generalizing section names: 1. intro: ok 2. rel work: ok 3. block storage: data model? 4. xanalogical storage: (hyper)media model? 5. indexing: ok? 6. versioning: ok? 7. peer-to-peer implementations: ? 8. experience and future directions: ok 9. conclusions: ok 10. acknowledgements: ok 11. references: ok another way would be e.g.: 1. intro + method: constructive research 2. rel work 3. design (partly current chapters 3-6, 7) 3.1. the data model(?): block storage 3.2. the (hyper)media model(?): xanalogical storage 3.3. indexing 3.4. versioning 3.5. networking / publishing: interfacing with p2p 4. implementation (partly current chapters 3-7. combined with 5. or 3.?) 5. evaluation (partly from current 3-8 and else?) 6. discussion / experience and future directions 7. conclusions 8. acknowledgements 9. references how much work would this change cause and would it be an improvement? i do think that we generally need to able to work on structure. i've been taught that in *research* papers, not mere technical ones, a research method must be made explicit. in this case it's obviously(?) constructive research, right? (there may be different schools to this etc.) also research question(s) should be stated clearly, which i think is already done (the two issues identified in intro). if you're interested, i can provide references. if considered irrelevant, we can skip this now too. an important part of constructive research is evaluation, which is often separated as an own chapter, after the design and implementation have been presented. design and implementation don't have to be separated (as they have not been in the current section structure, which is quite ok). in my opinion, the areas/parts of Storm could be as subsections of that/those sections, with the generalizations of their functions in (sub)section titles as well. whether blocks, xu, index, versioning, p2p etc. are their own sections or 'hidden' in subsctions and with more general names, is not a big issue i think. just thought that it might improve approachability for the readers, as they'd be quickly be able to see -- from familiar words/concepts -- what the different parts are about.