The next section is presenting a paper that I had sent to a journal on Feb.2,2006, and got the refusal on May 16, 2006. The editor of the journal, although with sympathy toward the cause, wrote:
Well, I think, that article that I had written, is so far as words could tell about the issue.
That may hint the lack of a few verbal abilities of mine, but the reviewers have not hinted further.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a film or a program is probably worth a zillion. Therefore, I publish frozen@mid80, as an authentic demonstration of nets of mid80 (cf. interactive/game software, for a film).
About this paper, almost everything is as that was on Feb.2, 2006, except that I am holding the copyright.
Abstract In 1982, a Ph.D. title was granted, by the Northwestern Univ., Ill., in the USA, to a plagiarist, M.U.Caglayan. The multiple-sourced cut-and-paste, which passed as the thesis, in fact, is a gotchaful subset of each of the (incompetently-merged) major sources, as a consequence of the assumptions/systems which bump into each other. The false claims, the non-existent content, do not count, either. "His thesis," and also the associated paper which was published in IEEE Trans.Soft.Eng. (Nov. 1983), being immensely faultfull, if the jury/board were to really read them, neither would get published. "The Emperor's New Paper?" The Ph.D. advisor, and the paper co-author S.S.Yau was a heavy in IEEE (e.g: editor-in-chief of IEEE Computer). Has no one cared to read his paper, at all? To such a bad story-start, may we expect a good tail, at all? (e.g: If they were supposed to "analyze" critical software/systems, what about the potential catastrophical consequences?) How to re-structure a research/thesis-evaluation, to avoid such? A reserved-buyer attitude, by the jury (instead of a "loveful father/kin"), toward the evaluated, may help.
Popular wisdom (if not physics) may suggest that what goes up, would return down. What if that is not a ball, though? e.g: When some MAFIA "goes up, ..." innocent people may get hurt. Even if that event does not go on eternally, the damage may stick. Lost lives do not return.
An illegitimate title is similar. The university which issued that, may not care, but that bud, may fall on top of people, out there -- who would be (supposedly) "served" by that charlatan.
A researcher must research. If he/she copies, that is not the job. If no job success, we would not classify him/her as competent, at all. As the Ph.D. work is the first (original) research of most, a plagiarism at that instance leaves the case as a no-success case. (And also next, that may not really count as a proof-of-competency, if he/she only manages to append his/her name to the papers of people/students at the institution where he/she is occupied. Social? Position abuse? Who knows?)
Without any proof of value, or worse, if with proofs of incompetency (e.g: see the partial list of errors, in Appendix B), the adjective copycat, begets also the adjective charlatan.
To nominate for a job-category, or a title, is not original. People want engineers, doctors, etc. To supply that, the education and research, universities and professors exist. Normal categories.
When a job is paying well, or high in prestige, more of the people may want that. But if original work is needed to get to that job, that is where the tension is. e.g: If Mr.X does not have the least of an urge to live his/her life as a researcher, although is with the ultimate "me-too" wish to get a "Prof.Dr. ..." title, he/she may turn to be a plagiarist. The job-standard is breached, in that case.
The Ph.D. advisor, and the paper co-author S.S.Yau was well known, in the IEEE. The words "value" or "respect" do not really fit this case, though. Has no one cared to read his "valued" paper (Yau & Caglayan, 1983), at all? If so, then about what, do they "respect" him?
As a pun on a popular story, the "Emperor's New Paper" may fit to express the paper case -- to some extent. The thoroughly social Yau, the editor-in-chief of the IEEE Computer magazine, later president of AFIPS, published that paper, excerpted out of the plagiarist and totally incompetent doctoral thesis of his student, Caglayan (1982). The tail of that story, lingers in time.
The novel "A Tale Of Two Cities" might have left people with a thought that, look-alikes could be convenient -- and good for families. This paper, to the contrary, points out only one type of the cases, in which look-alikes can hurt [other] people -- when off to cities, a charlatan, as if Ph.D.
Mr. Caglayan was granted a title, in 1982 -- a Ph.D. by Northwestern University, Ill., USA. In 1994, he was an associate-professor in Bogazici University, in Turkey -- since then, even a professor, and was also the chair of the Computer Engineering Department.
In general, plagiarism is to quote-without-the-quotation-marks, and/or to receive information without attribution (e.g: see Dartmouth,1998). For a computer-science case, we may question: Does that #?# facilitate a reader to do something new? If no, that is not a contribution.
