Talk:SORCER/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about SORCER. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Reply to 74.192.84.101 re citation counts.
Hi 74,
There are a lot of article (and deleted articles) along the lines of SORCER, and if we followed the notability guidelines in WP:NSOFT all of them would be deleted: there just isn't coverage in popular magazines and books for these kinds of topics. If we went to the other extreme and allowed peer-reviewed publications to count equally with magazines and books, we'd be flooded with low-quality articles on topics where there are only a handful of (mostly-ignored) papers we can use as citations.
So somewhere between these two extremes is something sensible. My own rule of thumb is that if a paper describing a CompSci topic has 100+ citations, then I have no problem justifying an article: other people outside of that research group think the topic is important enough to cite. If I see lots of papers with <25 citations, that looks to me like a research group is cranking out papers, but the impact outside of the immediate group hasn't been sufficient to warrant an article. (Note that a highly-cited article that only mentions the topic does not establish notability.)
I assume you're aware of how to use google scholar to get citation counts; let me know if you're not.
Did that answer your questions? I'm happy to continue the conversation here or by email if you prefer. Garamond Lethet 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
c
- Hadn't run across it before, but WP:NSOFT is a pretty reasonable essay, so although it doesn't trump WP:GNG, your point about pet projects that are WP:SPIP for some small research group is well-taken. For the benefit of myself, but more importantly, the others who may read later, here are the essentials as applied to the SORCER/exertions/etc topic. An ideal software article should include:
- A short overview. See "Talk:SORCER#paragraph one" rewrite attempt, above. SORCER is part grid-computing infrastructure, and part "other things", mainly used in the field of CAE/CAD/CAM for aerospace-engineers designing & simulating new vehicles/weapons/etc
- An assertion of notability. Nutshell: SORCER makes the aerospace weapon-systems design-process dramatically more speedy/flexible/radical, via software-only automated-design-optimization-for-hypersonic-flight plus real-world-final-capability-prediction-from-CAD-blueprints.
- ... Details: as of 2012, SORCER's grid-computing stuff permits automated non-linear analysis of aircraft-designs, while they are still virtual (i.e. in CAD virtual-blueprint form), and accomplishes this in the same timeframe that traditional linear efforts take; cite is DaytonThesis. (This means initial aerospace work can proceed without the need to physically prototype for wind-tunnel work, cutting out one-or-more loops from the incremental-design-process.)
- ... As of 2013, the USAF published some results on using SORCER to predict final manufacturing costs && final real-world offensive/defensive capabilities, again based purely on CAD-virtual-blueprints, no physical prototype required, no full-size physical testing of previous design-variants required; cite iosPress#1 conf-paper in print-proceedings. (This means that relatively radical designs can be virtually prototyped, at low cost, and then virtually "flown" in simulation, using SORCER to speed up both the design-work and the sim-work... end result is a ton of innovative pure-software designs can be jammed out in a relatively brief timespan, with predictions of final value/ROI directly useful to the top brass && civilian leadership that decides which advanced aerospace-systems get the funding.)
- ... Finally, although I don't understand Mandarin so I'm handicapped on summarizing the effort, there is a good sized R&D effort in China, which has been doing traffic-noise mapping since 2009 (around ten refereed academic papers), and there is now a 2012/2013/2014/2015 high-speed-rail effort funded by NSFC (not sure if any papers from this are non-classified).
- A software infobox with information on version number, developer, etc. This is tricksy, because SORCER has several independent forks (GE/Dassault/USAF/SorcerSoftOrg/Poland#1/Poland#2/PJIIT/Russian/Chinese ... that I know of!). Gerda_Arendt will be disappointed that the infobox is not likely to be very helpful to this article. :-) It makes sense to put the main open-source repo into the infobox, but I'm not sure if that is TTU, SorcerSoftOrg, or Poland#1 aka SorcerSoftCom-open-source-fork.
- An appropriate comparison/timeline of significant release versions. Yes, working on this, see my upmteen questions above. :-)
I've collected some data from Google Scholar (see above 17:15, 3 January 2014 in the 'notability discussion' section and the 'neologism' and also perhaps at 17:33, 3 January 2014 section), and come to agree with Garamond that SORCER/FIPER is not expecially academically wikiNotable as computer science ... rather, it is academically wikiNotable as computer aided engineering, methinks. WP:NSOFT#Inclusion says we need:
- discussed in WP:RS as significant in its particular field (distributed collaborative computer aided engineering). Methinks we've got this, see notability-discussion above.
