--- /dev/null
+// certainly non-optimal presentation and structure. There are also quite many
+ typos
+// The work presented in this paper, however, is still in a preliminary stage
+ and convincing, novel scientific aspects are hardly identifiable
+ (vedi sotto "Possibili spunti")
+
+/ include a short session on how you envision using the services from
+ outside of H-Bugs, even outside of a proof-assistant environment if possible.
+/ how to integrate into H-Bugs for instance a computer algebra package as
+ tutor for ring simplification or for computing witnesses
+/ the registration aspect seems quite different. In my understanding, this
+ broker is a a very specialized planner in MONET terminology: it has internal
+ knowledge of the domain area of proof assistants (it knows the formats of
+ proof status and hints). The all architecture of H-Bugs has certain aspects
+ that can be identified in the MONET architecture but it lacks the generality.
+/ English: lots of errors in the third-person conjugation of verbs (missing s),
+ please correct them - I will not list all of them. Try to have a native
+ English speaker read the paper.
+/ Use Section instead of Sect.
+ On receipt of an hint -> Upon receival of a hint
+ An hint -> A hint (everywhere!)
+ An usage -> A usage (check www.bartleby.com/64)
+ reply the work -> replay/replicate? the work
+
+
+- About the broker, in w3c terminology one has connectors, components and
+ gateways, wouldn't you say that the broker is a gateway?
+- You compare H-Bugs to the MONET architecture, why? Please shortly give a
+ motivation. One may wonder why not comparing to Omega instead.
+- Sessions 2 and 4 are too long, there are many repetitions.
+
+- Page 12: in the Calculemus tradition, intelligent tutors like CAS can be
+ integrated with a skeptical approach. You must check former Calculemus
+ proceedings for references.
+
+
+/ Page 9, do all tutors have the same interface? This is quite a uniform
+ environment, which is not typical of a web service architecture. All the
+ H-Bugs brokers provide a uniform H-Bugs broker interface.
+
+
+### (CRITICHE FEROCI)
+page 2: ... are natural candidates ...
+
+In MathWeb, for instance, many of the mentioned systems are not just
+candidates for being clients, they are clients.
+
+page 2: ... number of examples in the literature has been extremely low and
+the concrete benefits are still to be assessed.
+
+MathWeb, for instance, has been extensively used in case studies (where
+several thousands of subproblems have been attacked by MathWeb service
+systems).
+
+What is the novel aspect of your case study? What do I learn?
+
+page 2: The citation for MathWeb is not very well chosen. There is a system
++description at CADE 2002 which is probably better suited. (This may also hold
++for other citations.)
+
+Possibili spunti:
+
+(i) H-Bugs is an improved realization of the O-Ants approach; the
+ architecture of H-Bugs is superior to that of O-Ants and H-Bugs
+ provides more or at least some improved functionalities.
+(ii) H-Bugs is simply an adaptation of a subset of the functionalities
+ of O-Ants to the MONET web-services/brokers approach.
+(iii) The paper presents a case study with H-Bugs that gives novel insights or
+ provides new evidence for the usefulness of systems like H-Bugs and
+ O-Ants. (Because the title says ...: a case study this is what the
+ reader first expects).
+
+(i) H-Bugs functionalities still appear to be a rather small subset of
+ O-Ants functionalities. A proper comparison of functionalities is
+ unfortunately missing. Example: H-Bugs does still present the
+ hints in unsorted lists. Taking into account that the number of hints
+ (especially when it comes to suggestions of parameters) can easily
+ become very large, a heuristically structured presentation (which the
+ authors mention as future work) seems to be a crucial requirement for
+ such a system.
+ There are many more aspects of O-Ants which seem to be not yet
+ addressed in H-Bugs A proper comparison of the H-Bugs functionalities
+ and architecture
+ with the O-Ants functionalities and architecture should be given if the
+ authors contribution is meant to be (i).
+(ii) In the conclusion the authors admit that their work is rather
+ preliminary and that a real integration into the
+ MONET architecture is still missing. In addition the following critique
+ should be addressed: The representations for proof status and hints
+ in the brokers and tutors are client specific. What level of abstraction
+ is thus reached by the approach over the peculiarities and
+ representation formats of the client systems? Is it a feature that for
+ each client-tutor
+ combination new representation formats have to be agreed upon and
+ provided? I was actually hoping to find some more client independent
+ modelings of tutor services. Since this seems to be not an issue it
+ raises the question what the benefits of a modeling of H-Bugs within the
+ MONET web-services / brokers approach generally can be? Where is the
+ abstraction that is typically achieved in service/broker modelings (see
+ second paragraph in the Introduction)? If there is no abstraction
+ achieved over the representation format for proofs used by HELM what
+ again is the difference to O-Ants: the main application of O-Ants
+ operates on the OMEGA proof datastructure; however it has been claimed
+ that the O-Ants architecture is independent from it and this has
+ recently been illustrated by applications of the system in other
+ settings (e.g. paper at MKM-1001, Festschrift-Siekmann).
+(iii) A proper evaluation of the case study is missing and the authors
+ themselves mention proper assessment as future work. The claim that the
+ tutor embodying the HELM-Search-Engine has effectively increased the
+ productivity of users is not at all justified in the paper.
+
projects / helm.git / blobdiff