After each reference is referred to, there must exist a really-worth-to-read-and-learn content. Does that enable a reader for what was not doable (either totally, or with major difficulties)? Is that telling the reader a point, what no other had told? If none of these, the paper/thesis is not original.
Minor variations, such as translated-code (e.g: from Fortran, or Lisp, to C), or to merge already-related tables (or, graphs), would be too trivial to count as if new content. Not to even mention, the advertisement of (the claim to implement, in the future) a [software-based] feature that (already) exists in similar other systems, nor vagueness. The author must substantiate the claim.
The Macro E-net (Noe, and Nutt,1973) vs. VD78 (Valette, and Diaz, 1978) studies appear affine for the American- vs. the French-people, respectively (cf. Pettersen, 1990). (From America to France, the water in the middle, is the Atlantic Ocean.) The Macro E-net formalism is for representing the system, in a full-and-fancy way, and to reflect-and-experiment around/with that -- affine for a well-organized techie. The model is programmed and run, not verified exhaustively. By contrast, the VD78 is for building up (or, dissecting down), through exhaustively-verified, standardized-wrapped pieces, for a following phase of the discourse/debate/system. (Peterson (1977, p.237), had noticed that, in the USA, few people considered the modular-view of a Petri net.)
Next, Caglayan (1982) is a plagiarist, gambling without reflection (as if left the thinking people around the Atlantic Ocean, and went to the Atlantic City), and loses (as the assumptions of the sources bump into each other, and errors shout) -- although got a doctoral-title, all the same.
Name-changes in examples do not count as new content. That is the classical plagiarist to do that, as widely warned against. All the same, is the type of plagiarism which claims to study one field, with what is the old content of a similar field. e.g: The plagiarist Caglayan (1982) claims to be about "distributed software systems" but does not really study any problems of such systems -- such as load-balanced, highly-available, redundant (data), etc. The literature, by that time (Midyat, 2004h), already had net-formalism studies (Petri net, E-net, SARA, etc.) for operating/computer systems syncronizations (e.g: Noe & Nutt, 1973), and networks (e.g: Danthine, 1980). Caglayan (1982) was nothing beyond -- neither a further range of (related) thought, nor any novel synthesis.
We expect, each inheritance to get acknowledged, and at each encounter with a related-although-different substance, a compare-and-contrast is due. If none, then the researcher is claiming to have invented all of that content, and not to resemble any (Midyat, 2004h, 2004o, 2004j, 2004a).
Yau and Caglayan (1983; also the, Caglayan, 1982) list Macro E-net, and VD78, as related research, and the Peterson (1977) survey of the Petri net field, is also listed. Where is the feature-attribution, though? No inheritance (except being Petri net)? The single sentence about the [Macro] E-net formalism, mentions that as an "attempt" to represent data, although without any other point to substantiate that sleight (on what is supposedly failed with that "attempt", see Appendix A).
No weighing against VD78, either, except (implicitly) by stressing their "single-graph"ness (Midyat, 2004f). If "single-graph" is the wanted, that is what E-net is -- and trivial to dump the E-net formal-text into the E-net graph. Or, equally trivially, lump/merge the VD78 control-graph, with the corresponding data-graph. Trivial and absurd to do. Kindergarten homework? (Midyat, 2004a).
People follow their potential. Therefore, the resulting shape of the research, is not a rectangular grid, where each contribution is located easily. There is a maze, and to relate to that, a reader must search through that, and each author must also reflect, from where to extend that maze.
The point is that, each of these people were studying hybrid modeling. They refer to each other, when they reflect for their own work, for a faster, easier, safer system-building methodology.
In contrast, so much so, that when the (seamful) vagueness of Caglayan (1982) does not mean anything, or could mean any of several things, then to know the source-papers, does help.
Caglayan (1982), in all of what is supposed to be a Ph.D. thesis on methodology, does not fully study even a single build-and-verify example. Only sample, and faultfull figures exist. Their faultfullness does suggest that the author(s) cannot verify. No tool, not even personal-interest.
We find the steps-to-verify, only in words, on pages 138-139. Vagueness of that, commits to meaninglessness [unless the reader is to infer a lot -- as if that were a poem, or Rorschach test].
