Talk:SORCER/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contested deletion

old news

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... in my opinion it is in line with G11 Wikipedia:CSD#G11 as there is clearly stated: "An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion" if in Your opinion it is against neutral point of view - please point out which part of SORCER article violates it

--Pawelpacewicz (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs)

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): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwsobol (talkcontribs) 19:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This article relies on many valuable references from multiple sources ranging from: Texas Tech University, GE Global Research Center, AFRL/WPAFB, Wright State University, and Chinese universities. I think that it is false assumption that more references are needed to validate the originality. — Precedingunsigned comment added by (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 Faddle22:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


more about contested deletion

Those who are adding and adding scientific papers as references should read WP:RS. The flurry of activity is laudable, but the article needs to have its notability established. No-one contests that the thing exists, the discussion is about notability. Primary sources are valueless in this regard. Fiddle Faddle 01:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Article improved as suggested in the issues 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 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: 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 dedicatedarticle 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 aboutSORCER, not just incidentally about it.

Multiple means, umm, multiple... but for instance, if Mike has published a three-part-series with a particular publisher in a particular year, that does NOT count as "multiple" by wikipedia standards. We want publications from multiple authors, using multiple publishers, and preferably in multiple years (or at least multiple months).

Independent means that there is no blatant conflict of interest. Mike has a conflict of interest; he invented the stuff. Now, there is some flexibility here; for instance, if Mike were to get a book-deal with IDG, to publish SORCER for Dummies which was then sold in Barnes-and-Noble stores around the world, that does *not* count as COI. The fact-checking folks at IDG would make sure Mike was not doing anything *too* crazy in the book... and more importantly, the marketing department at IDG would be betting their reputations for making a profit that the topic of SORCER was in demand, enough to justify publishing the book. By contrast, if Mike were to self-publish a book, using one of the modern digital vanity press offerings such as Amazon or various other commercial services, that would *not* count as independent, any more than Mike paying a PR firm to send out paid-for-in-advance press releases would count. Similarly, if some journalist was to write a story about SORCER at a reasonably famous place like the Wall Street Journal, to help sell newspapers or magazines or whatever to the reading public, with the editorial department fact-checking the work, that would be independent by wikipedia standards; whereas, if the local paper just republishes a press-release from sorcersoftDotCom, that is *not* independent by wikipedia standards.

The last one is the hard one. What does it mean to be a reliable source? Well, that's easy: truthful, factual, correct, accurate, and preferably unbiased. What does it mean to be wikiReliable? This is quite different! Truth is not key. Factual is important, but only in how we present the quotation here in wikipedia. Correctness and accuracy are preferable, but not required. Bias is fully permitted in the wikiReliable Source as long as we wikipedian editors rewrite the prose to neutrally reflect the position that the bulk of the Reliable Sources take. The main criteria, for being considered a Reliable Source, is that the information must be peer-reviewed by independent professionals in the field of inquiry (such as a journal publication), or alternatively, that the information must be fact-checked by independent editorial professionals in the publishing industry (newspaper/magazine/book/teevee/similar... does not matter if they are offline or online publications).

blah blah

So the trouble here, seems to be that we have a lot of sources that *mention* SORCER. But to justify an article *about* SORCER specifically, we need some sources that are *about* SORCER specifically, either in whole or in part.

Furthermore, we have a lot of sources that are questionably-independent. Primary sources like scientific papers, which were published on a website, or presented at a conference, but which did not undergo independent peer-review (prior to publication in a respected academic journal), or did not undergo independent fact-checking (prior to publication in a mainstream journalistic or bookstore-like setting).

However, I also note that there were a bunch of PhD thesis projects... sometimes, the folks that act as the "review board" for the PhD thesis can be considered independent. Also, it *is* sometimes possible to use primary academic papers as reliable sources, despite the paper in question not undergoing peer-reviewed publication... if the paper is Widely Cited And Important In The Subfield.

Can somebody, probably Pawelpacewicz or Mwsobol, please provide me with the known sources that most closely match what I'm describing? Quantity is *not* important. We need three WP:RS things to prove wikiNotability. So give me the top five known sources, which are specifically about SORCER (preferably having it in the paper-title or a chapter-title), and which are are independent as possible, and which have undergone some kind of careful perusal by outsiders already (peer-review / fact-check / phd-thesis-committee-review / very-widely-cited). Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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.

examples of encyclopedic WP:TONE versus promotional tone, from other wikipedia articles related to software or science

Wikipedia should not sound like an infomercial. All these phrases need Reliable Sources that WP:PROVEIT, or take them out. Wikipedia should never use big-boy fancy-pants jargon-words, unless they are necessary to truly understand the topic. For instance, we have an article Medulla oblongata which uses the jargon-words vasomotor and autonomic. But look at the remainder of the intro-slash-summary-paragraph. It is all straightforward prose, that most tenth-graders and many fifth-graders could grok.

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 withautonomic, (involuntary) functions, such as breathing, heart rate and blood pressure. Thebulb 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 (/ˌɛskjuːɛlˈlt/[1] or /ˈskwə[2]) 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.[3] SQLite has many bindings to programming languages. The source code for SQLite is in thepublic domain.[4][5]

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. (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. 17:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)



  1. , Poland


  1. url ==
  2. title == "Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle Analysis and Optimization Implementation using SORCER"
  3. collaborative university == Texas Tech University

IOSPRESS / AFRL x2 or x3

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

  1. title == Physics-Based Distributed Collaborative Design for Aerospace Vehicle Development and Technology Assessment
  2. pages == 198-215
  3. url ==
  4. author == Raymond M. Kolonay
  5. possibly conflict == Director of MSTC/AFRL, an organization that is an enduser of Sorcer. Pawelpacewicz is of the opinion that therefore no COI exists; however, methinks AFRL is not just an enduser, but also the collaborator-slash-employer-slash-funder of the SORCER work (Professor Sobolewski among others... who is currently "Director of SORCER Lab in collab with AFRL/WPAFB and PL-JP Inst of IT"[1]), so this is somewhat of a grey area, Kolonay is a collaborator in SORCER research as well as an enduser... AFRL isn't just a typical customer in other words, cf the early history of Jeep vehicles during WWII. Background: the USAF is using Sorcer in their (aerospace-research) environment, and developing computational models to address the physics-based distributed collaborative design (i.e. aerospace-design-engineers using local exertion-scripts implemented via SORCER as the substrate-platform) for aerospace vehicle development.
  6. summary == One AFRL mission is to develop (and assess!) next-generation aerospace-system technologies i.e. fighters/bombers/missiles/etc. Currently, due to time/personnel/funding constraints, the tech-assessment work is traditionally achieved using empirical relationships and historical data associated with systems developed previously (i.e. earlier-generation fighters/bombers/missiles/etc)... this approach is fast, but not necessarily accurate, especially when neither empirical nor historical info exists! (The first version of a radical new bomber-design for instance.) Inaccurate assessment leads to poor USAF decisions about investment into future aerospace-systems. AFRL has an AerospaceSystemsDirectorate with the MultidisciplinaryScienceAndTechnologyCenter; these MSTC folks are under the author Kolonay. This group is creating tech-assessment-and-design-exploration apps/methods/processes, which are physics-based (the tech-assessment depends on weight/lift/drag/etc ... as opposed to historical data from wind tunnels and combat engagements and such ... whereas weight/lift/drag are known at CAD-design-time without needing to build a physical prototype). The aerospace-designers who work elsewhere in the USAF can work on their CAD-based designs, run SORCER-based apps that perform tech-assessment, and get quantitative estimates of cost/strength/firepower/etc (aka affordability/survivability/lethality/sustainability), which are the things USAF leadership && Congress uses to make funding-decisions. Basically, given merely an AutoCAD diagram of a radical new bomber-design, the MSTC tech-assessment app uses[vague]SORCER (how specifically?) to predict the quantitative real-world manufacturingCost/offensiveCombat/defensiveCombat/etc performance-characteristics of the hypothetical bomber, partly by running mission-simulations of various bomber-configs (different fuel-load crew-size weapon-selection whatnot). The new MSTC tech-assessment app takes the same amount of time as traditional tech-assessment. Aerospace-designers get a quantifiable usefulness-prediction-metric, repeated each time they incrementally adjust their CAD-design, and USAF leadership (and taxpayers) get better decision-making about funding for new aerospace-systems.
  7. publisher ==
  8. was publication peer-reviewed aka refereed == Yes. By the conference board (see full list of 19-besides-Sobolewski in comment-section). Here you have the information about the committee: (, 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: IOS Press confirms as well their peer-review process here: Here You have another organization which is using peer-review process by IOS Press:
  9. url of iospress editorial board == Cees Bil, John Mo, Josip Stjepandić - You can find it on their page:
  10. is publisher independent == If I understand well your intention (correct), you would like to check if they are independent from authors-or-the-employers-of-authors of the SORCER work (correct). In my opinion the proof for this type of independency is the information on Wikipedia ( 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. (74 agrees with Pawelpacewicz... IOS press is not run by USAF nor any of the SORCER folks, but is an independent scientific publisher... however, interestingly enough, IOS Press does *not* provide their own professional editorial board, but rather, uses a subset of the peer-reviewers as their editors.) As such they’re not dependent from the author (correct) or any of the institutions for which the author works or had worked previously. (correct)
  11. is publisher a vanity press == Pawelpacewicz says: as an independent publisher of peer-reviewed scientific journal the publisher definitely doesn’t accept paid-for papers. 74 says, this seems to be mostly true. In fact the folks at IOS Press *do* require payment up front, as you can see in the link Pawelpacewicz provides, to the tune of a thousand euros per paper published. However, this is the business model of the publisher... they do not charge subscription-fees to the recipients of the papers (which is why wikipedians can see the full paper sans any paywall — the license is even Creative Commons of some sort). <grin> All papers that IOS Press publishes this way are from peer-reviewed scientific conferences (in this case the 20th ISPE ICCE), and the editorial board is also from academia slash industry (in this case RMIT*2 plus a firm in Germany). IOS is a member of STM, which also includes AAAS / ACS / AIP / AMS / AMA / APS ... that was just the first few which jumped out at me.  :-)   Seems legit; wikipedia already has about 20 computing-articles which cite iospress, plus about 20 medical-articles.
  12. was book printed, or ebook only == both:
  13. date == if you click on the link right to “Ebook” You will go to page: and there is info that it was published in 2013

Shortname == iosPress#2 (Mwsobol#2)

  1. url == (here is the TOC[2] for the proceedings)
  2. title == Parametric Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages
  3. authors == Michael Sobolewski / Scott Burton / Raymond Kolonay
  4. author homes == SORCER Soft / ((unknown)) / MTSC of AFRL
  5. editors == Cees Bil / John Mo / Josip Stjepandić
  6. editor homes == RMIT University Australia / RMIT University Australia / PROSTEP AG Germany
  7. editorial review == 2013 Proceedings of the 20th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering; 978-1-61499-301-8 (print) | 978-1-61499-302-5 (online)
  8. peer review == 20th ISPE ICCE board (see list of twenty in the comments)
  9. publisher == IOS Press
  10. possibly conflict == primary author is inventor of SORCER & FIPRE, third author is director of MTSC at AFRL which collaborates with SorcerSoft ... but editors and most peer-reviewers have no conflicts
20th IPSE ICCE peer-reviewers
reviewer at 20th ISPE ICCE[] reviewer's home university-slash-org conceivableaka possible COI
Ahmed Al-Ashaab Cranfield University, UK
Amy Trappey National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan
Cees Bil RMIT University, Australia
Eric Simmon NIST, USA maybe? NIST funded FIPRE, the predecessor of SORCER, was Simmon involved?
Essam Shehab Cranfield University, UK
Geilson Loureiro INPE, Brazil
Georg Rock University of Applied Science, Germany
Jerzy Pokojski Warsaw University of Technology, Poland maybe? Sobolewski previously taught here; possible coworker/student?
John Cha Beijing Jiaotong University, China
John Mo RMIT University, Australia
Josip Stjepandic PROSTEP, AG, Germany
Kazuo Hiekata University of Tokyo, Japan
Mike Sobolewski TTU, Texas, USA YES, works w/ Kolonay && funds FIPRE/SORCER
Nel Wognum Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Parisa Ghodous University of Lyon, France
Rajkumar Roy Cranfield University, UK
Ricardo Goncalves UNINOVA, Portugal
Richard Curran Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands meh ... IOS Press recently bought out Delft University Press
Shuichi Fukuda Stanford University, USA
Shuo-Yan Chou Peking University, China

    • TBD

Kazumo#12 / Mwsobol#3

  1. url ==[predatory]
  2. title == "Unified Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages"


  1. url ==
  2. title == Max Berger's research (from Germany), a federated filesystem developed for SORCER


  1. author == M. Sobolewski
  2. editor == Anneke Kleppe
  3. chapter title == Chapter 3 "Languages and Mograms"
  4. book title == Software Language Engineering: Creating Domain-Specific Languages Using Metamodels


  1. url == ??
  2. title == ?? (won best-paper award)
  3. authors == Dan Kerrn, M.Sobolewski

Kazumo#13 (this is a wiki methinks?)

  1. url ==


  1. url ==
  2. author1 == Scott Burton, American Optimization, LLC; Manager Ph.D. AIAA SEnior Member
  3. author2 == Edward Alyanak, Air Force Research Laboratory; Project Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Senior Member
  4. author3 == Raymond Kolonay, Air Force Research Laboratory; Principal Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Associate Fellow
  5. abstract == describes SORCER's application in ESAV project

NAN LI x3 or x4 of Beijing

Shortname == N.Li 2008. journal paper (Kozamo#1)

  1. url == (in Chinese)
  2. authors == ZHANG Rui-hong, LI Nan, CHA Jian-zhong, LU Yi-ping (张瑞红; 李楠; 查建中; 陆一平).
  3. type of source == journal paper w/ keyword SORCER
  4. title == A collaborative engineering design environment based on SOA (基于SOA的工程协同设计环境).
  5. publisher == (Chinese) Journal of Hebei University of Technology, vol.37, no.4 (河北工业大学学报),
  6. date == April 2008 (2008年04期),
  7. pages == 5 (pp.40-44)

Shortname == N.Li 2009. PhD thesis (Kozamo#6)

  1. url ==
  2. authors == Li Nan (李楠).
  3. type of source == PhD Dissertation
  4. title == A design activity modelling method for distributed design resources integration (一种用于分布式设计资源集成的设计活动建模方法) ,
  5. publisher == Beijing Jiaotong University (北京交通大学)
  6. date == 2009-10-01
  7. pages == ??pgs??

