++++++++++++++++++ FME2001: - Review reports for paper 09 +++++++++++++++++++++ - 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: 09 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: Serialising Parallel Processes in a Hardware/Software Partitioning Context AUTHOR(S): Leila M. Silva Augusto Sampaio Geraint Jones -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): This paper completes the work done by the authors on a pipeline for decomposing and reforming OCCAM (subset) programs. This work is aiming to provide a methodology for hardware/software co-design for embedded systems. 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: This paper generates a (partial) serialisation of programs written in a non-looping subset of OCCAM. The use of formal methods to achieve the transformation is straightforward. The details in this paper are sparse. 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: 4 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: This work completes the pipeline that the authors suggest in earlier work. It is not completely new as the results are referenced in L.Silva's PhD thesis. However, these results deserve to be disseminated to a wider audience. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: The goal of splitting up a program into small units and making decisions on the hardware/software split, then recombining appropriate units is very interesting. The fact that only a small fragment of OCCAM is analysed is maybe not so important in the context of embedded systems. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: The authors make very clear their aims in this paper. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: No (significant) errors found. but: Definition 3 SURELY? (no variable assigned -> no free variable assigned) twice. Definition 5 NEVER USED? BUT ADD (and no other communication commands in the subprocess) Theorem 2 - What is meant by "whenever possible" not good in a formal theorem. Definition 8. Since P is the environment, surely it can allow more than one point of synchronisation. Do you mean "for each channel"? 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: A methodology is proposed. It is sound, and an example is given. A formal analysis of the full set of serialising rules (to prove, for example, confluence) would be interesting. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: Very good indeed. Typos follow: Before section 2.1 (as violates -> as it violates) Section 3 (phases to partitioning -> phases of partitioning) Section 3 (verification and the -> verification. The) Section 3 (Section 2, and transforms this description into a description in the following form -> Section 2.) Section 3 (process, neither discuss -> processes, nor discuss) Section 3 (is is applied algebraic -> it applies algebraic) Section 4.1 (why the remainder -> why each of the remainder) Section 4.1 (strategy can not be concluded -> strategy cannot be concluded) Section 4.1 (situations happens, we say -> situations happen, we say) Section 4.1 (process is a parallel processes -> processes is a parallel process) Section 4.1 (we can chose between -> we can choose between) Section 5 (such order -> such an order) Section 7 (illustrate here -> illustrated here) Section 7 (array of processes -> arrays of processes) 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: Very nice Are the references correct?: NO. Corrections follow: Cannot find ref 3. E.Barros et al. ref 5: Title should be "Hardware/Software Co-design of Embedded Systems" ref 7: There is NO Oxford tech. report, or tech. monograph with this title. ref 10: Unifying -> Unified, 1998 -> 1997 ref 11: Editors G. De Micheli + M.Sami Coo-design -> Co-design ref 12: LNCS Vol 1709, pp 1400-1419, Springer 1999 ref 13: cannot find (remove anyway?) ref 14: Title should be "Towards a provably correct..." not "A provable..." ref 14: LNCS 683, not 693 ref 16: Groge -> Grode ref 16: cannot find (editors?) ref 17: 60 -> 60(2) ref 19: Also, Tech. Monograph, OUCL, Number PRG-110, 1993 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: Some of the reported work is not found in the standard bibliographies on hardware/software codesign. There also seems to be much work which is there and not referenced. As I am not from this area I am unable to judge whether this is appropriate. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 09 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: Serialising Parallel Processes in a Hardware/Software Partitioning Context AUTHOR(S): Leila M. Silva Augusto Sampaio Geraint Jones -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): A generally applicable approach to serialisation of parallel processes in a very limited subset of occam. Very much a review/ closing of a larger body of work in this area. 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 interesting subject but the paper is just a bringing together of a number of previous publications. This may, or may not, be deemed suitable for the conference. 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: 3 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: They reference much of their previour work and most of the technical detail is not explicitly dealt with in the paper.. which is not surprising. It was hard to judge the paper's significance as I have not read the original work which they reference. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: Not clearly motivated 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: Not very well 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: Hard to judge as much of the detail does not appear in the paper. However, the overall impression given is of technical soundness. 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 such a 'review' paper it might have been nice to have seen a more thorough analysis of applicability (in particular, case studies are only briefly mentioned). 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: Good, but a simple spell-check would have caught a small number of errors. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: YES Are the references correct?: YES 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: It would be nice to have more hints on applications of these techniques and what are their possibilities with respect to the case studies you have already processed. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 09 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: Serialising Parallel Processes in a Hardware/Software Partitioning Context AUTHOR(S): Leila M. Silva Augusto Sampaio Geraint Jones -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The papers describes the serialization of parallel processes (expressed in occam) using algebraic laws. The serialization algorithm is described in an SML-like language. The results of the paper are important in the area of hardware/software codesign in embedded systems. 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: Hw/SW codesign and occam have not been main subjets at FME symposia. 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: 3 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: 2 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: Closing the gap between the splitting and joining phases in the partitioning process. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: OK 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: OK 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: OK 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 paper is mainly theoretical. The transformation process introduces quite some constraints e.g. dead-lock free, only one point of synchronization for each channel, synchronization restriction (def 7), internal serialization. One wonders about the set of useful programs conforming to all these constraints. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: OK; just a couple of typos. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: Are the references correct?: OK 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++