Talk:SORCER

Contested deletion

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)

Agreed. It's well written and appears to be neutral.

With apologies, though, it doesn't state what is significant about the product. I'm not going to delete it immediately for that reason. I think your work deserves an opportunity to say why the entry is worth including. This can be a fairly low threshold but the article needs some statement of why the subject is notable. --Tóraí (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.33.68 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER. ANy comments you wish to make in order to show why you believe the article should be retained should be made there. No points made here will be seen by the other participants. Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

References

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 list

I 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:

1st EXAMPLE: let's take a look at reference #8 http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2012-5520 It's written by:

Scott Burton, American Optimization, LLC; Manager Ph.D. AIAA SEnior Member

Edward Alyanak, Air Force Research Laboratory; Project Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Senior Member

Raymond Kolonay, Air Force Research Laboratory; Principal Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Associate Fellow

please note that it describes SORCER's application and therefore is a secondary source.

(...)

the document describes how SORCER is used to design next generation efficient spersonic air vehicles (ESAV) by Air Force Research Laboratory. Air Force Research Laboratory is again a very notable scientific research organization operated by the United States Air Force, operating since 16 years more details on Wikipedia

2nd EXAMPLE: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6051863&queryText%3DA+SOOA+Based+Distributed+Computing+Mechanism+for+Road+Traffic+Noise+Mapping written by academics from another University and different country it describes how SORCER is employed to build a highly flexible distributed network services space. It shows it's usage in a different discipline (manufacturing) than previous example (aerospace)

It describes usage of system (not system itself) in another discipline, another country, another University ...

Other EXAMPLES You can find other examples in the references section. Among them Ph.D. and master thesis from 2 different US based universities (Wright State university, University of Dayton) both of them are secondary sources.

(... then here is Fiddle Faddle answer - details are here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER...)

If I understand well the basis for your point of view is summarized by your statement "(..) a scientific paper is always a primary source" and all your further opinions are based on it.

And I do not think we can agree with this statement due to 2 reasons:

1st reason - beeing or not being Primary source is NOT DEFINED by the fact that a source is scientific/academic or not. It's clearly stated in Wikipedia article onPrimary source

2nd reason - scientific/academic sources have high value accorgdingly to Wikipedia rules described at Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP#Some_types_of_sources where it is clearly stated: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". It shows as well that scientific/academic publications have higher value than any newspaper (including Wall Street Journal mentioned by you).

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)

Instead of engaging in rhetoric, what would be useful would be to show using WP:RS that this thing has genuine notability, not some sort of contrived pseudo-notability from the perpetual rehashing of primary sources that seek to enhance the reputations of the participants in the programme. You have not achieved that so far. If you cannot do that then the article has no place here because it is not notable. So stop trying to win debating points. If you are convinced it is notable, prove it. Fiddle Faddle 10:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Fiddle Faddle

on the beginning could You please confirm if 2 separate signatures Timtrent (one who added cleanup tag) and Fiddle Faddle (one who supports this tag) are owned by the same person? Both signatures are pointing to the same profile. But fact that those are different signatures could mislead all of us to think that those are 2 different opinions. But it looks like it's one and the same opinion.

You put sentence: "If you are convinced it is notable, prove it"

Prove which You are asking is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER

unfortunately in your answer there is NO dialog with presented proofs (just NO with no argumentation). Could You please point out which of the presented proofs are not showing sufficient notability or not showing that sources are secondary and tertiary. Could You please do it by underlining which exact points of wikipedia rules are not satisfied. It is the base for all of us to conduct discussion, refine the article if necessary and achieve consensus.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The deletion discussion closed as 'no consensus', and, as I am sure you are aware, this proves nothing. The closing admin was clear in his closure, and I suggest you re-read it with care. I am not about to enter into a debate with you over the minutiae of various chapters and verses here because it is for you to prove (see WP:BURDEN) not me to disprove.

I have given you some further insight on your own talk page about how Wikipedia and Academe are different. Please read it in detail and start to understand it.

If this thing is notable, it is up to you and others to prove that it is notable. If you add sources it is up to you to ensure that they pass WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In case you are in any doubt, especially because I perceive from your sentence constructions that English is not your native tongue, anything stated as a fact in the article requires a reference in WP:RS whether it has a primary source reference or not. Primary sources are allowed, sometimes encouraged, but they simply confirm that the primary authority says that something exists. Reliable sources confirm absolutely that something exists because they discuss it external to the fact/project/item being verified.

While primary sourcing may be acceptable as the sole sourcing mechanism in other worlds, in the world of Wikipedia WP:RS is king. So, in order for the article to be bolted in and not be in danger of future deletion, it is up to you and others to back any primary source with a reliable source.

Why is it up to you? Because you are the people who state that this is notable.

It may appear to you that I care passionately about deleting this article. Or it may appear that I am opposing you at every turn. Neither of these things are so. I care about the sourcing of the article. I don't care about SORCER one way or the other. If it is notable and can be verified as such I want it to remain. If it is notable and unsourced correctly I want it sourced correctly by someone competent to do so and to remain. If it is not notable I want it to go.

As a by-product you will have learned the skill of creation and editing of WIkipedia articles. Fiddle Faddle 14:13, 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 dedicated article here on wikipedia, an article which is about some topic such as the SORCER software, wikiNotability demands that this *specific* topic have

1. significant coverage
2. in multiple
3. independent
4. 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 about SORCER, 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).

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.

1. in large complex IT environments into one dynamically manageable cloud
2. enable the end users to flexibly realize interactions of services
3. SORCER makes it easy to manage complexity of modern challenges (i.e. air vehicle design).
4. called exertions
5. The front-end services created by the end users are service collaborations
6. all seamlessly collaborating
7. understandable DSLs
8. the SOS makes that process expressions actualized

I stopped after two paragraphs. Two out of three sentences are using the wrong tone. 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.

The medulla oblongata is the lower half of the brainstem. It is often referred to simply as the medulla. The medulla contains the cardiac, respiratory, vomiting and vasomotor centers and deals with autonomic, (involuntary) functions, such as breathing, heart rate and blood pressure. The bulb is an archaic term for the medulla oblongata; in modern clinical usage, it sometimes includes the pons as well. The word bulbar therefore refers to the nerves and tracts connected to the medulla, and also by association to the muscles thus innervated, those of the tongue, pharynx and larynx.

Compare that reasonably-jargon-free summary of the *Notability* and wider meaning of the medulla oblongata, with the same section from the current article.