Shortname == N.Li 2011_A. journal paper (Kozamo#3_A)

  1. url == ??website??
  2. authors == Nan Li; Bin Liu; Tao Feng
  3. type of source == conference paper w/ keyword SORCER
  4. title == A Loosely-Coupled Platform for Urban Traffic Strategic Noise Mapping,
  5. publisher == Proceedings of 2011 World Congress on Engineering and Technology, Vol. 07
  6. date == ??year?? (~2011)
  7. pages == ??pgs??

Shortname == N.Li 2011_B. journal paper (Kozamo#3_B)

  1. url ==
  2. authors == Wensheng Xu, Nan Li,
  3. type of source == conference paper w/ keyword SORCER
  4. title == A Loosely-Coupled Platform for Urban Traffic Strategic Noise Mapping,
  5. publisher == Proc 2012 Int'l Conf on IT & SW Engin — Lecture Notes in EE, Vol.211,
  6. date == 2013,
  7. pages == 8 (pp175-182)

Shortname == N.Li 2011_C. conference paper (Kozamo#9)

  1. url == ??website??
  2. authors == Nan Li
  3. type of source == conference paper w/ keyword SORCER
  4. title == Resources Integration and Binding in Distributed Collaborative Design Process.
  5. publisher == Proceedings of the First International Conference on Networking and Distributed Computing, Hangzhou, China
  6. date == 2011
  7. pages == ??pgs??

Shortname == ICDMA'11 aka N.Li 2011_D. Suggested as WP:RS to satisty WP:NOTE.

  1. url ==
  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. pages == 4 pages devoted (pg109-112) to this paper, 1402 pages total in the proceedings (two softcover volumes)
  6. 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.
  7. publisher#1 == 2011 Second International Conference on Digital Manufacturing and Automation (ICDMA)
  8. publisher#2 == TBD? (IEEE Press maybe?) (IEEE Press maybe?) IEEE – please take a look here: in the product description,another prove you can find here: (they are official publisher and also methinks the sponsor of the conference)
  9. 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.”:
  10. was publication fact-checked (or peer-reviewed) by ICDMA editorial-staff == Please see above
  11. was publication fact-checked (or peer-reviewed) by IEEE editorial-staff == Confirmation of peer review process by IEEE is described here: "conference papers ... undergo a thorough peer review process before acceptance for publication or presentation ... The reader or conference attendee is assured the research published is strong and credible."
  12. url of Proceedings of the ICDMA editorial/referee policy == Please see above
  13. is at least one publisher independent == YES not only one: IEEE, ICDMA
  14. 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
  15. conf_date == 5th-7th August 2011 (in Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China) ... published the same year
  16. doi ==
  17. isbn == 978-1-4577-0755-1 (print) , 978-0-7695-4455-7 (ebook)
  18. cited by == n/a ... "as provided in real-time from CrossRef™, Scopus™ and Web of Science™."

Shortname == N.Li 2012. journal paper (Kozamo#2)

  1. url == (in Chinese)
  2. authors == LI Nan, FENG Tao, LIU Bin1, LI Xian-hui, LIU Lei (李楠; 冯涛; 刘斌; 李贤徽; 刘磊).
  3. type of source == journal paper w/ keyword SORCER
  4. title == A distributed computing method for traffic noise mapping based on Service Object-Oriented Architecture (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).
  5. publisher == (Chinese) Journal of Computer Applications, vol.32, no.8 (计算机应用),
  6. date == August 2012 (2012年08期),
  7. pages == 4 (pp.2146-2149)

U.Cranfield in the UK

Shortname == Cranfield 2007. chapter (Beavercreekful#1)

  1. url ==
  2. chapter title == Evolutionary Computing within Grid Environment
  3. book title == Advances in Evolutionary Computing for System Design Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol.66
  4. date == 2007
  5. pages == pp 229-248
  6. publisher == Springer Verlag
  7. abstract == reviews SOA's including SORCER & FIPRE



  1. url ==
  2. title == Техас готов к сотрудничеству" (Texas is Accepting Research Collaboration)
  3. type of source == Russian weekly newspaper
  4. publisher == Вестник - Областная еженедельная газета
  5. details == in Ulyanovsk Russia, where the largest Russian air vehicles are designed and manufactured, also the home of the Ulyanovsk State University


  1. url ==
  2. title == "SORCER нам в помощь" (SORCER helps us)
  3. type of source == Russian weekly newspaper
  4. publisher == Вестник - Областная еженедельная газета
  5. date == June 7, 2013 (#19)
  6. details == in Ulyanovsk Russia, where the largest Russian air vehicles are designed and manufactured, also the home of the Ulyanovsk State University


  1. url ==
  2. title == В СГАУ выступал профессор Техасского университета
  3. publsher == полет N13􏰁14, 30 мая 2007 г. инновационная образовательная программа



  1. url ==
  2. title == "Service oriented computing environment for BCA"
  3. publisher == News Center for UESTC, China
  4. date == 2013-03-21


  1. url ==
  2. title == “SORCER and the Service-oriented Programming Model”


  1. url ==
  2. author == 著名计算机专家Michael Sobolewski教授来我院学术交流,
  3. date == 发布时间:2013-03-01 发布人: 浏览次数:823


  1. url ==
  2. author == Michael Sobolewski教授来我公司进行学术交流
  3. publisher == Tianyu Soft, China Industrial Application Software

PHD THESIS x4 (cf N.Li 2009 above)

Shortname == G.Goteng 2009. PhD thesis (Beavercreekful#2)

  1. url ==
  2. title == Development of a Grid Service for Multi-objective Design Optimisation
  3. type of source == PhD thesis
  4. author == Gokop Goteng
  5. abstract == lit review & industry survey ... of grid services ... (including SORCER)
  6. date == 2009
  7. publisher == Cranfield University (School of Applied Sciences)

Shortname == J.Yu 2010. PhD thesis (Kozamo#7)

  1. url ==
  2. authors == Yu Jiaqing (于加晴).
  3. type of source == PhD Dissertation
  4. title == Research on the design process reuse method based on decomposition (基于分解的设计过程重用方法研究) ,
  5. publisher == Beijing Jiaotong University (北京交通大学)
  6. date == 2011-06-01
  7. pages == ??pgs??

Shortname == L.Kong 2013. PhD thesis (Kozamo#8)

  1. url ==
  2. authors == Kong Lingjun (孔令军).
  3. type of source == PhD Dissertation
  4. title == Research on servitization method of design resources in the cloud manufacturing environment (云制造环境下的设计资源服务化方法研究) ,
  5. publisher == Beijing Jiaotong University (北京交通大学)
  6. date == 2013-06-01
  7. pages == ??pgs??

