Etusivu Tutki Apua
Kirjaudu sisään
hv
/
19.09.15-20.MoDELS.Munich_tutorials_PhysicalSystemsForSoftwareModellers
Tarkkaile 1
Äänestä 0
Fork 0
Tiedostot Ongelmat 0 Pull-pyynnöt 0 Wiki
Puu: 97443cce19
Branchit Tagit
19.09.15-20....
/
reviews.txt

reviews.txt 4.0 KB
Historia Raaka

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253 
  1. ----------------------- REVIEW 1 ---------------------
    2. 

  2. PAPER: 35
    3. 

  3. TITLE: Physical Systems for Software Modellers
    4. 

  4. AUTHORS: Hans Vangheluwe and Cláudio Gomes
    5. 

  5. 

  6. Overall evaluation: 2 (accept)
    7. 

  7. 

  8. ----------- Overall evaluation -----------
    9. 

  9. This tutorial introduces participants to the latest principles, techniques and tools available for modelling and building software systems embedded within networks of physical systems (i.e. cyber-physical systems). This requires abstract, conceptual modelling techniques to be seamlessly integrated with approaches for modelling physical systems. Because this is a complex topic, the tutorial is one full day in length and is split into two distinct parts, each covering half a day. The first part deals with the modelling and simulation of physical systems at different levels of abstraction, ranging from equations capturing the relevant laws of physics (e.g. Navier-Stokes equation etc.), to formalisms such as bond graphs which can describe the flow of concepts like power through a systems. The second part focuses on describing computational causality using such formalisms as Causal Block Diagrams or Synchronous Data Flow using tools such as Simulink. It then continues to consider!
    10. 

  10.   how the information captured in these formalism can be used to create corresponding control systems.
    11. 

  11. 

  12. The presenters of the tutorial are well known experts in this field and are experienced presenters. They have successfully presented tutorials on similar material at previous MODELS conferences.
    13. 

  13. 

  14. 

  15. ----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------
    16. 

  16. PAPER: 35
    17. 

  17. TITLE: Physical Systems for Software Modellers
    18. 

  18. AUTHORS: Hans Vangheluwe and Cláudio Gomes
    19. 

  19. 

  20. Overall evaluation: 2 (accept)
    21. 

  21. 

  22. ----------- Overall evaluation -----------
    23. 

  23. Tutorial Proposal: Physical Systems for Software Modellers
    24. 

  24. 

  25. This tutorial proposes to introduce software modellers to physical systems modelling. 
    26. 

  26. 

  27. I think the purpose of the tutorial is of great value to a segment of the MODELS attendees, particularly those whose work falls within the area of cyber-physical systems modelling, although it doesn't seem as interesting to "pure software" modellers. Many in the MODELS community, from both academic and industry backgrounds, have expertise on the software side of cyber-physical systems, but less so on the physical side, but introducing software modellers to the physical aspects would be welcome.
    28. 

  28. 

  29. The range of topics covered seems ambitious, but this might be fine, given that the tutorial is proposed to be a full-day tutorial. 
    30. 

  30. 

  31. Overall, it looks like it has been well-prepared, so I'd recommend its acceptance.
    32. 

  32. 

  33. 

  34. ----------------------- REVIEW 3 ---------------------
    35. 

  35. PAPER: 35
    36. 

  36. TITLE: Physical Systems for Software Modellers
    37. 

  37. AUTHORS: Hans Vangheluwe and Cláudio Gomes
    38. 

  38. 

  39. Overall evaluation: 0 (borderline paper)
    40. 

  40. 

  41. ----------- Overall evaluation -----------
    42. 

  42. The topic is interesting to the MODELS community. Modeling physical systems for simulation and code synthesis may attract the interest of some conference participants. 
    43. 

  43. 

  44. The presenters are well qualified and have the experience to run the tutorial. They already presented tutorials in previous editions of MODELS.
    45. 

  45. 

  46. I would recommend the presenters to follow the guidelines for the proposal. The abstract is too long describing some foundations rather the purpose of the tutorial. The sample slides are not well structured. I miss some index and structure to help following the content. In addition, 48 slides are far more than the maximum (25 slides).
    47. 

  47. 

  48. There is no teaching methodology in the proposal. It is not clear in the proposal how practical the tutorial will be or which resources the participants will require. 
    49. 

  49. 

  50. I understand that 6 hours (full-day) may be necessary for all the content described in the proposal, however, it is not clear to me which kind of case studies or examples will be used. If participants will start from scratch or not.
    51. 

  51. 

  52. In summary, I find the topic interesting and the presenters well qualified, however I have concerns regarding the methodology and the technical content due to the poor description in the proposal.
    53. 

  53.