1 RILEGGERE E CORREGGERE:
3 // certainly non-optimal presentation and structure. There are also quite many
5 / English: lots of errors in the third-person conjugation of verbs (missing s),
6 please correct them - I will not list all of them. Try to have a native
7 English speaker read the paper.
8 - Sessions 2 and 4 are too long, there are many repetitions.
13 // The work presented in this paper, however, is still in a preliminary stage
14 and convincing, novel scientific aspects are hardly identifiable
15 (vedi sotto "Possibili spunti")
19 NO: H-Bugs is an improved realization of the O-Ants approach; the
20 architecture of H-Bugs is superior to that of O-Ants and H-Bugs
21 provides more or at least some improved functionalities.
22 YES: H-Bugs is simply an adaptation of a subset of the functionalities
23 of O-Ants to the MONET web-services/brokers approach.
24 HHMM: The paper presents a case study with H-Bugs that gives novel insights or
25 NO provides new evidence for the usefulness of systems like H-Bugs and
26 O-Ants. (Because the title says ...: a case study this is what the
27 reader first expects).
29 (ii) In the conclusion the authors admit that their work is rather
30 preliminary and that a real integration into the
31 MONET architecture is still missing. In addition the following critique
32 should be addressed: The representations for proof status and hints
33 in the brokers and tutors are client specific. What level of abstraction
34 is thus reached by the approach over the peculiarities and
35 representation formats of the client systems? Is it a feature that for
37 combination new representation formats have to be agreed upon and
38 provided? I was actually hoping to find some more client independent
39 modelings of tutor services. Since this seems to be not an issue it
40 raises the question what the benefits of a modeling of H-Bugs within the
41 MONET web-services / brokers approach generally can be? Where is the
42 abstraction that is typically achieved in service/broker modelings (see
43 second paragraph in the Introduction)? If there is no abstraction
44 achieved over the representation format for proofs used by HELM what
45 again is the difference to O-Ants: the main application of O-Ants
46 operates on the OMEGA proof datastructure; however it has been claimed
47 that the O-Ants architecture is independent from it and this has
48 recently been illustrated by applications of the system in other
49 settings (e.g. paper at MKM-1001, Festschrift-Siekmann).
50 (iii) A proper evaluation of the case study is missing and the authors
51 themselves mention proper assessment as future work. The claim that the
52 tutor embodying the HELM-Search-Engine has effectively increased the
53 productivity of users is not at all justified in the paper.