Comments to be shared with the authors


1. What area(s) of ... does the paper address?


2. Summarize in 2-3 sentences the main contribution of this paper:
The author proposed a geographic information retrieval model (xx) that uses two way
for indexing geographical documents that are self-complementary: geographical model and the 
traditional vector space model. 


3. What are the major strengths of this paper?
- The paper is well written, almost all decisions made were justified by showing references.
- The architecture yyy presented shows the way of user interaction with the system.
- The subject of the paper is relevant.


4. What are weaknesses or deficiencies?
- In introduction (page 2) the author did not explain what is blablabla
- In section 4.2, he did not suggest any example of the function f(*) could take
- In section 7.1, he did not explain world metaphor, even with the references 
  I think that it is necessary
- The reference [a] on page 4, second column did not appear in references
- I found some spelling mistakes, like 'focued' on page 2 last paragraph

5. What could the authors do to improve the paper?
- The section 3 presents the vector space model and the geographical model. However in 
  section 2 the author have already commented about deficiencies of them. I suggest the 
  exchanging of the sections
- Still in section 2, a document example should be presented for showing the way of indexing
  in each model
- Correct some spelling mistakes and verify the reference [aa]

6. On a scale from 1 to 7, with 

1 = very low
7 = very high, very good, strong accept 

how do you rate this paper for:

6.a     Relevance  [1 - 7]: 6
6.b     Originality/Novelty  [1 - 7]: 4
6.c     Scientific and/or Technical Quality  [1 - 7]: 4
6.d     Presentation (i.e., readability, structure, and English)  [1 - 7]: 4
6.e     Overall recommendation   [1 - 7]: 5

7. Reviewer's familiarity with the subject:  [low, medium, high]: 

8. Additional comments to the author(s):
In some places of the paper appears references to section 2 (introduction, last paragraph and
section 5, after [Principle I] "...ambiguity[4]. In section 2, we mentioned ...") but the 
subject seems to be of section 3. It seems that section 2 was included after the paper was finished.


Comments you want to share only with PC chairs: