Part I: Programme

1. How did you like the overall composition of the (scientific) programme?
average evaluation: 4.07
- I'd have appreciated more applicative subjects. Most contributions were very formal/theoretical.
- I'm not too much into dialogue issues. My work is only marginally related to dialogue, and some of the isues were quite far from my interests.
- many field from corpus analysis to dialogue between artificial entities - Very good to have no parallel sessions
- The paper by Stephan Larssen was an excellent contribution. I would have liked to see more like it.
- There was a risk of corpus-based research taking priority, but that has not happened.
- I think it was nice, but i'm not really a part of this dialogue community so i'm not a good judge (i'm a philosopher)
- many very interesting papers
- More papers on 'real' systems (+evaluation) would have been interesting.
- Nice mixture of theoretical and practical papers.

2. Did you think the proportion of talks/posters/demos/tutorial/invited talks was appropriate?
average evaluation: 4.4
- Yes. I liked the posters. In that way there were also a lot of interested people.
- The proportion was appropriate. I found it problematic that all posters were accepted while a non-trivial portion of the submissions for talks were not accepted even as posters. If they had submitted their contributions again as a poster they might have been accepted - did they know that?
- Maybe slightly too many posters

3. How did you like the overall quality of the (scientific) programme?
average evaluation: 4.19
- Are we slowing down? Is prime work going somewhere else? Where is Hans Kamp presenting, for example?
- too much theoretical speculations, need to encourage more empirical work
- Mostly good quality, one or two things were slightly esoteric.
- Most papers were excellent.

4. Did you find the tutorial interesting/useful?
average evaluation: 3.71
- I didn't attend the tutorial.
- novice oriented
- I found it interesting, but I now realise that the only way to learn this is by getting down and doing it.
- I did not attend
- I had already heard most of this - but I still think it was a useful tutorial to have
- Very useful from what I saw on the web
- A bit too general for someone from the field, but overall very usefull

5. Did you find the invited lectures interesting/useful?
average evaluation: 4.5
- esp the one by Martin Pickering. Good idea to bring in a psycholinguist!
- I'm not enthusiastic about the last one by Martin Pickering.
- I think it would be interesting to have a kind of overview lecture at the end.
- Not exactly my area of research
- Very good -- all three of them.
- From the ones i attended, they were the most interesting talks
- The last one struck me as not really relevant to dialogue matters.
- Asher was very good
- Very nice to have psycholing stuff, I think this is important

6. Did you find the posters interesting?
average evaluation: 3.91
- Posters are good for answering very specific questions and for talking to to interested people
- Yes- I like to be able to interact directly.

7. Did you find the demonstrations interesting?
average evaluation: 3.82
- No, sometimes too flashy.
- I always find it difficult to extract something from demos.

Part II: Organization

8. Were the dates suitable/convenient?
average evaluation: 4.25
- yes, but on the last date i could have left earlier; I thought the "conference dinner" was on Saturday. Similar for the tutorials.
ie better advertise difference between cruucial part of the program, and add-ons.
- I heard that someone didn't come because the workshop extended to the weekend.
- It's a very busy period
- Overlap with at least one major highly related international conference.

9. Was the location suitable/convenient?
average evaluation: 3.36
- nice hotel, but completely isolated, and no internet connection except the isdn one claudia managed to make work on 2 days.
- Maybe it would be better to have a location where internet connections do not cause any additional organizational problems.
- This hotel is not trying very hard to be excellent. Both registration and the food service are not quite right.
- yes, but a bit far away from everything. i prefer it in the usual university buildings in Town.
- the location was pretty hard to get to.
- a bit difficult to get to (from UK at least)
- the hotel by itself was nice but a bit isolated
- Hotel was nice enough, but: No choice concerning accommodation
- Too far to reach
- Difficult to reach, staff there could have been more friendly.
- Internet was a problem, apart from that everything was fine.
Oh, the sculpture in the dinner hall was weird.

10. Were the participation costs comprising the sum of registration fee, accommodation and catering appropriate?
average evaluation: 3.78
- accomodation too expensive
- Excellent budgeting!
- reasonable I thought
- registration fee : very good
hotel : we didn't really have the choice... why not... but it was kind of expensive too...
- Hotel too expensive, huge catering costs
- I found the coffee and food fee on saturday a bit too expensive. Someone said, that the fee included usage of room, and if this is true, this fee should be included into the WS fee!
- Having the catering integrated into the conference fee would have been easier to handle. (Although this way it was fairer for the Saarbrücken participants, I guess.)

11. How did you like the social activities?
average evaluation: 3.91
- liked the boat tour with bbq!
- original wurst (-:
- Boat trip and walk were very good (although I escaped the rain early on ...)

A conference dinner would be nice (with a short speech etc.)
- Comment I really like having an evening event with everyone, but the boat ride was only so-so (food was pretty minimal too).
- bit difficult to mix/meet people on the boat trip
- Appreciated the offer but couldn't participate (mostly) for health reasons

12. Did you find the pre-conference information concerning participation timely and sufficient?
average evaluation: 4.36
- The problem with the hotel's email was just announced in the website and not by email.

13. Was the website useful?
average evaluation: 4.51
- excellent !
- Always up-to-date, good to have papers in electronic format available beforehand
- very good, done professionally
- very useful: program, travel, accommodation etc
- Overall yes. However, the section describing the demo session was not understandable at all. Everyone I talked to thought you were supposed to give an introduction to all participants, when all that was meant was that this was a suggestion to prepare a talk for persons visiting your table. This lead to quite a lot of confusion.

14. If you were an author (of paper, poster or abstract), did you find the pre-conference communication with and information for authors timely and sufficient?
average evaluation: 4.52
no comments were given

15. If you were an author (of paper, poster or abstract), did you find the reviewers' comments sufficient?
average evaluation: 3.5
- no review on poster but it's difficult to do it
- No reviewers' comments on demo paper.
- Bit short:)
- appropriate for workshop
- Some very useful, others less so (but this is usually the case!)
- totally dependant from reviewer but globally a lot of very useful comments
- Not very detailed
- Didn't receive any reviewers' comments on the two demos.

16. If you were an author (of paper, poster or abstract), did you find the time slot you had for presentation sufficient?
average evaluation: 4.38
- An hours for a demo/poster is fine (there should definitely be no less than an hour allocated).
- a bit too short
- yes, 30 min slots are good

Part III: Miscellaneous

17. How did you learn about DiaBruck?
mail: 16 website: 2 someone: 3 other: 3
- Edilog 2002
- don't remember
- I've known about the series forever.
- Looked for it because of previous SEMDIAL workshops
- pc member

18. Would you be interested in organizing a SEMDIAL workshop in the future? (If yes, please provide contact details.)
- data not published, positive replies will be forwarded to the organiser of the next workshop

19. Are you willing to act as reviewer for next year? (If yes, please provide contact details.)
- data not published, positive replies will be forwarded to the organiser of the next workshop

20. Any other suggestions/comments...
- good job, more time for discussions after the presentations.
- Thanks a lot !
- Excellent organization.
- make sure that with ACL next door, the workshop will include enough semantics and pragmtics!
- I would have liked a discussion session/c.q. an attempt to draw together themes from different talks. Participants should go home with the idea that they ahve thought about the main themes in dialogue.
- Thank you for organizing this very inspiring workshop!
- Well done; I am not being soft
- Not next year, but I could be a reviewer again afterwards
- Thanks for everything, once again