SORCER (stands for Service ORiented Computing EnviRonment) is a computing platform that integrates various applications (i.e engineering systems) from various vendors, in large complex IT environments into one dynamically manageable cloud of services. With Java as the primary back-end language for implementing service providers, SORCER delivers front-end programming languages that enable the end users to flexibly realize interactions of services available within these SORCER service clouds. Allowing to create compound services on-the-fly with front-end programming SORCER makes it easy to manage complexity of modern challenges (i.e. air vehicle design).

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.

WildFly,[3] formerly known as JBoss AS, or simply JBoss, is an application server authored by JBoss, now developed by Red Hat. WildFly is written in Java and is executable on top of the Java Platform, Enterprise Edition (Java EE), which is available cross-platform. WildFly is free and open-source software, subject to the requirements of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1. The renaming to WildFly was done to reduce confusion. The renaming only affects the JBoss Application Server project. The JBoss Community or the Red Hat JBoss product line (with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform) all retain their names.[4]

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.

SQLite (/ˌɛskjuːɛlˈlaɪt/ or /ˈsiːkwəl.laɪt/) is a relational database management system contained in a small (<700 KB) C programming library. In contrast to other database management systems, SQLite is not a separate process that is accessed from the client application, but an integral part of it. SQLite is ACID-compliant and implements most of the SQL standard, using a dynamically and weakly typed SQL syntax that does not guarantee the domain integrity. SQLite is a popular choice as embedded database for local/client storage in application software such as web browsers. It is arguably the most widely deployed database engine, as it is used today by several widespread browsers, operating systems, and embedded systems, among others. SQLite has many bindings to programming languages. The source code for SQLite is in the public domain.

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

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:

• Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Pawelpacewicz (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER you can find opinions of 2 members who are specializing in computing:

• User:Scope creep who is member of WikiProject Computer science. He reviewed one of sources and confirmed it's secondary source
• User:W Nowicki who is member of WikiProject Computing - gave "keep" vote

I hope You find them useful.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I will check out the deletion-project. But when you speak of following Fiddle Faddle's suggestion "that the first task is to show and prove notability though" ... there is one, and only one, way to prove wikiNotability. That is, namely, to find multiple independent Reliable Sources, which cover SORCER itself (specifically), in some amount of depth. Finding good sources, and proving wikiNotability, are the same thing. Nothing more is required, but also, nothing less is required. There is a difference between a *secondary* source, and an *independent* source. I will read where you suggested, and see what I find.  :-)   In the meantime, concentrate on what matters. Find independent sources, fact-checked by an independent journalist's professional editorial board, or peer-reviewed by independent referees at some journal's science-board, or similar. Also, please ping my user-talkpage, if you respond and I don't notice promptly. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:19, 13 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)

Shortname == iosPress#1 (there is also another one by the same author/publisher... I will add that later on). Suggested as WP:RS to satisfy WP:NOTE.

1. url == http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34808
2. author == Raymond M. Kolonay
3. possibly conflict == Director of MSTC/AFRL. The US Air Force is using Sorcer in their environment and developing computational models to address the physics-based distributed collaborative design for aerospace vehicle development. So the director of MSTC/AFRL represents an organization that is a user of Sorcer. Due to that in my opinion there is no conflict.
4. title == Physics-Based Distributed Collaborative Design for Aerospace Vehicle Development and Technology Assessment
5. summary == One of the missions of the United States Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) is to develop and assess technologies for next generation aerospace systems. Currently, the assessment is achieved using empirical relationships and historical data associated with systems developed previously. The assessment is done in this fashion due to resource constraints on time, personnel, and funding. Performing technology assessment in such a fashion, although timely, is not necessarily accurate. This is due to the fact that many of the technologies and system configurations being evaluated have no historical or empirical information associated with them. Hence, traditional assessment techniques produce misleading results and subsequently ill-informed decisions by Air Force leadership associated with technology investment and potential future system capabilities. To address this issue the Multidisciplinary Science and Technology Center within AFRL's Aerospace Systems Directorate is developing physics-based design exploration and technology assessment methods and processes. The new methods and processes utilize physics-based analyses and a distributed collaborative computational environment to predict vehicle performance which in turn is used in mission level simulations to assess the impact of a given configuration or technology on the combat effectiveness of a system. The new methods and processes will be executable within the same time and resource constraints of the traditional process. This enables AFRL technology developers to have a quantifiable and traceable trail of the impact of their technologies on system performance parameters such as weight, lift, and drag into terms that Air Force leadership measures system effectiveness – lethality, survivability, sustainability, and affordability. This leads to well informed decisions concerning technology investment and achievable capabilities.
6. publisher == iospress.nl
7. was publication peer-reviewed aka refereed == Yes. By the conference board. Here you have the information about the committee: (https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/20th-ispe-international-conference-concurrent-engineering/committee-information), And here you can find confirmation (at the bottom) that according to the rules of the conference proceedings each paper has to be peer reviewed: https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/20th-ispe-international-conference-concurrent-engineering/presenter-information IOS Press confirms as well their peer-review process here: http://www.iospress.nl/service/authors/open-library-ios-press-open-access-option/ Here You have another organization which is using peer-review process by IOS Press: http://www.oapen.org/peerreview?page=ios
8. url of iospress editorial board == Cees Bil, John Mo, Josip Stjepandić - You can find it on their page: http://ebooks.iospress.nl/book/20th-ispe-international-conference-on-concurrent-engineering
9. is publisher independent == If I understand well your intention, you would like to check if they are independent form authors of this publication. In my opinion the prove for this type of independency is the information on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_Press) which shows that it was established 26 years ago, and that they are publishing approximately 90 international journals and releases and about 130 booktitles annually. As such they’re not dependent from the author or any of the institutions for which the author works or had worked previously.
10. is publisher a vanity press == As an independent publisher of peer-reviewed scientific journal the publisher definitely doesn’t accept paid-for papers.
11. was book printed, or ebook only == both: http://www.iospress.nl/book/20th-ispe-international-conference-on-concurrent-engineering/
12. date == if you click on the link right to “Ebook” You will go to page: http://ebooks.iospress.nl/book/20th-ispe-international-conference-on-concurrent-engineering and there is info that it was published in 2013

Shortname == ICDMA'11. Suggested as WP:RS to satisty WP:NOTE.

