國
立
交
通
大
學
資訊科學與工程研究所
碩
士
論
文
以 知 識 庫 的 方 式 設 計 與 實 作 一 個
可 重 新 配 置 的 論 文 審 稿 系 統 產 生 器
The Design and Implementation of a Reconfigurable
Paper-Review System Generator
using Knowledge Based Approaches
研 究 生：吳嘉祥
指導教授：曾憲雄 博士
以知識庫的方式設計與實作一個可重新配置的論文審稿系統產生器
The Design and Implementation of a Reconfigurable Paper-Review
System Generator using Knowledge Based Approaches
研 究 生：吳嘉祥 Student：Chia-Hsiang Wu
指導教授：曾憲雄 Advisor：Shian-Shyong Tseng
國 立 交 通 大 學
資 訊 科 學 與 工 程 研 究 所
碩 士 論 文
A ThesisSubmitted to Institute of Computer Science and Engineering College of Computer Science
National Chiao Tung University in partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master
in
Computer Science
July 2010
Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China
i
以知識庫的方式設計與實作一個
可重新配置的論文審稿系統產生器
研究生：吳嘉祥 指導教授：曾憲雄 博士 國立交通大學資訊學院 資訊科學與工程研究所摘要
由於近幾年研討會/期刊論文的出版已有日漸成長的趨勢，對於出版研討 會/期刊論文的研究單位而言，審稿機制已漸漸的受到重視。然而他們的稿件審 稿流程，往往隨著研究單位的不同而不同，即便是對於同一個研究單位而言， 其審稿流程需求也常常隨而時間而改變。基於重複使用性、維護性、以及可靠 性的考量，本篇論文使用知識工程的方式。提出了一個可重新配置的論文審稿 系統產生器。我們提出了一個流程描述模型，它是由框架式知識表式方法與規 則式流程控制邏輯所組成，此模型可以讓使用者產生一個符合他們審稿流程的 論文審稿系統。此篇論文亦探討了系統中使用者存取控制以及審稿過程暱名性 控制的問題。我們也提出了一個互動式的流程編輯工具，讓使用者去配置他們 的審稿流程。在此篇論文的的最後，我們設計了一個實驗，根據流程表達能力 與動態修改能力對我們的系統進行評估，實驗結果顯示，與其他的幾個系統當 中，我們的系統有較強的流程支援性與動態修改能力。 關鍵字: 論文審稿系統、框架式知識表式方法、規則式流程控制、互動式的 編輯工具ii
The Design and Implementation of a
Reconfigurable Paper-Review System Generator
using Knowledge Based Approaches
Student：Chia-Hsiang Wu Advisors：Dr. Shian-Shyong Tseng
Institute of Computer Science and Engineering National Chiao Tung University
Abstract
Since there is an increasing trend about publishing conference/journal, the paper-review process becomes an important process for the different conference/journal publisher. However, different research groups may have their own paper-review processes. Even for a specific research group, the requirement for the process may be variable. For the sake of reusability, maintainability, and reliability, this thesis proposed a reconfigurable paper review system generator, which was designed by knowledge based approach. We presented the process description model which consisting of frame-based knowledge representation and rule-based process control logic to facilitate users generating the paper-review systems with their own paper-review process. This thesis discussed the issue of access control and the anonymity control in the paper review system. An interactive authoring tool was proposed to facilitate user configure their paper-review process. In the end of this thesis, an experiment was presented to evaluate the expressive power and modifiability of the proposed system. Comparison among the proposed system, traditional, and template-based paper-review systems was provided and the result showed that the proposed system could support the most functions and was the most modifiable among the compared systems.
