SA1 Deliverable Review Form

Reviewed document (minor corrections)

General comments

The contents of the document are fine, considering that the JRA1 activity in terms of software development and integration hasn't really started yet. There are no major issues, apart from #9.

The format of the document needs some review. For example:

• headers and footers have disappeared, including page numbers!
• fonts are sometimes odd
• some text is marked as German as a language
• references are not real references
• there is too much additional spacing, e.g. empty lines after a section title or between paragraphs
• there are references to sections that do not exist, e.g. to Section 9 and Section 12
• better avoid the use of "we" or "your"
• (sub)sections should be marked as such and numbered, they should not just be a line of text in bold, e.g. "The JRA1 development and test plan in context"

Maybe some bad formatting is due to conversions back and forth between odt and doc? such convertions are a bad idea.

Some english proof-reading wouldn't harm either. In particular there are often several repetitions of the same concept. This makes the life difficult to the reader who wonders if it is a real repetition or if some other detail is added.

Answer to general comments

The strange look of the deliverable was due to conversion between OpenOffice and Word. Now all the remarks above have been addressed.

Additional recommendations (not affecting the document content, e.g. recommendation for future work)

Detailed comments on the content

Note 1: The reviewers must list here any observation they want to track explicitly and that require interaction with the authors
Alternatively all changes must be listed in the document itself using Word change tracking features (if you use Word)
Note 2: These comments have to be explicitly addressed by the authors and the action taken must be clearly described

N°	Page	Section	Observations	Is Addressed?
1	5	1.1	Second paragraph: what's the matter with deliverables here? they are not mentioned anywhere else in the document. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Addressed by changes in the text. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
2	5	1.1	The first part of the third paragraph is a repetition of what already said in the first paragraph and can be removed. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Addressed by changes in the text. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
3	5	1.3	The application area should include also SA1, which is affected because, for example, some types of tests need to be run every time there is a release (minor or revision). -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Done. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
4	5	1.4	References to deliverables should point to the official pages (either TWiki or CDS), not to JRA1 internal pages, e.g. R7 and R8. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Done. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
5	6	1.6	Many acronyms and terms used throughout the document are not mentioned in the glossary, e.g. all the names of components. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 The acronyms table has been expanded. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
6	7	2	What does the JRA1 objective "Follow and anticipate the needs of the growing infrastructure usage by investigating and adopting technologies to improve scalability, reliability and performance of the grid services." have to do with QC? -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Addressed by changes in the text. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
7	7	2	In the paragraph starting with "In order to explore": - "we created a survey" -> "a survey was created" - the last period, starting with "The survey objective", is a repetition -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Addressed by changes in the text. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
8	8	3	Use a reference rather than a footnote for the SQAP. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Done. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
9	8	3	Third paragraph: the assessment of the PTs by the QC task leader must happen only by means of automated procedures and checks. This has to be explicitly and clearly stated. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Agreed. The above point has been clarified. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
10	9	3.3	Fifth bullet: what does "your software" refer to? -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Addressed by changes in the text. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
11	9	The JRA1 development and test plan in context	What do "these points" in the first paragraph refer to? -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Addressed by changes in the text. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
12	9	The JRA1 development and test plan in context	Third paragraph: survey results cannot be started. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Addressed by changes in the text. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
13	10	4	First bullet: the reference is missing. References to Wikipedia should be avoided, given that the content can change. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Done. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
14	12	4.2	The structure of the document would improve if the title of this and following sections mirrored the categories of the survey. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 The survey results presentation has been restructured considering this and other remarks. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
15	13	4.3	Why are ARC and gLite in the same section? -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 The survey results presentation has been restructured considering this and other remarks. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
16	16	4.5	What is the S2 testsuite. Put at least a reference. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Done. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
17	16	4.5	I doubt BES is a serious reference standard for job submission. Better use another example. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Done. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010
18	16	4.7	First paragraph: "ensure" is a bit too strong; moreover it's the task leader that reports, not the task itself. -- FrancescoGiacomini - 04-Nov-2010 Done. -- AndreaCeccanti - 18-Nov-2010

Any other modification, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc must be done directly in the document using tracked changes or similar mechanisms that allows the authors to identify which correction is suggested.

-- FloridaEstrella - 19-Oct-2010