+++ /dev/null
-Dear Claudio Sacerdoti Coen,
-
-Thank you for your submission to Calculemus 2003. We are pleased to inform
-you that your paper, titled
-
-Brokers and Web-Services for Automatic Deduction: a Case Study
-
-has been accepted as a full paper for publication in the Proceedings.
-Papers went through a rigorous reviewing process. Each paper was
-reviewed by at least three program committee members and was discussed
-at the program committee meeting.
-
-Full papers are limited to 12 pages. Your camera-ready paper is due on July
-15, 2003. In order to help you to prepare your final paper, you will find
-bellow the referees' report on your paper,
-
-To submit your paper, revisit the Calculemus 2003 submission site at
-
-http://www-calfor.lip6.fr/home/rr/public_html/Calculemus03/submit/submit/
-
-go to step 3, and use the login name and password that you received for
-submiting the abstract and paper
-
-You will need to submit both a file containing the source(s) and a final file
-in pdf or postscript format.
-
-In the following reports "A" means strong accept, "B" means weak accept,"C"
-means weak reject and "D" means strong reject. As of reviewers "X" means
-expert, "Y" means knowledgeable and "Z" means informed outsider.
-
-We remind you that a special issue of the London Mathematical Journal
-dedicated to Calculemus 2003 will have a deadline around november.
-
-Congratulations on having your paper accepted. We look forward to
-seeing you in Roma.
-
-Sincerely,
-
-Therese Hardin, Renaud Rioboo
-Calculemus 2003 PC Chairs
-
-----------
-Version number: 2
-Paper number: 12
-Reviewer number: XX
-1 - Classification: A
-2 - Your overall expertise on the areas of this paper: X
-3 - Contribution type: both a research paper and an experience report.
-4 - Summary of the paper:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-The paper presents a collection of web services each implementing an automated
-deduction tactic. The services are coordinated by a broker able dispatch a
-proof status and collect hints back from the services. This architecture has
-been implemented in H-Bugs, an environment for supporting proof development.
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-6 - Comments for the author(s):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-The topic of the paper is quite interesting: a shift from user-oriented
-software development to a web-service oriented software is probably on its way
-and will naturally occur. For the Calculemus core goal of integrating
-mechanized reasoning and symbolic computation, this shift is very important
-because it will provide off-the-shelf methods that can be used to improve the
-problem solving activity (whether it is computing or proving). Your list of
-potential clients to these services (on page 2) gives a glance into this
-vision. I rated the paper with the full accept because the topic is important
-for Calculemus but I think the paper needs careful revision. I strongly
-encourage you to elaborate the paper including a short session on how you
-envision using the services from outside of H-Bugs, even outside of a
-proof-assistant environment if possible.
-
-Also you should discuss how to integrate into H-Bugs for instance a computer
-algebra package as tutor for ring simplification or for computing witnesses...
-
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-7 - Points in favour or against:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Comments:
-
-You compare H-Bugs to the MONET architecture, why? Please shortly give a
-motivation. One may wonder why not comparing to Omega instead. As you notice
-in the conclusion, the lack of ontologies to describe the the problems solved
-by your services confine these services to the H-Bug broker. Also, 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.
-About the broker, in w3c terminology one has connectors, components and
-gateways, wouldn't you say that the broker is a gateway? Sessions 2 and 4 are
-too long, there are many repetitions.
-
-
-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.
-
-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.
-
-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
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Version number: 5
-Paper number: 12
-Reviewer number: XX
-1 - Classification: C
-2 - Your overall expertise on the areas of this paper: X
-3 - Contribution type: an experience report.
-4 - Summary of the paper:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-The paper presents the system H-Bugs which consists of a (MONET-)broker and
-several (MONET-)web-services supporting the generation of hints in interactive
-theorem proving. The motivation of H-Bugs and its functionalities are very
-closely related to the O-Ants framework developed in Saarbruecken and
-Birmingham; the authors call O-Ants a precursor of their system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-6 - Comments for the author(s):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-It appears very interesting and useful to adapt the O-Ants approach to
-the MONET web-services/brokers framework. The work presented in this paper,
-however, is still in a preliminary stage and convincing, novel scientific aspects are hardly identifiable. This may be caused to a large extend by the certainly non-optimal presentation and structure. There are also quite many typos.
-
-
-
-The main problem of the paper in my opinion is that the authors do not
-provide a clear picture on what their intellectual achievement and contribution actually is. Let us discuss some options:
-
-(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).
-
-The presentation addresses all three aspects a bit but fails
-to provide convincing arguments for either of them:
-
-(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.
-
-
-Some further remarks:
-
-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.)
-
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-7 - Points in favour or against:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Pro: The work is definitely very relevant.
-Contra: Preliminary work stage, presentation and structure of paper is non-optimal, scientific contribution not clearly identifiable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Version number: 1
-Paper number: 12
-Reviewer number: XX
-1 - Classification: A
-2 - Your overall expertise on the areas of this paper: X
-3 - Contribution type: both a research paper and an experience report.
-4 - Summary of the paper:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-The paper presents a distributed proof suggestion/theorem provring system
-based on W3C-style web services. The approach is closely patterned after the
-OMEGA-Ants system. The main (and important) difference is that it is
-distributed over the web. This is a great case study for web services, and
-quite a technological feat.
-
-The paper is well-written, and explains the system in sufficient detail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-6 - Comments for the author(s):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-What I would really like to see is a wrapper for the OMEGA Ants system that
-exports some of its Agengs as H-Bugs services, so that we can have O/H-hybrid
-populations of agents. Or of course an OMEGA Ants interpreter (the OAgents are
-given somewhat declaratively, if I recall) so that they can be exported as web
-services.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-7 - Points in favour or against:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-not filled in
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
projects / helm.git / blobdiff