The
article
mentioned above has been submitted to the Electronic
Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, and the present page
contains the review discussion. Click here for
more
explanations and for the webpage of theauthors: Giuseppe De Giacomo and Riccardo Rosati.
Overview of interactions
Q1. Anonymous Referee 1 (5.12):
1. are the results of the article, as specified in the summary, of
significant interest for researchers in our area?
yes
2. does the full text substantiate the claims made in the summary?
yes
3. is the text intelligible and concise?
yes
4. do you know of any previous publication of the same result?
no
5. are there any other considerations that may affect the decision?
no
Q2. Anonymous Referee 2 (5.12):
1. are the results of the article, as specified in the summary, of
significant interest for researchers in our area?
yes
2. does the full text substantiate the claims made in the summary?
yes
3. is the text intelligible and concise?
yes
4. do you know of any previous publication of the same result?
no
5. are there any other considerations that may affect the decision?
The authors may wish to comment on the following observation: It seems
that the inference algorithm requires instances of the frame axiom schema
for disjunctions of fluents in case of incomplete states. Are there good
reasons why one is not forced in practice to feed your algorithm with
exponentially many frame axioms?
This Review Protocol Page (RPP) is a part of the webpage structure
for the Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, or
ETAI. The ETAI is an electronic journal that uses the Internet
medium not merely for distributing the articles, but also for a
novel, two-stage review procedure. The first review phase is open
and allows the peer community to ask questions to the author and
to create a discussion about the contribution. The second phase -
called refereeing in the ETAI - is like conventional journal
refereeing except that the major part of the required feedback
is supposed to have occurred already in the first, review phase.
The referees make a recommendation whether the article is to be
accepted or declined, as usual. The article and the discussion
remain on-line regardless of whether the article was accepted or
not. Additional questions and discussion after the acceptance decision
are welcomed.
The Review Protocol Page is used as a working structure for the entire
reviewing process. During the first (review) phase it accumulates the
successive debate contributions. If the referees make specific
comments about the article in the refereeing phase, then those comments
are posted on the RPP as well, but without indicating the identity
of the referee. (In many cases the referees may return simply an
" accept" or " decline" recommendation, namely if sufficient feedback
has been obtained already in the review phase).
| 