Contested deletion
old news
|
---|
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... in my opinion it is in line with G11 Wikipedia:CSD#G11 as there is clearly stated: "An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion" if in Your opinion it is against neutral point of view - please point out which part of SORCER article violates it --Pawelpacewicz (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Contested deletionThis page is not unambiguously promotional, because it presents an open source project that has an over 10 year history as a scientific project developed by many universities. The references suggest a strong scientific background and a lot of new concepts in Computer Science that originated during the development of this project - these, however, have not been explained in detail and should be added soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prubach (talk • contribs) All presented facts are verifiable All positions listed in Bibliography will be all added as explicitly verifiable reference in the text. They are highly recognized research results related to the new unique emerging technology currently used and expended at AFRL/WPAFB. It can be easily verified by listed recent papers in provider Bibliography. The basic research was done at SORCER Lab Texas Tech University (verifiable): http://sorcersoft.org/about/timeline.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwsobol (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC) This article relies on many valuable references from multiple sources ranging from: Texas Tech University, GE Global Research Center, AFRL/WPAFB, Wright State University, and Chinese universities. I think that it is false assumption that more references are needed to validate the originality. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 132.3.33.68 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
|
References
more about contested deletion
|
---|
Those who are adding and adding scientific papers as references should read WP:RS. The flurry of activity is laudable, but the article needs to have its notability established. No-one contests that the thing exists, the discussion is about notability. Primary sources are valueless in this regard. Fiddle Faddle 01:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Article improved as suggested in the issues listI believe that all suggestions to how improve the article have been addressed. You can find additional explanations (i.e. references, primary sources, notability etc.) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER" Pawelpacewicz (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) due to that I removed cleanup tags. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Timtrent suggested Primary Sources issue. Fact that those are not primary sources were already proven on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER. Due to that I'm removing cleanup tag. Here I'm copying related parts of that discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER:
(...)
It describes usage of system (not system itself) in another discipline, another country, another University ...
(... then here is Fiddle Faddle answer - details are here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER...)
more over fact that it's not primary source was confirmed by User:Scope creep member of WikiProject Computer science. if You have any doubts please refer to full discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER Pawelpacewicz (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
|
listing of sources that denote wikiNotability
Hello folks, I'm friends with Tim-aka-FiddleFaddle, they invited me over here to check things out. You can call me 74, nice to meet you. :-)
Some brief preliminary notes. We have some jargon around here, called wikiNotability, which is *not* actually related to real-world colloquial notability (lowercase). It is a special jargon that means one thing and one thing only: to have a dedicatedarticle here on wikipedia, an article which is about some topic such as the SORCER software, wikiNotability demands that this *specific* topic have
- significant coverage
- in multiple
- independent
- wikiReliable Sources
what those four key phrases actually mean
|
---|
Significant means, not just a name-drop, not just a paragraph. It should be in-depth. It should be specifically aboutSORCER, not just incidentally about it. Multiple means, umm, multiple... but for instance, if Mike has published a three-part-series with a particular publisher in a particular year, that does NOT count as "multiple" by wikipedia standards. We want publications from multiple authors, using multiple publishers, and preferably in multiple years (or at least multiple months). Independent means that there is no blatant conflict of interest. Mike has a conflict of interest; he invented the stuff. Now, there is some flexibility here; for instance, if Mike were to get a book-deal with IDG, to publish SORCER for Dummies which was then sold in Barnes-and-Noble stores around the world, that does *not* count as COI. The fact-checking folks at IDG would make sure Mike was not doing anything *too* crazy in the book... and more importantly, the marketing department at IDG would be betting their reputations for making a profit that the topic of SORCER was in demand, enough to justify publishing the book. By contrast, if Mike were to self-publish a book, using one of the modern digital vanity press offerings such as Amazon or various other commercial services, that would *not* count as independent, any more than Mike paying a PR firm to send out paid-for-in-advance press releases would count. Similarly, if some journalist was to write a story about SORCER at a reasonably famous place like the Wall Street Journal, to help sell newspapers or magazines or whatever to the reading public, with the editorial department fact-checking the work, that would be independent by wikipedia standards; whereas, if the local paper just republishes a press-release from sorcersoftDotCom, that is *not* independent by wikipedia standards. The last one is the hard one. What does it mean to be a reliable source? Well, that's easy: truthful, factual, correct, accurate, and preferably unbiased. What does it mean to be wikiReliable? This is quite different! Truth is not key. Factual is important, but only in how we present the quotation here in wikipedia. Correctness and accuracy are preferable, but not required. Bias is fully permitted in the wikiReliable Source as long as we wikipedian editors rewrite the prose to neutrally reflect the position that the bulk of the Reliable Sources take. The main criteria, for being considered a Reliable Source, is that the information must be peer-reviewed by independent professionals in the field of inquiry (such as a journal publication), or alternatively, that the information must be fact-checked by independent editorial professionals in the publishing industry (newspaper/magazine/book/teevee/similar... does not matter if they are offline or online publications). |
blah blah
|
---|
So the trouble here, seems to be that we have a lot of sources that *mention* SORCER. But to justify an article *about* SORCER specifically, we need some sources that are *about* SORCER specifically, either in whole or in part. Furthermore, we have a lot of sources that are questionably-independent. Primary sources like scientific papers, which were published on a website, or presented at a conference, but which did not undergo independent peer-review (prior to publication in a respected academic journal), or did not undergo independent fact-checking (prior to publication in a mainstream journalistic or bookstore-like setting). However, I also note that there were a bunch of PhD thesis projects... sometimes, the folks that act as the "review board" for the PhD thesis can be considered independent. Also, it *is* sometimes possible to use primary academic papers as reliable sources, despite the paper in question not undergoing peer-reviewed publication... if the paper is Widely Cited And Important In The Subfield. Can somebody, probably Pawelpacewicz or Mwsobol, please provide me with the known sources that most closely match what I'm describing? Quantity is *not* important. We need three WP:RS things to prove wikiNotability. So give me the top five known sources, which are specifically about SORCER (preferably having it in the paper-title or a chapter-title), and which are are independent as possible, and which have undergone some kind of careful perusal by outsiders already (peer-review / fact-check / phd-thesis-committee-review / very-widely-cited). Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC) |
infomercial
These are from the lead paragraph (which *must* specifically state why the topic is wikiNotable) plus from the first paragraph of the body.
- in large complex IT environments into one dynamically manageable cloud
- enable the end users to flexibly realize interactions of services
- SORCER makes it easy to manage complexity of modern challenges (i.e. air vehicle design).
- called exertions
- The front-end services created by the end users are service collaborations
- all seamlessly collaborating
- understandable DSLs
- the SOS makes that process expressions actualized
I stopped after two paragraphs. Two out of three sentences are using the wrong tone.
examples of encyclopedic WP:TONE versus promotional tone, from other wikipedia articles related to software or science
|
---|
Wikipedia should not sound like an infomercial. All these phrases need Reliable Sources that WP:PROVEIT, or take them out. Wikipedia should never use big-boy fancy-pants jargon-words, unless they are necessary to truly understand the topic. For instance, we have an article Medulla oblongata which uses the jargon-words vasomotor and autonomic. But look at the remainder of the intro-slash-summary-paragraph. It is all straightforward prose, that most tenth-graders and many fifth-graders could grok.
Compare that reasonably-jargon-free summary of the *Notability* and wider meaning of the medulla oblongata, with the same section from the current article.
Here is an article about an important piece of computer software. Guess what it says at the top? Relies on primary sources --written like an advertisement. This is what *not* to do.
Here is an article about an important piece of computer software. It uses wikipedia-style Reliable Sources (see specific defintion in subsection above), when it makes positive (or negative) claims.
Anybody that knows about software can read that, and understand it instantly. There is little taint of marketroid-speech. Even somebody knowing almost nothing about software can understand *most* of what the information says. SQLite is some kind of "database" (link). It is small. Unlike most databases it is not a separate "process" (oops... no link!). It is "ACID"(link) and "SQL-compliant"(link) and "weakly-typed"(missing link!), whatever those mean. It is an "embedded"(link) DB, popular for use in things like web browsers(overlink). The most widely deployed database[cite]. Has many "bindings"(link). FLOSS.[cite] There are some mistakes of omission... for example, SQLite is *slow* at some tasks, compared to more heavy-weight database solutions. There are some mildly-infomercial statements that need cites -- claim of being "small" and claim of being "popular" ... who says it is small, and who says it is popular, and why should wikipedia's readership care? WP:PROVEIT means prove that the claims is not merely truthful, but also WP:NOTEWORTHY. |
Try and write the article in straightforward language, no invented jargon-words, no marketing-department-speechifying, use words that are as simple as possible but no simpler. Do not editorialize. Do not be positive. Do not show off. Be neutral. Be dry. Be factual. Be encyclopedic in tone, in focus, in what you include, in what you leave out. Write for the ninth-grader that is learning about fighter jets, ***never*** for the mid-level manager that is thinking about whether to use SORCER in their billion-dollar-project or not. The audience is students of knowledge seeking to be educated, never consumers of products seeking to be swayed. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I concur. I have attempted several of the paragraphs and simply see amesofwordsalljumbledtogether ↑ dıɥsɹǝpɐǝɹ ןɐnsn ɹno oʇ ʇou ʇnq 'ǝsuǝs ǝʞɐɯ ɥɔıɥʍ ɟo ʇsoɯ↓. The entire article needs to be copyedited to migrate it to language that enquiring but not knowledgeable minds can understand. I am still concerned that the first task is to show and prove notability though Fiddle Faddle 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Any old reference just will not do
Please do not adopt the lazy approach. When you add a reference do not just slam any old thing in, believing that this is actually a reference. Take the time to reference things properly. The reference itself must be reliable and must refer to the thing it purports to reference. Fiddle Faddle 11:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
notability and sourcing
preliminaries
|
---|
Dear 74 thank you for your answer. I really appreciate the way you propose to communicate as it gives more comfort for both of us and builds dialog and consensus. Thank you for your suggestions on how to improve this article. I agree with them but I think I should first follow Fiddle Faddle's suggestion "that the first task is to show and prove notability though" I fully understand and agree with wikipedia rules - thanks to which the quality of articles is high and I want to follow that. This is why I prepared (it took a lot of my time - believe me) a detailed info proving notability and the fact that I mostly use secondary sources (It's available here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER). Unfortunately, till now from those who have doubts on notability and sources - there was no single comment showing directly what in their opinion is not enough within presented proves. So as I appreciate our way of communication I would like to ask you for your opinion about the proves of notability and sourcing which I have provided here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER. I encourage you to read all of it but if you would like to focus on proves only - they are listed with following dates/signatures:
Additionally in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER you can find opinions of 2 members who are specializing in computing:
I hope You find them useful. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
|
PLEASE EDIT THESE SOURCE-EVALUATIONS DIRECTLY, TO FILL IN MISSING DETAILS. Thanks much. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Mwsobol#0
- sorcer.com , Poland
Mwsobol#1
- url == http://sorcersoft.org/publications/papers/2012/6.2012-5520.pdf
- title == "Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle Analysis and Optimization Implementation using SORCER"
- collaborative university == Texas Tech University
IOSPRESS / AFRL x2 or x3
|
---|
Shortname == iosPress#1
Shortname == iosPress#2 (Mwsobol#2)
|
- TBD
Kazumo#12 / Mwsobol#3
- url == www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22393[predatory publisher]
- title == "Unified Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages"
Mwsobol#4
- url == http://repositories.tdl.org/ttu-ir/handle/2346/15257
- title == Max Berger's research (from Germany), a federated filesystem developed for SORCER
Kazumo#11
- author == M. Sobolewski
- editor == Anneke Kleppe
- chapter title == Chapter 3 "Languages and Mograms"
- book title == Software Language Engineering: Creating Domain-Specific Languages Using Metamodels
132
- url == ??
- title == ?? (won best-paper award)
- authors == Dan Kerrn, M.Sobolewski
Kazumo#13 (this is a wiki methinks?)