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

  1. url ==
  2. permalink ==
  3. title == Incorporation of Computational Fluid Dynamics into Flight Vehicle Preliminary Design
  4. author == Ernest D. Thompson
  5. thesis == Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
  6. publisher == University of Dayton and OhioLINK
  7. home == University of Dayton
  8. committee == Franklin E. Eastep PhD (CmteChair & DirectAdvisor), Jose A. Camberos PhD, Raymond M. Kolonay PhD, Ramana V. Grandhi PhD, Rolf Sondergaard PhD
  9. cmte homes == Prof Emeritus MechE&AeroE, AdjunctProf MechE&AeroE, AdjunctProf MechE&AeroE, DistinguishedProf Mech&MaterialsE Wright State, SeniorResearcher in TurbineBranch of AFRL PropulsionDirectorate
  10. also signed off by == John G. Weber PhD (AssociateDean for U.Dayton School of Engineering), Tony E. Saliba PhD (WilkeDistinguishedProf & Dean for U.Dayton School of Engineering)
  11. date == May 2012
  12. possible COI == Dayton is near Wright-Patterson AFB, the USAF facility where AFRL and SORCER are being created, Kolonay is adjunct prof @ dayton, director of MTSC @ afrl, and on thesis cmte. Grandhi supervised the WrightThesis, see above, but is prolly independent unless he get AFRL funding. Sondegaard works for AFRL, and is prolly an actual/potential enduser of SORCER for turbine-design. Seems pretty independent, by typically-insular academic standards, and as a PhD thesis, can be used with care.
  13. pages == 261 (content in 243 pages ... around 12 pages specifically about SORCER)
  14. subject == Aerospace Engineering (Air Vehicle Design)
  15. MLA == Thompson, Ernest. "Incorporation of Computational Fluid Dynamics into Flight Vehicle Preliminary Design." Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. University of Dayton, 2012. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. 25 Dec 2013.
  16. license == This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States (aka public domain... can quote long passages if we wish)
details of DaytonThesis w.r.t. SORCER/exertions/SOOA

abstract == Nonlinear, high fidelity aerodynamic analysis methods are considered computationally expensive and impractical for use in the preliminary design environment. In lieu of nonlinear methods, linear aerodynamic methods are utilized in the execution of design tasks because of their computational efficiency. Linear codes are considered accurate in low Mach number flight regimes where aerodynamics is generally linear but are not accurate in transonic flight regime due to the simplified assumptions that are required by such codes. This investigation demonstrates that nonlinear aerodynamic analysis methods are necessary when performing design tasks in the presence of nonlinear phenomena. To reduce the cost of using nonlinear aerodynamic analysis, the velocity transpiration boundary condition was employed to simulate surface deformations and control surface deflections. Observations showed velocity transpiration offers significant computational savings when compared to mesh motion enabled codes. To improve turnaround, a distributed computing framework wasadopted to distribute workload and information storage across a network. A comparative design study was carried out comparing linear and nonlinear analysis tools in design. A rectangular wing's structural mass was optimized to perform both a roll and pull-up maneuver while subjected to rolleffectiveness and skin stress constraints. At a subsonic design point, the linear and nonlinear tools produced similar designs. However, at a transonic design point, the tools produced significantly different designs. The addition of aerodynamic shape variables to the design space at the transonic design point led to a further enhanced design. The results of this study reaffirm the notion that nonlinear high-fidelity aerodynamic analysis methods must be utilized when designing vehicles that will operate in nonlinear regimes. Further, several methods were demonstrated that could reduce the cost of using nonlinear analysis methods.

SORCER-related technology is covered in reasonable depth: 3 pages in ch#4, 3 pages in ch#5, 6 pages in ap#G. which is a total of a dozen pages out of 243 pages of content, aka about 5% of the thesis. That said, sorcer played *the* key part, allowing the non-linear analysis to be computationally feasible. Exertions are mentioned on about 50% of those dozen pages (and are implicit in most of the rest of them), and services were mentioned in 80% of the dozen (and very implicit in all of them). Kolonay is on the thesis cmte, gets seven bibliography entries (out of 73 total aka ~10%), is credited as author of four SORCER-packages (plus helped write a bit of new code specifically for this thesis). Sobolewski is mentioned thrice: in the bibliography, as the creator of SORCER, plus credit for writing a few of the classes used in the thesis (perhaps specifically *for* this thesis project? unclear).

selected entries of the 73-entry bibliography.

  1. N. S. Khot, F. E. Eastep, and R. M. Kolonay. Method for Enhancement of the Rolling Maneuver of a Flexible Wing. Journal of Aircraft, 35(5):688{694, September-October 1998
  2. G. Anderson, R. Kolonay, and F. Eastep. Control-Surface Reversal in the Transonic Regime. Journal of Aircraft, 35(5):688{694, September-October 1998
  3. R. Kolonay and M. Dindar. Lockheed Martin 1999 Aeroelasticity Shared Vision Project Final Report. Technical report, General Electric Corporate Research and Development, 1999
  4. P. C. Chen, D. Sarhaddi, and D. D. Liu. Volume 4; ZAERO Theoretical Manual. Wright-Patterson Technical Report 3052, AFRL, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, February 1999
  5. R. Kolonay, M. Dindar, M. Love, and A. De La Garza. A Methodology of Large Scale Compuational Aeroelasticity For The MDA/MDO Environment. AIAA Paper 2000-4789, AIAA, 2000
  6. F. Eastep, G. Anderson, P. Beran, and R. Kolonay. Control Surface Reversal in the Transonic Flight Regime Including Viscous Effects. Journal of Aircraft, 38(4):653{663, Jul.-Aug. 2001
  7. Air Force Research Laboratory, WPAFB, OH. Air Vehicles Unstructured Solver User's Manual, January 2005
  8. Raymond M. Kolonay and Franklin E. Eastep. Optimal Scheduling of Control Surfaces on Flexible Wings to Reduce Induced Drag. Journal of Aircraft, 43(6):1655{1661, November-December 2006
  9. Ernest Thompson, Raymond Kolonay, Franklin Eastep, and Jose Camberos. Aeroelastic Analysis with Transpiration Enabled Euler Flow Solver. AIAA Paper 2007-2331, AIAA, April 2007. 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Waikii, Hawaii.
  10. Michael Sobolewski. Handbook On Business Information Systems, chapter Chaper 35 Object-Oriented Metacomputing with Exertions. World Scientific Publishing Co. Ore. Ltd., Toh Tuck Link, Singapore, 2010

Appendix G, on printed-page 230-245, is half-a-dozen pages explaining how SORCER works, what service-oriented means, and what exertions are. Recommended, and as pub-domain, we can reuse it if we like.