Keywords: paper-review system; frame-based knowledge representation; rule-based process control; interactive authoring tool
iii
誌謝
這篇論文的完成，首先必需感謝我的指導教授，曾憲雄博士，在撰寫論文 的過程當中，我不時發現自身能力的不足，在老師耐心的指導、提示之下，才 讓我能夠在碩士的學術研究逐漸有了成果，回憶過去一年來，一次又一次的和 老師的討論過程中，除了完成了這篇學術論文外，我也得到了老師對於知識工 程這門學問的觀點、研究方法、思考方式與表達方式各方面的訓練，這些我認 為又是比學術論文更珍貴的東西。也感謝袁賢銘老師、楊鎮華老師與洪宗貝老 師，在口試的過程當中，也給了我不少寶貴的意見，讓整篇論文更加的完整， 也為我的研究提示出更多未來可以發展的方向。 再來我要感謝的，是俊銘學長和喚孙學長，在我研究的過程當中，能夠不 厭其煩的和我進行討論；在我研究過程中，能夠適時給予建議與協助，讓我能 更順利的完成此篇論文，也謝謝實驗室其他的學長姐：瑞鋒學長、元昕學長、 宗儒學長、哲青學長、怡利學姐、靖雅學姐，謝謝你們在平常給我的指導與建 議。接著，當然就是實驗室的好同學們：杰峰、國彰、紹宜、佳榕與金龍，兩 年的相處過程中，我們一起經歷了很多，除了曾一起打混，也曾一起熬夜看交 大的日出；佳玫學妹、楷元學弟：雖然相處的時間只有一年…但有了你們，讓 我們學長姐在水深火熱之中能舒緩一些壓力，謝謝你們！感覺我們碩班是實驗 室中長不大的一群小孩，以後還是要常常聯絡喔！ 接著要感謝的是實驗室畢業已久的順傑學長，感謝您啟發我對未來職場前 進的方向，也多虧了您，讓我能夠遇到更多和我有相同目標的一群好朋友！也 謝謝亨龍工業的紀先生和李先生，您們在我求學的過程中給予我最實質的幫助， 這份恩情，我可能一輩子都還不清，但若日後能有所成就，我一定會多幫助其 他也需要幫助的人！ 最後的最後，我要感謝我的家人，感謝我的姑姑總是為我處理大小事情； 感謝老哥如此的照顧我；感謝我的母親，很抱歉常常讓您操心；也感謝在另一 個世界關心我的父親，我不是一個善待自己身體的人，能撐到現在，一定是您 在另一個世界有保祐！也感謝我的女朋友文惠，感謝您無時無刻給我的支持與 關心！ 求學之路前前後後算是跌跌撞撞的走了二十六個年頭，雖然不算是很有效 率的走完這段路…但我相信，在我生命中的每一段經歷，對於未來的我都有相 當的幫助！我會謹記這段求學的過程，去面對未來更多的挑戰！iv
Table of Contents
摘要 ... i Abstract ... ii 誌謝 ... iii Table of Contents ... iv List of Tables ... v List of Figures ... vi Chapter 1 Introduction... 1Chapter 2 Related Works... 4
2.1 Paper-Review System Development ... 4
2.2 Script Authoring Approach ... 6
Chapter 3 Paper-Review Process Description Model ... 7
3.1 Using Frame Hierarchy to Represent the Paper-Review Process ... 8
3.2 Using Rule to Control the Paper-Review Process ... 13
Chapter 4 Roles Setting with Role-Based Access Control Model ... 17
4.1 Role Characteristic and Relation ... 18
4.2 Role-Based Access Control Model in Paper Review System ... 20
4.3 Anonymity Control Based On RBAC Model ... 22
Chapter 5 Requirement Acquisition and System Generating Method ... 26
5.1 An Interview-Based Authoring Tool ... 27
5.2 System Build Up Algorithm... 32
5.3 Another Issue of the Output Paper-review system ... 38
Chapter 6 Implementation and Experiment ... 39
6.1 System Implementation ... 39
6.2 Experiment and Evaluation ... 45
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Future Works ... 51
v
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Anonymity Setting Matrix ... 24 Table 6.1: The functionality in different paper-review process cases ... 47 Table 6.2: The supportability in different researches with different functionality... 48 Table 6.3: The comparison among different researches in the criteria of dynamic system supportability ... 49
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: The trend of number of call-for-paper from 2005 to 2009, which was collected
from ACM [12] ... 1
Figure 2.1: An example of article submission state diagram in COS... 4
Figure 2.2: The program committee member setting interface of MyReview system ... 5
Figure 2.3: the AVG games authoring tool based on adventure game script approach ... 6
Figure 3.1: The architecture of a reconfigurable paper-review system generator ... 8
Figure 3.2(a): Role and File Resource Frame Hierarchy ... 9
Figure 3.2(b): Paper Manipulate Action Frame Hierarchy ... 9
Figure 3.2(c): User Management Action Frame Hierarchy ... 10
Figure 3.2(d): Message Controlling Action Frame Hierarchy ... 10
Figure 3.3(a): The “File-Paper-ReviewPaper” resource frame hierarchy ... 12
Figure 3.3(b): The “Review-ReviewerReview” action frame hierarchy ... 12
Figure 3.4: The Structure of Process Control Rules ... 14
Figure 3.5: The Structure of Authentication Rules ... 14
Figure 3.6: The Structure of Data Verification Rules ... 15
Figure 3.7: The scenario with author submitting paper in a paper-review system... 15
Figure 4.1: Role relations and corresponding actions ... 20
Figure 4.2: The RBAC model used in paper review system... 21
Figure 4.3(a): The anonymous setting between Role 1 and another Role 1 ... 25
Figure 4.3(b): The anonymous setting between Role 2 and Role 1 ... 25
Figure 5.1: The detailed architecture of requirement acquisition and system generating model ... 26
Figure 5.2: Different configuration phase in authoring tool ... 28
Figure 5.3: A scenario of paper-review process... 31
Figure 5.4: The detailed architecture of requirement acquisition and system generating model ... 32
Figure 5.5: The XML-based authoring script ... 35
Figure 6.1: The initializing phase of the authoring tool ... 39
vii
Figure 6.3: User could direct edit the resource frames by clicking the cell in tables ... 40
Figure 6.4: The notification when user tried to modify the default knowledge ... 41
Figure 6.5: Role frame definition ... 41
Figure 6.6: Process control rules setting interface. ... 41
Figure 6.6: Mailing rules setting interface ... 42
Figure 6.7: Generating the authoring script ... 42
Figure 6.8: The interaction between authoring tool and user ... 42
Figure 6.9: The overview of the output paper-review system ... 43
Figure 6.10: The register interface of the output paper-review system ... 44
