1. Review Process

9. Conclusion Presentation Content This is a great paper that identifies some genuine shortcomings with existing structural systems and models. The structural concepts the authors present is an important one, and its apparent lack of support in current structural models helps explain the different approaches taken by researchers who have different emphasis and goals to one another. In Section 4.2. the authors describe some initial reactions to their environment. While their findings are interesting, I would have liked to have seen more detailed evidence to back up their claims. For example, in terms of expressiveness what are some examples of the test structures? It seems odd to leave such an important sentence as "there are general graphs that cannot be expressed with our structures." without further clarification. The paper itself is very well written with ideas expressed formally and explained clearly. I do have some minor comments about the paper itself, which are detailed below. - Section 2.1, paragraph 5. I thought that interrupting the flow of this paragraph with numerous 'e.g.'s' was a little clumsy in terms of English. - Figure 2. If I understand the figure correctly the “SLP" module is not shown in the start state, this made it difficult to understand the first operation. This paper represents an important step in thinking about structures and the various ways in which they have been represented. While the paper could do with some more concrete examples in its discussion section, I still recommend that it be accepted. Tone

10. Conclusion Presentation Content I'm afraid that this paper is deeply flawed, and I cant possibly recommend it for acceptance. The authors have a lively writing style, but unfortunately this leads to numerous errors in punctuation, grammar and also style; which makes their claims seem overblown, under-researched and somewhat arrogant. The paper is also badly structured, with no proper introduction or conclusion. The paper is successful in providing a literature overview of the e-learning and adaptive hypermedia fields, and is pleasingly comprehensive. However, there is no thread drawn through the survey and no attempt to make it relevant to the point of the paper. When the final architecture is proposed it is badly explained, For example, how does the system use the user’s profile to make adaptive decisions, and what is the mechanism that it uses for personalizing content? The author has chosen an unfortunate name for their proposed architecture, perhaps they are genuinely unaware of the connotations of the word 'ultimate', but it is both inappropriate and almost certainly inaccurate. This is a very confused paper, that doesn't know whether it is reviewing the field, making observations on the nature of adaptive e-learning systems or proposing a new architecture. As well as all the problems I have already described it is double the standard page limit. I would encourage the author to think carefully about which parts of the literature are most relevant to their work, and to explore how they can make incremental improvements at the points where there are perceived shortcomings. Any paper which then presents their solution must carefully describe the problem that they are addressing and also give details on the parts of their system that deals with it. Tone

16. Using Easy Chair (1-5)

17. Using Easy Chair (2-5)

18. Using Easy Chair (3-5)

19. Using Easy Chair (4-5)

20. Using Easy Chair (5-5)