1. url == http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6051863&queryText%3DA+SOOA+Based+Distributed+Computing+Mechanism+for+Road+Traffic+Noise+Mapping
2. authors == Nan Li ; Tao Feng ; Bin Liu
3. affiliation == Sch. of Mater. & Mech. Eng., Beijing Technol. & Bus. Univ., Beijing, China ;
4. title == A SOOA Based Distributed Computing Mechanism for Road Traffic Noise Mapping
5. abridged abstract == Current traffic noise mapping systems are not ideal for distributed computing in dynamic network. This paper investigates the approach and mechanism of distributed noise map generation based on SOOA. SORCER is employed to build a highly flexible distributed network services space. After that, a SOOA-based computer-aided noise-mapping system is presented.
6. publisher#1 == 2011 Second International Conference on Digital Manufacturing and Automation (ICDMA)
7. publisher#2 == TBD? (IEEE Press maybe?) (IEEE Press maybe?) IEEE – please take a look here: http://www.proceedings.com/13060.html in the product description,another prove you can find here: http://toc.proceedings.com/13060webtoc.pdf
8. was publication peer-reviewed aka refereed by conference's independent science-board == On the conference’s web page you can find info describing the fact that papers “… are subject to both review and editing.”: http://www.icdma.org/paper-submission
9. was publication fact-checked (or peer-reviewed) by ICDMA editorial-staff == Please see above
10. was publication fact-checked (or peer-reviewed) by IEEE editorial-staff == Confirmation of peer review process by IEEE is described here: http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/authors/publish_benefits.html
11. url of Proceedings of the ICDMA editorial/referee policy == Please see above http://www.icdma.org/paper-submission
12. is at least one publisher independent == YES not only one: IEEE, ICDMA
13. is publisher a vanity press == IEEE is a very reputable publisher, in particular, for computer science papers and journals and as such is definitely not a vanity press. Please take a look on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_Engineers
14. date == 5th-7th August 2011
15. doi == http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICDMA.2011.34
16. isbn == 978-1-4577-0755-1 (print) , 978-0-7695-4455-7 (ebook)
17. cited by == n/a ... "as provided in real-time from CrossRef™, Scopus™ and Web of Science™."

Shortname == WrightThesis. Ph.D. thesis (more than one?) from Wright State university

1. To use a PhD thesis as a wikiReliable_Source, the committee which reviews the thesis must be independent...
2. ...and ideally, the published thesis itself must be widely cited.
3. Is this the case at Wright State? Is this the case at U.Dayton? Please advise.

Here you have the link to an MA thesis from Wright State: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?222745293673013::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:86171

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:0:0:APPLICATION_PROCESS=DOWNLOAD_ETD_SUB_DOC_ACCNUM:::F1501_ID:wright1316463759,attachment

Shortname == DaytonThesis. Ph.D. thesis (more than one?) from from University of Dayton

1. same question as above

Our reference #4 is the answer here:

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:dayton1335270317

---

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)

Notability, Sourcing and Article Quality

I agree with Fiddle Faddle on 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 Faddle initial 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: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22393. 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 in WP: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)

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-rule when 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)

---

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 VGA or 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

I searched also the Chinese journals database: http://epub.cnki.net/kns/brief/default_result.aspx with the keyword SORCER, and got the following 4 journal or conference papers (2 in Chinese, 2 in English):

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)

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)

3. Nan Li. Resources Integration and Binding in Distributed Collaborative Design Process. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Networking and Distributed Computing, Hangzhou, China, 2011. (in English)

4. Nan Li; Bin Liu and Tao Feng. A loosely-coupled platform for urban traffic strategic noise mapping. Proceedings of 2011 World Congress on Engineering and Technology(CET 2011) VOL07 (in English)

and 2 Master thesis:

1. 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

2. 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

and 3 PhD thesis: 1. 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

2 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

3 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

Here is some information about the NSFC (National Science Foundation of China) project, where I have learned about SORCER and then searched Wikipedia for it: The project title is: Research on manufacturing resource integration and coordination management based on SOOA in cloud manufacturing environment, the NSFC code for this project is: No. 51175033, the project period is from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015.

A key technique in cloud manufacturing is the virtual access and integration of manufacturing resources, but the highly dynamic and heterogeneous nature of the manufacturing resources will greatly influence the flexibility and reliability of the system resource integration. Based on SOOA (Service Object-Oriented Architecture) which provides the adaptability and protocol-neutral nature for network object invocation in the dynamic network environment, this project will study the mechanism and methods of the virtual access of manufacturing resources and the integration, coordination and management of the dynamic services for complex product design and manufacturing. Methods of virtual encapsulation of manufacturing resources based on SOOA will be proposed and implemented, typical dynamic manufacturing services will be constructed for the design and manufacturing of high speed railway bogies as service samples, the dynamic integration mechanism of manufacturing resources in the cloud manufacturing environment will be studied, the meta-computing mechanism and dynamic service coordination based on SOOA will be studied, and practical applications will be implemented based on the service samples. The achievements of this project will improve the reliability and flexibility of dynamic resource integration in the cloud manufacturing environment and can effectively support the integration of manufacturing resources, and therefore can promote the development and application of the cloud manufacturing technology.

In my opinion the only Chinese recognition of SORCER proves it notability. Fiddle Faddle, please stop playing the Good here. Wikipedia rules regarding primary sources and notability are well described, they are pretty much flexible and they are not in black and white colors as you force them on us here. I agree with beavercreekful, I think I am done with my contribution as well, too much "rotten energy" is here. I see only one Chinese PhD dissertation and a few papers in the reference section, I hope they will be not deleted. Kozamo (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The route forward: Notability or Deletion. Each is acceptable

SORCER looks very much like a Professor created tranche of research with numerous sub-topics delegated to various PhD and other students who perform the additional research and gain their degrees because of it. This is a normal academic mechanism.

In part that explains the apparent claque exists of folk who must see the project validated in Wikipedia at the cost of improper and imperfect referencing. Why is this so important to them? Wikipedia is not important to their reputations. Only peer review and further good research is important to their reputations.

We have an enormous quantity of primary referencing. We have neologisms that use this article to seek to validate their public deployment. We have had and still have a number of surround articles that seek to validate this as Wikipedia-Notable. It may be, but, if it is, why are no WP:RS elements forthcoming?

What I saw in the beginning, when I first saw SORCER, was non notable WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. I see nothing so far to change my mind. The deletion discussion was, in the words of the closing admin, "...this discussion appears to have been hijaked by people involved with the program." This is POV pushing, and is a wholly inappropriate behaviour. It removes any validity that Wikipedia may have in this area, something that is ironic when it is being used to seek to establish personal academic reputations (0.9 probability). No serious academic would consider using Wikipedia to enhance a reputation, surely?

So what must happen now?

Simple.

Step 1

Notability must be established. Primary sources do not do that however many are applied to the article, only reliable sources do that.

If it cannot be established as notable, then it must be deleted.

