++++++++++++++++++ FME2001: - Review reports for paper 40 +++++++++++++++++++++ - 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: 40 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: Components, Contracts, and Connectors for the Unified Modelling Language UML AUTHOR(S): Claus Pahl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper describes the specification of contracts between components based on abstractions of action and operation behaviour using pre- and postconditions. 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: A formal basis for an extension to the widely used UML. 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: New and significant is the proposed extension and the way it is semantically founded. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: Very worthwhile. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: The goals is very well explained and justified. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: They seem sound although I did not check them thoroughly. 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: Yes. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The writing is of good quality. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: No. Are the figures and length acceptable?: Yes. Are the references correct?: Yes (as far as I could check). 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: 40 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: Components, Contracts, and Connectors for the Unified Modelling Language UML AUTHOR(S): Claus Pahl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper introduces a formalisation of (UML) components and suggests how to restrict their composition through the use of contracts. The formalisation including notions of refinement and implementation is based on the pi-calculus, transition systems, and modal logic 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: Component based development and reasoning is of interest to the majority of the community. However the paper surfers through a formalisation which requires up front knowledge about UML, OCL, pi-calculus, and modal logic. 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: The paper is very weak on stating its contribution. I assume that the formalization of contracts using the pi-calculus is new. However, much work seems to be needed to understand the significance of the approach. No proofs are given. For the proof of one of the main results, the author refers to another papers of his. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: The overall goal of devising better technology and formalisation for software components is certainly worthwhile. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: weak 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions,statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: the formalisation is not very detailed and no proofs are given. The author seems to want to do too much. No mistakes were found - but little could be checked. 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 of contracts are justified by reuse of components. The adequacy of the chosen refinement and implementation definitions is not discussed. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: reasonably well-writing - English is fine. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: yes Are the references correct?: no mistakes found 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: p9. (11) explain the relation m -> n (what is the impact of the new rule on the pi-calculus) p11. explain PId +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 40 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: Components, Contracts, and Connectors for the Unified Modelling Language UML AUTHOR(S): Claus Pahl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper extends UML with model elements to specify components based on contracts. Apart from extending the syntax of UML, the semantics of the new elements are defined, as well as a refinement/implementation relation which allows reasoning about composition and contracts. 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: The paper is a contribution to extending a standard and widely used language in industry (UML) with the important notion of components and contracts. Covering syntactic, semantic and reasoning (refinement) aspects, the author proposes an approach and illustrates its practical applicability. The motivation is clearly presented, as well as the contribution concerning related work. The presentation could be improved, as discussed below. Some parts of the paper needs further explanation and justification. 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: The component concept is not new, but its inclusion in UML is an important contribution. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: See items 2 and 5. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: The motivation is clear and the contribution of the paper is discussed in terms of related work. However, the paper should present more explanation and justification for the particular design elements used. For example, it is not clear to me why contracts have attributes. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: As far as I could follow, 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: No relevant case study has been presented or reported, but the refinement/implementation notion formalised in the paper should serve as a basis for a practical development method. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The first two sections are fine, but then the example started in figures 1 and 2 are not further developed in the remaining sections of the paper. This is very frustrating, since the concepts introduced from Section 3 on are either not exemplified or explained in terms of other small examples. The example used should be presented in more detail so that every concept (especially those in Section 3) can be illustrated using the example. The role of an attribute in a contract is not explained in the paper. A few typos and comments: - Page 6, "... a associated" -> "... an associated" - Page 8, "... follows: The" -> "... follows: the" "... can formally" -> "... can be formally" The example of weakening precondition is too obvious; replace with one from your example of figures 1 and 2, illustrating the strengthening of the postcondition as well. - Page 17. Reference to KobrA. 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: +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++