++++++++++++++++++ FME2001: - Review reports for paper 27 +++++++++++++++++++++ - 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: 27 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: Formal Process Specification Language with a Refinement Capability Intended for Compositional Development of Information Systems AUTHOR(S): Serge A. Stupnikov Leonid A. Kalinichenko -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper provides an extension to AMN (abstract machine notation) with process specification constructs. It then provides a detailed description of algorithms for converting CSP into the language B. The concept is illustrated on a portion of an academic exercise: door portion of a Lift(elevator) specification. 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: This paper reads like a university technical report rather than a conference paper---very technical with much detail. I would be interested in a discussion about how such a tool or technique was successfully applied to a real problem, but this is not such a 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: 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: the language extension and translation algorithms are new. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: The rationale for the work provided in the paper is very limited. In the authors own words: This paper attempts development of process specifications intended for compositional IS development applying another class of languages oriented on the process control, such as CSP, Timed CSP, CCS [8, 15, 16, 14]. For compositional development these facilities should be combined with the formal languages formalizing the refinement concept and the technologies providing for proof of refinement relationship between components. Abstract Machine Notation (AMN) and B-technology [1, 21] provide such possibilities. This is why AMN has been considered as a formal model for the SYNTHESIS language intended for description, design and programming of interoperable information resource environments [9]. Creating a combination of a process control language with the refinement capabilities of B-technology would provide for the compositional development of IS with the process components. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: poorly 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: probably, but beyond my ability (or fortitude) to check. 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 describes technical basis for tool development 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: writing is awkward with many grammer mistakes. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: no 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: 27 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: Formal Process Specification Language with a Refinement Capability Intended for Compositional Development of Information Systems AUTHOR(S): Serge A. Stupnikov Leonid A. Kalinichenko -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper focuses on the extension of the AMN notation of B, following the ideas of CSP2B, as sequential composition, parallel composition, .... 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: 4 Please comment your rating: 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: 5 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: Works on the extension of the B method have already been proposed. The extension is not new and not significiant. The sequential composition is already possible in B in an implementation machine and authors seem to forget references on extensions. A new approach would be to integrate a specific refinement. CSP2B is probably better. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: They write a very interesting introduction but the reader is disapointed by the next sections. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: The explanations are not really given; the extension of B is important but the way they are using is toO simple and to naive. They introduce the sequential extension but the reader would like to have explanations on the parallel operation. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: Yes, since the case study is so simple! 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: B is useful for developing systems and software; authors use it for proposing a nth proposal for an extension. A convincing case study with parallel constructs would be usefull. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: maybe, give the paper to an native english. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: no Are the figures and length acceptable?: yes Are the references correct?: missing ones.... a lot of 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: The extension of AMN (B) notation is a good idea, if it is not restricte to syntactical transformations and to simple constructs as sequential composition. The very interesting problems are related to an extension of the refinement and what you are proposing is very close to the implementation machines alreready in B. Moreover, B is a general framework for designing mathematical models and you have to stay in a methodological point of view and to avoid the view of B as a programming language. Your cse study is simple and has a typing invariant. You should compare your work to Lano's one, Helen's one, Abrial's new proposals, etc Check in IFM99 and IFM00. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 27 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: Formal process specification language with a refinemen capability intended for compositional development of information systems AUTHOR(S): Stupnikov &al -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The authors' work extends AMN with process operators, building on Butler's work with csp2B. The authors add the standard timed and untimed operators of CSP, resulting in refinement proofs being carried out with the B-tool. 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: This is a very important area, although not *everybody* will be interested in distributed systems. 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: 5 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 main objective is to extend a state-based formalism with process algebraic operators. This is an area of great interest in the research community at present. The novelty here lies in the use of AMN and CSP. However, it is all very light-weight stuff: there is no theory, no new results, not even an interesting case study. I was disappointed. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: It is certainly worthwhile. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: I didn't appreciate the justification in terms of workflows and IS. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: An algorithm is presented for eliminating the sequential composition operator. For me, this shows the inadequacy of the paper. What is the correctness criterion for the algorithm? Parts of the algorithm are justified by appeal to the laws of CSP; other parts are left unjustified. No consideration is given as to why the quoted laws are sound within the combination of AMN and CSP. This is a rather important point that has occupied other researchers. 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: I don't think that there are satisfactory arguments in favour of the combination, although they could be made. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The quality of the writing is rather poor, with many grammatical errors. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: no 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 references are very narrow. The author seems unaware of the large body of work in this area. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++