CS2125 Paper Review Form - Winter 2018

Reviewer: Azadeh Assadi

Paper Title: Validation of Domain-Specific Languages with Derived Features and Well-Formedness Constraints. 

Author(s):Semerath, O, Barta, A., Horvath, A., Szatmari, Z., Varro, D

1) Is the paper technically correct?
 [X] Yes
 [ ] Mostly (minor flaws, but mostly solid)
 [ ] No

2) Originality
 [ ] Very good (very novel, trailblazing work)
 [X] Good 
 [ ] Marginal (very incremental)
 [ ] Poor (little or nothing that is new)

3) Technical Depth
 [ ] Very good (comparable to best conference papers)
 [x] Good (comparable to typical conference papers)
 [ ] Marginal depth
 [ ] Little or no depth

4) Impact/Significance
 [ ] Very significant
 [ ] Significant
 [X] Marginal significance.
 [ ] Little or no significance.

5) Presentation
 [ ] Very well written
 [ ] Generally well written
 [X] Readable
 [ ] Needs considerable work
 [ ] Unacceptably bad

6) Overall Rating
 [ ] Strong accept (award quality)
 [ ] Accept (high quality - would argue for acceptance)
 [X] Weak Accept (borderline, but lean towards acceptance)
 [ ] Weak Reject (not sure why this paper was published)


7) Summary of the paper's main contribution and rationale
   for your recommendation. (1-2 paragraphs)

The main contributions of Semerath et al.’s paper on Formal Validation of Domain-Specific Languages with Derived Features and Well-Formedness Constraints is the idea that applications should be developed that could allow validation of various domain specific languages (DSL) given the increasing complexity of models. Semerath et al. claim that every DSL can be simplified to an Object Constraint Language (OCL) regardless of its platform. To illustrate this claim, they explain the development of Trans-IMA, which is a model-driven approach towards the synthesis of complex, integrated Matlab Simulink models used in the simulation of software and hardware architecture of an airplane. They use Eclipse Modeling Framework and transformed the created model using EMF-IncQuery to First-Order Logic (FOL) formula. Their model is reportedly capable of checking both the graphics and the constraints of large and complex models faster than the existing SAT-solver and the SMT solver. They make this possible by using EMF software to convert the DSL to objects and saving them into relational databases which then use EMF capabilities to retrieve the objections and their relations.
Since the verifying and proofing of various DSLs is time consuming and at times difficult to do given the existing tools, there is a need for approaches that could perform the appropriate validations quickly and reliably at all sizes and complexity of models. The approach presented in this paper is original and one that several other researchers are focused on. The authors go through their process with great depth although the resulting length of the paper and the various undefined abbreviations, specific programs, and technical aspects make the paper harder to read. Furthermore, the authors have identified a niche market in the airplane industry where they develop and test their application. However, given that they claim that this approach could be used in any DSL, there are no examples or evidence to support this claim. While they did develop various component libraries to match various platforms, they are only relevant to the airplane industry and the domain of engineering. Given that the originality of the idea, the relevance of the overall issue that is being addressed, and the thorough description of their process and developed solution, I believe this paper is important and should be published. However, the paper would benefit from some modifications that would make the paper easier to read and understand, as well as clarifications around the extent to which this approach can be applied that is more clearly supported in their evidence. 

8) List 1-3 strengths of the paper.  (1-2 sentences each,
identified as S1, S2, S3.)

S1) Thorough explanation of the details of their work/project with well structured explanation/definition of various classes

S2) Good graphs and explanation of the approach towards the development of this application


9) List 1-3 weaknesses of the paper (1-2 sentences each,
identified as W1, W2, W3.)

W1) Poorly defined abbreviations - most abbreviations are not defined and if they are, their definitions are not at the first instance of abbreviation use.

W2) The paper leads the reader to believe that the approach is usable in any and all DSL while in practice it applies it to engineering DSLs specifically. There is also no evidence to suggest that their specific application of this solution can be extrapolated to other DSLs.