PlanetData
Deliverable Review Form
Part I - Comments List
deliverable
name
NorthPole Report on prototypes,
development, validation and evaluation
deliverable number
D12.1.2
month deliverable due
lead participant
Responsible person
reviewer
Sent for review
(date)
Other participants
Irene Celino (Cefriel)
23/03/2012
Sent back to authors
(date)
26/03/2012
SCIENTIFIC
comment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
Even if you reference the other deliverable, please insert *1* sentence
(= 2 lines) to recap the objective of the app as intro to section 2.1
Figure 1 page 10: what is the box “Sintef/Computas municipalities”?
is it a software component or a dataset? If the latter, why isn’t it within
the LOD cloud? What is “raphael” (if not relevant or explained later
just delete)? The text later on talks about “storing” RDF: where/how in
the picture?
Table 1 line 6: “relevant data stored in the application”: what data are
stored where?
Table 2 line D: “dividing the value”: is it always a division? Why?
Even if you reference the other deliverable, please insert *1* sentence
(= 2 lines) to recap the objective of the app as intro to section 2.2
Page 17, section technologies: “with the help from”  “with the help
of”; “Hewlett-Packard’s Jena”  “Apache Jena” (it is not maintained
by HP anymore after the shutdown of the research center)
Figure 8 page 17: why is the RDF/Andojena shape round? Is it a store?
Table 2 line F: what is the calendar numbering? Is it a necessary
detail?
Table 2 line 10: does the app always and only computes results on the
basis of user current position? Is the user prevented from inserting a
different starting position?
(C)ompulsory
(H)ighly
advisable
(O)ptional 1
C
C
C
H
C
C
C
O
O
Do the authors have to address the comment in order to make the deliverable final (Compulsory)? Is it
advisable but not compulsory to address the comment to make the deliverable final (Advisable)? Is it a minor
comment that is optional to be addressed by the authors for the final version (Optional)?
PlanetData
SCIENTIFIC
comment
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Table 2 line 12: “The id of the calendar to place the event in is thus
governed by whether the event has a CO2 emission value over a
certain threshold or not”  what is the role of the calendar id???
Table 3 line F: does the app compute only aerial distance? Or does it
take into account path computation on the road topology?
Figure 15 page 24: is the text from “Delta?” to the bottom of the
screenshots relevant? If yes, please provide translation (at least in the
caption)
Page 27 comment to table before: “this feature proved difficult…”:
why? Was it only a matter of time&effort or something else?
Page 27 comment to table before: please add a comment on possible
extensions, required effort, user friendliness, etc.
Table 5 line 9: no reuse of ontologies about time?
Page 30 comment to table before: other comments? Response time?
Difficulty of re-use with additional requirements?
Page 31, paragraph 3.2.2: some short recap of “notable comments”?
Figure 16: I understand it is a screenshot but: question 3 answers
would be better visualize with a statistics (how many users voted for
the same question) and explanation (what is question n?); final
comment on question 6 is not in English (either translate or delete
comment)
Conclusions page 34: “would make the application more generic” 
any estimate on the possible costs to realize such a flexible version of
the application?
Conclusions page 34: any comment on possible business models
behind your two prototypes? i.e. why did you developed exactly those
two apps? Will you re-use them? Will you make money out of it or
can you see chances to make money (e.g. advertising)?
Deliverable D<xxx>
(C)ompulsory
(H)ighly
advisable
(O)ptional 1
H
H
C
H
O
O
H
H
H
H
H
ADMINISTRATIVE (e.g layout problems (empty pages, track changes/comments
visible), broken links, missing sections (Introduction, Conclusion, etc.), incomplete TOC,
spelling/grammar mistakes
comment
(C)ompulsory
(H)ighly
advisable
(O)ptional 2
1
Table 1: correct numbering of steps in first column to match figure
C
(e.g. 1-2-3 instead of A-B-C)
2
Table 1 line 5: “Note that for the first variable the user selects on a
C
application run no municipality data will be already present”  “Note
that at the first user run no municipality data will be already present”
3
Table 1 line 6: “For the municipalities that no data was found a
C
HTTP GET requesting data about that municipality i sent.”  “For
the municipalities for which no data was already found, a HTTP
GET request for data about that municipality is sent.”
4
Page 15: makes figure 6 fit in this page to avoid large white space
O
2
Do the authors have to address the comment in order to make the deliverable final (Compulsory)? Is it
advisable but not compulsory to address the comment to make the deliverable final (Advisable)? Is it a minor
comment that is optional to be addressed by the authors for the final version (Optional)?
Page 2 o
Deliverable D<xxx>
INSEMTIVES
ADMINISTRATIVE (e.g layout problems (empty pages, track changes/comments
visible), broken links, missing sections (Introduction, Conclusion, etc.), incomplete TOC,
spelling/grammar mistakes
comment
(C)ompulsory
(H)ighly
advisable
(O)ptional 2
5
Table 2: correct numbering of steps in first column to match figure
C
(e.g. 1-2… instead of E-F..)
6
Table 2 line 11: check numbering of referenced figure and table?
C
7
Table 3 line B: please provide translation to Trafikanten
C
8
Table 3 line D: please provide translation to Varslingsklasser
C
9
Page 23 firs paragraph: “red bar”  “red horizontal bar” (if printed in H
B&W the line is not so visible)
10 Some sentences in table 5 and afterwards have missing white spaces
C
between words
11 Page 31: some paragraphs have the wrong font size w.r.t. the rest of
C
the document
12 Page 33 final paragraph: Comptas  Computas 
C
13 Global comments:
C/H
- ToC should NOT contain exec summary, doc info, ToC itself!
- Some # and strange characters on page 4
- Abbreviations are not that heavily used in the doc: delete page
8?
- Assure that all table have the option “allow row to break
across pages” disabled
- Revise all numberings (figures, tables, etc.)!!!
- Are references on page 35 ever used in the doc? If not, delete
the section
Part II – Summary
overall marking
Comments
VG (very good) / G (good) / S (generally satisfactory /
P (poor)
Brief report, but up to the point; it could be improved
with some sort of lesson learned or future prospect
After addressing the Quality Assessor’s comments, report back to him/her re-using this review form.
© INSEMTIVES consortium 2009 - 2012
Page 3 of (3)