For example, the step-2 is telling the reader to tranform the net to "obtain the Petri net," but does not explain that "transformation." No algorithms. No proofs. Does that mean only the macro-gate to Petri net replacements (and, xor, etc.)? But that is not enough. Or, does that mean to expand all the macros inline (as Macro E-net, and also the first step of SARA SL does)? But if so, what would the step-6 mean by telling "repeating above steps until every ... at every design level?" This latter suggests VD78, that is, multi-(isolated-)levels, but even if so, there would be no need to "re-verify" that, because that is already verified-and-stored, piecemeal, when those were built, each.
Do the (vague) trade-off "tips," in the step-2, mean the net-vs.-program trade-off? That is what (Macro) E-net, Danthine (1980), and SARA people (Razouk, Vernon, and Estrin, 1979; referred by Estrin et al., 1986, p.301) had all reflected on. But again, what would step-6 mean, after that (net vs. program) trade-off is made? A Petri net does not contain any program, and vice versa.
The steps 3, 4, 5 do not tell anything other than the ordinary Petri net testing (safe, deadlock-free, etc.). And the step-1, on structural-properties, is the mess about data (we mentioned already), to search them throughout the chopped graphs -- where lock-places must accompany most, already.
In summary, the macros in the figures of Caglayan (1982) are as not ordinary Petri net, as Macro E-net, and SARA SL examples are not. To tranform that hierarchy to a Petri-net-verifiable form, was already there (expand all, and may next, do the strong-reduction, as SARA CFA does). That is, we may find a way to transform all those, but we must refer to other research (prior art, by other people), and all this story leaves Caglayan (1982) as a plagiarist, camouflaged by vagueness.
Of a similar case, Lanegran (2004) tells of the plagiarist who changed the town names of the interviewed people. She notes that as "It was equivalent to taking a quotation from Garrison Keillor about life in Minnesota and saying that Woody Allen said it about New York City." With that example, think of the vagueness (if not surprise) in the thoughts of people who already know New York, and try to make sense of those they newly read, in the context of their regional-knowledge.
If the plagiarism is noticed by those who would award the title, they may simply not award that. What if late to notice? What if other people notice that,†later? Would they invest their time and energy, to not allow that plagiarist/charlatan's spoils? Little data.
We consider here, the report written by Midyat (2003-2004, the case study, with around a hundred web-pages), and the article by Lanegran (2004). They differ in the field of Ph.D. study (computer- vs. political-science), the first motivator principle (anti-incompetence vs. anti-plagiarism), and the noticed type of (multiple-source vs. single-source) plagiarism.
Both of them converge, though, because a plagiarist has not proved himself/herself as a qualified Ph.D., and was not supposed to hold that title. Not to even mention that, as the multiple-source plagiarism commits to vagueness (when the context-assumptions of those multiple sources bump into each other), the issue of incompetence (errorful examples, absurd commentary, etc.) is intertwined: Once the sources were known, the absurd-pieces, turned out to be of plagiarism.
Another point of resemblence (Midyat and Lanegran), is the motivation to defend a reputation, too. Midyat (2004c) did not want Caglayan (esp. with that incompetency) to be able to pass (e.g: as a consultant) as if he could have taught to Midyat -- what he already knew -- and the lectures and the published material being incompetence. The extensive criticisms in 1993-1994, lead to the reading of the paper Yau & Caglayan (1983), in 1994. The errorfulness was obvious, and the plagiarism was noticeable. (Caglayan (1982) was the same.) The case-study arrived at internet, in 2003-2004.
Lanegran (2004) noticed that, what she is highly interested not to allow students to commit, was committed around her own doctoral thesis -- and that man passed as a Ph.D., with that.
In summary, the anti-plagiarism cases here, at a point or another, each started with a human. These cases both were when the dignified hero defended a reputation/name, a principle (or, a few), and was motivated to warn, not to leave some (wasted, helpless) students to that unqualified type.
Midyat (2004b) pointed out the maliciousness, potentially catastrophical consequences of such titles. e.g: "Lethal and/or financial disasters may follow. Think of an earthquake-emergency system, or a very critical financial transaction, or maybe a nuclear reactor (with a few computers working for it), and/or an aeroplane. Who can rely on some critical software if verified by that copycat82 method, or by that person, and/or by those professors who granted such a Ph.D.?" Faultfull, vague, and plagiarist, and becomes a "Dr. ...?!?" Ooops!
The case against some charlatan may make you furious -- and exactly furious against that person, his/her advisor, etc. That is not the journal article where each author tells his/her opinion, and co-operate. Keep moderate, though. If to win support to your case against that charlatan, tell why you evaluate him/her as such, and if to express anger, tell why you are angry. To list other personal (non-)features of that person, which do not relate to the issue, may not count as fair-play.
Lanegran (2004) interprets the motivation of the confidentiality-urge of the university where a plagiarist had received a Ph.D. title, as a caution against being sued by that plagiarist. At another point, she mentions those who questioned her, whether she (herself) would sue the plagiarist.
The report (Chronicle, 2004, a few articles), on professorial-plagiarism echoes those two.
There is yet another, and more basic case, though. The public out there, the (supposedly) service-receivers (who paid that incompetent, with their money, and time), and his/her rivals who lost a job/seat to him/her, [etc.] may also sue. Rightfully, sue the plagiarist, and/or the title-granter.
A plagiarist is a plunderer, of a strange sort. The real victim is not necessarily [only] the copied. If Mr. Copycat cut-and-pasted the hard-work of Prof.A, mixed with that of Prof.B, these two people may really feel bad. Yet, the really real victim is at (each point) where Mr. Copycat is to get an illegitimate advantage/advancement against a fair, honest rival -- whether Prof.A or Prof.B themselves, or a third, Mr.Rival.
Next, worse upon worse, at the service-receiver end, the people find Mr. Copycat, as if he were "the qualified" applicant -- the seat-holder, as such. e.g: In an educational institution, that may lead to an abuse of the mental-potentials (& money) of generations (in the next 20-30 years).
How was that errorful and plagiarist text, granted a title? How may a text go so wrong, and how may a jury still not notice, or not insist? Was the jury/board so bored to even read, at all? Or what? Bribed (in cash, or in kind)? Booed (not to question, not to object)? Bewitched? (All?)
The jury is in jeopardy, if they think of themselves as the "benevolent masters" of the thesis-author. Instead, they should evaluate him/her in view of the regular interaction levels of the potential service-receivers. e.g: A professor may be able to imagine some sense, in even vague words. How would a prospective student do that, though? If the thesis-author is sloppy, who is to correct him/her, once he/she is granted a professional (or, professorial) title?
The jury ought to not grant a title, if the consequences seem out-of-control. This does resemble the armaze concern, at the door of a buiding, or a road. For example, if there are not enough armaze capabilities to look after gunful people (not to let them hurt other people), no gun would get in. Likewise, if the jury is quite unsure of a gone-fool title-applicant (plagiarist, vague, errorful, or whatever such), and as they cannot conceivably follow him/her in his/her later-life jobs.
The jury may question themselves "Are we able-and-ready (to defend whom we nod)?"
If the applicant is a total mess, the anticipated consequences, may spell a 'No' to that question. If he/she may improve, some next chance (not personal help toward the thesis, though), may fit. If he/she is in the normal range (or, higher), able-and-ready to receive the title, jury is, too.
In a 1995 issue of Psychological Bulletin, there was a four-article symposium (and a foreword, of the PBull editor, to that), to aid a potential author, to write as expected. We may reflect on what was written there, to list a few to do, and what not to do, in a Ph.D. thesis case.
The article by Bem (1995) is the archetype of a sheep-mount. In that mode of thought, the author is to think as friendly and cozy as he/she has a potential to. That is, how to fit in. At most, if to reject another, only keep quiet and walk away. The reviewer case is fine also for a Ph.D. jury, as the walk-away does not let that bad paper to get published. The Bem (1995) point about the colleagues, points out a problem, though. Unfortunately, if the people in a thesis-committee see themselves, as if in a personal-encounter with a well-known colleague (esp. the advisor), they may fail to oppose the bad thesis [once their first few objections were ["politely"] verbally dismissed].
If to find any hope, we may study the sheep-type, from a viewpoint that, if well-informed of the consequences (for example, read this paper), the sheep may favor the people-right.
The article by Hyman (1995) is a goat-mount -- that is, how to write a rebuttal, or a rejoinder -- to assert his/her own opinion. Even there, though, the case is motivated toward the sheep. We may infer that, a journal is a people-affair, fit for a sheep, and the goat tries to fit in with the sheep.
Although a friendly attitude is not bad, there exist points where a jury had to refrain. The suggestion to complement the opposed (p.182), is really not what the thesis-jury was supposed to do. The ratifier must resist, unless/until convinced. (The Appendix A is a good example.) In the journal case, the "third" is the journal-reader who is to read the rebuttal in first person, whereas in the thesis-jury case, the "third" is a passive (and mostly helpless) people, who rarely even hear of the case -- the potential service-recipients, who will find that incompetent type, with a title of "Dr."