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Academic journals and conferences are important media for researchers to share research ideas and findings, and provide studying resources for researchers to enter a new research domain. Many research groups and publishers published their own journals and conferences for specific research topics. For example, IEEE society [11] published many journals and conferences for technology domain, journals of ACM [12] focus on computer science research. According to the amount of call-for-paper, as shown in Figure 1.1, academic journals and conferences showed a trend of increasing over years. All these journals and conferences have a paper-review process, controlling a procedure of submitting, reviewing, and publishing articles. The processes may be complicated and varied for policies of various research groups, so manually managing a paper-review process is time consuming and costly. Thus, many research groups construct paper-review systems to automatically manage their paper-review processes.
Figure 1.1: The trend of number of call-for-paper from 2005 to 2009, which was
collected from ACM [12]
Maintainability of an online paper-review system is important because the paper-review process of a conference or a journal might be changed for various requirements or varied scale of the conference or journal. Many studies [1][2][3][13] proposed paper-review systems for specific paper review processes. However, reliability of these paper-review systems might be low because these systems were frequently reconstructed for new requirements. Besides, modifying processes in these hard-coded systems for new requirements was time-consuming and costly. Some studies [4][14][15][16] proposed template-based paper-review systems, where
2
research groups could build a paper review system for specific requirements by just setting templates. The reusable templates could reduce the constructing cost and improve reliability after frequently reusing. However, the paper-review processes were limited to these predefined templates.
Both traditional and template-based paper-review systems are independent each other. However, a lot of the functionalities of them are similar. If different research groups just hold their own process configuration and share the same functionalities in the paper-review system, the reusability can be improved.
On the other hand, since many functionalities in the paper-review system are shared each other, bugs can be detected and fixed rapidly compared with traditional independent paper review systems. Thus, the reliability can be improved.
Thus, this thesis proposed a reconfigurable paper review system, where different research groups could define their own paper-review processes and then automatically generate paper-review systems for their specific requirements. In order to satisfy various requirements of paper-review processes, constructing a reconfigurable paper review system was difficult to extract the implicit knowledge of paper-review process from the program logic of systems.
To specify our discussion, this thesis defined the term “user” as the user who defined her/his paper-review process in the system, and the term “end-user” as the user who used the output paper-review system.
This thesis used a knowledge-based approach to construct the reconfigurable paper-review system because this approach was suitable for modeling highly dynamic processes. Firstly, paper-review process configuration was acquired from a user, and the acquired knowledge was represented using a proposed model. The acquired paper-review process configuration could be modified in the future. The proposed model, named process description model, consisting of frame-based knowledge representation and rule-based process control logic, was the approach to modeling a paper-review process. Since actions, users’ roles, and delivered files were all stereotyped in various paper-review processes, the frame-based representation was used to represent the actions and resources of these processes. Besides, these processes contain constraints and principles of managing the actions and resources, so rule-based representation was used to express the control logic.
The actions of end-users and the anonymity setting during paper reviewing vary across different paper-review processes. Thus, this thesis introduced the role-based access control model (RBAC) [7][8] to control the actions in the process and the
3 anonymity between users.
Based on the process description model, a paper-review process authoring tool was provided to assist users in constructing desired paper-review processes. In order to evaluate the expressive power and modifiability of the proposed system, functions used in current existing paper-review processes and criteria of modifiability were collected. The comparison among the proposed system, traditional, and template-based paper-review systems was provided and the result showed that the proposed system could support the most functions and was the most modifiable among the compared systems.
In Chapter 2, some related works about the paper-review system construction and the authoring approaches are introduced. Chapter 3 describes the proposed paper-review process description model. Chapter 4 introduces the role-based access control model to solve the access control problem in the paper-review system. Chapter 5 introduces the paper-review process authoring tool and the system generating methodology. The implementation for the reconfigurable paper-review system generator and experiment are discussed in Chapter 6. Finally, Chapter 7 gives the conclusions and future works.
