[REVIEW]: BoboCEP: a Fault-Tolerant Complex Event Processing Engine for Edge Computing in Internet of Things

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@r3w0p@vissarion<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @abhishektiwari, @mahsan321 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10160409

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e29ee1221240b13e1ae039d007f58721"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e29ee1221240b13e1ae039d007f58721/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e29ee1221240b13e1ae039d007f58721/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e29ee1221240b13e1ae039d007f58721)

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

@abhishektiwari & @mahsan321, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @vissarion know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @abhishektiwari

📝 Checklist for @mahsan321

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.11 s (1356.8 files/s, 142665.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         118           2613           2517           7938
reStructuredText                14            524            729            610
XML                              5              0              0            515
Markdown                         9            130              0            319
JSON                             3              0              0            240
YAML                             4             23              2            127
TeX                              1              5              0             56
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           156           3307           3256           9840
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/2187671.2187677 is OK
- 10.1007/s00778-019-00557-w is OK
- 10.1109/BigDataService49289.2020.00024 is OK
- 10.3390/s21165464 is OK
- 10.11606/D.45.2021.tde-24032021-145027 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 906

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

abhishektiwari commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @abhishektiwari

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/r3w0p/bobocep?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@r3w0p) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

abhishektiwari commented 1 year ago

@r3w0p please see my initial comments. I am still working to validate software functionality.

Documentation

Example usage:

Authors include automated tests to validate the software functionality but no examples implementing a real-world use case. Paper describes a use case — elderly resident were to fall in their home and require an ambulance – to describe how complex event is generated and event is triggered. I think this phenomenon will make a very good example for BoboCEP.

Software paper

Statement of need

Apart from dependability, BoboCEP enables detection of complex events at edge without need of streaming raw events to the cloud. In that sense approach is privacy protecting/preserving for use cases such as smart homes which is mentioned in following section of the paper. I will suggest calling that out in statement of need.

State of the field

Paper is very light on state of the field. Paper points to a survey by Giatrakos, N.,et al and that's all. I would like authors to clearly describe how this software compares to other commonly-used frameworks in the field. Paper does not provide required context why streaming based CEP systems can't be deployed to edge/IoT devices/gateways.

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

@abhishektiwari Thanks for your comments, I will work on them and get back to you ASAP.

@mahsan321 It says you have generated a checklist but I am not able to see it.

Alex.

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

@abhishektiwari

Hello, I have made the following changes:

Example Usage

In the documentation, I have introduced a new page called Use Cases which covers the Assisted Living scenario from the paper as best as I could. I could not replicate some elements of the Use Case because it is impractical (e.g., calling for an ambulance). However, I have provided working code snippets for patterns and actions. I tested the IFTTT and Twilio actions today and they both worked well.

The page can be found here:

https://github.com/r3w0p/bobocep/blob/joss/docs/use_cases.rst

Statement of Need

In the paper, I have discussed privacy, edge computing, etc., in more detail. See paragraph at Line 50.

State of the Field

In the paper, I have provided a more comprehensive review of existing CEP systems. See paragraph at Line 37.

abhishektiwari commented 1 year ago

Thanks @r3w0p

I will review later in the week

abhishektiwari commented 1 year ago

Thanks for making those changes @r3w0p. New use case page looks great and provides concrete examples.

@vissarion completed my review. Please let me know if anything else needed.

vissarion commented 1 year ago

Thanks @abhishektiwari !

@mahsan321 any news on your review?

mahsan321 commented 1 year ago

@vissarion Sorry got busy with a conference deadline. Could you assign someone else if not I will try to get it done by next week.

vissarion commented 1 year ago

Next week is fine and is much less complicated than searching for a new reviewer. Many thanks!

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

@mahsan321 @vissarion

Any progress updates?

mahsan321 commented 1 year ago

Sorry for the delay. Working on it, give me a couple of days.

mahsan321 commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @mahsan321

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/r3w0p/bobocep?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@r3w0p) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

vissarion commented 1 year ago

@mahsan321 thanks for your review. Please open issues in the repository under review to keep this thread clean of technical details.

Secondly, just like the previous reviewer couldn't run the test examples.

This is fixed, right @r3w0p?

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

Hi @mahsan321 and @vissarion

getting started document links are not working

I have pressed all of the links in the Getting Started page that I could see and they all work for me. Which were you having trouble with specifically?

I haven't changed the Getting Started page during the review process, and so the current state of the page can be found live here.

If you are referring to the [CM2012] link that sends you to the bottom of the page, then that is supposed to happen. It is a link to the paper mentioned in the References section.

just like the previous reviewer couldn't run the test examples

This was resolved in this issue.

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

@vissarion I have made some very minor changes to the paper just now: swapped two paragraphs around, clarified some points, simplified some explanations. It is the same content nonetheless.

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

mahsan321 commented 1 year ago

@r3w0p It is working. It was some error on my side. Thanks

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

Thanks @mahsan321! @vissarion is there anything left to do?

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

r3w0p commented 1 year ago

Added missing DOIs

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

vissarion commented 12 months ago

@r3w0p I will proof read the paper and get back to you.

@abhishektiwari, @mahsan321 thank you both for your reviews!

vissarion commented 12 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 12 months ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3015432 is OK
- 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115578 is OK
- 10.1109/DCOSS.2017.14 is OK
- 10.1145/2187671.2187677 is OK
- 10.3390/iot3030019 is OK
- 10.1007/s00778-019-00557-w is OK
- 10.1109/BigDataService49289.2020.00024 is OK
- 10.3390/s21165464 is OK
- 10.11606/D.45.2021.tde-24032021-145027 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107257 is OK
- 10.1007/s40815-021-01118-6 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

vissarion commented 12 months ago

@r3w0p there is only one suggestion from my side, see https://github.com/r3w0p/bobocep/issues/8

vissarion commented 12 months ago

When a submission is ready to be accepted, we ask that the authors issue a new tagged release of the software (if changed), and archive it (see this guide). Please do this and post the version number and archive DOI here.

r3w0p commented 12 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 12 months ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

r3w0p commented 12 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 12 months ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3015432 is OK
- 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115578 is OK
- 10.1109/DCOSS.2017.14 is OK
- 10.1145/2187671.2187677 is OK
- 10.3390/iot3030019 is OK
- 10.1007/s00778-019-00557-w is OK
- 10.1109/BigDataService49289.2020.00024 is OK
- 10.3390/s21165464 is OK
- 10.11606/D.45.2021.tde-24032021-145027 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107257 is OK
- 10.1007/s40815-021-01118-6 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

r3w0p commented 12 months ago

@vissarion

Latest release

https://github.com/r3w0p/bobocep/releases/tag/1.1.1

Zenodo record

https://zenodo.org/records/10160409

vissarion commented 12 months ago

Thanks, please use in zenodo the same author name and title as in the paper.

r3w0p commented 12 months ago

Thanks, I have done this now.

vissarion commented 12 months ago

Still the title is "r3w0p/bobocep: 1.1.1" please replace with "BoboCEP: a Fault-Tolerant Complex Event Processing Engine for Edge Computing in Internet of Things"

r3w0p commented 12 months ago

Hmm, has it changed now?

vissarion commented 12 months ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10160409 as archive

editorialbot commented 12 months ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10160409

vissarion commented 12 months ago

@editorialbot set 1.1.1 as version

editorialbot commented 12 months ago

Done! version is now 1.1.1

vissarion commented 12 months ago

thanks @r3w0p, now I am going to to generate the final proofs, and notify the Editor in Chief.

vissarion commented 12 months ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 12 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

openjournals / joss-reviews