A relentless-memory type, who is weighing each point, is the camel-mount. That way, inferring the big picture, from the gathered points, sounds feasible. Each point, in overall context.
A trial-starter bull-mount (not the milk-cow), is fine for testing the failure-potential. A (good) bull is fitting for raising trial-after-trial in a thesis-trial, questioning "what if" for, testing the edges, and even devising strategies, to test the weaknesses of the proposed pro-posed thesis/system.
A point of warning is that, if the bull is only a bull (not capable as highly, to mount any other mount-type), he/she may need to refrain from even talking, if the case is vaguely presented. Only after the camel-mount (or, if they are able to relate, also the sheep- or goat-mount) could infer a view, then the bull may try that with counter-examples. Note: As a resembling suggestion, for another case (as tips for reading methodological articles), Maxwell and Cole (1995, p.197) also suggest to read in a structured-way, make up examples, and if needed, get help from a colleague.
As copycat82 is buried in vagueness, no bull is solicited -- that is, the thesis-author alone was sufficient to crush that thesis, as even the examples in those pages, point out the weaknesses. An example from another case, is that Midyat (2005b) questioned the claim of ENDURA (Bozma, and Kuc, 1994), being as if "for heterogeneous-environments" -- because in all of their examples, the objects were kept away from each other, template-matched in isolation.
How is the author of the formaze page (Midyat, 2004m), also the author of this article, around the Ph.D.-existence? No contradiction. Formaze, and all of R-world, is heavily based on mazing. How we recognize, record, and react. And this article was from the buyer viewpoint. If that thesis-committee commits that, the people out there would get abused. How not fit to point out? To revoke a charlatan "Prof.Dr."s title is harder, than people not attending a form (in a free-market).
We are not anti-Ph.D. A Ph.D. is a fine reward. A research phase -- after other expected education/achievement -- that is exactly formazer. The Ph.D.-jury, would only have to define what is expected in a Ph.D., first. The difference is that, today, each institution also administers a large framework, through which the prospective doctoral candidate must pass years, as their student.
What is the case for a Ph.D.-ratifying case, is the case for/at each rating/ratifying act/phase in a formaze. The jury has to rate/ratify/authorize, in full understanding that, people will note their rating, and that will reflect on the value of any future rating from that rater/ratifier.
The milk-cow is affine, too, if the thesis-author is interested in relating to divergences (novel thinking) around his/her thesis. In that case, the testing-dimension the jury would notice, is related to the case of a lecturer who is receiving commentary from the students in class, and (when/if) that may lead to future work. In a way, a wide-range-of-interest (varied fields) of the thesis-jury, could do the same kind of testing. For example, in his article, when telling what is not needed for a PBull article, Bem (1995) contrasts that against a Ph.D. case. In that case, that example question of the not-really-related expert, could relate in testing a class case -- of fruitful, even if remote, idea.
Let the Ph.D.-standard reflect whether that is essential in a lecture, in their [fixed course content] system. Finest fitting, for a formaze form-founding, or for a gathering of research-people.
The strange (and seemingly pejorative) commentary of Yau and Caglayan (1983, p.735), that E-net "attempted to represent data flow by associating attributes with tokens" (emphasis pointed out), is not fair to E-net. A fair reader would question that implied point: "So what do Yau and Caglayan attempt with the least of a success, which they think E-nets had not managed well?"
Does that mean to contrast that as only a vector (numeric-list), "as opposed to" a type-system such as Guttag (1980), which they claim to introduce to Petri nets, although they do not? If so, we may point out that, the Macro E-net work was already way into net-borne abstraction. Not themselves. They do not show how a Guttag-ADT would manage a Petri net, at all. Not related.
If the Guttag-ADT is only for naming "data items" in the code-examples, that means copycat83 hoped to take credit, only by replacing the predicates of the E-net formalism, with some other known computer language. That is a trivial make up, to camouflage the plagiarism.
Not to mention that, Danthine (1980) used that vector, as a variant-record, and if we may implement the E-net as a program, with another language, such as C, each record-element could represent a pointer to any data-type. In C, we have a boolean, or string-pointer, equivalent to int.