4
Chapter 2 Related Works
2.1 Paper-Review System Development
2.1.1 Traditional Paper-Review System
Arzu Baloglu [1] explicitly modeled an online submission process using a finite state diagram, as shown in Figure 2.1. Although this model could represent various paper-review processes, the study did not propose an approach to implement various online submission processes in a system because the modifiability of this study was not emphasized.
Figure 2.1: An example of article submission state diagram in COS
In recent years, many projects and studies about online conference/journal management system were proposed: IJDLT [13] was an online journal system, assisting author submitting papers. An editor of a journal could dispatch papers to reviewers, and after these reviewers reviewed the paper, the editor could decide that the papers should be accepted, rejected, or major/minor revised. The accepted paper was sent to the proof-reading process, and waited for publishing. Pradeep Gurunathan et al. [2] proposed an online conference system, which had a similar paper-review process except proof reading process. Additionally, the online conference system could manage conference sessions. Chun-I Fan et al. [3] proposed a truly anonymous paper submission and reviewing scheme has been proposed. Fan et al. [3] convinced that it should be totally anonymous under the paper submission and reviewing process among author, editor, and reviewer. The paper-review process in Anonymous was also similar to the above mentioned systems. However, these systems were developed for
5
their specific paper-review process. The only way for modifying the process was modifying the code and that cost a lot of time.
2.1.2 Template-Based Paper-Review System
Some open-source projects developed template-based paper-review systems, providing templates for users to reconfigure to generate a paper-review system.
MyReview System [4][14] provided a configuration interface, as shown in Figure 2.2, for users to set configuration options of a conference, such as research topics, program committee, and reviewing criteria. Open Conference System (OCS) [15] and Open Journal System (OJS) [16] were similar to MyReview, but OJS was designed for managing journals. Moreover OJS and OCS supported more roles and more feature in conference/conference than MyReview.
Figure 2.2: The program committee member setting interface of MyReview system
These projects could facilitate users to develop a paper-review system by only setting the detailed configuration of templates. Since the paper-review process was embedded in the predefined templates, a new paper-review process could not be implemented if no templates support this requirement.
6
2.2 Script Authoring Approach
Scripts, representing specific knowledge, were widely used to communicate between users and systems. Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) [17] provided the standards and the specifications for e-learning. It could facilitate users to define the content package of teaching materials or course sequencing behavior as XML script files. Wu [9] proposed a mechanism for teachers to design a role playing learning game by writing an XML script. Huang [10] proposed an adventure game-based formative assessment framework, which could facilitate teachers to construct an adventure game for assessment. The proposed system provided an AVG games authoring tool, as shown in Figure 2.3, to assist teachers in writing the XML-based adventure game scripts.
These researches indicated that the script was suitable for representing knowledge, and an authoring tool had highly interaction with users could facilitate users to define their knowledge.
7
Chapter 3 Paper-Review Process Description Model
The process of a paper-review system requires to be continuously modified because the requirements of conferences are changed over time. For example, Editor may change the category structure of paper, or add/delete the new attribute in papers, or define new paper states in the paper-review process. Thus, a knowledge-based approach was applied to develop a flexible and reliable system, where a papers-review process could be designed and revised without changing the programs of the system.
By the observation, a paper-review process was a series of actions performed by various roles to access or generate files, and these actions and generated files were subject to some constraints defined in the papers-review system. Because knowledge of actions, roles, and file formats were stereotyped, this thesis modeled the knowledge using frame-based representation. Besides, if-then rules were suitable to express the system’s processes and actions’ constraints. Thus, a paper-review system could be controlled using inference with these frames and rules. The knowledge represented as frames can be categorized in detail as the actions of end-users and the objects in the system such as Paper, User, and Journal etc. In addition, those if-then rules can be classified by their different purpose: controlling the process or determining whether the specific frames can be accessed by user, or just verifying the content of specific frames. In this chapter, we will introduce the various frames and rules in this thesis.
The system architecture was illustrated in Figure 3.1. This thesis split the system into two subsystems: Configuration System and Output Paper-Review System. Both the subsystems used the web-based environment as interface. This thesis proposed the Paper-Review System Description Model, the frame instances and rule instances representing the knowledge of the paper-review system. After this thesis defined the knowledge format, we proposed an Interview-Based Authoring Tool, where users could configure the paper-review system and store the process definition authoring script into script database. In the Output Paper-Review System, the Script Transform Engine transformed the authoring script into frame/rule instances and loaded into knowledge base. When end-users used the output paper-review system, the system accessed data in resource database and inferred the knowledge through inference engine. In this chapter, this thesis proposed the frame-based and rule-based approach to describe the paper-review system. The specific definition of frames/rules was declared in the next two sections. After these definitions, this thesis introduced an example of a scenario with the user submitted
8 paper.
