++++++++++++++++++ FME2001: - Review reports for paper 01 +++++++++++++++++++++ - Dear author(s) : this file was extracted automatically from a very large - mailbox. In case you find any problem concerning mail encodings (or any - other kind of anomaly disturbing your understanding of the reviews) please - email any of the PC cochairs (pamela@research.att.com,jno@di.uminho.pt). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 01 CATEGORY: unspecified TITLE: OPMSE: An Object Petri Nets based Modeling and Simulation Environment AUTHOR(S): Luo Xueshan Qiu Dishan Rao Xianhong Bao Weidong -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper is an extremely brief and sketchy description of a tool for object Petri Nets 2. RELEVANCE: Please provide a rating of the paper's relevance to the FME Symposium, using the scale: 0 = Out of scope 1 = Marginal interest 2 = Minority interest 3 = Majority interest 4 = Outstanding interest Numeric Rating: 0 Please comment your rating: As it stands, the paper makes virtually no mention of formal methods 3. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Please provide a rating of the paper's acceptability, using the scale: 1 = Strong reject 2 = Weak reject 3 = Could go either way 4 = Weak accept 5 = Strong accept Numeric Rating: 1 NB: There should be a correlation between the two rates above. 4. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Please provide a rating oof your expertise in the area addressed by the paper, using the scale: 1 = Know virtually nothing about this area 2 = Not too knowledgeable, but I know a bit 3 = Know a moderate amount, about average I'd say 4 = Not my main area of work, but I know a lot about it 5 = My area of work, I know it extremely well Numeric Rating: 3 NB: PC members are responsible for ensuring that 1 is not used here. 5. ORIGINALITY. What is NEW and SIGNIFICANT in the work reported here? Comment: see response to point 12 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: see response to point 12 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: see response to point 12 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: see response to point 12 9. APPLICABILITY. If the work is primarily theoretical or conceptual, are the implications in terms of applicability adequately justified? If the paper is about a new formal technique, are satisfactory arguments presented in favor of the new technique? If a methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are presented, is their relevance justified? Comment: see response to point 12 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: see response to point 12 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: No Are the figures and length acceptable?: No Are the references correct?: They are all local. I suspect they could be expanded significantly by looking further afield 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: The paper is extremely sketchy and consists basically of a collection of (in many cases rather loosely related) lists of bullet points, with little or no explanation of the ideas involved, and little or no justification of why such a tool might be useful or indeed what it does. There is also no real flow to the paper, and it comes over primarily as a series of disjointed sections with only tenuous connections. As such, it conveys almost no information to the reader. I would strongly advise the authors to consider extending the paper considerably (it is basically only 4 pages long) and to include far more details and explanations both of the concepts involved and of the tool itself before they submit the paper to another conference. I would also advise that the technical content of the paper should be increased considerably if they wish it to be considered as a formal methods paper. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 01 CATEGORY: unspecified TITLE: OPMSE: An Object Petri Nets based Modeling and Simulation Environment AUTHOR(S): Luo Xueshan Qiu Dishan Rao Xianhong Bao Weidong -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper describes the idea of separating the phases of modeling, Experiment and analysis in an integrated simulation framework, The characteristics of an OO Petri Net description language and the architecture of a simulation environment for this language. 2. RELEVANCE: Please provide a rating of the paper's relevance to the FME Symposium, using the scale: 0 = Out of scope 1 = Marginal interest 2 = Minority interest 3 = Majority interest 4 = Outstanding interest Numeric Rating: 2 Please comment your rating: The paper covers a lot of subjects: both a conceptual idea w.r.t. simulation environments, a language and a toolset but nowhere reaches a satisfactory level of explanation. E.g. why is an "inhibitory arc" (page 2, 3) there? Why is the object model (section 2) presented without any other use in the paper? 3. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Please provide a rating of the paper's acceptability, using the scale: 1 = Strong reject 2 = Weak reject 3 = Could go either way 4 = Weak accept 5 = Strong accept Numeric Rating: 2 NB: There should be a correlation between the two rates above. 4. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Please provide a rating oof your expertise in the area addressed by the paper, using the scale: 1 = Know virtually nothing about this area 2 = Not too knowledgeable, but I know a bit 3 = Know a moderate amount, about average I'd say 4 = Not my main area of work, but I know a lot about it 5 = My area of work, I know it extremely well Numeric Rating: 3 NB: PC members are responsible for ensuring that 1 is not used here. 5. ORIGINALITY. What is NEW and SIGNIFICANT in the work reported here? Comment: Nothing, as far as I can see. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: The goal (if it is the structuring of simulation processes and analysing How this can best be supported) is very worthwhile.) 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: Not all, it is just stated as a fact without any references to other Work in this area. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: Yes, but not too exciting. 9. APPLICABILITY. If the work is primarily theoretical or conceptual, are the implications in terms of applicability adequately justified? If the paper is about a new formal technique, are satisfactory arguments presented in favor of the new technique? If a methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are presented, is their relevance justified? Comment: This is not possible to tell on the basis of this paper alone. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The use of language is quite poor at several points, should be checked By a native speaker. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: No (paper is far too short). Are the references correct?: Correct perhaps but only Chinese Ones are given! Furthermore, several references are missing, e.g. to C3I, CIMS, FMS (section 5), etc. 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: None. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 01 CATEGORY: unspecified TITLE: OPMSE: An Object Petri Nets based Modeling and Simulation Environment AUTHOR(S): Luo Xueshan Qiu Dishan Rao Xianhong Bao Weidong -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper presents an object model, an associated modeling language and its support environment. These are based on Petri nets and aimed at "simulation" purpose. 2. RELEVANCE: Please provide a rating of the paper's relevance to the FME Symposium, using the scale: 0 = Out of scope 1 = Marginal interest 2 = Minority interest 3 = Majority interest 4 = Outstanding interest Numeric Rating: 2 Please comment your rating: The paper presents a simulation environment. It does not claim any relevance to formal methods but the use of Petri nets is a potential reason to submit to FME 3. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Please provide a rating of the paper's acceptability, using the scale: 1 = Strong reject 2 = Weak reject 3 = Could go either way 4 = Weak accept 5 = Strong accept Numeric Rating: 1 NB: There should be a correlation between the two rates above. 4. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Please provide a rating oof your expertise in the area addressed by the paper, using the scale: 1 = Know virtually nothing about this area 2 = Not too knowledgeable, but I know a bit 3 = Know a moderate amount, about average I'd say 4 = Not my main area of work, but I know a lot about it 5 = My area of work, I know it extremely well Numeric Rating: 3 NB: PC members are responsible for ensuring that 1 is not used here. 5. ORIGINALITY. What is NEW and SIGNIFICANT in the work reported here? Comment: Originality is difficult to decide because the authors do not compare their work to related work. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: Their goal is to develop a simulation environment which decouples modeling from its exploitation. But the paper does not explain how and why they reached this goal 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: Very poorly explained. The paper is only 5 pages long!!! The authors should take more space to present their work into more detail and show its usefulness and relevance. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: The technical content is only informal, soundness cannot be evaluated. 9. APPLICABILITY. If the work is primarily theoretical or conceptual, are the implications in terms of applicability adequately justified? If the paper is about a new formal technique, are satisfactory arguments presented in favor of the new technique? If a methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are presented, is their relevance justified? Comment: The authors should make an assessment on the usefulness of their contributions (e.g. report on case studies) 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: English can be improved. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: Are the references correct?: The paper is too short (only 5 pages) As far as references are concerned, there are only 6 entries in the bibliography. These only refer to national efforts. Moreover, these references are not cited inside the text of the paper. 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: Please use the available space to present your work into more details and provide examples to illustrate your claims. Your paper is very informal, it does not show what is original and significant in your approach. What is the message you want to communicate to the conference participants? How does your work compare to other systems developed in the international research community. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++