- subject of instruction at multiple schools; does not apply to software merely used in instruction. We have a bit of this ... Professor Sobolewski has taught SORCER at TTU, PJIIT, and in several other countries... there is a list of his visiting-professorships in his sorcersoft.org resume, which I copied at one point, I'll paste it when I find it again.
- multiple printed third-party manuals/tutorials/reviews. Nope! There is no such thing as SORCER For Dummies down at the local amazon store. :-)
- published software that has been recognized (by reviewers) as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. There are a couple lit-survey-papers, see details above, but SORCER is not reviewed in PC Magazine or anything like that.
Any one of the four is good enough. Also, WP:NSOFT says this: "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown." Since the spin-off during 2010, SORCER is officially open-source, and we have some evidence that the folks in Russia and China are using it... beyond what GoogleScholar shows. Additionally, we also have ongoing academic publications at conferences, and a new commercial entity. But methinks these latter two are not the story; the story is the CAE work done at government and university labs. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi 74. There is a lot of "above" to see. Can you give me the pointers to the lit-review papers? Thanks!
Garamond Lethet20:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
c- Garamond, the green boxes at 17:15, 3 January 2014 and also perhaps at 17:33, 3 January 2014 should have what you need, use ctrl+f. There is compsci lit by Sobolewski and co-authors, but there is more significant breadth in the CAE lit (for aerospace-engineering and industrial-engineering folks rather than EECS folks). HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- 74, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. Which one of these is the "lit survey paper"?
Garamond Lethet21:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
c- No, my apologies, totally my reading-comprehension failure, I thought you were asking for the list of papers, aka *my* personal "lit-research" via goog-skol. My brain autocorrected a typo you hadn't actually made. :-) As for your answer, mhhhhmmmm, maybe Pawelpacewicz will have a better chance at answering that more fully. The one *I* knew about (but see below for another I ran across a few hours ago) was a pair of U.Cranfield papers by Goteng et al from 2007, which is about the time SORCER was starting to publish heavily, and FIPER had just peaked and newly-published papers on FIPER were going downhill. This particular lit-review paper is not cited by others, according to GoogleScholar, but the folks involved are independent academics from another subdiscipline, and the publisher is impeccable, which is why Beavercreekful brought it up. Evolutionary Computing within Grid Environment, Springer, 2007, presented(?) at [Advances in] Evolutionary Computing for System Design, published in Studies in Computational Intelligence Volume 66, isbn 978-3-540-72376-9, pages 229-248, which is 19 pages total, not sure how much ink SORCER got. Authors are Ashutosh Tiwari, Gokop Goteng, Rajkumar Roy.
- Couple years later, Goteng got their PhD at U.Cranfield, and did a more serious lit-review, with more pages[1] on FIPER-or-SORCER therein; the main TTU papers on exertion-oriented-programming and SORCER were both in 2007/2008, but methinks Goteng just talked about FIPER, because SORCER was still closed-source in 2009 (opened in 2010). Development of a Grid Service for Multi-objective Design Optimisation, Gokop Goteng PhD, "lit review & industry survey ... of grid services ... [including FIPER-or-SORCER]", 2009, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University. Now, although Goteng's PhD has also gotten no goog-skol-cites so far, the thesis-cmte of 2009, and the peer-reviewers-slash-editors of 2007, made both Goteng-papers into an in-depth independent Reliable Source, distinct from anybody connected with SORCER/FIPER, and therefore counting towards WP:GNG. That said....
- 74, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. Which one of these is the "lit survey paper"?