Figure 3.1: The architecture of a reconfigurable paper-review system generator
3.1 Using Frame Hierarchy to Represent the Paper-Review Process
Frame-based representation [5] is an appropriate hierarchical structure based upon object-oriented concept to describe stereotyped objects. A frame can contain slots, attached procedures, and rules. Each slot can have a default value and a slot value to represent the object’s attribute. The attached procedures and rules, expressing the embedded logics among slots in single or multiple frames, can be triggered in the following common conditions:
if-need: the procedure is triggered while retrieving a slot value but a default value is not available.
if-added: the procedure is triggered while storing a value in a slot. if-changed: the procedure is triggered while the slot value is changed if-removed: the procedure is triggered while the slot value is removed
A frame can be inherited by other frames, which can have all slots contained by its parent frame and instanced to generate a frame instance. The relations of inheriting and instancing are named a-kind-of and is-a, respectively.
This thesis used two kinds of frames, named Resource Frame and Action Frame, to represent the knowledge of used resources and the users’ possible actions. A resource-frame hierarchy and action-frame hierarchy are shown in Figure 3.2(a) and 3.2(b) (c) (d) respectively. For Figure 3.2(a), all users were described by the Role frame hierarchy in this thesis. There were two Roles in the system: User and
9
latter is the one who has the privilege to configure their paper-review process. The
User in the output paper-review system consisted of Editor, Reviewer, and Author. For
the File frame hierarchy, it can be divided into different types such as Paper frames, the Paper Attachment File frame, etc. according to their different purposes.
Figure 3.2(a): Role and File Resource Frame Hierarchy
Different with resource structure, the action frame hierarchy defined the actions might be performed by end-users in the output paper-review system. Each leaf node of this hierarchy might be a kind of its parent action frame. The action frame contained the configuration information of the action. It might have some default value or some procedure attachment. When user configure his/her paper-review system, action frames’ slot values would change correspondingly. For example, when user configured the New Submit action, she/he would define the information which end-user should provide. Moreover, when user configured the Review action, she/he should define the criteria for evaluating papers.
10
Figure 3.2(c): User Management Action Frame Hierarchy
Figure 3.2(d): Message Controlling Action Frame Hierarchy
The definitions of resource frames and action frames, which would be used when we illustrated the action control management approach in Chapter 4 and defined our knowledge acquisition model in Chapter 5, were stated as follows
Definition 1: The Resource Frame is a 5-tuple: RF = (FN, FR, S, VR, DL) where
(a) FN: The name of this resource frame
(b) FR= (T, FN): The relation between this resource frame with other resource frame, where T is the type of relation. It may be a-kind-of relation which denoted the inheritance relation and is-a relation which denoted instantiation relation.
(c) S={(SNi, SVi, STi, DVi, PAi, FAi) |for all i, 1<= i < n}: The finite set of
slot information in this resource frame. It is a 6-tuple, where
SNi: The name of the i-th slot. It stands for the attribute name of this
resource
SVi: The value of the i-th slot. It stands for the attribute value of this
resource
11 number.
DVi: The default value of the i-th slot. If it is non-empty, the SVi is
assigned when new resource frame instance is generated.
PAi = {(Tj, Pj, PRj) | for all j, 0 <=j<4}: The finite set of procedure
attachments of the i-th slot, where Tj is the type of this procedure
attachment. It may be if-need, if-changed, if-added, or if-removed. PRj
is the set of parameters of this attached procedure.
FAi: The finite set of frame attachment of the i-th slot. When it is not null,
it represent that this slot’s value will be a set of other frames
(d) VR: The finite set of resource verification rules. When system tried to add a resource, it would trigger resource verification rules to check this new resource is valid or not. The detail definition of resource verification rules would state in Section 3.2
(e) DL: The link to the specific database table, where stored the data generated with this resource frame definition. For the leaf frame in the resource frame hierarchy, DL will not be null.
Definition 2: The Action Frame is a 4-tuple: AF = (FN, FR, S, FC) where (a) FN: The name of this action frame
(b) FR=(T, FN): The relation between this action frame with other action frame, where T is the type of relation. It may be a-kind-of relation which denoted the inheritance relation and is-a relation which denoted instantiation relation.
(c) S={(SNi, SVi, STi, DVi, PAi) |for all i, 1<= i < n}: The finite set of slot
information in this action frame. It is a 6-tuple, where
SNi : The name of the i-th slot. It stands for the configuration item of this
action frame.
SVi : The value of the i-th slot. It stands for the configuration content of
this action frame.
STi : The data type of the i-th slot. It can be string, integer, or float
number.
DVi : The default value of the i-th slot. If it is non-empty, the SVi is
assigned when new action frame instance is generated. For all DVi in S,
it stands for a stereotype about this action.
