++++++++++++++++++ FME2001: - Review reports for paper 02 +++++++++++++++++++++ - 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: 02 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: A Closer Look To The Cycle Derivation AUTHOR(S): Rui Gustavo Crespo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper studies the wp-style derivation of nested loops and loops over sequences. 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: An interest in this kind of work still exists, but it doesn't seem to be central to the FME community. 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: Nothing much - this is 1970s material, the author has failed to convince me that his "method" for "deriving" loops makes any improvement on the traditional one - we still have to invent variants and invariants, and propose statements that decrease/establish them. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: I'm not sure there's much more mileage in this kind of programming-in-the-very-small. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: Not very - the paper is extremely short. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: They appear to be, haven't checked the details. 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 Q7. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: Reasonable. Don't hyphenate Di-jkstra though. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: No. Are the figures and length acceptable?: Too short if anything. Are the references correct?: [3] Nondeterminacy 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 02 CATEGORY: unspecified TITLE: A Closer Look To The Cycle Derivation AUTHOR(S): Rui Gustavo Crespo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper is about program development from formal specifications in the format pre- and postcondition. The method of predicate transformers (weakest precondition) of Dijkstra and Hoare is used. The paper focusses on toy problems using simple loops. 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: 1 Please comment your rating: The paper is about using formal specifications in program development. In that sense the paper would be relevant to the conference. On the other hand the contents of the paper do not appear very interesting to me. 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: 4 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: As far I can see there is virtually nothing new happening here. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: I am not sure what the goals of the author are. The abstract and the conclusions are written very poorly. There is no clear problem statement, nor an indication how the work is related to the literature. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: see 6. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: I think so, although sometimes the arguments are not very clear. 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: In my opinion some ad hoc principles are presented to develop some trivial programs from simple specifications. These ad hoc principles are very trivial as well. The claims made in the conclusions are not substantiated. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The quality of English is very poor. Moreover, the author does not seem to master standard computer science vocabulary, e.g., he uses "cycle" instead of "loop", and "attribution" instead of "assignment". See also 6. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: Are the references correct?: 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 02 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: A closer look to the cycle derivation AUTHOR(S): Crespo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper does exactly what its title suggests: it looks more closely at the development of iterative programs. The author examines the development of different iteration constructs: (i) a single iteration construct; (ii) nested iteration constructs; (iii) Dijkstra's conditional iteration construct; and (iv) a sequence of iteration constructs. The author's motivation lies in the complexity of the refinement proof. 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: 3 Please comment your rating: Most people attending the Symposium will be interested in the details of code derivation. 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: 5 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: 4 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: It's a nice little exercise in smoothing out some of the wrinkles of loop development. I liked it. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: Certainly worthwhile. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: It's fine. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: Yes, I believe that it's all sound. 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 applicability is quite obvious. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: I was constantly surprised by the use of the term "cycle", which seemed unusual to me. Apart from that, it's a lovely little paper. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: no Are the figures and length acceptable?: It's very short (< 5pp.); but why not? Are the references correct?: yes 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: no +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++