search

JuliaCon / proceedings-review

7 stars 1 forks source link

[REVIEW]: Differential geometric algebra using Leibniz, Grassmann #18

Closed whedon closed 4 years ago

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@chakravala<!--end-author-handle-- (Michael Reed) Repository: https://github.com/chakravala/Grassmann.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: Editor: !--editor-->@matbesancon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @eschnett, @snoeyink Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/17bff9097fc61aa1fd11aee4dae835b8"><img src="https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/17bff9097fc61aa1fd11aee4dae835b8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/17bff9097fc61aa1fd11aee4dae835b8/status.svg)](https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/17bff9097fc61aa1fd11aee4dae835b8)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@eschnett & @snoeyink, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://proceedings.juliacon.org/guide/reviewers. Any questions/concerns please let @matbesancon know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @eschnett

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Paper format

Content

Review checklist for @snoeyink

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Paper format

Content

whedon commented 5 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @eschnett, @snoeyink it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands
whedon commented 5 years ago 
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
whedon commented 5 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #18 with the following error:

rm: cannot remove '*.aux': No such file or directory Latexmk: This is Latexmk, John Collins, 17 Jan. 2018, version: 4.55. Rule 'pdflatex': Rules & subrules not known to be previously run: pdflatex Rule 'pdflatex': The following rules & subrules became out-of-date: 'pdflatex'

Run number 1 of rule 'pdflatex'

Running 'pdflatex -recorder "paper.tex"'

===========Latexmk: Missing input file: 'dirtytalk.sty' from line '! LaTeX Error: File dirtytalk.sty' not found.' Latexmk: Missing input file: 'dirtytalk.sty' from line '! LaTeX Error: Filedirtytalk.sty' not found.' Failure to make 'paper.pdf' Collected error summary (may duplicate other messages): pdflatex: Command for 'pdflatex' gave return code 1 Refer to 'paper.log' for details Looks like we failed to compile the PDF

matbesancon commented 5 years ago

@chakravala there are still issues in the paper folder

eschnett commented 5 years ago

@chakravala I used lualatex and bibtex to format the paper. There are problems with the references:

eschnett commented 5 years ago

@chakravala The manuscript itself is very interesting, although I haven't read it in detail yet. However, I notice that it is quite technical and doesn't fit with the target audience at JuliaCon. At least, an introduction to geometric algebra is missing, and a description why Julia is a good implementation language. It seems to me that mentioning the geometric aspects (rotations, reflections) and the connection to computer visualization in the introduction might go well with the Julia crowd.

I also notice that the paper is quite terse. For the record: neither the reviewer nor the author instructions contain a page limit.

chakravala commented 5 years ago

there are still issues in the paper folder

bibtex outputs an error message about commas in the author list

I will have a look at resolving that

Grassmann didn't publish in 2000

The translation from the AMS was published in 2000

neither the reviewer nor the author instructions contain a page limit.

@eschnett I thought there was a limit for 6 pages, so I had to leave out details I would otherwise want to include, can you confirm that the paper can really be longer than 6 pages?

Is it possible to make the paper 1-column, or should I convert to 2-columns?

snoeyink commented 5 years ago

I've created an issue and uploaded an annotated pdf in: https://github.com/chakravala/Grassmann.jl/issues/29

This paper is a description of Grassmann.jl and its supporting packages, which are appear quite impressive and extensive. Unfortunately, it assumes extensive knowledge of terminology and notation from the reader, without ever defining what that reader should know, whose notations they should be familiar with, and what that reader can expect to gain from reading.

vchuravy commented 5 years ago

can you confirm that the paper can really be longer than 6 pages?

Yes a paper can be longer than 6 pages, we do not have an explicit page-limit but we expect most papers to be 6-8 pages, longer if necessary.

matbesancon commented 5 years ago

ping @chakravala, could you make the modifications following the reviewers' comments?

chakravala commented 5 years ago

@matbesancon yes, I will finish it up, I have been traveling for the past month, but just got back and am going to finish this up within the next days.

matbesancon commented 5 years ago

ping @chakravala to continue here

chakravala commented 5 years ago

is it too late to finish submitting this paper?

the main problem is, with the 2 columns I can't fit my big equations into the page.. is there a way to split an equation across both columns?

matbesancon commented 5 years ago

no it's fine but it would be nice to finish up soon.

the main problem is, with the 2 columns I can't fit my big equations into the page.. is there a way to split an equation across both columns?