As for the aerospace-design portion of the thesis, SORCER is specifically covered in the chapters on efficient automated numerical optimization of the wing-shape during the design-phase, as well as in the conclusions (nonlinear optimization is made possible by the efficiency gains of SORCER's grid-computing network-parallelism... this is not especially helpful at Mach 0.50 speed, but it hands-down results in a better wing-design for transonic flight at Mach 0.89).

chapter four, distributed design optimization, printedPage73==pdfPage90 ...a grid-computing environment... Within SORCER the numerical optimizer and the aeroelastic solvers were exposed as services on a network. SORCER reduced the computational expense of using nonlinear aerodynamic analysis method within the preliminary design environment by allowing the computational workload to be distributed across a network of computers. SORCER allowed for multiple copies of services to be available for use when executing a design study. This effectively reduced the computational expense of using a nonlinear aerodynamic method in the preliminary design environment.

chapter four, distributed design optimization, printedPage75&76==pdfPage92&93 The numerical optimization code utilized in this investigation was Design Optimization Tools (DOT). It is developed and maintained by Vanderplaats R&D Inc. The strategy used to solve the optimization problem was constructed within SORCER. ...the code determines ... if [automated] design investigation has converged and if an optimal [wing] design has been discovered.

chapter five, conclusions, printedPage111&112==pdfPage128&129

The last set of tasks performed in this investigation involved executing the transpiration enabled aeroelastic solver in the performance of preliminary design tasks. To further improve the computational effciency of the transpiration enabled nonlinear aeroelastic solver, a preliminary design environment was constructed in SORCER. SORCER grid-computing capabilities allowed for design problems to scale across the computation resources available on a network of computers. In the execution of multidisciplinary design optimization studies, the velocity transpiration enabled computational aeroelastic solver proved quite serviceable. The solver generated optimal structural designs at a subsonic design point of Mach 0.50 and transonic design point of Mach 0.89.

The designs developed using the [SORCER-based] nonlinear aerodynamic method compared to design produced using [traditional] linear aerodynamics. At subsonic design point [Mach 0.50] the optimal designs produced by the linear and nonlinear methods were very similar there was only 14.69 slugs difference in structural mass. However, at transonic design point [Mach 0.89] the structural design were very different. The design generated using the linear aerodynamic method did not properly account for the presence of a shock wave... ...proof that linear design tools produced completely different designs than nonlinear tools in a nonlinear flight regime. ... If a designer chose to use the design obtained using linear aerodynamic analysis methods as the basis of a detailed design or prototype, the end result could be a costly redesign of the structure because the design failed to account shock wave effects.

Through the performance of the design optimization study portion of this investigation, it was demonstrated how distributed computing can be used to accelerate computational analysis through coarse parallelization of computational effort. Analysis tools were deployed across a network of computers as services. Information was transported from analysis service to analysis service via web servers, network proxies. Data was passed within service context data structures. SORCER's framework allowed for analysis tasks to be executed concurrently or sequentially depending [on] data dependencies. The design process was accelerated through the exploitation of this parallelism. A unique aspect of this work was the fact that the optimization design strategy was implemented within the design framework. One programs the network as oppose to programming individual computer systems. The framework calculated exact sensitivities via finite difference directly, selecting the appropriate network services to dynamically compute a gradient or function evaluations. The framework permitted some failure recovery in the analysis. Code was implemented to check for corrupt output. Intermediate results were archived in Java objects.

Through execution of this investigation several ideas could be implemented to improve computational efficiency of nonlinear CFD [computational fluid dynamics] in the preliminary design environment.

page113... paraphrasing: explains how greater performance could be achieved, by rewriting the CFD and CSD apps (computational fluid & structural dynamics) to be more granular, which would permit SORCER to expose subcomponents thereof as services in a parallelized pipeline (finer-grained parallelism rather than the coarse-grained parallelism actually used in the thesis project)

page113, quoting: SORCER could offer a computation advantage over the conventional analysis codes... for very large problems SORCER may offer computational advantage over the message-passing interface currently used by the CFD solver to parallelize analysis effort.


Shortname == A.Liu 2010. master's thesis (Kozamo#4)

  1. url ==
  2. authors == Liu Anjun (刘安军).
  3. type of source == Master's Dissertation
  4. title == Research on encapsulation method of finite element analysis service in Concurrent Engineering (并行工程中基于SOA的有限元分析服务封装技术研究),
  5. publisher == Beijing Jiaotong University (北京交通大学)
  6. date == 2010-06-01
  7. pages == ??pgs??

Shortname == W.Wang 2011. master's thesis (Kozamo#5)

  1. url ==
  2. authors == Wang Wei (王伟).
  3. type of source == Master's Dissertation
  4. title == Research of testing process modelling and management of weapon equipment systems (武器装备系统测试过程建模与管理系统研究),
  5. publisher == Beijing Jiaotong University (北京交通大学)
  6. date == 2011-05-26
  7. pages == ??pgs??

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

  1. overview_url ==
  2. fulltext_URL ==,attachment
  3. possible COI == Wright State is next door to Wright-Patterson AFB, the USAF facility where AFRL and SORCER are being created (some of the thesis-committee is possibly WP:COI ... student may work there now). Grandhi is a prof at Wright (both theses), Kolonay is dir of AFRL (both theses), Taylor is TBD.
  4. To use a PhD thesis as a wikiReliable_Source, the committee which reviews the thesis must be independent...
  5. ...and ideally, the published thesis itself must be widely cited.
  6. Is this the case at Wright State? Is this the case at U.Dayton? Please advise.
  7. Interestingly, although this is Master's rather than PhD, there was a committee of three (not just the one advisor); the Dayton thesis had a cmte of five.
  8. author == Karkada Nagesha Aithala
  9. title == A Collaborative Computational Framework for Multidisciplinary and Reliability-based Analysis and Optimization Using SORCER
  10. pages == 85 (content in 62 pages ... 30 pages specifically about SORCER)
  11. date == Finalized 16 Sept 2011
  12. field == Mechanical Engineering (also AeroE & CompE & CompSci)
  13. signed off by == Ramana V. Grandhi PhD (thesis director aka advisor), George P. G. Huang PhD (Mech&MaterialsE Chair), Andrew T. Hsu PhD (School of Graduate Studies Dean)
  14. final examination cmte == Ramana V. Grandhi PhD (see above), Raymond M. Kolonay PhD (AFRL), Ronald F. Taylor PhD (TBD?)


Shortname == NIST

  1. funding agency == NIST/ATP (USD$21M)
  2. title == FIPER project
  3. universities == Ohio + Stanford
  4. corporations == GE (GE GRC && GE Aviation) + BFGoodrich + Parker Hannifin + Ohio Aerospace Institute + Engineous Software

Shortname == USAF

Shortname == NSFC 2012. quad-year R&D grant (Kozamo#10)

  1. url == ??website??
  2. authors == (potentially... Kozamo et al.)
  3. type of source == (classified? TBD? high-speed-railway equipment)
  4. title == Research on manufacturing resource integration and coordination management based on SOOA in cloud manufacturing environment
  5. publisher == National Science Foundation of China project#51175033 (NSFC)
  6. date == 2012/2013/2014/2015
  7. pages == ??pgs??

