The paper is mainly a report of the system, but has not much new in it.
Perhaps it was supposed to have a sort of comparison that highlights the system as a result of a specific requirement.

The conclusion does not reflect an impartial view on the whole system on its own, and as compared to other systems. It is mainly a list of objectives that the developers of the system had in mind.

The paper should have more about the effect of CAM on the process of design and defend the view against others against it. 

The paper lacks the research work beyond surveying existent technology.



The paper needs to be proofread for typos and mistakes.

Sometimes Expressions are capitalised, and sometimes they are written with small letters, try to be consistent.

The last two sentences in the abstract need review. 
When citing in text, please only write (Surname, year, page) and the rest put back in the bibliography. Same for images sources. Please keep footnotes for personal notes. When referencing use the in text, this is particularly in reference to the footnote in page 10.