Pawelpacewicz#73
- url == http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2012-5520
- author1 == Scott Burton, American Optimization, LLC; Manager Ph.D. AIAA SEnior Member
- author2 == Edward Alyanak, Air Force Research Laboratory; Project Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Senior Member
- author3 == Raymond Kolonay, Air Force Research Laboratory; Principal Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Associate Fellow
- abstract == describes SORCER's application in ESAV project
NAN LI x3 or x4 of Beijing
|
---|
Shortname == N.Li 2008. journal paper (Kozamo#1)
Shortname == N.Li 2009. PhD thesis (Kozamo#6)
Shortname == N.Li 2011_A. journal paper (Kozamo#3_A)
Shortname == N.Li 2011_B. journal paper (Kozamo#3_B)
Shortname == N.Li 2011_C. conference paper (Kozamo#9)
Shortname == ICDMA'11 aka N.Li 2011_D. Suggested as WP:RS to satisty WP:NOTE.
Shortname == N.Li 2012. journal paper (Kozamo#2)
|
U.Cranfield in the UK
|
---|
Shortname == Cranfield 2007. chapter (Beavercreekful#1)
|
RUSSIAN NEWSPAPERS x3
|
---|
Beavercreekful#3
Beavercreekful#4
Beavercreekful#9
|
CHINESE EDU NEWS x4
|
---|
Beavercreekful#5
Beavercreekful#6
Beavercreekful#7
Beavercreekful#8
|
PHD THESIS x4 (cf N.Li 2009 above)
|
---|
Shortname == G.Goteng 2009. PhD thesis (Beavercreekful#2)
Shortname == J.Yu 2010. PhD thesis (Kozamo#7)
Shortname == L.Kong 2013. PhD thesis (Kozamo#8)
Shortname == DaytonThesis. Ph.D. thesis (more than one?) from from University of Dayton
|
details of DaytonThesis w.r.t. SORCER/exertions/SOOA
|
---|
abstract == Nonlinear, high fidelity aerodynamic analysis methods are considered computationally expensive and impractical for use in the preliminary design environment. In lieu of nonlinear methods, linear aerodynamic methods are utilized in the execution of design tasks because of their computational efficiency. Linear codes are considered accurate in low Mach number flight regimes where aerodynamics is generally linear but are not accurate in transonic flight regime due to the simplified assumptions that are required by such codes. This investigation demonstrates that nonlinear aerodynamic analysis methods are necessary when performing design tasks in the presence of nonlinear phenomena. To reduce the cost of using nonlinear aerodynamic analysis, the velocity transpiration boundary condition was employed to simulate surface deformations and control surface deflections. Observations showed velocity transpiration offers significant computational savings when compared to mesh motion enabled codes. To improve turnaround, a distributed computing framework wasadopted to distribute workload and information storage across a network. A comparative design study was carried out comparing linear and nonlinear analysis tools in design. A rectangular wing's structural mass was optimized to perform both a roll and pull-up maneuver while subjected to rolleffectiveness and skin stress constraints. At a subsonic design point, the linear and nonlinear tools produced similar designs. However, at a transonic design point, the tools produced significantly different designs. The addition of aerodynamic shape variables to the design space at the transonic design point led to a further enhanced design. The results of this study reaffirm the notion that nonlinear high-fidelity aerodynamic analysis methods must be utilized when designing vehicles that will operate in nonlinear regimes. Further, several methods were demonstrated that could reduce the cost of using nonlinear analysis methods. SORCER-related technology is covered in reasonable depth: 3 pages in ch#4, 3 pages in ch#5, 6 pages in ap#G. which is a total of a dozen pages out of 243 pages of content, aka about 5% of the thesis. That said, sorcer played *the* key part, allowing the non-linear analysis to be computationally feasible. Exertions are mentioned on about 50% of those dozen pages (and are implicit in most of the rest of them), and services were mentioned in 80% of the dozen (and very implicit in all of them). Kolonay is on the thesis cmte, gets seven bibliography entries (out of 73 total aka ~10%), is credited as author of four SORCER-packages (plus helped write a bit of new code specifically for this thesis). Sobolewski is mentioned thrice: in the bibliography, as the creator of SORCER, plus credit for writing a few of the classes used in the thesis (perhaps specifically *for* this thesis project? unclear). selected entries of the 73-entry bibliography.
Appendix G, on printed-page 230-245, is half-a-dozen pages explaining how SORCER works, what service-oriented means, and what exertions are. Recommended, and as pub-domain, we can reuse it if we like. As for the aerospace-design portion of the thesis, SORCER is specifically covered in the chapters on efficient automated numerical optimization of the wing-shape during the design-phase, as well as in the conclusions (nonlinear optimization is made possible by the efficiency gains of SORCER's grid-computing network-parallelism... this is not especially helpful at Mach 0.50 speed, but it hands-down results in a better wing-design for transonic flight at Mach 0.89). chapter four, distributed design optimization, printedPage73==pdfPage90 ...a grid-computing environment... Within SORCER the numerical optimizer and the aeroelastic solvers were exposed as services on a network. SORCER reduced the computational expense of using nonlinear aerodynamic analysis method within the preliminary design environment by allowing the computational workload to be distributed across a network of computers. SORCER allowed for multiple copies of services to be available for use when executing a design study. This effectively reduced the computational expense of using a nonlinear aerodynamic method in the preliminary design environment. chapter four, distributed design optimization, printedPage75&76==pdfPage92&93 The numerical optimization code utilized in this investigation was Design Optimization Tools (DOT). It is developed and maintained by Vanderplaats R&D Inc. The strategy used to solve the optimization problem was constructed within SORCER. ...the code determines ... if [automated] design investigation has converged and if an optimal [wing] design has been discovered. chapter five, conclusions, printedPage111&112==pdfPage128&129 The last set of tasks performed in this investigation involved executing the transpiration enabled aeroelastic solver in the performance of preliminary design tasks. To further improve the computational effciency of the transpiration enabled nonlinear aeroelastic solver, a preliminary design environment was constructed in SORCER. SORCER grid-computing capabilities allowed for design problems to scale across the computation resources available on a network of computers. In the execution of multidisciplinary design optimization studies, the velocity transpiration enabled computational aeroelastic solver proved quite serviceable. The solver generated optimal structural designs at a subsonic design point of Mach 0.50 and transonic design point of Mach 0.89. The designs developed using the [SORCER-based] nonlinear aerodynamic method compared to design produced using [traditional] linear aerodynamics. At subsonic design point [Mach 0.50] the optimal designs produced by the linear and nonlinear methods were very similar there was only 14.69 slugs difference in structural mass. However, at transonic design point [Mach 0.89] the structural design were very different. The design generated using the linear aerodynamic method did not properly account for the presence