Shortname == Ulanyovsk(sp) rumours

updated/answered by Pawelpacewicz (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Commentary goes here. Please specify the shortname of the source you are commenting about. (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. (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So my answers You have above (sorry for delay but I'm doing this after hours). Except that You have proves for notability and proper sourcing which I mentioned before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER. I would like to get your opinion regarding notablity and sourcing on both (answers above and proves on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER) Pawelpacewicz (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks much, very useful. I have looked over the first set of links you provided. iosPress#1 is a paper by Kolonay, and iosPress#2 is a paper by Sobolewski/Burton/Kolonay; both papers were presented at the same conference, September 2013. Peer-reviewers (and proceedings-editors) look independent, iosPress looks legit. ICDMSA, peer-review looks legit. DaytonThesis, peer-review looks pretty legit, although use of thesis-cmte as peer-reviewers requires extreme care; (Master's thesis from Wright is helpful evidence — especially since it too had a thesis cmte! — but not a standalone source for wikiNotability). In any case, given this analysis, plus the papers in Chinese helpfully provided by Kazumo, plus the other peer-reviewed papers on Prof Sobolewski's website, not to mention the known-to-exist but not available without a security clearance internal papers published as part of classified military efforts, I'm reasonably convinced SORCER is wikiNotable.
  Please keep adding additional sources to the listing here; they need not be as heavily detailed, but an indication of whether they were peer-reviewed aka refereed is key, and if so, by whom exactly. Pawelpacewicz's efforts are exemplary; feel free to be a bit more sloppy than that, if you like.  :-)   Besides the question of sourcing, there is still the question of translating the advanced concepts into something the everyday readership of the encyclopedia can have a shot at understanding, and in particular, that the 10th grade HTML & JS hotshot might get their brain around. Martin and myself and Tim are trying to achieve service-oriented-zen. Keep up the good work folks, thanks for improving wikipedia. (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  Hello 74 . Thank You for your answers. I appreciate all your great efforts You did. Looks like we are in line :-). As You suggested I would like to go to next steps – improving article according to all suggestions collected here. Looks like it’s big work so before I’ll start this I would like to check with You how we can work on issues listed on top of main SORCER article (looks like some of them we can remove). Could You please advise? Pawelpacewicz (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You wil be able to remove them once you have worked on them and solved them. I suggest you approach this one item at a time. An example might be to simplify the wording. After it is simplified then you can consider whether the aspects about intricate detail have been solved. However, you also need to consider WP:N first and foremost. Has this been established beyond any doubt? If so then go ahead and work on the remainder. If not then you are simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The challenge is that you are not in the best position to make this judgment because this article is close to your heart, so you would be wisest to leave that to others. The article remains vulnerable to deletion because of this one issue. All else is window dressing. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Truth be told, I have not looked at the article in mainspace or AfC for a couple of weeks.  :-)   So I have no good advice on that at present, but Tim/FiddleFaddle speaks truthfully, first things first. The long list we have is pretty impressive, but somebody besides 74 and Pawelpacewicz will need to give it a lookover. Somebody with a lot of experience, and with a strong sense of where the fine line of not-yet-WP:42 versus definitely-bulletproof-WP:42 lies. We should start with Tim/FiddleFaddle, who satisfies those qualities. Tim, the summary of the list is basically....
  1. DoD, the multiyear multi-million-dollar supergrants by the USAF+NIST and NSFChina (plus hints of Ulyanovsk) ... and the classified weaponized-aerospace work these indicate. Such work is not useful as RS now, today, because WP:V demands the info be *published* aka available to the public... and wikiLeaks doesn't count as RS methinks... or does it? Hmmmm. Point is, this stuffwill be declassified someday. And it exists now, today. We cannot *use* it today, for sourcing the article, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend this set of classified sources, published-yet-top-secret, doesn't exist — when evaluating the public sources below, it can lend some perspective to what they don't say.
  2. UK, the 2007 U.Cranfield lit-review & industry-survey (a solid secondary source), plus the 2009 G.Goteng PhD from same place. WP:SOURCES sez, "academic peer-reviewed pub's are usu the most RS". WP:SCHOLARSHIP sez, "PhD [theses]...can be used but care should be exercised".
  3. RU, the 2007/YYYY/2013 newspaper articles in Russian (I've asked somebody who "can read a few words of Russian" to give us rough assessment of depth... anybody amongst us here know Cyrillic?)
  4. ZH, the 2010 PhD and 3+ peer-reviewed journal articles by Nan Li (most of the work in Chinese but that is no hindrance to wikiNotability though it is a barrier to gauging depth... Clover1991 of DUROMAC fame has offered to help us with translating the mandarin if kazumo is busy), plus the 2011 and 2013 Beijing Jiaotong University PhD (students of Nan methinks?); *maybe* the ZH edu-news section; additional evidence, tho not themselves RS, are the two Master's theses. Again WP:SOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP
  5. US, the 2013 iosPress/AFRL papers (peer-reviewed by the 20 members of the conf-board and the 3 members of the editorial-subset which were mostly Aussies), plus the 2012 DaytonThesis PhD (which has a public-domain chapter on SORCER beginning on page 230... decent tone... might be the best place to start on the rewrite of mainspace?); additional evidence, tho not itself RS, is the WrightState Master's. SorcerDotCom in Poland, and SorcerSoftDotOrg at TTU in Texas, are the entities directly responsible for SORCER; the USAF and WPAFB are funding Prof.Sobolewski, U.Dayton, WrightSt.U, and various other stuff via the MSTC/AFRL folks in Ohio.
Meanwhile, as Tim and ScopeCreep and TRPoD and Garamond and others are analyzing whether this list of sources is bulletproof wikiNotability, safe from all future deletion-attempts, Pawelpacewicz and Martijn and myself can try to start working onWP:TONE, and on clearly explaining the meaning of SORCER/nsh/exertions/mograms/SODA/COLA/PEPSI/7UP/etc to the readership. Presumably WP:PEACOCK is no longer an issue in mainspace, Tim? Anyhoo, I suggest we take it one paragraph at a time, starting at the top of the article in mainspace, and going down through the bottom; we can use the talkpage for rough drafts, Pawelpacewicz, where you and me and Martijn can make mistakes more freely.  :-)   Danke, folks. (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I will be unable to give this any attention myself until quite some time into the future, so please do not wait for me. I am also certain that I have contributed to this discussion rather more often than certainly the initial Sorcerors find pleasant. My skill is in seeing that something is required here, but the hostility provoked by my initial forays seems to me to disqualify me at the micro level this task needs. I can still make a decent contribution at macro level, though.
If you believe that a headline issue has been solved, state that it has and remove the item. I do not easily see how COI can be removed as an issue, though.
Mograming (etc) is harder. I think you may state that it is a new word and define it within the parameters of the project, but it is a most definite neologism, and it, itself, is unlikely to be notable for quite a while. My view is that it is unwise to pepper the article full of such neologisms. Fiddle Faddle 14:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, this talk page is so convoluted and complex that it is extraordinarily hard to work out what is and is not germane to the precise arguments which seek to show and verify that the thing is notable . Fiddle Faddle 15:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. I'm thinking of pulling out WP:IAR, and archiving the whole shebang, and then pasting just the up-to-date-and-relevant-as-of-2013-12-28 pieces into the clean slate. Pawelpacewicz, does that sound useful to you? The current contents will be permanently visible in Talk:SORCER/Archive 1 or something like that. 15:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
support the mass archive and fresh start. there is nothing here that would help a newcomer.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I concur. May I suggest uncollapsing after archival, too, please. On the cleared out talk page please may we confine ourselves to WP:N and WP:V, and knock those on the head. Once they are out of the way the article will either be deleted as not notable, or confirmed by those who care to make this confirmation here that it is notable. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that, because they initially perceived you as their wiki-tormentor (not your fault... not their fault... just the wikiCulture gap), mostly due to our byzantine system of five bazillion confusing RULZ, you personally areexactly the pseudonym whom Pawelpacewicz and Mwsobol and PRubach and Kazumo and Beavercreekful and 132 and the others would like to see 100% convinced of SORCER's wikiNotability being bulletproof.  :-)   That said, WP:DEADLINE and WP:REQUIREDapply, as always. No hurry; Pawelpacewicz and myself will keep occupied working on the prose, in the meanwhile.
  I've started a section about 'paragraph one' with a suggested rewrite, below. (Waaaaaay below... lotta content on this talkpage!  ;-)    But yes, I'm quite convinced that SORCER is wikiNotable, and also that SORCER is the best choice for the main article; exertion-oriented programming will be a subsection of SORCER, and mogramming will be a couple sentences in that subsection, methinks. That could change, if other implementations of the exertion-oriented-concept were to arise, but as of 2013 all implementations are variations on the FIPER/SORCER codebase.
  The jargon-issue is tricksy. Because the academic literature depends on the neologisms, we need to give some explanation of them, so "further reading" will make sense to any adventurous computer-science-grad-student folks amongst our readership. Perhaps using wiktionary ... attestation of "mogramming" in the wild certainly exists, prolly enough to satisfy their weak standards (which include blogs and listservs and such things). But we also have to think about the everyday readership of another category; for the non-CS-grad-student readership of the encyclopedia, we need to use existing terminology and existing programming-system-analogies as much as possible, so that the hypothetical 10th grade Intro-to-Computing student has a shot at writing up a term paper on SORCER which makes sense.
  p.s. Oh sure, there will always be the COI-tag at the top of this talkpage here, with the usernames of folks that are inherently too close to SORCER to be able to stay neutral in their mainspace edits. But once we've explained Jimbo's groovy bright-line-rule, where discussions happen on the talkpage where COI is not problematic, and then somebody neutral like Fiddle or 74 eyeballs the suggested rewrite for NPOV prior to shoving it into mainspace, methinks the COI snark-tag in mainspacecan be removed, one day. It will involve rewriting mainspace paragraph by paraphaph... but that is pretty much required anyways, to leech out any leftover tone-issues, and solve the problem of translating advanced concepts into tenth-grade-level explanations. So there is hope.  :-) (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
With the neologisms, may I suggest a special reference group named, perhaps neologism where a correct textual explanation is given , but in layman's language. I am sure I've explained this style of scheme to you before, but I only now see the application in this manner. One may have multiple names reference groups in an article. The only caveat is that the associated {{Reflist}}must come after the final instance on the page. Thus one may also have a group named note, another named Dr Pepper, and so forth. Fiddle Faddle 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability, Sourcing and Article Quality