PAi = {(Tj, Pj, PRj) | for all j, 0 <=j<4}: The finite set of procedure
attachments of the i-th slot, where Tj is the type of this procedure
attachment. It may be if-need, if-changed, if-added, or if-removed. PRj
is the set of parameter of this attached procedure.
12 is called.
The difference of physical meaning between resource frames and action frames is that end-users may generate the data based on the structure of resource frame, and the inference engine may infer rules after end-users performed the action defined by action frame.
Example 3.1: The resource frame and action frame
Two examples of the usage of resource frames and action frames were shown in Figure 3.3(a) and Figure 3.3(b), respectively. In Figure 3.3(a), in addition to the slots in File frame, the Paper frame consisted the information about the papers. A
Reviewed Paper had the information of reviewer and review result. In Figure 3.3(b),
when a reviewer reviewed paper, the reviewer could suggest the paper state of judge result and sent the review result back to editor.
Figure 3.3(a): The “File-Paper-ReviewPaper” resource frame hierarchy
13
3.2 Using Rule to Control the Paper-Review Process
Rule-based representation [6] is a kind of knowledge representation, used to express cause-effect relations and reasoning logic. In the proposed paper-review system, this representation was used to represent process control logic, anonymity principle, and authentication rules to facilitate modification for frequently changeable requirements of research groups.
By the observation of existing paper-review system, rules used in paper systems could be classified into Process Control Rules, Authentication Rules, and
Data Verification Rules based on the purpose of rules.
(a) Process Control Rules
Process control rules determine the paper-review process, which can be modified by editors.
A process control rule may have preconditions, which were classified into four types: (i) Configuration Satisfied: the rule could be fired if a specific setting was in the action frame; (ii) Role Satisfied: the rule could be fired for specific roles; (iii) Paper State Satisfied: the rule could be fired if the targeted paper was in specific paper states; (iv) Important Date Before: the rule could be fired in specific dates. For example, the resubmission deadline may be a month later when the paper state was “revise”. The important date could be a real date, such as the paper submission deadline was 2010/09/30; (v) Action Satisfied: the rule could be fired after some actions performed and generated the fact in the FC-tuple of action frame (see Definition 2).
If the preconditions were satisfied, four kinds of actions could be triggered: the action allowing the execution of specific actions; the action setting specific paper states; the action setting the anonymity under specific action; and the action sending messages by E-mail. The structure of process control rules was shown in Figure 3.4.
Example 3.2: Process Control Rule
If the end-user’s role was Reviewer, and there was any Reviewer Review action frame which the Reviewer slot (See Figure 3.3(b)) pointed to this end-user then she/he could review paper.
14
Figure 3.4: The Structure of Process Control Rules
(b) Authentication Rules
Files in a paper-review process had various accessing permissions for roles. For example, a paper under reviewing could only be accessed by a reviewer and an editor. In the system, authentication rules, defined by editors, could control these accessing principles. As shown in Figure 3.5, preconditions of an authentication rule had three types: (i) Role Satisfied: the access was permitted for specific roles; (ii) Paper State Satisfied: the access of a paper was permitted if the paper was in specific states (the State slot in Figure 3.3(a) Paper Frame). The permitted actions were accessing, downloading, modifying, or removing a specific resource.
Example 3.3: Authentication Rule
If the end-user’s role was Editor, or the State slot of Paper frame was Public then this end-user could access this Paper frame.
Figure 3.5: The Structure of Authentication Rules
(c) Data Verification Rules
The user-generated data, such as information of a new paper or a new account were required to be verified to prevent wrong inputs. Thus, data verification rules, as shown in Figure 3.6, were defined to verify user-generated data in resource frames’ slots. The preconditions of these rules had four types: (i) Not Empty: the input was allowed if a specific value was not empty; (ii) Is Valid Date: the input date was allowed if it had a correct format or in the valid duration; (iii) Is Valid Email: the input
15
E-mail was allowed if the E-mail’s format is correct; (iv) Value in […]: the input data was allowed if it was in a range which defined by user; (v) Resource Exist: the input data was allowed if the referred resources were exist. If the input data was valid, these rules could allow user to generate paper, generate a message, or add a new account. Otherwise, data verification rules could reject inputs and give tips to users.
Example 3.4: Data Verification Rule
If the end-user’s role was Editor, or the State slot of Paper frame was Public then this end-user could access this Paper frame.
Figure 3.6: The Structure of Data Verification Rules
In the end of this chapter, this thesis introduced an example of a scenario with the author submitted paper. The scenario was shown in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7: The scenario with author submitting paper in a paper-review system
When the author started to submit paper, inference engine got the configuration in New Submit Paper frame (action frame) and the structure of Paper frame (resource
frame). Author provided the information of paper such as Title, Abstract, Category,
etc. (see Figure 3.3(a) Paper frame).