of a shock wave... ...proof that linear design tools produced completely different designs than nonlinear tools in a nonlinear flight regime. ... If a designer chose to use the design obtained using linear aerodynamic analysis methods as the basis of a detailed design or prototype, the end result could be a costly redesign of the structure because the design failed to account shock wave effects. Through the performance of the design optimization study portion of this investigation, it was demonstrated how distributed computing can be used to accelerate computational analysis through coarse parallelization of computational effort. Analysis tools were deployed across a network of computers as services. Information was transported from analysis service to analysis service via web servers, network proxies. Data was passed within service context data structures. SORCER's framework allowed for analysis tasks to be executed concurrently or sequentially depending [on] data dependencies. The design process was accelerated through the exploitation of this parallelism. A unique aspect of this work was the fact that the optimization design strategy was implemented within the design framework. One programs the network as oppose to programming individual computer systems. The framework calculated exact sensitivities via finite difference directly, selecting the appropriate network services to dynamically compute a gradient or function evaluations. The framework permitted some failure recovery in the analysis. Code was implemented to check for corrupt output. Intermediate results were archived in Java objects. Through execution of this investigation several ideas could be implemented to improve computational efficiency of nonlinear CFD [computational fluid dynamics] in the preliminary design environment. page113... paraphrasing: explains how greater performance could be achieved, by rewriting the CFD and CSD apps (computational fluid & structural dynamics) to be more granular, which would permit SORCER to expose subcomponents thereof as services in a parallelized pipeline (finer-grained parallelism rather than the coarse-grained parallelism actually used in the thesis project) page113, quoting: SORCER could offer a computation advantage over the conventional analysis codes... for very large problems SORCER may offer computational advantage over the message-passing interface currently used by the CFD solver to parallelize analysis effort. |
MASTERS THESIS x3
|
---|
Shortname == A.Liu 2010. master's thesis (Kozamo#4)
Shortname == W.Wang 2011. master's thesis (Kozamo#5)
Shortname == WrightThesis.
|
SUPERGRANTS x3 or x4
|
---|
Shortname == NIST
Shortname == USAF Shortname == NSFC 2012. quad-year R&D grant (Kozamo#10)
Shortname == Ulanyovsk(sp) rumours |
updated/answered by Pawelpacewicz (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Commentary goes here. Please specify the shortname of the source you are commenting about. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- 74 - sorry for my delay here. During weekend I was out of internete access. I'll come-back to You with answers to stated questions. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, no hurry. See WP:DEADLINE. Wikipedia is for the ages. :-) I will also try and answer some questions myself, if I can... and figure out if my friend who knows Mandarin can translate some of the CNKI paper-abstracts, so we can determine if those were peer-reviewed publications, and if so, by whom. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
So my answers You have above (sorry for delay but I'm doing this after hours). Except that You have proves for notability and proper sourcing which I mentioned before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER. I would like to get your opinion regarding notablity and sourcing on both (answers above and proves on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER)
Pawelpacewicz (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks much, very useful. I have looked over the first set of links you provided. iosPress#1 is a paper by Kolonay, and iosPress#2 is a paper by Sobolewski/Burton/Kolonay; both papers were presented at the same conference, September 2013. Peer-reviewers (and proceedings-editors) look independent, iosPress looks legit. ICDMSA, peer-review looks legit. DaytonThesis, peer-review looks pretty legit, although use of thesis-cmte as peer-reviewers requires extreme care; (Master's thesis from Wright is helpful evidence — especially since it too had a thesis cmte! — but not a standalone source for wikiNotability). In any case, given this analysis, plus the papers in Chinese helpfully provided by Kazumo, plus the other peer-reviewed papers on Prof Sobolewski's website, not to mention the known-to-exist but not available without a security clearance internal papers published as part of classified military efforts, I'm reasonably convinced SORCER is wikiNotable.
- Please keep adding additional sources to the listing here; they need not be as heavily detailed, but an indication of whether they were peer-reviewed aka refereed is key, and if so, by whom exactly. Pawelpacewicz's efforts are exemplary; feel free to be a bit more sloppy than that, if you like. :-) Besides the question of sourcing, there is still the question of translating the advanced concepts into something the everyday readership of the encyclopedia can have a shot at understanding, and in particular, that the 10th grade HTML & JS hotshot might get their brain around. Martin and myself and Tim are trying to achieve service-oriented-zen. Keep up the good work folks, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello 74 . Thank You for your answers. I appreciate all your great efforts You did. Looks like we are in line :-). As You suggested I would like to go to next steps – improving article according to all suggestions collected here. Looks like it’s big work so before I’ll start this I would like to check with You how we can work on issues listed on top of main SORCER article (looks like some of them we can remove). Could You please advise? Pawelpacewicz (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- You wil be able to remove them once you have worked on them and solved them. I suggest you approach this one item at a time. An example might be to simplify the wording. After it is simplified then you can consider whether the aspects about intricate detail have been solved. However, you also need to consider WP:N first and foremost. Has this been established beyond any doubt? If so then go ahead and work on the remainder. If not then you are simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The challenge is that you are not in the best position to make this judgment because this article is close to your heart, so you would be wisest to leave that to others. The article remains vulnerable to deletion because of this one issue. All else is window dressing. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Truth be told, I have not looked at the article in mainspace or AfC for a couple of weeks. :-) So I have no good advice on that at present, but Tim/FiddleFaddle speaks truthfully, first things first. The long list we have is pretty impressive, but somebody besides 74 and Pawelpacewicz will need to give it a lookover. Somebody with a lot of experience, and with a strong sense of where the fine line of not-yet-WP:42 versus definitely-bulletproof-WP:42 lies. We should start with Tim/FiddleFaddle, who satisfies those qualities. Tim, the summary of the list is basically....
