ICSE 2001 Workshop on "SE over the Internet"

Review form

------------------------------------------------

Review form Part 1 (This part will not be transmitted to the authors)

Reviewer:    Charles Petrie

Comments for program committee:
It is not at all clear from this abstract that there is
anything to be learned from this.

------------------------------------------------

Review Form Part 2  (This part will be transmitted to the authors)

Paper number: 11
Title: : An Architecture for Collaboration: a Case Study
Authors:Heather L. Oppenheimer, Dennis Mancl

Please rate 3 aspects of the paper using the following scheme:
5= Excellent, 4 = Good, 3 = Fair, 2 = Poor, 1 = Very poor

Relevance for workshop       5
Originality   1
Results       2

Please recommend if the paper should be accepted for presentation at the workshop 
(Accept, Don't know, Reject)
Reject


General comments for the authors: 
What is good, what is bad in the paper? 

Good: results from an actual exercise may provide good empirical data,
depending upon what is in the paper.
Bad: this exercise has been done many times, with similar tools, for
several years. There seems to be nothing novel here. The paper
might possibly be useful but it is not clear from the abstract.
There is certainly no research component. And the mention of
use of tools a primitive as NetMeeting indicates a low-level
of functionality was used in the project.