When author submitted, inference engine inference the data verification rules defined in Paper frame to check if the content of new Paper frame was valid. If not, rejected this submission and tipped to author, otherwise, generate new instance of
Paper frame (data verification rule).
16
and mails needed to be sent through the process control rules. In this example, the paper state might be set as “wait-for-review”, a mail sent to author for keeping track of his paper after submitting, another mail sent to editor as a notification after the paper state set as “wait-for-review”. After submitted, the author could access this paper, but another end-user was not editor or an author of the paper could not (authentication rules).
Through the user logging in and submitting scenario, this thesis presented a typical example of rules inference (verify papernew paper statenotify editor). Of course, different research group might have different frames/rules setting. They could generate another process of submitting paper by modifying the frames/rules.
17
Chapter 4 Roles Setting with Role-Based Access Control
Model
Humans’ operation in this process management system is an important issue especially in such a process reconfigurable system. There are different users in the paper review system. Based on different responsibility in the paper review process, users may have different actions allow doing. For example, a reviewer is responsible for reviewing paper. Thus, an author is not allowed to review a paper. Similarly, a reviewer may have no right to publish the accepted papers, which is the responsibility of editors. Previous example is just a simple example, in some conference or journal workflow, the division of labor is more complicated.
For the situation stated before, if we solve it by the traditional programming approach. We can build up a series of “user group”, and assign the corresponding action to each group, then allocate users into user group. When some users are allowed to do another specific action, we can use another special case decision mechanism in our programming to support. If the process have less variability, the traditional programming mechanism is useful enough. However, the paper-submit/review process is changed with time. Different research group may have different review process. For example: for a conference A, the chief editor is originally responsible for the dispatching, proof reading, and publishing of the paper. However, the more extension of the conference, the more complicated division of labor is. Chief editor may need to delegate the responsibility of paper proof reading. Thus, it often extracts the access control management by the knowledge-based approach for the modern paper review system. It can enable the user to manage the actions performed by end-users without altering the source code. That is a knowledge-based solution.
Nevertheless, there is another issue should be confronted with. Under the following situation: In a paper review process of someone conference, User A and User B are responsible for review paper. However, user A is additionally allowed to publish paper. For the knowledge-based approach, we create a “Reviewer User Group” which have the right of reviewing paper, and then set User A and User B as a member of “Reviewer User Group”. Now, User A and User B can review paper. Next, we make another configuration, let User A have the right of publishing paper. However, if there are many end-users who need the additional assignment of access control, it may cost a lot of time to reset the access control of each end-user when we want to withdraw the right of publishing paper in the future.
18
For this reason, we need to manage the end-users and the actions they can perform more systematic. In this chapter, we introduced the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) approach into our paper submit/review process. RBAC model can make the management of user action in a workflow process simpler.
Before introducing the RBAC model in our paper review process, we first defined the roles characteristic, relation between roles, and the actions based on those relation. In Section 4.2 we discussed how to use RBAC model in a paper review system. In the end of this chapter, we extended RBAC model to manage the anonymity setting in paper submit review process.
4.1 Role Characteristic and Relation
4.1.1 Roles in a Paper Review System
According to the actions user doing in the paper review system, we can divide several user types and the characteristic as follows:
a. Editor: Editor is mainly the manager of conference/journal. She/he is responsible for the establishment of conference/journal, call-for-papers, and publishing papers. Thus, she/he is an influential user of conference/journal. In this thesis, editor can make configuration of the paper review process. (Of course, we suggest that the “process editor” of our reconfigurable paper review system is limited to 1 or 2 specific users, or the paper review process may be chaotic under the condition that different user alter the paper review process) In some conference/journal, a “co-editor” may be added to support editor to manage the conference/journal. Co-editor’s characteristic is almost like editor’s but co-editor is added by editor and she/he cannot add another co-editor.
b. Reviewer: Reviewer is often invited by editor. Reviewer is responsible for the reviewing task of manuscripts. Editor often assign the reviewing job to appropriate reviewers based on the related research area of the manuscript. According to the reviewing result of reviewers, editor judges the manuscript is accepted to publish or not. Reviewer’s characteristic in the paper review system is relatively simple because that she/he need only review the manuscripts editor assigned. Some conference/journal system may combine the reviewer’s responsibility into editor’s. That is, editor is also responsible for reviewing paper. Some conference/journal make reviewer add other “co-reviewers” to supporting the review task.
19
responsible for submitting papers and performing corresponding actions depend on the judge result of manuscript. For example: a reviewer resubmits paper when the judge result of the manuscript is “revise”, or enter the proof reading process when the paper is accepted to publish. Authors often have no relation with editor/reviewer. In general, author can be added by registration in the conference/journal system. Of course, there are some paper review systems may have a verification process after author’s registration.