Step 2

If it is proven to be notable, it requires a rewrite to meet the criticisms of scope_creep and others and make it accessible to ordinary readers. It must also have all wording that appears to promote it reworded as neutral or removed.

Every fact must be a cited fact, and in WP:RS

That is it. There is no step 3. However, Every WP:COI editor should step away from the article. There is nothing emotional in this article. There is no attack on SORCER nor on the individuals editing it. It simply must pass Wikipedia's standards or must go. Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me I cannot continue anymore

I have found the best verifiable online sources and updated the SORCER History section a few times. After that I see continuously popping up annotations: [non-primary source needed][not in citation given][vague][citation needed] (please check it yourself) while my citations and sources are constantly deleted in spite they are valid and reliable with no comment why it is done so. What to do if someone behind scenes changes it to unreasonable requirements while removing the best source you can get but not replacing it with a better choice?

In the SOA community there are email rumors about "crazy Wikipedia editors" and "zealots" attacking SORCER article while related articles on "Globus Toolkit", "Jini", "Remote procedure call", "Web service" are much worse than the current entry on SORCER. So, I just wanted to learn more about SORCER, I have explored a few history facts and shared with you guys. The SORCER timeline (http://sorcersoft.org/about/timeline.html) was really useful. I have to admit that after comparing SOA related articles, the SORCER article is not worse than other in RPC-based domain and encouraged me to learn more about the SORCER operating system. So I am done with SORCER history and switching to the relevant papers.

I am not sure if I want to return to editing SORCER article since there is no collaboration I have expected. I was assuming that Wikipedia editors are helping and improving articles by reediting them for better. If my citation or reference is not a good one, just make it better-not worse. Additionally personal attacks and blaming newcomers damage the community and deter users as myself. Beavercreekful (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If you inspect the article with care then you will see that the sources you added have not been deleted, they have been incorporated. But, if these are the best sources that there are then this is not a notable project. However they have been flagged for issues with them. This is normal. You would never ant to read an article expecting the sources to be reliable when they are not, I hope.

The SOA community is not relevant here. This is WIkipedia, that is SOA. If that community can establish the notability of SORCER, great. If not then SORCER is not likely to be established as notable any time soon.

Whether SORCER is better or worse than any other article is not relevant I'm afraid. Each article on Wikipedia stands or falls on its merits. Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Tim/FiddleFaddle, this talkpage is a key example of why wikiCulture is wrong-in-practice. Template spam on articles drives away contributors. Excessive reliance on WP:BURDEN drives away contributors. Excessively high standards on *new* information being added in 2013, coupled with the execrable already-in-mainspace state of "old" information added back in 2009, is inherently perceived as unfair. Deletionism is easy and simple, just click undo, sprinkle templates, then sit back and watch the pain and suffering. Adding new materials, written be experts, is redacted redacted difficult. WP:NICE means helping improve articles, by making them better... and the traditional wikiCulture on IMMEDIATE deletionism guarantees WP:BITE.

  Beavercreekful (and also Kazumo), apologies that your experience so far has not been a better one. Unfortunately, in my view, Tim/FiddleFaddle is actually one of the most *lenient* folks when it comes to helping grow wikipedia's content, and improving articles. I've seen plenty of smart folks show up, start writing articles and uploading images, and get perma-banned for daring to edit the encyclopedia anyone can edit, without first memorizing five bazillion rules. In any case, I ask that you and Kazumo please not give up just yet. To make progress, though, you'll have to listen to Tim and myself. Some 14-year-old admin out to fight visigoths will come along, and delete all the articles related to exertions or SORCER or service-oriented-architectures, if Tim and I do not bulletproof the sourcing.

  Wikipedia is a very strange place. It does not care about concepts. That is what blogs are for. It does not care about truth. That is what research-labs (and often industrial-projects) are for. It does not care about The WP:BIG Things, whether they are used widely, or sold widely, is not the critical factor. There is one crucial critical factor only: what the wikiReliable Sources actually say, which in turn creates wikiReliability. This is our key pillar, that distinguishes a topic which belongs in wikipedia, for the 500M readers which come here every month, from a topic that belongs only in rare journals, written for experts, by experts, amongst experts. To prove that SORCER/exertions/svc-orientation is ready to be in wikipedia, this year in 2013, as opposed to in 2014 or 2015, the papers which are used as cites must be not merely well-written, not merely authored by smart people, not merely scientifically correct and industrially robust in practice. Wikipedia cares about all that, but only secondarily.

  To maintain a neutral point of view, the key #1 factor in why 500M people trust wikipedia, it is essential that the papers be *independent* (at least the reviewers) and show some *mainstream* interest (at least in the field of inquiry). That is easy to prove methinks, BUT IT MUST BE PROVEN, not by arguing about it, but by showing the names of the independent reviewers/journalists/etc. Help me find out who the peer-review boards were on the papers. Help me find out who the PhD thesis-committee members were. We need people that were not employed by AFRL, and that *are* respected scientists or industrialists. Once we have that confirmation of independent review, all such sources will stand. But they must be externally independently confirmed as good, not by editors in the wikiverse, but by other experts in the real-o-verse.

  I'm happy to try and help you and Kazumo and Professor Sobolewski... to improve the articles and simultaneously to learn the ropes here... but I'm a bit swamped. I'm trying to write a layman's explanation of exertions FOR NON-PROGRAMMERS, and seek the members of the referee-groups of the two-dozen papers offered (some in Mandarin which I don't read), and keep you and fiddleFaddle and kazumo from getting discouraged. That's in addition to working with a Malaysian defense contractor, a biographer of Ada Lovelace, and the communications director of the top Republican in the state of California. Getting SORCER bullet-proofed will take time. If you are in a hurry, and try to force SORCER into wikipedia, it will just get deleted by that mythical 14-year-old. Let us help you bulletproof the article against future attacks by deletionists.

  And hey, if you do not like the way wikipedia has been treating you, very seriously speaking, I'm the one to complain to. I don't like the way wikiCulture works, I don't like the way article creation process works, it drives away valuable contributors, and I'm fixing that redacted problem, or gonna die trying.  :-)   Please stay, but please stop hoping for a miracle of easy-peasy. This will take time. Stay serene. Thanks for improving wikipedia; hope this helps. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for experienced eyes

Because this is getting circular I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#SORCER_-_experienced_eyes.2C_please for experienced editors to seek to form a consensus on the various sources and thus the notability of the article. I have tried to word it as well as I am able to avoid creating any bias for or against the article. Fiddle Faddle 17:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a Ph.D. in CompSci in a related area and I'm familiar with the publishers being cited. At this point, is there a specific question regarding particular sources or is the problem a general one of notability? Garamond Lethet
c 09:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It is more general as a need to determine whether notability has been established and, if it has, whether the references here are currently suitable to verify that. There are many sources, many or which are most assuredly not RS, which is no matter if notability has ben established elsewhere, but which cannot, themselves, be used to verify notability. Some of those are people earning degrees from their research in SORCER itself. At least one is a lengthy PhD thesis comparing SORCER with other systems, but the name of the chairman of the vetting committee is that of the original SORCER architect, so care is required to consider with precision if this is an independent source.

A great deal of words have been expended saying that SORCER is notable, and those words may conceal nuggets of references which verify the notability. However, in general, the quantity of words by editors used to state that a thing is notable is inversely proportional to the actual notability. This shows the need for experienced eyes in a Wikipedia sense. So welcome, the more so since you can assess this top to bottom from the article and its references. Fiddle Faddle 09:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do a review then. Garamond Lethet
c 09:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, this is an area of serious concern for the proponents of SORCER. Not unreasonably they mount a spirited response to comments suggesting that things are unhelpful sources, but it is to their benefit that sources are discussed with rigour. They would expect nothing less of their specialist real life work, after all, and doing so improves everything it touches. You may find reading WP:ACADEME helpful, or may already understand the thinking behind that essay. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A thought on reference schemes might be to have two groups of references, one for papers which form the research body that is SORCER, and the other which is for references about SORCER using the group parameter for the ref tags and the Reflist template. Of course there could then be endless debate as to which group each reference was in, but it ought to let all readers understand which is which. I would be inclines to title on as note and leave the other blank. If this is a scheme you are unfamiliar with please have a look at List of gymnasts where it is deployed. If you agree with the concept and have questions just ask. Fiddle Faddle 10:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This will take a couple of days to complete. My (personal) rule of thumb for similar articles in this area is that if there's a paper with 100+ cites, notability exists. That doesn't appear to be the case here, and normally I would just consign the article to AfD at this point. However, the work does appear to have spread beyond its original lab and is in use in a limited number of other locations. At some point, that will reach a critical mass where someone writes a magazine article about it and we'll have uncontroversial notability, but we're not there yet either. While I'm not ruling out a trip back to AfD, I also think that would have a low chance of success and further alienate the editors who want to keep the article. I'll know more when I've finished looking at all of the cited work. Garamond Lethet
c 10:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A valid alternative to deletion might be to migrate it to the AfC queue, pending the new Draft: namespace. This would avoid further alienating the editors concerned and retain the huge amount of work already put in. The issue with that is whether the Talk page can be retained. I suspect userfication might be an appropriate route if necessary since the AfC queue per se is on a talk page scheme at present. What are your thoughts about splitting references into notes and RS references? Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

AfC doesn't solve the problem of marginal notability. We might as well solve that here with a rewrite rather than punting the article elsewhere. As to splitting the references, there aren't enough good ones here to justify that. I think if we cut 70% of the existing citations and prune the text back to a couple of paragraphs we might have an article that doesn't inspire uninvolved editors to reach for the AfD hammer. Garamond Lethet
c 18:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You make a fair point. Notability comes above all things, and it is not the same as being well regarded by those who work in it. I once used a lovely programming pseudo-language RPL11M that was very useful and very important to the companies where it was deployed, but it is not notable. As you can see, SORCER has visited AfD, but there were insufficient opinions for the closing admin to form a view. His comments are, however, significant. Fiddle Faddle 18:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Right answers for the right questions

Hi Fiddle Faddle, you are asking wrong experts with the wrong questions. Please ask your friend (a friend who has a Masters in ComSci at a German university) to read first, a paper written by the aerospace engineers on: "Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle Analysis and Optimization Implementation using SORCER" (http://sorcersoft.org/publications/papers/2012/6.2012-5520.pdf). Then the same topic merged with the computer science perspective: "Parametric Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages" (http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34826), and finally only computer science perspective: "Unified Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages" (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=22393). After reading these three papers in the order indicated you will get a meaningful answer from him. By the way you might read it yourself. Otherwise you are just spreading false opinions related to problems ill-defined. Also, you may ask him for an opinion on Max Berger research (from Germany) on a federated file system developed for SORCER (http://repositories.tdl.org/ttu-ir/handle/2346/15257). Please let me know your friend's opinion to the question stated this way. I am sure you will be surprised with his another opinion.

By the way, 74.192.84.101, you might read the papers listed above in in the suggested order as well. SORCER is a huge computing environment with a fraction of results published (in general due to competitive advantage and complex applications being classified with a few exceptions). So if you need to explore any topic drop me email (sobol@sorcersoft.org) for the right available sources to investigate them correctly.Mwsobol (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

what SORCER has published about itself or has withheld is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not third parties have found SORCER worth writing about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TRPoD, welcome to the discussion. Please see point#1 by the Professor, in his list below: peer-reviewed journal publications. Also, please note that "SORCER" is a computer program, it does not publish anything. The inventor of most of the technology behind SORCER is Mwsobol, but the primary author of the original paper specifically about SORCER was another researcher. Please examine the sources, before you WP:BITE the professor here. That said, your point is 100% correct, and worth reprinting here for those that did not click the link you gave.

Articles require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the subject.

We need references that discuss SORCER itself – directly, in detail. Not just passing mentions, or any old thing that happens to have the name in it. And we need several references from different authors working for different funding-institutions - not just one. These sources show that the subject is wikiNotable. We need sources generally trusted to tell the truth (but that is not enough!). The usual sources are Major newspapers, factual widely-published books, or other high-quality mainstream publications (peer-reviewed academic publications are the best here) which are careful about fact-checking and accuracy. See also WP:PRIMARY. Good sources make the text verifiable. However, primary sources aren't enough: wikipedia needs something independent.

Of course, SORCER does not write anything about itself... but people that have jobs which depend on SORCER's success, or people which have historical fame which depends on SORCER's success, and write about SORCER, have to be handled with extreme care. The peer-reviewers of those papers must be completely independent, and also completely expert. There is the special difficulty of classified material, which is par for the course in aerospace research, but that cannot be helped, unfortunately. Hope this explains. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have read the papers with great interest. I have a better grasp of the subject, inevitably imperfect. As far as I can work out on first reading, the fundamental key is here:

"Instead of thinking of a service offered by a particular host, the paradigm shift should be towards services in the network — the computer is the network. In classical distributed applications, it is necessary to know exactly on which host a particular service is exposed. In most distributed file systems, for example, it is necessary to know the name of the host that stores a particular file. In a service-oriented environment, a service provider registers itself with a service registry. The service registry facilitates lookup of services. Once a service is found, a service requester binds to the service provider and then can invoke its services. Requesters do not need to know the exact location of a provider beforehand. Instead, they can find it dynamically. They discover a registry and then lookup a service."