Not sure it's possible, I'll try to find something, in the mean time it would be best to split your equations

chakravala commented 5 years ago

unfortunately, the juliacon document class does not seem to function properly. in the example document it is claimed that there are definition, example, remark environments, however when I try to compile my document they cause compilation errors. is this going to be fixed in the juliacon class?

matbesancon commented 5 years ago

@chakravala indeed the names of the environments are incorrect, you can check them out in the cls file:

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{strategy}{Strategy}
\newtheorem{property}{Property}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{exam}{Example}
\newenvironment{example}{\italicenvfalse\begin{exam}}{\end{exam}\italicenvtrue}
\newtheorem{defi}[theorem]{Definition}
chakravala commented 5 years ago

@matbesancon this is what I needed to change to make it work https://github.com/chakravala/Grassmann.jl/commit/347fb907c0dd289d57c0c1ceb78a31a133be1402

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{strategy}{Strategy}
\newtheorem{property}{Property}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{exam}{Example}
\newenvironment{example}{\begin{exam}}{\end{exam}}
\newtheorem{defi}[theorem]{Definition}
\newenvironment{definition}{\begin{defi}}{\end{defi}}
\newtheorem{rem}{Remark}
\newenvironment{remark}{\begin{rem}}{\end{rem}}

the italicenv stuff didn't work at all

draft is updated, all equations now fit into 4 pages, will post another update soon

chakravala commented 5 years ago

Hi folks, sorry about being a bit late with my paper.

I have now implemented the finalizing feature for the differential geometric algebra, which will allow me to add more explicit and concrete examples with visualization into the paper.

Please be a little more patient, it should only take about 1 more week to wrap up this review, as it is only a matter of sorting out the some details for the examples.

matbesancon commented 5 years ago

this is what I needed to change to make it work chakravala/Grassmann.jl@347fb90

I think you can introduce that in the paper and not in the cls file

chakravala commented 5 years ago

No, the cls file had to be edited because otherwise it causes a compilation error, specifically italicenv causes the compilation error and must be removed from the cls. I can move the extra definitions to the main paper, but the cls filed needs to have the italicenv part removed.

matbesancon commented 5 years ago

You should not change the cls overall, if the italicenv doesn't work there is an incompatible part in the paper

chakravala commented 5 years ago

I have committed the final draft for my JuliaCon paper, here is a PDF download of it

DropBox

matbesancon commented 5 years ago

Hi, the paper really need to be built with the same environment to be accepted for the proceedings of the JuliaCon, it basically ensures the layout and the tooling will work for all papers we publish

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon withdraw

whedon commented 4 years ago

Paper withdrawn.

chakravala commented 4 years ago

Why is it being with drawn?

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

I withdrew your paper since you did not reply to https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review/issues/18#issuecomment-550494959 without the paper in the right format it is impossible for us to proceed.

chakravala commented 4 years ago

Well, I prepared everything, except that I needed to modify the cls file a bit.

What am I supposed to do to address the issue? I submitted everything, the paper compiles fine.

I would like to have this published.

chakravala commented 4 years ago

Would be a bit lame if you cancel my paper, only because you can't be bothered to deal with the 3 lines of code I modified in the template in order to make my paper compile.

matbesancon commented 4 years ago

to come back to the issue of publishing it, we can't let you modify the template, because we only provide it to authors in order to be able to build locally and not rely on pushing changes to a github repo. This means modifying the template creates an out-of-sync with the actual template we used, and we need to keep papers standardized.

The way forward is to take the TeX and CLS template from https://github.com/JuliaCon/JuliaConSubmission.jl for the paper. Again, we don't have the time or manpower to restructure the content.

Given the comments of the reviewers and the current content as shared on Dropbox, I would argue that the paper is not adapted to JuliaCon as a publishing venue and out of scope. It can be of interest, but needs to make less assumption on knowledge of differential geometry.

A large part of the paper is setting definitions, definitions should be referred to in other papers, bringing a whole lot of new symbols and notation does not help the reader understand what the package is doing. Same thing for theorems.

chakravala commented 4 years ago

Thank you for the response.

A large part of the paper is setting definitions, definitions should be referred to in other papers, bringing a whole lot of new symbols and notation does not help the reader understand what the package is doing. Same thing for theorems.

It is completely necessary to go over all the definitions in this paper, since some of the definitions are entirely new and have never been published before. So, I literally can't reference other papers for some of these definitions.