That said, we can also look at the wider literature in that specific research-niche, and see that SORCER/FIPER did not become the rock-star of Multi-objective optimization within Evolutionary computing within Algorithms within Computer Science (plus application to economics and also financial markets). Yet, at least. SORCER is definitely known in the subfield, though mostly by aerospace-engineering folks, at present. FIPER is older and thus better-known, including by the "top" guy in the Multi-objective Optimization, based on google-scholar-raw-hit-counts at least.
analysis of the MOO literature, per goog-scholar, first line is search-term, number results are hits-with-cites
|
|---|
|
Multi-objective Optimisation "SORCER"
Multi-objective Optimisation "FIPER" Multi-objective Optimisation "FIPER"
Multi-objective Optimisation ("M. Sobolewski" OR "M Sobolewski" OR "Mike Sobolewski" OR "Michael Sobolewski" OR "Sobolewski, M" OR "Sobolewski, M" OR "Sobolewski, Mike" OR "Sobolewski, Michael")
Multi-objective Optimisation .... aka this particular sub-sub-field in general, only the top 20 hits-with-cites are shown
|
Deeper analysis of the 75-cites-total paper which mentioned both Sobolewski and Kolonay. It turns out to be a survey-paper on engineering design optimization, which is a superset of multi-objective optimization, which in turn is a superset of mechanical/industrial multi-objective optimization (where FIPER and SORCER fit into this picture). Recent advances in engineering design optimisation,[4] 2008, by R.Roy DeptMfg U.Cranfield, S.Hinduja AeroEng U.Manchester, R.Teti ProductionEng U.Naples. Stuff in the double-parens is my interpretation, take with a grain of salt. :-)
an overview of the major research areas in engineering design optimization, especially the CAE stuff
|
|---|
|
As you can see from the redlinks inside the two most recent green boxen, wikipedia doesn't have any articles on the EECS-and-industrial-engineering subfield known as engineering design optimization, though we do have an article about the parent-field of Engineering_optimization ... which has four sentences. <long pause> Oven on the EECS side, doing a bit of searching for Kalyanmoy Deb and Carlos Artemio Coello Coello, the academic rockstars of this subfield, it turns out we *do* actually have an article on multi-objective optimization, but it spends 95% of the article on the mathematics of software-only MOO, as used by quants in the stock market (or the economics department). That said, it *does* mention in two paragraph at Multi-objective_optimization#Optimal_design that sometimes MOO is used in the real world, and gives one single ref, Optimization issues of the broke management system in papermaking by Ropponen Ritala Pistikopoulos in 2011 (total of 8 cites in goog-skol). Sigh. List_of_optimization_software has one (1) single aerospace package, for spaceships. Sigh.
Anyhoo, the main point here is, SORCER-fka-FIPER was already of WP:NOTEWORTHY mention by K.Deb the rockstar of MOO, back in 2008; that guy has thousands and thousands of cites. Sobolewski and Kolonay are both in the lit-survey paper on the future of engineering design optimization as of 2008, and although the software they had both been jointly working on since the previous millenium was not specifically named, clearly they and their work are both smack-dab in the middle of #5 and #6 and #7. Are those WP:N refs for SORCER? No. Do with have a huge long list of WP:N peer-reviewed fact-checked serious professional academic papers which cover SORCER and FIPER and exertions and all that jazz, in depth? Absolutely.
On three continents (so far!) FIPER and SORCER play a significant part in real-world mechanical/industrial CAE both classified and unclassified, the latter of which Roy et al claims was about 200 of the 1100 papers published in the engineering-design-optimization subfield back in 2008. The problem here is not that FIPER and SORCER are "too small" to be in wikipedia, the problem is that wikipedia doesn't have enough editors to make the obviously-necessary articles, and our wikiCulture doesn't seem to want those editors, either. We've been driving editors away since 2007, when the five bazillion rules were codified.[5] We have 30k active wikipedians making 5+edits/mo, trying to satisfy 500m unique readers/mo. We spend most of our time arguing about whether we can "allow" an article on something like SORCER... because we don't have the personnel to document *every* important research area... or because not *enough* newspapers have yet reported on the topic... or because *only* newspapers have reported on the topic... or because this or because that.
The worst part is, we *have* the people who can fill the gaps, we have the experts, they came to us, and are obviously more than happy to do so. :-/ If only we'll let them. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- First, a note on being an effective editor: if someone asks you for a citation, give them the citations. Not paragraphs. We're all volunteers here and we're all trying to shepherd dozens or hundreds of articles. This is your passion. I understand that. But the best way you can help us get the article to a better state is by making your replies succinct.
- From what I'm seeing here, a FIPER article would be uncontroversial and the SORCER material could be contained within that. Would that be ok with you?
Garamond Lethet19:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
c