Revise paper structure

[JJ]

Check it out and suggest how things could be improved.

[JJ]

I don't see a major problem with the structure, other that it's not the "traditional" introduction, state of the art, results and conclusions. Maybe we should restructure along those lines, changing 1 and 2 into Intro, 3 would be state of the art, and the rest. What do you think?

[fergunet]

It depends what we should sell.

• Is it a paper focused in Muses? Then, the classic paper approach (although without results section).
• Is it a survey plus Muses? Then the current structure (but with some changes, of course).

2015-06-19 13:38 GMT+02:00 Juan Julián Merelo Guervós < notifications@github.com>:

I don't see a major problem with the structure, other that it's not the "traditional" introduction, state of the art, results and conclusions. Maybe we should restructure along those lines, changing 1 and 2 into Intro, 3 would be state of the art, and the rest. What do you think?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/geneura-papers/2014-2015-COMCOM-MUSES_vs_SotA_BYOD_Systems/issues/26#issuecomment-113485286 .

Dr. Pablo García Sánchez University of Granada http://www.ugr.es/~pablogarcia

[JJ]

2015-06-19 19:57 GMT+02:00 Pablo García Sánchez notifications@github.com:

It depends what we should sell.

• Is it a paper focused in Muses? Then, the classic paper approach (although without results section).
• Is it a survey plus Muses? Then the current structure (but with some changes, of course).

This is it, I would say.

JJ

[amorag]

It is (or should be) the second option.

There are some papers presenting MUSES already. ;)

PD Ya me habéis liado con el inglés. :_( :D

[JJ]

Even if it's based on Muses, the structure should change as per the reviewers request. So what do you suggest?