++++++++++++++++++ FME2001: - Review reports for paper 46 +++++++++++++++++++++ - 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: 46 CATEGORY: 1 TITLE: Formal specification for a mathematics-based application domain: geometric modeling AUTHOR(S): Franck Ledoux Jean-Marc Mota Agnès Arnould Catherine Dubois Pascale Le Gall Yves Bertrand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): This paper consists of 10 pages of informal mathematical presentation of geometric modelling via so called n-G-maps and the chamfering operation (which has been published before in various places), followed by 4 pages each of a translation into B and CASL respectively. The B spec translates a constructive definition of chamfering, the CASL spec an implicit definition. 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 is just another specification exercise in a very specialized area. 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: 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: I am afraid that I hardly learned anything new from this paper: 1. The fact that model-oriented spec languages are suitable for constructive set theoretic specs and that property-oriented spec languages are suitable for implicit specs is almost a truism and has been taken for granted for man years. 2. I did not really understand the geometric and topological intuitions behind the n-G-maps, although half the paper is devoted to it. This is definitely my fault as well, but I am doubtful if this material is very suitable for conference presentation. 3. I had technical problems with the main definitions, not being able to recognize them as proper definitions. More on this below. In summary, the paper is little more than a moderately sized specification exercise without any new insights. The real work will start with the refinement of the specs and the proof of the proof obligations, which the authors promise as future work. I am looking forward to a report on that work. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: interesting to a small number of researchers 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: moderately so 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: there are some dubious "definitions" - see below 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: 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: You should really make an effort to improve the English of the paper. At times it is just strange, but in a number of places sentences are completely incomprehensible or even ungrammatical, eg the first sentence of 2.3 or the first sentence on page 17. The second sentence in Def 5 is equally obscure. Even small things like "natural integers" and "x checks P" are irritating---surely the authors have read papers or books in English before and should know that it is "natural numbers" and "x satisfies P". Do run spell on your text!! I would have told you that "dissociated" (and many others) is not an English word. 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: I find Defs 3 and 5 puzzling. On the face of it, they are not definitions at all but lists of axioms: in Def 3 it seems that item 3 is superfluous because items 1 and 2 should define the result already; in Def 5 it is totally unclear that a smallest such n-G-map exists. I assume the theory has been worked out, but the text should be more explicit about such important points. Def 1: what is an algebra? +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 46 CATEGORY: 1 TITLE: Formal specification for a mathematics-based application domain: geometric modeling AUTHOR(S): Ledoux et al. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): Describes a problem in geometric modeling software. Specifies solution in both B and CASL, and compares the specifications. 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: 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: I have not seen this application area discussed in the literature of formal methods before. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: This is a very nice case study. The application area is new and interesting. It is especially nice that the authors did two formal specifications in different languages and compared them. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: 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: 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: Darts should be explained much more thoroughly. I do not understand what a dart is, even after reading the paper. 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: 46 CATEGORY: 1 TITLE: Formal specification for a mathematics-based application domain: geometric modeling AUTHOR(S): Franck Ledoux Jean-Marc Mota AgnSs Arnould Catherine Dubois Pascale Le Gall Yves Bertrand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper describes the formal specification of chamfering in 3-D geometric modelling. It gives a mathematical definition and then two formal specifications using B and CASL respectively. It gives some discussion of the merits of each approach. 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 comparison is useful and of majority interest but more discussion and conclusions from the exercise would be helpful. The English is very poor and at times makes understanding difficult. 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 of 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 mathematical definition of chamfering is very interesting and well presented however this is not original to this paper. The two formal specifications provide a useful comparison between two different approaches to specification but not enough discussion is given to the comparison. 6. How WORTHWHILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: The stated goal is to provide a formal specification language convenient for geometric modelling with tools. This is worthwhile but specialised goal. There is an implicit overarching goal of enabling the use of the most appropriate specification methodology for a purpose. This is very worthwhile. However the paper does not go far enough in pursuing this. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: The explicit goal given above is explained but the work reported does not achieve the goal. For example, the use the B proof tools, if undertaken, is not reported. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: Yes, it all seems very sound (though I did not check every last detail) but does not go far enough. 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 favour of the new technique? If a methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are presented, is their relevance justified? Comment: The work reported is good initial work towards the stated goal but is still at an early stage. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The paper is well structured but the standard of English is very poor. The mistakes are too numerous to list here. I would strongly recommend the authors have the paper corrected by a better speaker of English. 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++