I agree with Fiddle Faddleon a lot of points here and the Afd, but even though the product may be notable, it's not out the woods yet as regarding a future Afd nomination. The quality of the article as it stand's now is severe. It needs to be reference quality to survive. As the moment, it really does read like a hoax article. The product is similar in design to something like GigaSpaces Cloudify product, but for milatary use, rather than commercial applications, but the article reads as though it's state of the art but neither explains why it's important, nor how it works.

Adding to Fiddle Faddleinitial list

  • mograms, mogramming - a new term (invented by you), which violates WP:OR. The UML? model is translated down to code, so it's just code with a service manifest. You need to explain that correctly, and get rid of mograms, mogramming. It's not cited anywhere in the firmament, except by yourself, which means it's not acceptable within WP.
  • No links to Java, Service (systems architecture),Service-oriented architecture,Service layer and other important links.
  • SORCER is the first platform that created front-end service-oriented mogramming (programming or modeling or both) as the key element of its federated service orientation. (Where is the citation for this?)
  • Exertions Why? Not programs, applications, services? You need to explain why it was called that. I think it's the same as mogramming, re who is citing it generally, and if it's only you, it will not be acceptable.
  • SORCER is the first system enabling front-end service-oriented programming with the relevant operating system and dynamic back-end service federations as its virtual processor. That's neat, but don't know if it's true. I think Gigaspaces has a similar mechanism. You will certainly need a citation for this, other wise it's a false assertion, and will need to go.
  • The rest of the unexplained, non linked article content like Providers use discovery/join protocols to publish services in the network and the SOS uses discovery/join protocols to discover registries and lookup proxies in those registries. What providers? What discovery/join protocols, etc etc etc.

Lastly, it's written more as a reference manual, and currently doesn't make sense, lacks context and flow. The whole product seems to be built using Java, so how is it different from you average Java EE application server, like Weblogic or WebSphere.

Sorry the criticism is so heavy. I knows your trying your best.

scope_creep talk17:31 12 Dec 2013 (UTC)

I concur. By the way, I think it was 74's list, but I concur with 74 also. The ladies and gentlemen of SORCER are used to robust criticisms, for they work in a peer reviewed environment. They both deliver criticism and receive it. Be unafraid to criticise.
I know I am incompetent to show this topic to be notable. The converse is not true, an apparent paradox until one looks at Wikipedia's rules about referencing and sources. I will restate that I only care about the article, not about the topic and not about any personal issues with those whop wish to establish the notability.
If it is provably notable (as opposed to 'new', 'exciting', 'revolutionary', or other adjectives that go with an emerging thing) then it must be here. No argument against that is possible. If not, then it must go until it becomes notable. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here. I am a former student of Dr. Sobolewski. Guys, how do you want to contribute to Wikipedia having almost zero knowledge in computer science/software engineering. Mogram/mogramming is a very know term in computer science, please read Chapter 3 "Languages and Mograms", Software Language Engineering: Creating Domain-Specific Languages Using Metamodels, Anneke Kleppe and excellent paper:[predatory] 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:, 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. (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It is nothing to do with whether anyone here understands the topic or not. It is all, all, to do with being able to show inWP:RS that the topic is notable. Learned papers need to be assessed to determine whether they are primary sources or not. Primary sources do not make for notability. Wikipedia has never been concerned with truth, simply with verified notability. The only battle here is notability, and that is the same battle for all topics here. That is neither winnable nor losable. It is just a fact. If it is notable it makes the cut, if not, then not.
So, let me ask you: If this is notable, why are there no articles in specialist computer media about it?
The are by no means the only arbiter of notability, but the computer press does tend to pick up on anything new, significant, emerging, notable. Where are they? Why are these conference papers not being reported on by mainstream media? Most topics that are notable are being.
Then I ask why those involved with Dr. Sobolewski so ardent in springing to promote his work?
Why not create an article on Dr. Sobolewski? He must, himself, be notable? His work seems to attract so much attention. Or is this about promotion? Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many SORCER keynote presentations, papers in journals, conference proceeding, and applications. They are reviewed by best experts in the area so highly recognized. Not everything highly recognized has to be popular, in the main stream. The fact that SORCER is a system for complex adaptive systems, for example used to design the next generation of air vehicles (AFRL) does not mean has to be applied for online system to sell/buy books or toilet paper. Just simple web services (WebLogic, WebSphere) are sufficient, however with web service you cannot design advanced air vehicles. It is similar to the discussion above: program vs. mogram; you have to understand the concepts.
The above also sounds like a personal attack. My colleague Dan Kerrn received the best paper award for his paper written with Dr. Sobolewski. He decided to make an entry for Dr. Sobolewski in Wikipedia, however Dr. Sobolewski asked him to remove it arguing that his entry in Who’s Who in America is sufficient. So, do not assume that everyone wants to be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
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? (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-rulewhen necessary), and of course being WP:NICE. This can all be explained, the folks here are smart, and acting in good faith, trying to improve the encyclopedia. It may take a couple months before all interested parties are satisfied, but hey, as I said,WP:DEADLINE applies. Or if you prefer, keep calm and carry on.  :-) (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)

