46 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
46 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
type:: [[REVIEWS]]
|
|
tags::
|
|
year:: 2023
|
|
venue:: [[MODELS-DS]]
|
|
full-title:: Model-driven Software Engineering in practice: (SPML4AI) a Framework for Modeling and Executing Software Engineering Process for AI-Enabled Systems
|
|
date-start:: [[01-08-2023]] - 17:36
|
|
date-submitted:: [[17-08-2023]]
|
|
external-links::
|
|
status:: [[DONE]]
|
|
deadline-submission:: [[14-08-2023]]
|
|
file:: 
|
|
|
|
- [[Highlights]]
|
|
- #+BEGIN_IMPORTANT
|
|
((64c92956-2066-4199-a3d7-8e7e32b53c03))
|
|
((64c92c7f-9de7-4bfc-88aa-d04a974419d5))
|
|
((64c92c8d-f876-4b69-b263-9dcff892b6f1))
|
|
#+END_IMPORTANT
|
|
- ((64ddc444-165f-485d-bd43-f80a5a692e46))
|
|
- What does it mean? What are the planned specificities that the DSL is planned to support?
|
|
- ((64ddc4ef-3de7-4836-8994-3d0066c252f3))
|
|
- Also for this contribution, it is necessary to be more specific in terms of expected novelty by referring to the specificities of the expected contributions that are not supported by currently available approaches.
|
|
- ((64ddc53c-0a3a-4590-987d-5b594e458d7d))
|
|
- You need to be more specific here, for instance by clarifying and elaborating what are the expected contributions with respect to existing MLOps iniviatives and tools.
|
|
-
|
|
- [[Comments]]
|
|
- The proposed research is about a relevant topic. Overall, the document is well-written and structured. Both the challenges and the proposed solutions are properly written, and a research plan is also given. However, I suggest improving the "expected contributions" section to address the following points:
|
|
- Regarding the DSL: Could you elaborate on the specific functionalities and features that the DSL is intended to encompass
|
|
- Concerning the ACPM methodology: It would be beneficial to provide more explicit details about the anticipated innovations, referencing the unique aspects of the expected contributions that distinguish them from existing methods.
|
|
- Concerning the process engine: Further specificity is required in this section. You could enhance clarity by elaborating on the anticipated contributions concerning current MLOps initiatives and tools.
|
|
- Section V partially addresses some of the previous issues. Therefore, I recommend a more balanced content distribution between the two sections for better cohesion.
|
|
- NOTES
|
|
- Each submission will be reviewed and evaluated in terms of the following quality criteria:
|
|
* Value: the problem is worth exploring, ideally inspired by real-world use;
|
|
* Impact: the potential for disruption of current practice and/or research;
|
|
* Originality: new insights or ideas/visions (alongside demonstrating a good understanding of the relevant literature);
|
|
* Rationale: soundness of the justification, reasoning, and argumentation;
|
|
* Research plan: realism, soundness, and concreteness of the plan for completing the doctoral research, including the evaluation to be performed, coverage of risks and ethics;
|
|
* Quality: overall paper quality.
|
|
|
|
The timelines for the Doctoral Symposium review process are as follows.
|
|
* August 14th: All reviews in (please take note of this deadline; the schedule is very tight)
|
|
* August 15th - 17th: Discussion period
|
|
* August 18th: Notification to authors
|
|
-
|
|
- |