- You wil be able to remove them once you have worked on them and solved them. I suggest you approach this one item at a time. An example might be to simplify the wording. After it is simplified then you can consider whether the aspects about intricate detail have been solved. However, you also need to consider WP:N first and foremost. Has this been established beyond any doubt? If so then go ahead and work on the remainder. If not then you are simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The challenge is that you are not in the best position to make this judgment because this article is close to your heart, so you would be wisest to leave that to others. The article remains vulnerable to deletion because of this one issue. All else is window dressing. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- DoD, the multiyear multi-million-dollar supergrants by the USAF+NIST and NSFChina (plus hints of Ulyanovsk) ... and the classified weaponized-aerospace work these indicate. Such work is not useful as RS now, today, because WP:V demands the info be *published* aka available to the public... and wikiLeaks doesn't count as RS methinks... or does it? Hmmmm. Point is, this stuffwill be declassified someday. And it exists now, today. We cannot *use* it today, for sourcing the article, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend this set of classified sources, published-yet-top-secret, doesn't exist — when evaluating the public sources below, it can lend some perspective to what they don't say.
- UK, the 2007 U.Cranfield lit-review & industry-survey (a solid secondary source), plus the 2009 G.Goteng PhD from same place. WP:SOURCES sez, "academic peer-reviewed pub's are usu the most RS". WP:SCHOLARSHIP sez, "PhD [theses]...can be used but care should be exercised".
- RU, the 2007/YYYY/2013 newspaper articles in Russian (I've asked somebody who "can read a few words of Russian" to give us rough assessment of depth... anybody amongst us here know Cyrillic?)
- ZH, the 2010 PhD and 3+ peer-reviewed journal articles by Nan Li (most of the work in Chinese but that is no hindrance to wikiNotability though it is a barrier to gauging depth... Clover1991 of DUROMAC fame has offered to help us with translating the mandarin if kazumo is busy), plus the 2011 and 2013 Beijing Jiaotong University PhD (students of Nan methinks?); *maybe* the ZH edu-news section; additional evidence, tho not themselves RS, are the two Master's theses. Again WP:SOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP
- US, the 2013 iosPress/AFRL papers (peer-reviewed by the 20 members of the conf-board and the 3 members of the editorial-subset which were mostly Aussies), plus the 2012 DaytonThesis PhD (which has a public-domain chapter on SORCER beginning on page 230... decent tone... might be the best place to start on the rewrite of mainspace?); additional evidence, tho not itself RS, is the WrightState Master's. SorcerDotCom in Poland, and SorcerSoftDotOrg at TTU in Texas, are the entities directly responsible for SORCER; the USAF and WPAFB are funding Prof.Sobolewski, U.Dayton, WrightSt.U, and various other stuff via the MSTC/AFRL folks in Ohio.
- Meanwhile, as Tim and ScopeCreep and TRPoD and Garamond and others are analyzing whether this list of sources is bulletproof wikiNotability, safe from all future deletion-attempts, Pawelpacewicz and Martijn and myself can try to start working onWP:TONE, and on clearly explaining the meaning of SORCER/nsh/exertions/mograms/SODA/COLA/PEPSI/7UP/etc to the readership. Presumably WP:PEACOCK is no longer an issue in mainspace, Tim? Anyhoo, I suggest we take it one paragraph at a time, starting at the top of the article in mainspace, and going down through the bottom; we can use the talkpage for rough drafts, Pawelpacewicz, where you and me and Martijn can make mistakes more freely. :-) Danke, folks.74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I will be unable to give this any attention myself until quite some time into the future, so please do not wait for me. I am also certain that I have contributed to this discussion rather more often than certainly the initial Sorcerors find pleasant. My skill is in seeing that something is required here, but the hostility provoked by my initial forays seems to me to disqualify me at the micro level this task needs. I can still make a decent contribution at macro level, though.
- If you believe that a headline issue has been solved, state that it has and remove the item. I do not easily see how COI can be removed as an issue, though.
- Mograming (etc) is harder. I think you may state that it is a new word and define it within the parameters of the project, but it is a most definite neologism, and it, itself, is unlikely to be notable for quite a while. My view is that it is unwise to pepper the article full of such neologisms. Fiddle Faddle 14:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, this talk page is so convoluted and complex that it is extraordinarily hard to work out what is and is not germane to the precise arguments which seek to show and verify that the thing is notable . Fiddle Faddle 15:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. I'm thinking of pulling out WP:IAR, and archiving the whole shebang, and then pasting just the up-to-date-and-relevant-as-of-2013-12-28 pieces into the clean slate. Pawelpacewicz, does that sound useful to you? The current contents will be permanently visible in Talk:SORCER/Archive 1 or something like that. 74.192.84.101(talk) 15:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- support the mass archive and fresh start. there is nothing here that would help a newcomer.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I concur. May I suggest uncollapsing after archival, too, please. On the cleared out talk page please may we confine ourselves to WP:N and WP:V, and knock those on the head. Once they are out of the way the article will either be deleted as not notable, or confirmed by those who care to make this confirmation here that it is notable. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- support the mass archive and fresh start. there is nothing here that would help a newcomer.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. I'm thinking of pulling out WP:IAR, and archiving the whole shebang, and then pasting just the up-to-date-and-relevant-as-of-2013-12-28 pieces into the clean slate. Pawelpacewicz, does that sound useful to you? The current contents will be permanently visible in Talk:SORCER/Archive 1 or something like that. 74.192.84.101(talk) 15:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, this talk page is so convoluted and complex that it is extraordinarily hard to work out what is and is not germane to the precise arguments which seek to show and verify that the thing is notable . Fiddle Faddle 15:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would argue that, because they initially perceived you as their wiki-tormentor (not your fault... not their fault... just the wikiCulture gap), mostly due to our byzantine system of five bazillion confusing RULZ, you personally areexactly the pseudonym whom Pawelpacewicz and Mwsobol and PRubach and Kazumo and Beavercreekful and 132 and the others would like to see 100% convinced of SORCER's wikiNotability being bulletproof. :-) That said, WP:DEADLINE and WP:REQUIREDapply, as always. No hurry; Pawelpacewicz and myself will keep occupied working on the prose, in the meanwhile.
- I've started a section about 'paragraph one' with a suggested rewrite, below. (Waaaaaay below... lotta content on this talkpage! ;-) But yes, I'm quite convinced that SORCER is wikiNotable, and also that SORCER is the best choice for the main article; exertion-oriented programming will be a subsection of SORCER, and mogramming will be a couple sentences in that subsection, methinks. That could change, if other implementations of the exertion-oriented-concept were to arise, but as of 2013 all implementations are variations on the FIPER/SORCER codebase.