I'm willing to be corrected.

Adding to that a grid or gridlike concept appears to provide redundancy and/or resilience. Services that have been discovered can be replaced if they or the connection to them fails. Again I am willing to be corrected. I think I will have no need to state that again. It seems that a 'jobber' co-ordinates this element. Broadly this is stated, actually understated, in the 8 truths.

There is a great deal of discussion of various proprietary aspects. SORCER appears to be intended to make this transparent to the management and control of what I consider, probably erroneously, to be the overall key task. This is logical and reasonable, and must happen.

Now, I am not going to extract more of my (mis?)understanding of the papers. I have finished them. But these papers simply satisfy my curiosity. If we spent a couple of days together improving my misunderstandings into understandings I could extract sufficient material here to enthuse a sales team. I learn better by personal discussion than by reading, so I may have made a total mess of my layman's language initial interpretation. I am happy to be even laughed at and ridiculed if I have got this entirely wrong, As you have said, it is a hard concept to teach, thus it is a hard concept to learn just by reading.

The next thing to do is to look at where you may believe we differ. I interpret your standpoint as a legitimately fierce defender and as an ambassador for SORCER. My standpoint is as a fierce defender of the quality of Wikipedia articles, some of which I understand in detail, many of which I do not. Our area of difference is made up of two areas.

• First is Notability, which I must interpret in the Wikipedia sense. SORCER is significant, substantial, groundbreaking, and conceivably an emerging technology. It is also a logic extension and development of what has gone before. WIkipedia still may not see this as notable, despite all this, because of Wikipedia's rules, rules which will seem arcane and obstructive to you. We need this to be proven to be notable, hence my request elsewhere for other experienced Wikipedian eyes to look at the sources.
• Second is WP:COI, and I think we have done that to death. You, quite reasonably, have taken a step back form active editing of the article. The various editors who have gone into battle on SORCER's behalf paradoxically include me, by the way, but I have no obvious conflict of interest. At least a couple of the editors here appear to have one. They need to stand back, too, and use the talk page to request improvements if they have a conflict. Thus we have, or will have no such conflict of interest. Wikipedia is very sensitive right now to that. There has ben a major scandal with paid people who have sought to skew some of the articles here.

I said I have been battling on SORCER's behalf, and that this is a paradox. By suggesting deletion the by-product has been a strengthening of the article, though not necessarily the sources. By flagging sources and awkward, despite aggravating the bejasus out of SORCER folk, the sources are targeted to be strengthened. By calling for other eyes on the article it is simplified, thus strengthened. I genuinely wish SORCER to have its article here. but it must have references that pass out WP:RS rule. Fiddle Faddle 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, that is what my red penned colleague is saying, too. Fiddle Faddle 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I showed my colleague in Germany. He has not revised his opinion. He also mentioned that it seems to be a very small community working on the project. https://github.com/sorcersoft/sorcer/graphs/contributors seems to show very few of you. Fiddle Faddle 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You are confused again and you are bringing to the table the misleading opinion about SORCER again. I work full time for AFRL/WPAFB. Occasionally I teach SORCER and help interested parties to get started with SORCER as well. That includes a team in Poland you are referring to (sorcersoft.com). This year I gave them introduction to SORCER and they just started developing commercial interactive tools for SORCER based on the version developed at SORCER Lab, TTU. They decided to support that version of the open source SORCER. Additionally they have another proprietary repository for the tools being developed (no access to your friend). By the same token I teach in China and Russia and the teams there have own versions of SORCER as well. In January I am teaching SORCER in the Polish Japanese Institute of IT, and I will be using open source version of PJIIT SORCER. Yes, there is the same conceptual framework and reference architecture we are trying to present in the article. The SORCER article was initiated by the team in Poland, but SORCER is used in many countries the way they choose to do so. All papers I have indicated above originated from AFRL and are based on the AFRL SORCER environment. Tell your friend that his opinion is based on incorrect and irrelevant assumptions. Ask him to evaluate the concepts and the architecture described in the papers. To avoid the next potential confusion, please note that my SORCER Lab is at sorcersoft.org in USA and obviously is different from sorcersoft.com in Poland.Mwsobol (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to be shown where I am confused. Did I not say so? But I gained my information from the specific papers you showed me, so the opinions I am bringing here are, regrettably, formed from those papers. If they are capable of misinterpretation then what is their quality as sources?

This is really easy. Either it is notable, then good and it stays, or it is not, and it goes. So, please prove that it is notable and that is it, case closed. This whole discussion becomes circular very fast. It's like a "Do loop" with the exit condition never satisfied. The only guiding principle we care about is WP:N and that this can be WP:V in WP:RS. That is it. That has always been it. If it is notable I will fight for it to remain. The converse is also true. See WP:42. Fiddle Faddle 00:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion it is highly notable (higher for example than Jini or Globus toolkit, both have articles in Wikipedia already-I am familiar with both technologies very well):

1. SORCER research is recognized internationally (USA, Europe, Asia): multiple universities, many projects funded internationally, keynotes, book chapters, many published peer reviewed papers

2. Education: many international students graduated with M.S. and Ph.D in SORCER domain, invited lectures and tutorials internationally

3. Funded by highly notable company: GE Aviation

4. Government notable agency: NIST

5. Notable partners on the FIPER project

6. Cutting edge applications: at AFRL, the best in the world aerospace laboratory and US and Chinese Universities

7. Internationally recognized SORCER Lab, TTU: sorcersoft.org

8. International collaborative research projects: SORCER Lab with Russian and Chinese universities

9. Commercializer of SORCER interactive tools: sorcersoft.com

10. All of that is verifiable with technology developed at GE GRC and SORCER Lab , TTU and a follow up of R&D around the world.

Mwsobol (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

again, none of that matters if no third parties have written about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

SORCER third party review and analyses

Reference 5, "Development of a Grid Service for Multi-objective Design Optimisation". "In this research, literature was reviewed and industry survey conducted. The research studied related problem solving environments in literature and industry to come up with a service specification document that captures the process for grid service definition. This specification was used to develop a framework for MODO applications. An architecture based on this framework was proposed and implemented as DECGrid (Decision Engineering Centre Grid) prototype." It's the third party evaluation and analysis of SORCER along with many other service-oriented products.

