisor 4

The paper presents work towards the development of a conceptual framework for automatically organising document collections along various dimensions. The paper is well written and structured. There are several challenges involved and many aspects are not technically clear year as there is no implementation. This is an interesting project, the author's proposal is discussed in comparison with the relevant literature and there is potential to make a contribution. However, the work is lacking in terms of implementation and evaluation, and remains at a theoretical/conceptual level.

This article was presented in  Webist 2011.