english reread

diff --git a/reponse2.pdf b/reponse2.pdf
index 73caaf53a88217fe2fbe4a601b77bb7e84280557..1adc53501057add1ee91f285aec212c67814404e 100644 (file)
Binary files a/reponse2.pdf and b/reponse2.pdf differ

diff --git a/reponse2.tex b/reponse2.tex
index a8e6f4892dc1c8384c933c9638188ebe7d5d5dca..2294df2b08540b478ab9bbd1164df07c6675ee93 100644 (file)
--- a/reponse2.tex
+++ b/reponse2.tex
@@ -46,15 +46,16 @@ by  the  rejection  of  our article  named:  ``Multiround  Distributed  Lifetime
 Coverage  Optimization Protocol  in  Wireless Sensor  Networks'', submitted  for
 publication  in  the AD  HOC  NETWORKS  journal.  Indeed,  we have  started  the
 submission  process in  September 2014  and obtained  the comments  of only  ONE
 Coverage  Optimization Protocol  in  Wireless Sensor  Networks'', submitted  for
 publication  in  the AD  HOC  NETWORKS  journal.  Indeed,  we have  started  the
 submission  process in  September 2014  and obtained  the comments  of only  ONE

-reviewer during July 2015. Its suggestion  were very helpful and we incorporated
+reviewer in July 2015. Its suggestion  were very helpful and we incorporated

 them in the revised article submitted in September 2015.
 
 them in the revised article submitted in September 2015.
 

-In particular,  we have  stopped the resolution  of the  Branch-and-Bound method
-after  a time  threshold empirically  defined and  we retain  the best  feasible
-solution found by the solver, as it  was suggested by the reviewer.  We made our
-best to carefully address the issues raised  by the referee and revise our paper
-accordingly.  So we  would like  to clarify  some of  the points  raised by  the
-reviewer, since some them seem not to be not relevant or fair.
+In particular, we have stopped the resolution of the Branch-and-Bound
+method after a time threshold empirically defined and we have retained
+the best feasible solution found by the solver, as it was suggested by
+the reviewer.  We made our best to carefully address the issues raised
+by the referee and revised our paper accordingly.  So we would like to
+clarify some of the points raised by the reviewer, since some them
+seem to be irrelevant or unfair.

 
 \noindent {\bf 1.}   The authors have partially taken into  account the comments
 of my  previous review. Additional content  has been added, but  these additions
 
 \noindent {\bf 1.}   The authors have partially taken into  account the comments
 of my  previous review. Additional content  has been added, but  these additions


@@ -69,7 +70,8 @@ comment about the duration of the rounds).\\
 
 \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  We clearly  indicated in  Section~3.2
     that the rounds  are of equal duration and we  explained that this parameter
 
 \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  We clearly  indicated in  Section~3.2
     that the rounds  are of equal duration and we  explained that this parameter

-    should be set according to the types  of application (see our answer in part
+    should be set according to the types  of application (see our
+    answer in the part

     ``minor comments'' in our previous answer).}}\\
 
 \noindent {\bf  3.} In Section~3.1,  all nodes  are assumed to  be ``homogeneous
     ``minor comments'' in our previous answer).}}\\
 
 \noindent {\bf  3.} In Section~3.1,  all nodes  are assumed to  be ``homogeneous


@@ -79,7 +81,7 @@ deployed for the first  time, with new sensors. But after  using the network for
 the first  time, the  aforementioned hypothesis  is not  likely to  be satisfied
 again.\\
 
 the first  time, the  aforementioned hypothesis  is not  likely to  be satisfied
 again.\\
 

-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Maybe  the honorable  reviewer misread
+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} The reviewer might have misread

     the  sentence  in   Section~3.1:  ``We  assume  that  all   nodes  are  {\bf
       homogeneous} in  terms of  communication and processing  capabilities, and
     {\bf heterogeneous} from the point of view of energy provision.'' }}\\
     the  sentence  in   Section~3.1:  ``We  assume  that  all   nodes  are  {\bf
       homogeneous} in  terms of  communication and processing  capabilities, and
     {\bf heterogeneous} from the point of view of energy provision.'' }}\\


@@ -92,12 +94,13 @@ obviously covered when the corresponding sensor is active. There exists works in
 the literature for area coverage, the authors should read them.\\
 
 \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  This remark is rather  offensive. Of
 the literature for area coverage, the authors should read them.\\
 
 \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}  This remark is rather  offensive. Of

-    course we read  literature for area coverage.  We use  the metric ``Coverage
-    Ratio'' (defined  in Section~4.3) to measure  how much the area  is covered.
+    course we have read  the literature for area coverage.  We have used  the metric ``Coverage
+    Ratio'' (defined  in Section~4.3) to measure  how much of the area  is covered.

     But the optimization process to decide which  sensor has to be active or not
     in each  round is based on  the coverage of  only a specified set  of points
     called primary points. So the area  coverage problem is transformed into the
     But the optimization process to decide which  sensor has to be active or not
     in each  round is based on  the coverage of  only a specified set  of points
     called primary points. So the area  coverage problem is transformed into the

-    target coverage problem.}}\\
+    target coverage problem. So from our point of view, this remark is
+    not justified.}}\\

 
 \noindent {\bf 5.} In Section 3.2, the reason why a subregion is defined in such
 a way that  the distance between any  two sensors in the same  subregion is less
 
 \noindent {\bf 5.} In Section 3.2, the reason why a subregion is defined in such
 a way that  the distance between any  two sensors in the same  subregion is less


@@ -153,7 +156,7 @@ used: many optimal solutions  to the ILP of Section 3 may  have a very different
 impact  in  terms  of  these   additional  metrics.  Hence,  measuring  them  is
 pointless.\\
 
 impact  in  terms  of  these   additional  metrics.  Hence,  measuring  them  is
 pointless.\\
 

-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} We disagree  this remark. It is quite
+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} We disagree with this remark. It is quite

     possible to optimize  a criterion to have  an impact on another  one. In the
     problem formulation proposed here, the number of active sensors is minimized
     in each round for a maximal  level of coverage. Limiting the activation time
     possible to optimize  a criterion to have  an impact on another  one. In the
     problem formulation proposed here, the number of active sensors is minimized
     in each round for a maximal  level of coverage. Limiting the activation time


@@ -166,12 +169,13 @@ pointless.\\
       Brachytherapy} Volume 3,  Issue 3, 2004, Pages 147-152):  the objective in
     the problem  formulation is to  minimize a  weighted sum of  the differences
     between prescribed  doses and  obtained doses  in reference  points, whereas
       Brachytherapy} Volume 3,  Issue 3, 2004, Pages 147-152):  the objective in
     the problem  formulation is to  minimize a  weighted sum of  the differences
     between prescribed  doses and  obtained doses  in reference  points, whereas

-    many criterion (like dose-volume histograms,  conformal index COIN) are used
+    many criteria (like dose-volume histograms,  conformal index COIN) are used

     for quantitative evaluation of dose plans.}}\\
 %si vous avez d'autres exemples plus parlants?
 
 We  hope  that  these  observations  will allow  you  to  revise  your  decision
     for quantitative evaluation of dose plans.}}\\
 %si vous avez d'autres exemples plus parlants?
 
 We  hope  that  these  observations  will allow  you  to  revise  your  decision

-concerning our  manuscript. If possible,  we would like  to have comments  of an
+concerning our  manuscript. If possible,  we would like  to benefit
+from the comments  of an

 additional reviewer.
 
 \begin{flushright}
 additional reviewer.
 
 \begin{flushright}