Reference 13, a book chapter on "Evolutionary Computing within Grid Environment" provides a review a few service-oriented systems including SORCER. "This chapter explores some problem solving environments such as Geodise (Grid-Enabled Optimisation Design Search for Engineering), FIPER (Federated Intelligent Product Environment), SOCER (Service-Oriented Concurrent Environment), DAME (Distributed Aircraft Maintenance Environment) and Globus toolkit to demonstrate how EC techniques can be performed more efficiently within a Grid environment." The authors do not develop, use the SORCER environment, just evaluate for Evolutionary Computing and express opinions-standard third party review and analysis.

Beavercreekful (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref currently at 13 is http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-72377-6_10 which appears to speak of SOCER not SORCER?

Ref currently at 5 is https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/4423/1/Gokop_Goteng_thesis_2009.pdf and most assuredly compares SORCER with other areas.

I shall ask for specific opinions on whether these are reliable sources.

When listing references please do not simply label them with their names. Qualify that with their URL as well. If text is edited references move about.‹ ›Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The book chapter "Evolutionary Computing within Grid Environment" is from the book "Advances in Evolutionary Computing for System Design Studies in Computational Intelligence Volume 66, 2007, pp 229-248" published by Springer Verlag written by folks from the best engineering university in UK, called the MIT of England, so it is very reliable source (publisher and the source). The second one, Goteng, Gokop (2009). "Development of a Grid Service for Multi-objective Design Optimisation". School of Applied Sciences, 2009. Cranfield University is a defended PhD dissertation at the same university so has to be highly reliable as well.

Regarding SOCER, it's an error or alias used by some. Subsections 52. and 5.3 are below from this book chapter (both names are used, the context is obvious, e.g., SOCER lab is based at the Texas Tech University):

5.2 FIPER Project

FIPER is a 4-year project sponsored by the National Institute for Standards and Technology-Advanced Technology Program (NIST-ATP) in the U.S. Its aim is to produce an intelligent system that leverages the emerging web technologies in which engineering tools such as CAD (Computer Aided Design), CAE (Computer Aided Engineering), PDM (Product Data Management), EC optimisation techniques such as GA, GP and many others act as distributed service providers as well as service requestors communicating through intelligent context models for concurrent engineering design optimisation of FIPER has a grant worth of $21.5 million with Ohio and Stanford Universities as academic partners and GE (General Electric) teaming with Engineous Software, BFGoodrich, Parker Hannifin and Ohio Aerospace Institute as company partners [31]. FIPER uses GE Aircraft Engine functionalities to capture the designer’s knowledge in Knowledge Based Engineering (KBE) systems to create Intelligent Master Model (IMM). This IMM contains the ‘what’, the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of a design using EC algorithms to produce a range of global optimal solutions [31]. FIPER provides a graphical environment that permits interactive click- and-drag Grid programming interface which users can reuse and execute concurrently [35].

5.3 SORCER Project

SORCER is an extension of the work of FIPER project. SOCER lab is based at the Texas Tech University; U.S.A. The goal of SORCER is to form Grids of distributed algorithms for concurrent engineering design disciplines [37].Beavercreekful (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Third party SORCER reference: a Russian weekly newspaper "Вестник - Областная еженедельная газета", "Техас готов к сотрудничеству" (Texas is Accepting Research Collaboration) http://vestnik_old.ulsu.ru/issues/878/4/ (in Ulyanovsk, Russia where the largest Russian air vehicles are designed and manufactured, the city is the home of the Ulyanovsk State University) Beavercreekful (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A Russian weekly newspaper "Вестник - Областная еженедельная газета" #19 June 7, 2013, "SORCER нам в помощь" (SORCER helps us) http://vestnik.ulsu.ru/19-1145-07-iyunya-2013/takzhe-chitayte/sorcer-nam-v-pomosch

Beavercreekful (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Kozamo would you please help to interpret two items below.

China, News Center for UESTC 2013-03-21 "Service oriented computing environment for BCA" http://www.news.uestc.edu.cn/NewsRead.aspx?newsID=57207

China: “SORCER and the Service-oriented Programming Model” http://mece.njtu.edu.cn/hzjl/gjhz/6752.htm

Beavercreekful (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

著名计算机专家Michael Sobolewski教授来我院学术交流, 发布时间:2013-03-01 发布人: 浏览次数：823

http://mse.hust.edu.cn/news.php?id=13279

Tianyu Soft, China Industrial Application Software

Michael Sobolewski教授来我公司进行学术交流 http://www.hustcad.com/content.aspx?typeid=156&id=625 Beavercreekful (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

полет N13􏰁14, 30 мая 2007 г. инновационная образовательная программа

В СГАУ выступал профессор Техасского университета http://www.ssau.ru/files/editions/polet/2007/13-14-2007.pdf Beavercreekful (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beavercreekful. These kinds of sources aren't going to help establish notability and I don't see them being included in the article. Can you point me to the two or three most cited papers on SORCER? I haven't looked at all of the ones in the article, but what I'm seeing haven't been cited very often. (BTW: I'm assuming there's sufficient notability here to keep the article, although I do think it needs to be rewritten.) Garamond Lethet
c 05:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Digesting the Sorcer paradigm shift

After studying three papers recommended by Dr. Sobolewski and three meetings with my PhD advisor it seems to me I got the key understanding what SORCER is about. That looks obvious now from the picture of the SOS operating system in the article but somehow was not visible to me in the beginning at all.

In object-oriented programming everything is an object, so for example an instance of a class is an object and the class is an object as well. By analogy, what is the real meaning of "everything is a service". That's the key in understanding why SORCER is different.

Regular thinking is that a service requestor asks for a provider's service so services are always actions of providers (that exist at the back-end). Now, if everything is a service then the service request is a service as well. But everyone creates and composes (aggregates) services at the back-end. That approach requires always programming new service providers by professional programmers (low level programming - executable codes). In SORCER the back-end programming of composing services is shifted to the front-end and it is done by domain experts, the end users - not professional programmers. And, that is the paradigm shift. Obviously the service written at the back-end and the front-end service are quite different is style and semantics so the term exertion is referred to a front-end service program - requestor's service. Sorcer introduces exertion-oriented language and var-oriented modeling language (mogramming at the front-end, like shell programming in Unix, so do not confuse it with traditional back-end programming). I think that these languages are the essential novelty. However, an adequate operating system is needed to manage them, so here everything is new: programming and operating system and that was to much for me to digest all together. Developing service providers for Sorcer is rather traditional "service-oriented" programming, that does not have anything common with service orientation. Thus two service programming models exist and are complementary: front-end exertions and bak-end executable codes.