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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 Kozamo (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kozamo, great work. Can you understand the dialect? Are these in Mandarin, there is a person I know on-wiki who understands that. The key question is, are these peer-reviewed aka referee-reviewed publications? Or perhaps, they are published in news-oriented journalism-style, and the contents were fact-checked by professional editorial board? One or the other, is what we need, for proving wikiNotability. Thanks for your help.
  p.s. Mogramming, exertions, and other jargon are just that: jargon. They *may* have a place in wikipedia, like VGAor SQL or extreme programming. But are you saying that mogramming is as well known as those things? Wikipedia is the place for things which have, in the outside world, already proven themselves... by getting noticed in peer-reviewed or fact-checked publications, independent from the originators. It is not an attack, that we want evidence for such things; it is *how* wikipedia became trusted, and how it remains trusted. The bar is high, and getting over the bar can only be accomplished by external independent publications. Wikipedian editors, and their mad haxor ski11z, cannot sway the discussion one way or the other. If mogramming is already a WP:NOTEWORTHY term, today, then it will exist already in a fact-checked and/or peer-reviewed publication. If not, then wait until it is, to use it in the article. Hope this helps. (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi "", 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 ( , 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.

   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)

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.

  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)

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 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

  Liu Anjun. Research on encapsulation method of finite element analysis service in Concurrent Engineering. Master Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2010-06-01

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

   Wang Wei. Research of testing process modelling and management of weapon equipment systems. Master Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2011-05-26

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

  Li Nan. A design activity modelling method for distributed design resources integration. PhD Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2009-10-01

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

   Yu Jiaqing. Research on the design process reuse method based on decomposition. PhD Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2011-06-01

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

  Kong Lingjun. Research on servitization method of design resources in the cloud manufacturing environment. PhD Dissertation of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2013-06-01

I searched also the Chinese journals database: 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)

I have added these sources to the big list, see above. They look very useful, thanks. (talk) 02:41, 29 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?


Step 1

Notability must be established. Primary sources do not do that however many are applied to the article, onlyreliable 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 ( 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 Faddle17:15, 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 fordaring 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. — (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
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
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
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
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" ( Then the same topic merged with the computer science perspective: "Parametric Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages" (, and finally only computer science perspective: "Unified Mogramming with Var-Oriented Modeling and Exertion-Oriented Programming Languages" ([predatory]). 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 ( 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,, 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 ( 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 textverifiable. 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. (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 stillmay 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. 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 ( 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 in USA and obviously is different from 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:
8. International collaborative research projects: SORCER Lab with Russian and Chinese universities
9. Commercializer of SORCER interactive tools:
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 which appears to speak of SOCER not SORCER?
Ref currently at 5 is 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) (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)

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"
China: “SORCER and the Service-oriented Programming Model”

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

Tianyu Soft, China Industrial Application Software

Michael Sobolewski教授来我公司进行学术交流 Beavercreekful (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

В СГАУ выступал профессор Техасского университета 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
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
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)
Sounds close... with the important exception that the "backend" might actually be running on the local system, ditto for some of the "services". Typically, though, the services are coarse-grained (process-level as opposed to function-call-level) and spread out across the LAN. There might be a locally-installed-service (defined via a locally-programmed exertion-script) that does some post processing on the 'final' result, though. Kinda make sense? (talk) 15:27, 29 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. (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)

todo list

Here are the snark-spams at the top of the article today.

  1. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (December 2013)
  2. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (December 2013)
  3. This article possibly contains original research. (December 2013)
  4. This article relies on references to primary sources. (December 2013)
  5. This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (December 2013)
  6. This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (December 2013)

Pretty long list.  :-)   There are actually just two basic issues. WP:RS to prove wikiNotability, which is being covered above. WP:TONE, too much jargon, and gotta stay neutral. As we go through the paragraphs, we can start to solve tag#6 and tag#5. (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

paragraph one

  1. SORCER (Service ORiented Computing EnviRonment), sometimes written as SOCER,
  2. is a cloud-based computing platform
  3. that integrates applications such as engineering systems in large complex IT environments.
  4. It is a follow up to the FIPER project
  5. which was funded by the National Institute of Standards and Technology Advanced Technology Program.
  6. The SORCER program was led by Michael Sobolewski at Texas Tech University[1] through 2009.
  7. In 2010, the project spun off into an independent organization with a goal of providing an open source platform.[2]

Rewrite attempt. See WP:Footnotes#Footnotes:_predefined_groups for the 'efn' squiggly-syntax.

  1. SORCER[a]
  2. is a cloud-based grid computing platform (typically using Java to write network-shell-scripts called exertions which implement location-agnostic web services).
  3. SORCER's grid-computing capability is primarily used to speed up computerized analysis of aerospace simulations and traffic noise, as of 2013.
  4. SORCER's predecessor was called FIPER, which was software for a GE aircraft-engine-design project
  5. funded from 1999-2003 by NIST's ATP.[b]
  6. SORCER Labs was founded in November 2002 at TTU;
  7. in 2010, SORCER Labs became a spin-off organization, funded primarily by the USAF's AFRL[c], and the source code was partially opened.
  8. SORCER (and FIPER) were invented primarily by Professor Mike Sobolewski; his work from 1994-2002 at GE, then at TTU through 2009, and since then at AFRL, mirrors SORCER's history.
  9. Other groups using SORCER include Beijing Jiaotong University in China, Cranfield University in the United Kingdom, andUlyanovsk State University in Russia.


  1. ^ SORCER derives from "Service ORiented Computing EnviRonment", written as SOCER in some early sources.
  2. ^ Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  3. ^ Air Force Research Labof Ohio's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base funded by the United States Air Force, especially the MSTC Directorate under Raymond Kolonay.

Anybody else like this version better? (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ D. Richard Hipp (presenter) (May 31, 2006). An Introduction to SQLite (video). Google Inc. Event occurs at 00:01:14. Retrieved March 23, 2010. [...] ess-kju-ellite [...] 
  2. ^ D. Richard Hipp (presenter) (May 31, 2006). An Introduction to SQLite. Google Inc. Event occurs at 00:48:15. Retrieved March 23, 2010. [...] sequelite [...] 
  3. ^ "Most Widely Deployed SQL Database Estimates". Retrieved May 11, 2011. 
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference license was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "The source code for SQLite is in the public domain". Retrieved May 11, 2011.