The E-net data is either global (environment variable), or traveler (token-attribute). The local variable concept is the artefact of the programming language. The E-net formalism is versatile. Inferrably, if those were code-pieces in C, the function would have such (stack-based) local storage
If Yau and Caglayan (1983) were to claim that, to associate a data-graph to a control net (E-net, or Petri net) is a superior way to manage data, e.g: as Valette and Diaz (1978) had, even that claim would count only as a team-supporter view. The E-net token-attribute design, is noticeably the finest-level (if not the finest) representaion, and obviates a separate data-net-view.
As the attribute-list in a token is modifiable by only the token-depositor of that location, the token is self-documented, with the location (and the token-width/type for a location is fixed.) That is a fine, affine abstraction that relieves the concern, for the largest segment of data use, if the concern was for ensuring determinacy (no races among writers). A lock is needed, only in the (rare) case of a single-reader rule, and if that "conflict" were a problem, the remote reader would not read.
If to model the data that is resident in the environment-variables, or all, the data-graph is a fine documentation tool, to alert against non-determinacy, etc. (No difference than VD78 use.) Fine. But the Yau and Caglayan (1983) is no exemplar, at all. (Midyat, 2004i). They trivially, and without sound reflection, merge the data- and control graphs, which is a larger picture -- if not explosively large, when/if the (control-node-firing to data-operator) correspondences in the two-graphs is/were not one-to-one. (cf. the problems of non-normalized tables, as in database-theory.) And worse upon worse, when (as most often) that huge graph must get chopped into pieces, all the global/external data, appear only as disconnected data-label names, adjacent to the control-node (and redundantly so, without information, as that data-name is already a program-code variable). To trace data-dependencies, then, the verifier would have to search all around the net, to find what other control-nodes refer to that. Not to even mention the case where, by co-incidence, some other data may have been named the same, although meant to refer to some other data-piece. Mess upon mess.
This list is not all of the faultfull content of Yau & Caglayan (1983) -- let alone, that of Caglayan (1982). Has no one in the thesis-committee, and no IEEE editor/referee, read to see?
Not even a single figure may suggest any value. Why publish that, at all?
The Fig.1 on page 735, is a trivial, and bad Petri net example. Not proper. Not conservative. Unsafe. And if a "one-boundedness" rule really exists, that net is also dead(-upon-congestion).
The Fig.2 on page 736, is with the caption "An example of a modified Petri net." But except C5 and C6, all rectangles fit within Petri net transition firing pattern. The C5 and C6 are strange. They resemble the X-transition of Danthine (1980), although in the case of each of C5 and C6, one path is redundant (practically, absurd to exist). e.g: C2 is enabling C3 and C5, and next, C3 is enabling C5. That is, no need for C2 to "enable" C5, as C5 must wait C3. The data-boxes do fit E-net action, as the arrow directions strictly follow in the token-travel order. A strange point about data is that, although that is a loop, there are no inbound data to C2 (nor, for C4), which means C2 and C4 spontaneously generate data, in a loop, with no feedback. E-net would feedback, with the token. Here, though each such link ought to exist in the graph. Not there. Although such may exist if that is a time-teller (or, loop-counter), in the context of overall plagiarism, we may infer the error.
The Fig.3 on page 737, the sample of a "software component" is obviously a macro, not what a Petri net verifier would understand. Macro E-net (Noe & Nutt, 1973) would fit. But here, the mess is noticed, as obviously, that macro does not have a certain start-or-stop time. A path is in a loop around that rectangle, separate from the other paths. And to which path does that data-box relate to? That is vague. The E-net macro (nor, SARA SL) would not ever commit to such mess. This type of vague component (macro, as if element) is massively problematic. (Midyat, 2004g)
The Fig.4 on page 739, lists the input/output operator shapes. What could go wrong? Well, those are the UCLA (SARA control) graph shapes. Not cited. That is, if these are important content, where is the attribution? Or else, if we would agree, these are trivial, then no exception case, to the fact that each figure of Yau & Caglayan (1983) is errorful.
The Fig.5 on page 746, corresponds to the Fig.3. That was the external view. Here, is the (supposedly) "internal view." Things within, not connected to the input/output arcs. Questions persist. (N.B: This is not only a "self-loop." That is easy. The loop is vague-in-time-overlap.)
