Journal of Compu= ting

http://sites.googl= e.com/site/journalofcomputing/

Paper Review Form= &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; editor.computing@gmail.com &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

Title of Paper/Number: Realization of Semantic Atom Blog / 12200947

Assessment Scale	Poor(1)							Excellent(8)	Rate
1.	TechnicalContent	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	= 5
2.	Originality	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	= 6
3.	Clarity	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	= 7
4.	Significance	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	= 7
5.	Presentation Style	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	= 6

Please indicate YES/NO below where applicable to evaluate this paper

Does the article satisfactorily show the aim= s, methods and result of the article? <= /span>YES

Is the article publishable? = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = YES

Are corrections necessary relating the assessments? = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; NO

Please put a X-mark where applicable to rate overall paper based on the scale

Unacceptable <= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Poor &= nbsp; Average &= nbsp; Good &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Excellent

0-20[ ] &= nbsp; 30-40 [ ] &nb= sp; 50-60 [ ] &nb= sp; = 70-80 [ X ] &= nbsp; 90-100 [ ] =

Recommendations:<= /o:p>

__OK____Accept for publication. You may provide comments as you wish.

This paper can be accepted for publication in its current state since the research area addressed is a fast moving one and the paper does have a significant contribution.

________ Accept with modifications. Please provide comments below. Use extra paper if necessary.

________ Rejec= t. Please provide comments below. Use= extra paper if necessary.

Ema= il as an attachment document to editor.computing@gm= ail.com http://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing/

NOTE: The most impo= rtant parts of your review are the written comments that will be transmitted to t= he author. On the following page, please give a straightforward assessment of = the importance of the ideas and/or results presented in this paper. Your written comments should provide a thorough technical appraisal of the reported work= . If the manuscript contains information that will be of interest to internation= al readership, please indicate those parts of the manuscript that should be corrected before publication. Reviewers are also encouraged to suggest ways= to improve the paper, even if it is acceptable in its original form.

COMMENTS:

1. Originality= : Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?

Yes, the author investigates the use of sema= ntic web technologies and techniques viz. OWL semantic modelling, semantic categorization and semantic annotation techniques in the Atom blog sphere. = The area of semantic web is a fast moving field.

2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the fie= ld and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?
Existing works covered is moderate; lots of works have been achieved in this area.

3. Methodology:

The methodology used sounds ok for me.

4. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fi= eld and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been = paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

The ideas, facts and techniques are presented clearly.

= &nb= sp;

Email as an attachment document to editor.computing= @gmail.com http://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing/