PAPER REVIEW FORM

ASME Computers and Information in Engineering Conference

 

An ASME paper should be: Clear, concise, complete, and original; with assumptions plainly identified; data and computation results presented with their uncertainty, precise logic, relevance to practice described, and with actual accomplishments of the work plainly stated and honestly appraised.

 

Paper No.:

CIE-2004-84

TechArea Chair:

Richard Crawford

Title:

Local Feature Extraction Using Scale-Space Decomposition

Author(s):

Dmitriy Bespalov , Ali Shokoufandeh William C. Regli

Reviewer:

Only for TechArea & Program Chairs

Affiliation

 

Date assigned:

3/30/04

Return review by*:

4/13/04

Return e-mail:

rhc@mail.utexas.edu

 

 

*Please inform the TechArea Chair immediately if you cannot complete the review by the indicated date.

Please delete the manuscript file from your computer after the review has been returned to the TechArea Chair.

 

Place a check in the boxes that, in your opinion, best describe the following features of the manuscript.

 

PAPER PROFILE

 

Poor

Marginal

Acceptable

Good

Honor

Originality of work                         

 

 

X

 

 

Engineering relevance

 

 

 

X

 

Significance of contributions

 

 

X

 

 

Fit with ASME-CIE scope                     

 

 

 

X

 

Completeness of the reported work      

 

 

X

 

 

Acknowledgment of the work of others

 

X

 

 

 

Organization of the work                        

 

 

 

X

 

Clarity in writing, Tables, graphs, and illustrations

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

No

N/A

In your opinion, is the technical treatment plausible and free of technical errors?

X

 

 

Have you checked the equations?

X

 

 

Are you aware of prior publication or presentation of this work?

 

X

 

Is the work free of commercialism?

X

 

 

Is the paper too long?

 

X

 

 

YOUR RECOMMENDATION

This paper is: (check only in one place - justify decision by remarks on next page)

X

Acceptable with Minor Revisions

 

 

REMARKS

To assist the author in revising the paper please separate your remarks into two clearly identified sections:

 

(1) Changes which must be made before publication.

(2) Those suggestions which, in your opinion, would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication

 

Remarks that are not clearly identified will be assumed to fall into the second category (not essential).

 

 

CHANGES WHICH MUST BE MADE BEFORE PUBLICATION

The paper adresses the problem of feature extraction on fully or 
partially scanned 3D objects. It applies an approach which computes the 
maximal angle along the shortest path between pairs of faces of a 3D 
triangulated model. Having the these values calculated for each pair of 
faces, a matrix is created, which is used to extract features
by a scale-space decomposition. The proposed approach seems to solve this 
problem, but the presentation needs further improvements. 

First of all, the related work section is far too brief. It lacks any 
goals, and it is more like a list of others work, than a consice review. 
Please reflect on others contribution, and suggest how scale-space 
decomposition provides further improvents. 

In section 3 the mathematical expressions needs more explanation in some 
places, otherwise they will be incomprehensible for the readers:
1) denotations of the first three paperagraphs are weak. It uses two 
different denotations for features, and they do not reflect the scale of 
decomposition. This means that they can overlap if they are on different 
levels.
2) the third sentence in section 3.1 needs a reference to a publication.
3) the first two equations are not numbered. 
4) explain why to use the maximum angle between two adjacent planar 
surfaces.
5) I beleive that matrix [D(ti, tj)]n*n is rather antisymmetric matrix 
than symmetric, since the diagonal values a zero. 
6) distance vectors vi came out of the blue, what are they?
7) what is sigma and sigma'?
8) numbering and interpretation of the last equation is missing.

Figure 2 presents the hierarchical feature decomposition of a part. 
on the last but one level, I think there is an error. Parallel surfaces 
that are not connected considered to be one feature, and at the same time 
the connecting facets are excluded. How can this be?

Figure 3: it would be nice to see which node in Figure 3a corresponds to 
which picture in Figure 3b. 

Figure 4-6 present a lot of example cases without proper explanation. 
It would be better to see just the most representative ones, but in the 
form of a decomposition tree.




SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING PAPER BUT NOT ESSENTIAL FOR PUBLICATION


        



SUGGESTED DISCUSSERS