- The jargon-issue is tricksy. Because the academic literature depends on the neologisms, we need to give some explanation of them, so "further reading" will make sense to any adventurous computer-science-grad-student folks amongst our readership. Perhaps using wiktionary ... attestation of "mogramming" in the wild certainly exists, prolly enough to satisfy their weak standards (which include blogs and listservs and such things). But we also have to think about the everyday readership of another category; for the non-CS-grad-student readership of the encyclopedia, we need to use existing terminology and existing programming-system-analogies as much as possible, so that the hypothetical 10th grade Intro-to-Computing student has a shot at writing up a term paper on SORCER which makes sense.
- p.s. Oh sure, there will always be the COI-tag at the top of this talkpage here, with the usernames of folks that are inherently too close to SORCER to be able to stay neutral in their mainspace edits. But once we've explained Jimbo's groovy bright-line-rule, where discussions happen on the talkpage where COI is not problematic, and then somebody neutral like Fiddle or 74 eyeballs the suggested rewrite for NPOV prior to shoving it into mainspace, methinks the COI snark-tag in mainspacecan be removed, one day. It will involve rewriting mainspace paragraph by paraphaph... but that is pretty much required anyways, to leech out any leftover tone-issues, and solve the problem of translating advanced concepts into tenth-grade-level explanations. So there is hope. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- With the neologisms, may I suggest a special reference group named, perhaps neologism where a correct textual explanation is given , but in layman's language. I am sure I've explained this style of scheme to you before, but I only now see the application in this manner. One may have multiple names reference groups in an article. The only caveat is that the associated {{Reflist}}must come after the final instance on the page. Thus one may also have a group named note, another named Dr Pepper, and so forth. Fiddle Faddle 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Notability, Sourcing and Article Quality
I agree with Fiddle Faddleon a lot of points here and the Afd, but even though the product may be notable, it's not out the woods yet as regarding a future Afd nomination. The quality of the article as it stand's now is severe. It needs to be reference quality to survive. As the moment, it really does read like a hoax article. The product is similar in design to something like GigaSpaces Cloudify product, but for milatary use, rather than commercial applications, but the article reads as though it's state of the art but neither explains why it's important, nor how it works.
Adding to Fiddle Faddleinitial list
- mograms, mogramming - a new term (invented by you), which violates WP:OR. The UML? model is translated down to code, so it's just code with a service manifest. You need to explain that correctly, and get rid of mograms, mogramming. It's not cited anywhere in the firmament, except by yourself, which means it's not acceptable within WP.
- No links to Java, Service (systems architecture),Service-oriented architecture,Service layer and other important links.
- SORCER is the first platform that created front-end service-oriented mogramming (programming or modeling or both) as the key element of its federated service orientation. (Where is the citation for this?)
- Exertions Why? Not programs, applications, services? You need to explain why it was called that. I think it's the same as mogramming, re who is citing it generally, and if it's only you, it will not be acceptable.
- SORCER is the first system enabling front-end service-oriented programming with the relevant operating system and dynamic back-end service federations as its virtual processor. That's neat, but don't know if it's true. I think Gigaspaces has a similar mechanism. You will certainly need a citation for this, other wise it's a false assertion, and will need to go.
- The rest of the unexplained, non linked article content like Providers use discovery/join protocols to publish services in the network and the SOS uses discovery/join protocols to discover registries and lookup proxies in those registries. What providers? What discovery/join protocols, etc etc etc.
Lastly, it's written more as a reference manual, and currently doesn't make sense, lacks context and flow. The whole product seems to be built using Java, so how is it different from you average Java EE application server, like Weblogic or WebSphere.
Sorry the criticism is so heavy. I knows your trying your best.
scope_creep talk17:31 12 Dec 2013 (UTC)
- I concur. By the way, I think it was 74's list, but I concur with 74 also. The ladies and gentlemen of SORCER are used to robust criticisms, for they work in a peer reviewed environment. They both deliver criticism and receive it. Be unafraid to criticise.
- I know I am incompetent to show this topic to be notable. The converse is not true, an apparent paradox until one looks at Wikipedia's rules about referencing and sources. I will restate that I only care about the article, not about the topic and not about any personal issues with those whop wish to establish the notability.
- If it is provably notable (as opposed to 'new', 'exciting', 'revolutionary', or other adjectives that go with an emerging thing) then it must be here. No argument against that is possible. If not, then it must go until it becomes notable. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
What's going on here. I am a former student of Dr. Sobolewski. Guys, how do you want to contribute to Wikipedia having almost zero knowledge in computer science/software engineering. Mogram/mogramming is a very know term in computer science, please read Chapter 3 "Languages and Mograms", Software Language Engineering: Creating Domain-Specific Languages Using Metamodels, Anneke Kleppe and excellent paper: www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22393.[predatory publisher] Mogramming-not so popular since it is very difficult to create a language for both programming and modeling or both. SORCR does it. It is really disappointing you cannot distinguish Weblogic or WebSphere's classic C/S architecture from a dynamic service-to-service (S2S) architecture based on SOOA (see Jini). Again, it is very difficult to make it with a Jini dynamic programming model with leases, distributed event, transaction, and discovery/join protocol (none of them exist in regular Java and SOA (rather SPOA). Notability? Click on Chapter Statistics at:http://www.intechopen.com/books/howtoreference/advances-in-computer-science-and-it/metacomputing-with-federated-method-invocation, and see the pie chart with 6130 downloads from countries around the globe.
