Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Reviews of a scholarly paper I submitted

The problem is not stated clearly. For example, in the introduction, at the third line, a five tuple is introduced without ever referring to what exactly are the different components. It is not obvious what the auhtors do with the five tuples. Then they mention "behaviour which is not legal", without explainig what this means in terms of their model.

The pop machine is even more obscure to undrestand. It is not clear at all what the model is, what the idea of it all should be, and what the contribution is. Not only is it badly written, but it does not explain clearly. I thought the example of the pop machine would help me understand what up to then was meaningless sentences higly populated by computer jargon, but then not even the figures are clear, what is the "token"? Why a "refill"? what does it mean a "controllable rejection of the token?", etc etc. Nothing is explained correclty and the diagrammes do not really seem to follow the logical events and actions. Not clear at all what the proposed reduction in complexity is, or why is this better.

Much work needs to be done in order to make this research publishable.

It is not very clear to me how the proposed initiated event methodlogy works in helping implementation.

Although the paper is well written, it shows some defects. The paper presents in the first part an essentially correct, but long discussion which is essentially known to all those have tried to implement in real applications, and not toy exammples, the results of DES control theory. Also, the difference of "control pardigm" and supervision paradigm" designing control software is well known. In the second part an equally too long discussion of software implementations of user-friendlyness of the tool proposed. I'd suggest not to include the paper in the standard research part of the conference, but rather to move it in a "demonstration tool session" or in a poster session, if there will be any in this conference.

The problem dealt with in the paper is quite important (how to correctly implement the results of supervisory control theory). However, the reviewers agree on the lack of clarity in the paper, which is divided into two main parts, both unclear: why the long initial discussion should be more useful than what hs already known from the technical literature in the past decades? why a scientific paper should then ahve a long discussion on some nice interface of the tool proposed? what is the real novelty with other approaches?

{ "loggedin": false, "owner": false, "avatar": "", "render": "nothing", "trackingID": "UA-36983794-1", "description": "", "page": { "blogIds": [ 548 ] }, "domain": "holtstrom.com", "base": "\/michael", "url": "https:\/\/holtstrom.com\/michael\/", "frameworkFiles": "https:\/\/holtstrom.com\/michael\/_framework\/_files.4\/", "commonFiles": "https:\/\/holtstrom.com\/michael\/_common\/_files.3\/", "mediaFiles": "https:\/\/holtstrom.com\/michael\/media\/_files.3\/", "tmdbUrl": "http:\/\/www.themoviedb.org\/", "tmdbPoster": "http:\/\/image.tmdb.org\/t\/p\/w342" }