The Fig.6 on page 741 is in five pieces (cf. The Fig.1 of Noe & Nutt, 1973). The (b), (c), and (d), obviously correspond to the J-, F-, and X-transitions of E-net, respectively. The placement of the data-box in (d) is pointing out the resemblence to the resolution-location of E-net. The (a) is an example with "i++j" operator, one of those which try to match the Y-transition of E-net. The example in (a) is absurd, though. There are two entrances, "start" and "interrupt," with the latter as the (supposedly) higher-prioritized case. In what sense? Unless each of them receive a token exactly at the same moment (which means the single transition-firing must place both?!?), the "interrupt" does not have any advantage over the "start." Do not confuse that with separate-entrance points. After that "i++j" macro-gate, when the token is arriving into the macro, the internal of the macro has no way to differentiate them, to favor "interrupt" over "start." Not to even mention that, normally, when we would refer to "interrupting," we would not mean the entrance-time only.
The Fig.7 on page 741 is with the (trivial) macro example. Simply select a piece of the net (whatever the shape), and call that a "software component." (Of course, the Petri net verifier does not understand (most) such macros -- as they are not equivalent to a Petri net transition.) If the jury were to reflect, this example would only serve as an anti-example to the concept of a "verified and stored component" (if that were/is what is meant). e.g: The rectangled area, named "producer component" may work when the outer net would send only a single token, although if more tokens were inbound, then we find a deadlock potential -- of the inhibitor-arc (in the xor-input macro-gate). The macros (content of which do not show here) exemplify the vagueness (to a Petri net tool, and to a human who would attempt to read that, when the macro is hidden). e.g: The place P4 is pointing at , and also pointed by the macro "putbuf." The reader may infer from experience (as this example is a trivial, well-known case), that the "putbuf" would receive that token at start (for exclusive action), and send there again, after finished. However, a Petri net tool would only find that as if resembling the ordinary Petri net transition, such that, immediately when the token is received (at the firing time, that is), the token is sent there again. In summary, that means, the authors have not published beyond what Noe & Nutt (1973) had suggested openly -- i.e: expand the macro, to reveal. The data-search need is related. We have no way to tell at this view, whether P4 is the lock for BUF. This problem is chronic. If there were more data, and other lock-places, that would only get worse. To ensure determinacy, exhaustive searches must find the data-linkage throughout the net.
The Fig.8, on page 742, is the internal view of that "putbuf" of Fig.8, and exactly deadlocked -- unless we must imagine that without Petri net, around the data-"WP," the reader/system is to guess some (unseen) control. The P4 is pointing to "full(BUF)?" and to "WP=0" although the latter is also a follower of the former. How would "WP=0" find a token in P4, after "full(BUF)?" has already received that token? Also: The pointer pair to/from the data-"BUF" is within the E-net range, although read is before write. That is fitting the environmental-variable of the E-net formalism (as data-"BUF" is global/external to "putbuf"). That is, in Fig.1, the data were all along the direction of the token (as a token-attribute does), while here, related to a (static) buffer.
The Fig.9, on page 743, is in five places, all of which being ultimately problematic. Although not evident in this figure (as the Yau&Caglayan,1983, is naturally shorter than the "doctoral thesis" Caglayan,1982, which contains that), even that most trivial "input-AND" (equivalent to the ordinary Petri net transition) is questionable (Midyat, 2004l), when a member of that input-macro-gate team. The other input-macro-gate problems (Midyat, 2004k) encompass the strictly-alternated-order of the (supposedly) "input-OR," the redundancy (cf. the "input-AND" case) of the "lock-place" of the "input-++" (Midyat, 2004o), the no-precedence of the "input-i++j" (after the first entrance through the higher), and also the staticness of the (deadlock) macro "input-XOR."
The Fig.10, on page 744, is the output-macro-gate list. The "output-;" is absurd, in view of the (non-determinisic) Petri net firing. No significance if enabled q1 "before" q2. (Midyat, 2004e).
Bem, D.J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 172-177.
Bozma, ÷., & Kuc, R. (1994). A physical model-based analysis of heterrogeneous environments using sonar -- ENDURA method. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 16, 497-506.
Caglayan, M.U. (1982). A method for the design, representation, and analysis of distributed software systems using modified Petri nets. Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services (UMI No. 8225880)
Chronicle (2004). The Chronicle: 12/17/2004: Professor Copycat Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i17/17a00801.htm.
Danthine, A.A.S. (1980). Protocol representation with finite-state models. IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-28, 632-643.
