logseq/pages/JOT-2019-20518.md

type:: REVIEWS tags:: year:: 2023 venue:: JOT full-title:: An Overview of the Declarative Programming Languages for the IoT Domain date-start:: 18-08-2023 - 18:27 date-submitted:: 18-08-2023 external-links:: Francisco Morero-Peyrona, An Overview of the Declarative Programming Languages for the IoT Domain (jot.fm) status:: DONE deadline-submission:: 18-08-2023 file::

- [[Highlights]]
	- ((64df9e53-9cfe-409f-89ac-b5d03adf19b3))
		- I would consider to use low-code or no-code approaches in line with the recent technology trends.
	- ((64dfa22d-d158-4bae-aa28-1346b12b0d80))
		- The paper has to be fixed with respect to the definitions of SLR and SMS. In partiular, "Systematic mapping studies are used to structure a research area, while systematic reviews are focused on gathering and synthesizing evidence".
		- I suggest to read Section 2.1 ("The differences between systematic maps and reviews") of [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007] where the author states:
			- "The research questions in mapping studies are general as they
			  aim to discover research trends (e.g. publication trends over time,
			  topics covered in the literature). On the other hand, systematic
			  reviews aim at aggregating evidence and hence a very specific goal
			  has to be formulated (e.g. whether an intervention is practically
			  useful by industry)"
		-
- [[Comments]]
	- This paper provides an overview of existing declarative programming languages within the IoT domain. It applies a systematic mapping study protocol to search for and collect relevant papers, which are subsequently filtered based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The research questions are formulated and addressed by analysing the gathered literature.
	- The paper addresses a relevant topic. However, despite the authors' efforts to enhance the original submission, the manuscript's readiness for acceptance remains incomplete due to the following primary reasons:
		- The authors conflate the objectives of Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) and Systematic Mapping Studies (SMSs). As per [1], "Systematic mapping studies structure a research area, while systematic reviews focus on collecting and synthesizing evidence." Please refer to Section 2.1, where the authors state:
			- "Research questions in mapping studies are general, aiming to discover research trends (e.g., publication trends over time, topics covered in the literature). Conversely, systematic reviews aggregate evidence, necessitating precisely formulated specific goals (e.g., the practical utility of an intervention for the industry)."
		- The protocol description in the initial version of the paper has been enhanced. However, the concern raised in the previous review about "Insufficient Problem Definition and Discussion" remains partially unresolved. Considering the defined research questions, the authors aim to conduct a systematic literature review on distinct facets of the IoT domain, mainly focusing on domain-specific languages proposed within this domain. Further clarification of the intended purposes of the languages of interest is essential. For instance, are languages being examined solely for specifying workflows (akin to Node-RED), or are approaches considered that encompass broader aspects, including design and deployment, as supported by ThingML?
		- Building upon my prior comment, I recommend refining the research questions to encompass the complete IoT system life cycle from a software and system engineering perspective. This broader scope would facilitate identifying language characteristics beyond generic attributes like declarativity or extensibility.
		- To augment the paper's strength, I propose providing an overview of the identified languages, enabling readers interested in the domain to grasp key elements of existing approaches through illustrative examples. For instance, presenting comparable applications modeled using different approaches would facilitate comparisons based on predefined features outlined in this paper.
		- The manuscript contains multiple instances of English errors that necessitate correction.
	-
	- [1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007
	- NOTES
		- ==Original submission: ![511-Article Text-1032-1-2-20230515 (3).pdf](../assets/511-Article_Text-1032-1-2-20230515_(3)_1692376268391_0.pdf)==
			- Given comments:
				- The paper cannot be accepted as it is for the following reasons:
					- **Limited Protocol Description**: The paper claims to be a systematic literature review; however, it does not clearly describe the protocol used for conducting the review. Providing a detailed and transparent protocol description is essential for ensuring the rigor and reproducibility of the review process.
					- **Insufficient Problem Definition and Discussion**: The paper lacks adequate elaboration on both the problem definition and the discussion of the findings. Currently, the content of the paper is quite brief, and it does not provide a comprehensive exploration of the problem at hand or a thorough analysis of the obtained results. We recommend expanding these sections to provide a more substantial contribution to the field.
			-