SORCER folks, it's scary, please give up, you can not win with guys who do not know what they are talking about and it seems to me have not read at least one paper on your advanced research. Kozamo (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Kozamo, welcome. Please tone it down a notch. :-) We're here to help, but you gotta learn to speak the language, before you can argue the case -- wikiNotability is not the same thing as the generic concept of lowercase-notability. Nobody is arguing that SORCER is not used in the wild. Nobody is arguing that SORCER is not interesting to computer scientists. But there are very strict rules we use, to distinguish between something that is protoscience, and something that is an Alternative Minority Scientific View. Similarly, the same exact rules help us distinguish between something that is a brand new product of a brand new startup, and something that is an established and popular product which was important enough that somebody published something about that product specifically. SORCER, whether it qualifies for wikipedia or not, is awesome. The trick is, whether or not SORCER is *mainstream enough* to be in wikipedia, today, or if it will have to wait another couple years, for journalists and academics to take further note. In specialized fields like aircraft design, specific software is often well-known to all the experts in the field... and thus not published about, specifically. Sooner or later, though, somebody will publish. Maybe they already have. Help us find those publications, that is the only argumentation that matters, methinks. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is nothing to do with whether anyone here understands the topic or not. It is all, all, to do with being able to show inWP:RS that the topic is notable. Learned papers need to be assessed to determine whether they are primary sources or not. Primary sources do not make for notability. Wikipedia has never been concerned with truth, simply with verified notability. The only battle here is notability, and that is the same battle for all topics here. That is neither winnable nor losable. It is just a fact. If it is notable it makes the cut, if not, then not.
- So, let me ask you: If this is notable, why are there no articles in specialist computer media about it?
- The are by no means the only arbiter of notability, but the computer press does tend to pick up on anything new, significant, emerging, notable. Where are they? Why are these conference papers not being reported on by mainstream media? Most topics that are notable are being.
- Then I ask why those involved with Dr. Sobolewski so ardent in springing to promote his work?
- Why not create an article on Dr. Sobolewski? He must, himself, be notable? His work seems to attract so much attention. Or is this about promotion? Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- There are many SORCER keynote presentations, papers in journals, conference proceeding, and applications. They are reviewed by best experts in the area so highly recognized. Not everything highly recognized has to be popular, in the main stream. The fact that SORCER is a system for complex adaptive systems, for example used to design the next generation of air vehicles (AFRL) does not mean has to be applied for online system to sell/buy books or toilet paper. Just simple web services (WebLogic, WebSphere) are sufficient, however with web service you cannot design advanced air vehicles. It is similar to the discussion above: program vs. mogram; you have to understand the concepts.
- The above also sounds like a personal attack. My colleague Dan Kerrn received the best paper award for his paper written with Dr. Sobolewski. He decided to make an entry for Dr. Sobolewski in Wikipedia, however Dr. Sobolewski asked him to remove it arguing that his entry in Who’s Who in America is sufficient. So, do not assume that everyone wants to be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.33.79 (talk • contribs)
- I wonder why you do not spend your energy improving the article instead of making speeches. All you are achieving is making people wonder whether it is genuinely notable. The lady doth protest too much, methinks already applies here in large measure. All of you seem intelligent, so why are you incapable of following a few very simple rules? Forget the oratory. If it is notable, prove it.Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh FiddleFaddle, you are so blunt. Where is your WP:NICE? Be a good duckling, and help 132 understand what we seek. "papers in journals, conference proceeding" That is what we need. But they have to be refereed journals, by independent science-boards, or something like that. The conference proceedings have to be published by Elsevier or Random House or something like that. Does this make sense? More than just a blog-post, on the university website. I've put a preliminary list up above, with iosPress#1, ICDMA'11, WrightPhd, and DaytonPhd. (If independent and impressive enough the PhD thesis-committee can qualify the thesis as a Reliable Source... on a case-by-case basis.) Does this sort of make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder why you do not spend your energy improving the article instead of making speeches. All you are achieving is making people wonder whether it is genuinely notable. The lady doth protest too much, methinks already applies here in large measure. All of you seem intelligent, so why are you incapable of following a few very simple rules? Forget the oratory. If it is notable, prove it.Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is why I never volunteer to be on committees. I call a spade a shovel immediately before hitting someone over the head with it. However, sometimes the direct approach is necessary. I have serious concerns over the multiple people we are seeing comment on this talk page. Very few have made edits outside this topic and they heap the praise of the religious zealot upon the project. I would like to see substantially less zeal and substantially more WP:V of WP:N in WP:RS. There are only so many times I can recommend WP:ACADEME to this cadre of editors, and I becoming suspicious of the cadre being made up from the same people using different logins, or adding further comments when logged out. I am a short step away from asking for administrative eyes on the apparent tag team to seek to ensure that one person is represented by one account. WP:SOCK and allied items apply here, or, rather, they must not apply. Nor must a claque be in evidence. I trust the contributors to this discussion to ensure that none of this applies to them, thus is my assumption of their excellent faith. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I like the indirect approach, win-by-yielding, because as I told Pawel above, WP:DEADLINE applies. There is no sweatsock problem here, and off-wiki recruiting of constructive contributors is *encouraged* so long as they stick religiously to the weight given in the bulk of the sources (which means *all* industrial and scientific and military publications on programming in this case), keep to the neutral point of view (in particular by staying on Talk:SORCER per the bright-line-rulewhen necessary), and of course being WP:NICE. This can all be explained, the folks here are smart, and acting in good faith, trying to improve the encyclopedia. It may take a couple months before all interested parties are satisfied, but hey, as I said,WP:DEADLINE applies. Or if you prefer, keep calm and carry on. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is why I never volunteer to be on committees. I call a spade a shovel immediately before hitting someone over the head with it. However, sometimes the direct approach is necessary. I have serious concerns over the multiple people we are seeing comment on this talk page. Very few have made edits outside this topic and they heap the praise of the religious zealot upon the project. I would like to see substantially less zeal and substantially more WP:V of WP:N in WP:RS. There are only so many times I can recommend WP:ACADEME to this cadre of editors, and I becoming suspicious of the cadre being made up from the same people using different logins, or adding further comments when logged out. I am a short step away from asking for administrative eyes on the apparent tag team to seek to ensure that one person is represented by one account. WP:SOCK and allied items apply here, or, rather, they must not apply. Nor must a claque be in evidence. I trust the contributors to this discussion to ensure that none of this applies to them, thus is my assumption of their excellent faith. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I searched the Internet, and found for SORCER some Chinese URLs (mainly in cnki, the reputed and biggest digital library website in China) as follows:
1. 张瑞红; 李楠; 查建中; 陆一平(ZHANG Rui-hong, LI Nan, CHA Jian-zhong, LU Yi-ping). 基于SOA的工程协同设计环境. 河北工业大学学报 (Journal of Hebei University of Technology), 2008年04期 (April, 2008), pp.40-44. (in Chinese) http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-HBGB200804012.htm
2. 李楠; 冯涛; 刘斌; 李贤徽; 刘磊; (LI Nan,FENG Tao,LIU Bin1,LI Xian-hui,LIU Lei). 计算机应用 (Journal of Computer Applications), 基于面向服务对象体系结构的交通噪声地图分布式计算方法, 2012年08期 (August, 2012), pp.2146-2149. (in Chinese) http://mall.cnki.net/magazine/Article/JSJY201208019.htm
3. Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Information Technology and Software Engineering Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering Volume 211, 2013, pp 175-182 A Loosely-Coupled Platform for Urban Traffic Strategic Noise Mapping Wensheng Xu, Nan Li http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-34522-7_20?no-access=true
4. 刘安军 (Liu Anjun). 并行工程中基于SOA的有限元分析服务封装技术研究, 北京交通大学 (Beijing Jiaotong University) 2010-06-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-2010260506.htm
5. 王伟 (Wang Wei). 武器装备系统测试过程建模与管理系统研究 , 北京交通大学 (Beijing Jiaotong University) 2011-05-26 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-1012355719.htm
6. 李楠 (Li Nan). 一种用于分布式设计资源集成的设计活动建模方法 , 北京交通大学 (Beijing Jiaotong University) 2009-10-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-2010040776.htm
7. 于加晴(Yu Jiaqing). 基于分解的设计过程重用方法研究 , 北京交通大学 (Beijing Jiaotong University) 2011-06-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-1011102578.htm
8. 孔令军(Kong Lingjun). 云制造环境下的设计资源服务化方法研究 , 北京交通大学 (Beijing Jiaotong University) 2013-06-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-1013279659.htm Kozamo (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Kozamo, great work. Can you understand the dialect? Are these in Mandarin, there is a person I know on-wiki who understands that. The key question is, are these peer-reviewed aka referee-reviewed publications? Or perhaps, they are published in news-oriented journalism-style, and the contents were fact-checked by professional editorial board? One or the other, is what we need, for proving wikiNotability. Thanks for your help.
- p.s. Mogramming, exertions, and other jargon are just that: jargon. They *may* have a place in wikipedia, like VGAor SQL or extreme programming. But are you saying that mogramming is as well known as those things? Wikipedia is the place for things which have, in the outside world, already proven themselves... by getting noticed in peer-reviewed or fact-checked publications, independent from the originators. It is not an attack, that we want evidence for such things; it is *how* wikipedia became trusted, and how it remains trusted. The bar is high, and getting over the bar can only be accomplished by external independent publications. Wikipedian editors, and their mad haxor ski11z, cannot sway the discussion one way or the other. If mogramming is already a WP:NOTEWORTHY term, today, then it will exist already in a fact-checked and/or peer-reviewed publication. If not, then wait until it is, to use it in the article. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi "r74-192-84-101.mnolcmta01.minltx.tl.dh.suddenlink.net", that's your full DNS name,
The references (only except the English paper reference No. 3) are either papers published in Chinese journals (of course in Chinese mandarin) which are referee-reviewed publications, or Master or PhD Degree dissertations in Chinese. The website links for these papers and dissertations are from the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure website (http://www.cnki.com.cn) , which is the most famous digital library website hosting most of Chinese journal papers and degree dissertations. To make the references more clear and understandable, a I have revised the references in the following Chinese-English format. Please note all Master and PhD dissertations in the following references have used SORCER in their implementation systems.
1. 张瑞红, 李楠, 查建中, 陆一平. 基于SOA的工程协同设计环境. 河北工业大学学报, 2008年04期, pp.40-44. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-HBGB200804012.htm
ZHANG Rui-hong, LI Nan, CHA Jian-zhong, LU Yi-ping. A collaborative engineering design environment based on SOA. Chinese Journal of Hebei University of Technology, vol.37, no.4, April 2008, pp.40-44. (in Chinese) http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-HBGB200804012.htm
2. 李楠, 冯涛, 刘斌, 李贤徽, 刘磊. 基于面向服务对象体系结构的交通噪声地图分布式计算方法, 计算机应用, 2012年08期, pp.2146-2149. http://mall.cnki.net/magazine/Article/JSJY201208019.htm
LI Nan,FENG Tao,LIU Bin1,LI Xian-hui,LIU Lei. A distributed computing method for traffic noise mapping based on Service Object-Oriented Architecture. Chinese Journal of Computer Applications, vol.32, no.8, August 2012, pp.2146-2149. (in Chinese) http://mall.cnki.net/magazine/Article/JSJY201208019.htm
3. Wensheng Xu, Nan Li. A Loosely-Coupled Platform for Urban Traffic Strategic Noise Mapping. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Information Technology and Software Engineering -- Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, Volume 211, 2013, pp 175-182 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-34522-7_20 4. 刘安军. 并行工程中基于SOA的有限元分析服务封装技术研究, 北京交通大学硕士论文,2010-06-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-2010260506.htm
Liu Anjun. Research on encapsulation method of finite element analysis service in Concurrent Engineering. Master Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2010-06-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-2010260506.htm
5. 王伟. 武器装备系统测试过程建模与管理系统研究 , 北京交通大学硕士论文, 2011-05-26 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-1012355719.htm
Wang Wei. Research of testing process modelling and management of weapon equipment systems. Master Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2011-05-26 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-1012355719.htm
6. 李楠. 一种用于分布式设计资源集成的设计活动建模方法 , 北京交通大学博士论文, 2009-10-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-2010040776.htm
Li Nan. A design activity modelling method for distributed design resources integration. PhD Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2009-10-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-2010040776.htm
7. 于加晴. 基于分解的设计过程重用方法研究 , 北京交通大学博士论文, 2011-06-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-1011102578.htm
Yu Jiaqing. Research on the design process reuse method based on decomposition. PhD Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2011-06-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-1011102578.htm
8. 孔令军. 云制造环境下的设计资源服务化方法研究 , 北京交通大学博士论文, 2013-06-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-1013279659.htm
Kong Lingjun. Research on servitization method of design resources in the cloud manufacturing environment. PhD Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2013-06-01 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10004-1013279659.htm