++++++++++++++++++ FME2001: - Review reports for paper 23 +++++++++++++++++++++ - 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: 23 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: A Rigorous Approach to Modeling and Analyzing E-Commerce Architectures AUTHOR(S): V.S. Alagary Z. Xi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper describes a formal model and method to develop agent based systems. It describes both the formal theory and its application by means of an example. The main emphasis and strenght of the paper should be found in the theoratical part. This part provides means to structure ones thinking about developing an agent based system. 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: One of the lacks in agent technology is an architectural approach in developing agnt based systems. This paper fills this lack. But, although presented as a design method, it is difficult for me to decide if this method is, or dhould be limited to the application field of e-commerce systems, or is rich enough for a broader application domain: i.e it raises questions that should be discussed. 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: The architectural based approach is relatively NEW and very SIGNIFICANT. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: Very (compare 5) 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: good enough 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: 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: primarily theoretical; no new formal technique but well applied existing technique for a new application field; experimental results are relevant. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: no comments, perhaps only that the processes described textually in chapter 4 can be illustrated by means of process diagrams. 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: The example illustrates a certain type of negotiation and price determination. In this process the characterics of a user are noty used. In real life these characteristics of person plays a role earlier in the process (one knows a customer, knows if he is creditable etc.) Taking these aspects into account the negotiationprocess will become much more interesting. I don't say this cannot be modelled with your system, but when stating explicitly that this kind enhancements are left out of the example on purpose because it would have made it too complex, will give the user a better idea of the strength of the method. In this example negotiation is hardly more that statistical based price calculation which will be less that a reader expects based on his experience with for instance personal information providing with amazon.com. Do not modify the paper however, just add some remarks that will shift the focus of the reader from the example back to the formal method. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 23 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: A Rigorous Approach to Modeling and Analyzing E-Commerce Architectures AUTHOR(S): V.S. Alagary Z. Xi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): This paper presents a theory of agents and use this with an example in the E-commerce domain. The paper is more about the underlying system than about the kinds of analysis one could conduct. 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: If FM can be of assistance in modelling and analysing e-commerce applications in a cost-effective way it would be very valuable. 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: 3.5 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: The theory of agent-based systems does not seem to be original but the application domain for which it is used and prototype tool support has been developed is certainly new and important. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: Very 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: There is potential for the approach but I still consider this work in progress. The vision for the final way for using the theory for agents to cost-effectively develop E-commerce systems is still missing. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: Yes 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 first half of the paper is theoretically and that seems adequately justified. The second half about the example is interesting but I am missing more about the visions for the future tool support the authors have for this work. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: Fine. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: No Are the figures and length acceptable?: A bit long Are the references correct?: Yes 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: Add more about visions for future development of E-commerce systems in light of the suggested approach. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 23 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: A Rigorous Approach to Modeling and Analyzing E-Commerce Architectures AUTHOR(S): V.S. Alagary Z. Xi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper presents a formal model for agent-based architectures for E-commerce. The model represents agents as state machines that interact with each other by sending/receiving messages along typed communication ports. The paper defines operational semantics for configurations of agents (a kind of synchronized product of transition systems for each agent), presents a concrete example of an e-commerce system described with such models, and describes an implementation. 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 does not tackle directly the issue of software productivity with formal methods. However, it considers architectural modeling for e-commerce systems and possible reuse of such models. So the issue of productivity is at least treated indirectly, via domain-specific modeling and reuse. 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: 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: Applying formal modeling to a relatively new area. However, modeling techniques used are quite standard for describing distributed systems made of interacting components. The level of operational semantics is adequate to capture basic interactions between agents but too low for describing specific business goals. Such models could be also described using existing specification languages, especially based on process algebras. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: Formalizing e-commerce systems, in order to facilitate their analysis, design and reuse. It think the goals are worthwhile, given the number of e-commerce systems currently in use and relative lack of results/work about their formalisation. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: Brief, could be expanded. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: Definitions and specifications appear to be sound. There are no proofs. 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 work is conceptual at this stage, but has the potential for applications in future. In particular, via the implementation which shows how the models can be simulated and how formal models can be generated from UML-like graphical representations. One doubt I have about the reuse of such models are definition of so-called agent modes (major states which are controlled by special kind of messages), which seem not enough flexible to face various practical scenarios such agents may face. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The presentation quality is fine. More explanations are needed for the formal part which defines the operational semantics. Conclusions should include proper comparisons and references to related work (formalization of e-commerce systems), complementing the general discussion in Section 1. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: no Are the figures and length acceptable?: Are the references correct?: The number of pages of appendices (18 to 26) is excessive, I suggest to reduce the size to 20 pages. 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++