So returning to object-oriented analogy, you might consider that the class is an exertion and any service federation created on-the-fly by the operating system is an instance of it. Running the same exertion might create each time a different federation due to providers replications. My exciting rediscovery: instances (service federations) are created by the operating system (like a constructor in object-oriented programming) not by professional programmers. As the result, for example, engineers with Sorcer can compose on-the-fly these complex federation of their applications, tools, and utilities with no need to ask for help experienced low level programmers how to "wire" new service at the backend.

Can you interpret now the picture in the article correctly? Note that exertion structure (front-end) is the same as the federation structure (back-end). An engineer creates that structure easily and the SOS is doing the heavy uplifting at the back-end linking dynamically all needed engineering applications, tools, and utilities with the data and control flow defined by the engineer. It's interesting that the data and control flow is defined in the exertion - the front-end service. Traditionally it is always done at the backend (RPC, CORBA, RMI, Jini, Web services, etc.)

Finally, it seems to me that exertions, service providers, federations, and the SOS are service in SORCER. Exertions do not have any static connections to service providers and you can submit an exertion into the network even with no providers present. They will be provisioned on-demand at runtime - that is really amazing. Beavercreekful (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Beavercreekful. I'm a bit nostalgic for where you are in your career—it's exciting to have a new field open up for you. However, this kind of discussion isn't appropriate here. We're limited to what's in the literature. I will say, though, that calling "everything an X" makes X a superfluous concept; and classes are not objects for any useful definition of object. Drop me an email if you'd like to continue that conversation.

<tangent>IMO it is completely reasonable for a class to be an object - and this abstraction is generally available through reflection frameworks in most OO languages, and allows for some meta-programming.</tangent> Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you're our local expert here, can you tell me what the most-cited SORCER paper is? Not counting self-citations. Thanks! Garamond Lethet
c 04:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

By George, I think I got it - but correct me if I'm wrong. Is an exertion a composition definition which itself is marshalled and sent to the backend where it is unmarshalled, the services called and composed as defined in the request, and the result of the composed call marshalled and sent back? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

---

"Everything is an object" is the fundamental concept of object orientation. That is restated usually as "every object is an instance of a class". Not all computing platforms called OO are really OO. By the same token, practically all so called service-oriented (SO) systems are not SO. In my opinion Sorcer is SO. That was my point in explaining the major differentiator in service orientation I made above and it seems to me you are misinterpreting me or I am sorry if I have not explained it well. Most languages so called OO are object-based or hybrid. For example, C++ or Java is a hybrid language with primitive data types and many OO shortcuts. However for example, Smalltalk is pure OO. In Java every class is an object and is an instance of the Class class. The relationship instance/class is not related to reflection. In the Smalltalk platform each class has its own metaclass so classes as objects are much "cleaner" than in Java since class variables live in their metaclasses (that's the name class variables, not static variables as they are called in C++ and in Java). However, OO does not require classes at all. Fore example the pure OO platform, self, does not have classes, objects are just created from other objects. That's the reason UML uses for defining object orientation the concept of a classifier. So, a pattern object (prototype), class, Java interface, and exertion are classifiers. The statement "an exertion is a classifier" is critical from the SO point of view. An exertion as the service classifier is used in SORCER and so all federations such that the exertion can be bound to at runtime are instances of it. That's the SO assumption Sorcer is built upon to define service orientations in the context of classifier/instance relationship. There is no another system with such pure SO semantics. That was my main point made before. I hope it's more clear now. I am sorry if that's too conceptual (theoretical), but going into the implementation issues of Sorcer is much mode difficult and complex for this type of discussion. There are many types of exertions (elementary tasks, batch tasks, jobs, blocks, branching and looping exertions) to support any type of imperative programming (procedural, workflows, block-structured programming) unified with var-oriented modeling (functional composition).

Marshaling is a standard mechanism to transfer a state of an object (serialization) and behavior (class annotations added to the serialized object that are used to download required classes). The SORCER operating system (SOS) uses JERI (Jini Extensible Remote Invocation) to built its own federated method invocation: for a given exertion invokes the service federation with the data (exertion context), control strategy, and data flow specified by the exertion itself. Again, there is no another system with this type of invocation at the front-end. By the way this type of invocation (FMI) is classified as far as I remember the sixth generation of RPC. Do not ask me who else uses it. I have just studied it as hundreds or thousand people interested in RPC and that's it. I know that is part of the Sorcer infrastructure (SOS) and outside of it it is not so useful like RPC alone or TCP/IP invocation alone. If I need this type of invocation I will use Sourcer, and we know well from the literature who needs it and uses it (complex adaptive systems). It is completely different animal from SOAP/WSDL invocations used in Web services where the invocation maps request to a single application server with a static endpoint. What the application does later that's another story the user is not aware of it and cannot change. By contrast, there is no static endpoints in Sorcer with the invocation as the modifiable by the end user mapping from a single exertion to a federation - the meaning of the term "federated computing".

In the nutshell the exertion processing is as follow:

1. an exertion is received by the Sorcer network shell (nsh) like in Unix a script is interpreted by the Unix shell.

2. nsh interprets the exertion and based on the exertion's signatures delegates it to one of the SOS rendezvous providers/modules (Jobber, Concatenator, Spacer, or in the case of a single task delegates it to the matching service provider) somewhere in the network or local module if the signature in not of the network type. Missing providers of the SOS can be provisioned by nsh on-the-fly. In fact the nsh shell is only required by the end user in SORCER, the SOS and all domain specific providers can be provisioned at runtime

3. the rendezvous provider using the exertion dispatcher factory receives a relevant dispatcher for the exertion's control strategy and required data flow

4. the appropriate dispatcher creates the federation - binds to dynamically discovered providers or provisions them on-demand

5. the dispatcher of the rendezvous provider manages the federation of domain specific providers (service processor) according the control strategy and data flow required by the exertions

6. the result can be returned to the user via the shell or if exertion execution is monitored (if exertion's strategy specifies it) all intermediate results with the final one are persisted the SOS Exert Monitor and can be inspected or received anytime later. Most complex engineering exertions (analyses) are executed over many hours, days or weeks so the latter execution is predominant. An Exert Monitor service can be used as the network debugger and allows for suspending, resuming, stepping over the exertion's execution in the network federation.

Beavercreekful (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a great summary what's covered in SOORCER papers: exertions and SOS. Thanks for a pleasant learning experince on service orientation - very relevant to this article.

132.3.33.79 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I uncollapsed the discussion. For me, I need to understand what's going on before I'm able to help out getting the article in to shape. With that this discussion is relevant to improving the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)