Dartmouth (1998). Sources: About Citing Sources: What is Plagiarism? Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sources/about/what.html
Estrin, G., Fenchel, R.S., Razouk, R.R. & Vernon, M.K. (1986). SARA (System ARchitects Apprentice): Modeling, analysis, and simulation support for design of concurrent systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-12, 293-311.
Guttag, J. (1980). Notes on type abstraction (version 2). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-6, 13-23.
Hyman, R. (1995). How to critique a published article. Pychological Bulletin, 118, 178-182.
Lanegran, K. (2004, July 2). The Chronicle 7/2/2004 Fending off a plagiarist. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i43/43c00101.htm.
Maxwell, S.E., & Cole, D.A. (1995). Tips for writing (and reading) methodological articles. Pychological Bulletin, 118, 193-198.
Midyat, F. (2004a, May 12). zElQarneyn's . . . CaseStudy: copycat82. Kids Do That All the Time! (The Trivial Steps of Cutting-and-Pasting). Retrieved May 12, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.kidsplag.us.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004b, July 9).zElQarneyn's . . . CaseStudy: copycat82. Existence of Malice. Retrieved July 9, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.malice.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004c, September 15). zElQarneyn's . . . CaseStudy: An Un-credible Ph.D., the person. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.person.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004d, October 8). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: copycat82. An Un-credible Ph.D. Retrieved October 8, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004e, November 7). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: copycat82, attempt to imitate JSP primitives? Or, parallelism? Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.attempt_to_imitate_JSP_primitives_or_parallelism.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004f, November 7). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: copycat82. Collapsed vague graph, in many pieces. Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.plagraph.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004g, November 7). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: copycat82 vagueness, with ill-structured subnets. Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.ill-structured.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004h, November 7). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: Others Had Published Before copycat82. Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.as_a_subset_of_PriorArt.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004i, November 7). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: The copycat82 vs. Data-items. Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.nodatitem.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004j, November 7). From: zElQarneyn . . . Proof of the Plagiarism of copycat82 Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.plagiarism.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004k, November 27). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: copycat82 Gate Problems. Retrieved November 27, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.gate.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004l, November 27). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: copycat82 Gate Problems: Either Waste, or Lost (to paint E-net (or SARA) nodes, with Petri nets). Retrieved November 27, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.gate.input_waste_or_lost.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004m, December 5). From: zElQarneyn . . . A Formaze for a Re*education. Retrieved December 5, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/formaze.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004n, December 5). From: zElQarneyn . . . Review: copycat82 is a Subset of Da80. Retrieved December 5, 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.as_a_subset_of_Da80.htm.
Midyat, F. (2004o, December 16). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: copycat82. Photocopy, "OR" not to be! Retrieved December 16, 2004, from decalun.photocopy_of_vd78in.htm.
Midyat, F. (2005a, April 12). From: zElQarneyn . . . R-World, an independence-exemplar. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/index.htm.
Midyat, F. (2005b, August 11). From: zElQarneyn . . . CaseStudy: Is that the Ivy League Ph.D. Quality? Retrieved August 11, 2005, from http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/char94.htm.
Noe, J.D., & Nutt, G.J. (1973). Macro E-nets for representation of parallel systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-22, 718-727.
Peterson, J.L. (1977). Petri Nets. ACM Computing Surveys, 9 (3), 223-252.†
Pettersen, R.H. (1990, August). The tongues of men and machines. Byte, 15, 356.
Razouk, R., Vernon, M.K., & Estrin, G. (1979, August). Evaluation methods in SARA -- The graph model simulator. Proceeding of the Conference on Simulation, Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, Boulder, CO, 189-206.
Valette, R. & Diaz, M. (1978). Top-down formal specification and verification of parallel control systems. Digital Processes, 4, 181-199.
Yau, S.S., & Caglayan, M.U. (1983). Distributed software system design representation using modified Petri nets. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-9, 733-745.
Although "A Tail Off To Cities" is not with any reference for more information on four-mounting, on March 22, 2006 (while that was in review, yet), I have started publishing the four.
I had first published "A Tail, Off To Cities" on Mar. 1, 2007 ( http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/a_tail__off_to_cities.htm ) -- the names of Yau & Caglayan, and the universities Northwestern & Bogazici, were hidden, though.
A review of copycat83 (Yau & Caglayan, 1983), outlines a strategy, namely, that "there is no bad advertisement, but there may be bad products." That is why & how, publishing the names openly, made sense.