| Abstract |
The paper was submitted to VTC spring 2007. Unfortunately it was not accepted and the reviewers commented that:
1.The paper does not sufficiently stress how our approach (i.e. the Adaptation Manager AM) is different from related work.
2.The paper should, beyond the evaluation, more emphasise on why the stated technologies were chosen over others.
3.More explanation and examples on how the technologies can be used\combined to achieve AM functionality should be included.
The aim of the modifications made is to accommodate the three points listed above.
The approved version of the paper has been changed as follows:
o The title has been changed from “A semantic web approach to a context-aware adaptation manager for future ubiquitous services” to “Context –aware service adaptation management”.
o Minor changes to the abstract and introduction to better reflect the content, aims and contribution of the paper.
o Recently published research is included in the related work section.
o Emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages of related work and why the adaptation management framework (AMF) and the AM provide a better solution.
o The AMF figure in the adaptation framework section has been replaced to emphasise the complexity of the environment.
o A figure that illustrates how the AM can interact with content and service provider and user environments is added.
o The adaptation manager section is split into two sections (requirements and architecture) instead of three sections (input requirements, functional requirements and output requirements).
o AM input requirements have been summarized to cater for examples and more explanation.
o The AM figure has been replaced to show where the chosen technologies can fit.
o The approved version of the paper lists the technologies and gives references on work that has used them without explaining as the reviewer described : the what, how and why. This version of the paper explains why these technologies have been chosen and how they can work together (Relevant work in the literature is referenced and several examples are given).
o Criteria against which the system can be evaluated are listed in the conclusion section (usability, performance and accuracy of decisions).
o Some sections have been rephrased/ restructured to better convey the author’s ideas.
|