To not go over definitions that don't exist anywhere else yet would be even more confusing, since nobody would know what the actual definitions are. I agree that the paper is not perfect though, and it could be improved.

I am willing to add 2 more pages to the paper to expand more on what the package is doing. It is now 1 year later, and I have much more insight into how this package can be used and what it can be used for.

If the paper is withdrawn though, then it's not worth it to fix any of the issues with it.

snoeyink commented 4 years ago

While I realize that one can't allow authors to edit latex templates that are used uniformly for all articles, I'll be sad if the resolution is that this does not get published at all.
I've used tex since 1985 and latex since 1990, so I'd be happy to work with you to make something that would compile with the standard template. (I was just contacted as a technical reviewer, and have no pull within JuliaCon for whether something can still be accepted after it was dropped) Last semester was completely crazy, and this semester promises to be only a little better, but I'd still like to connect with you at some point and learn from your experiences with geometric algebra in Julia.

matbesancon commented 4 years ago

It is completely necessary to go over all the definitions in this paper, since some of the definitions are entirely new and have never been published before.

Ok I see, in that case, as highlighted before, the novel contributions in differential algebraic geometry are probably more adapted to another paper submitted to a mathematics venue (journal or conference), with this proceeding highlighting more the package.

matbesancon commented 4 years ago

I am willing to add 2 more pages to the paper to expand more on what the package is doing. It is now 1 year later, and I have much more insight into how this package can be used and what it can be used for.

I don't think the solution is to just add more pages, but restructure the current content and focus on what you propose here: possible applications of Grassmann.jl and how to use it with some examples

eschnett commented 4 years ago

Since this paper has been public for more than a year, I would suggest posting a preprint to arxiv.org to make it more official. Many physics, math, and computer science papers are effectively published there before they are submitted to a journal (all my papers are).

As for a description for a Julia package, another venue is JOSS https://joss.theoj.org. The publications there are essentially an extended documentation for a software package.

matbesancon commented 4 years ago

I agree for the preprint aspect. Thing to note for JOSS, there will be the same scope issue since JOSS is not meant to publish new contribution in the field of the software library, but review the library itself

chakravala commented 4 years ago

but I'd still like to connect with you at some point and learn from your experiences with geometric algebra in Julia.

Sure, you are welcome to discuss it with me, but I don't have your contact information.

probably more adapted to another paper submitted to a mathematics venue (journal or conference), with this proceeding highlighting more the package.

Indeed, I am currently writing a paper to a mathematics journal (Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras), but at the original time of writing of the JuliaCon paper that wasn't the case yet, since I only submitted that abstract recently.

I am also currently submitting a paper to American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics on applications of this package.

I would suggest posting a preprint to arxiv.org to make it more official.

That's not possible, since I do not have permission to post on arxiv.

JOSS is not meant to publish new contribution in the field of the software library, but review the library itself

It may be possible for me to modify the JuliaCon paper to meet this criteria, since I am also now submitting 2 other papers, which I could reference in the JuliaCon paper. At the original time of writing, that wasn't the case yet.

However, if it requires a complete rewrite like this, then I may not be able to fix the paper immediately in a short period of time, since I would need to make sure the information is correctly spread out among the 3 different publications.

matbesancon commented 4 years ago

As general advice, if you are writing and submitting multiple papers at the same time, having a preprint available (the version of the paper you submitted) is generally a good way to reference some of them in the others. If not arxiv, then a personal website is an okay choice, but an established preprint server will be preferred by most venues.

If you are re-structuring some parts in another article and citing it, then yes this will likely need some rewrite here as to not repeat what you already cite

eschnett commented 4 years ago

That's not possible, since I do not have permission to post on arxiv. Can you explain? arxiv.org is quite general in accepting authors and submissions.

chakravala commented 4 years ago

Have you tried submitting a paper on arxiv before? I tried it, and found that I can't just make an account and submit things.

eschnett commented 4 years ago

Yes, I have; see http://arxiv.org/a/schnetter_e_1. I find that arxiv.org works quite well. If there's a specific thing holding you up, then you should email their help desk.

chakravala commented 4 years ago

Apologies if I offended anyone with my last (now deleted) post, it's not directed at anyone specifically, it was just abstract frustration.

matbesancon commented 4 years ago

Hi, yes I understood there were some grieves not directly related to the paper or submission process and for which we can not do much. Most pieces of advice stated above are fairly exhaustive (thanks @eschnett for the complementary help and information) and you have the choice of the way forward for the different papers