<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
A fő konferencia egyik workshopja: 1st International Workshop on
Executable Modeling<br>
Ide lehetne beküldeni a 6 oldalasra rövidített változatát, 17-dike a
határidő.<br>
Gergő<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/10/2015 11:43 PM, Dévai Gergely
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55A03C86.8060908@inf.elte.hu" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Ezt nem, de a másik projektben írt modellezős cikket legalább
elfogadták... :-/<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject:
</th>
<td>MODELS 2015 MEIP track Paper Notification [37]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date:
</th>
<td>Fri, 10 Jul 2015 23:38:28 +0200</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From:
</th>
<td>Alexander Egyed <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:alexander.egyed@gmail.com"><alexander.egyed@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Reply-To:
</th>
<td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:alexander.egyed@gmail.com"><alexander.egyed@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:deva@inf.elte.hu"><deva@inf.elte.hu></a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:kmate@caesar.elte.hu"><kmate@caesar.elte.hu></a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:nboldi@caesar.elte.hu"><nboldi@caesar.elte.hu></a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Gabor.Batori@ericsson.com"><Gabor.Batori@ericsson.com></a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:kitlei@elte.hu"><kitlei@elte.hu></a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:kto@elte.hu"><kto@elte.hu></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:alexander.egyed@gmail.com"><alexander.egyed@gmail.com></a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:models2015-meippapers-webadmin@borbala.com"><models2015-meippapers-webadmin@borbala.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>Dear Gergely, Máté, Boldizsár, Gábor, Róbert and Tamás,
Thank you for your submission to the MODELS 2015 MDE in Practice Track.
We regret to inform you that your submission:
"Design Space Exploration for High Performance UML Model Execution"
was not accepted for publication in the conference proceedings.
Each paper was reviewed by at least three members of the Program Committee
(PC) and the reviews were monitored by the Program Board (PB). Each paper was
also extensively discussed during the online PC meeting, and due consideration
was given to author responses that were provided. On July 7-8, 2015, a PB
meeting was held in Barcelona, which all PB members had to attend. At that
meeting, the paper selection was finalized. This year, out of 40 papers
submitted to MDE in Practice track, the PC and the PB accepted 11 (27%).
The reviews for your paper can be found at the end of this message and we hope
that you will find them useful.
We would like to encourage you to consider attending and participating in
MODELS 2015 and sincerely hope to see you in Ottawa this fall.
Best regards,
Alexander Egyed & Jordi Cabot
PC Chairs, MODELS 2015
*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=
First reviewer's review:
>>> Summary of the submission <<<
The paper first presents the requirements for industrial scale model executor
followed by the evaluation of the state-of-the-art model executors. Several
requirements are identified such as Interpreters vs Code Generator vs JIT
compilation and Java vs C++. Based on the findings, an open source model
execution chain is being developed together with partnership of Ericsson and
academic partners.
>>> Evaluation <<<
The paper in general is difficult to follow. There are some writing issues and
typos; some of them are listed in the minor comments section.
Section II focuses on the requirements of model executors. However, it is not
clear how were these requirements identified? Were these requirements
identified based on collaboration between industry and academic partners or
were these identified from the state-of-the-art?
Section III presents the related work on the existing tools. Strange enough
only performance of BridgePoint was evaluated and not of the others. Was there
any specific reason for this? Another question is why were these tools
selected? Was any systematic search performed to select the tools?
Section IV is called “Design Space Exploration†and in the section actually
the paper discusses various features of the tools that are apparently
identified from Section III’s survey on the tools. First, the heading is not
correctly representing what is contained in the section. Second, it is not
clear that how these features are identified from Section III’s tools
description. In the rest of the section, various features are compared with
experiments. For example, Interpreter vs Generated Code vs JIT to Java, and JIT
to byte code in terms of time performance. The major issue in the paper is
missing design of the experiments. What research questions paper is trying to
answer? How are requirements linked to features? A table summarising research
questions, requirements, features, results would have made everything connected
and easy to follow.
Section V presents the proposed architecture. Once again a clear link from the
results of Section IV is missing. In addition, there is no experiment to prove
that the proposed architecture solve all the problems of current
state-of-the-art. It is perhaps due to the reason that it is an ongoing work
and it might be a good idea to resubmit the paper in the later stage of the
project.
Minor:
Several places “:†is used instead of “.â€
Figure 5 caption is missing. It only says (a), (b) and (c)
*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*
Second reviewer's review:
>>> Summary of the submission <<<
After stating industrial requirements for a model execution/debugging/testing
tool chain in the context of Executable UML, the authors provide a survey on
such tools, e.g., BridgePoint, Alf/fUML, Moka/Moliz, Topcased, and Yakindu.
They discuss why existing tools fall short in addressing these requirements.
Then, the authors explore the design space for such tools by discussing
multiple design alternatives for various decision points and providing
prototyping results to support their claims. The paper concludes with the
proposal for an architecture for a model execution platform based on the
findings in the design space exploration.
>>> Evaluation <<<
This paper can be helpful for developers of model execution tools. The authors
provide a comprehensive manual design space exploration and reason about
different design alternatives. The paper can be classified as an experience
report. The stated requirements are reasonable and are potentially useful for
other companies as well. Clearly, this paper is work-in-progress, as the
prototype the authors working on is not finished. Thus, no case studies can be
reported yet. Nevertheless, I think the paper is well in the scope of the "MDE
in Practice" track and can potentially be a useful source of information for
developers of model execution tools.
*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*
Third reviewer's review:
>>> Summary of the submission <<<
This paper describes an effort between university researchers and industry to
develop a tool to efficiently execute UML models for large scale design efforts.
>>> Evaluation <<<
This is a good example of industry/academia partnerships. The paper is
generally well written and gives a good description of the goals, process, and
initial results.
My one concern with the paper (actually the work itself) is that tools already
exists that will simulate UML models (e.g. Rhapsody and Magic Draw). Further,
these tools are more compliant with the base UML standard than Bridgepoint. I
would have liked to see this addressed in the paper. Given these tools, what is
the real contribution here? Just providing an open source solution? (Given the
cost of Rhapsody and Magic Draw, this is not a trivial contribution, but if
that's the only contribution, then it should be made clear and there should be
a comparison with these tools.)
*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*
</pre>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Modelinterpreter mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Modelinterpreter@plc.inf.elte.hu">Modelinterpreter@plc.inf.elte.hu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://plc.inf.elte.hu/mailman/listinfo/modelinterpreter">https://plc.inf.elte.hu/mailman/listinfo/modelinterpreter</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>