In general, the role type definition is often fit in the previous types. Their characteristic can be classified into: (a) stand for the conference/journal (editor); (b)keep the quality of the manuscript of the conference/journal (reviewer); (c) the end-user who has no relation with the conference/journal (author). The grading order of interaction with the paper review system is editor > author > reviewer. Editor is responsible for communicating with reviewer and author in addition. Thus, the role definition may divide more complicate (such as: Assistant editor). Nevertheless, the characteristic of roles are still like these three role.
4.1.2 Relations between Roles
As stated before, there are different interaction relations between different roles. We can define the following role relation:
a. Editor-Reviewer Relation: this relation is mainly based on a paper under review state. Based on this relation, editor can dispatch a review job to reviewer; Reviewer can response the review job to editor.
b. Editor-Author Relation: We can define this relation as an end-user interacting with conference/journal author. The paper submission/ judgment are based on this relation.
c. Editor-Editor Relation: Editor may have another interaction with another editor or co-editor. That can make the operation of conference/journal more effective.
d. Reviewer-Reviewer Relation: Different reviewer may have some interaction each other when reviewing paper.
There are corresponding actions on the relation between roles. We summarize them in Figure 4.1. In addition, the actions list in Figure 4.1 is the actions based on different roles each other. There are other actions that doesn’t base on different roles such as publishing papers. Thus, in this thesis, we also defined these actions and store them in knowledge base as action frames which are defined in Chapter 3.1.
20
Figure 4.1: Role relations and corresponding actions
4.2 Role-Based Access Control Model in Paper Review System
4.2.1 RBAC Model Introduction
The general-purpose role based access control model was proposed in 1992 by David Ferraiolo and Rick Kuhn [7]. In 1996 Sandhu, Coyne, Feinstein, and Youman introduced a framework for RBAC models [8]. This model is commonly used as a mechanism of access control in the information security domain. In traditional information systems, every user may be assigned different access control right. Under RBAC model, the access control right is not assigned to the user. Instead, the access control right is assigned to the roles defined by the system, then binding these roles to different users. At this time, the user accesses some actions by the roles bound on her/him rather than her/his own. For an information system, the user base will grow up over time, but the roles in the system are relatively stable. Thus, u sing RBAC model to manage the access control right is flexible and easy to manage than the traditional Mandatory Access Control (MAC) and Discretionary Access Control (DAC)
In this thesis, there are many types of users involved in the paper submit/ review process. We’ve classified these users as different type of roles and characteristic. We’ve also summarized their relations and the actions based on those relations. In consequence, we must encounter the issue of access control in our paper review system. So we need a mechanism to manage the access control. After the survey of RBAC model, we decided to introduce this model which is commonly used in information security domain into this thesis.
21
In this thesis, we used the frames and rules to make knowledge representation of the whole paper review system. The advantage of frames incorporating with rules is stated in Chapter 3 (flexible, convenient when we need replace the knowledge). Thus, we implemented the RBAC model into our reconfigurable paper review system by frames and rules.
In the Configuration System, system manager defined the roles which would be used in the output paper review system of their conference/ journal. That is, by using our authoring tool to generate the role frames defined in Chapter 3. Every role frame was assigned the action that allowed doing. After the role frame definition, the role frames were attached into the user frame under the generation of user frame. Figure 4.2 was an example of RBAC model in the paper review system.
Figure 4.2: The RBAC model used in paper review system
Under the RBAC model, every user in the paper review system may be assigned one or more role. When a user attempts to access someone action frame, system will trigger the process control rules which defined in Chapter 3.2 to check if the user has the right to do that action. If yes, then system allows the user doing that action. Otherwise, system notifies the user that she/he is not allowed doing that action.
Using RBAC model, access control management becomes more convenient. However, in a reconfigurable paper review system, the paper review process was defined by user and stored in knowledge base as different process control rules. At
22
this time, there was another issue we confronted. Because that a user may be more than one roles in a paper review system. And the actions allow to each role which user may have an intersection. (For instance, in Figure 4.2, both Role “Chair” and Role “editor” have the right to “publish paper”) However, different role doing the same action may have the different inference result. For example: User A is an author in a conference, she/he can submit paper. However User A has an excellent contribution under a specific domain. In consequence, the session chief of the sub-conference under the conference assigned him a role “invited speaker”. When this role submits paper, it will be accepted directly. Based on this example, we can conclude that when User A submitting a paper, different roles may confront to different paper review process.
Consequently, when a user does some actions in our reconfigurable paper review system, it is necessary to keep track of what is the role of the user. It can avoid the ambiguity inference result when rule inference. Nevertheless, we still don’t expect that bugging end-user to check the role she/he is when she/he doing an action. Thus, we used a “Control Panel” to make user change her/his role freely. When the user open the control panel of Role A, the action she/he do will be seemed as Role A. Similarly, when she/he opens the control panel of Role B, she/he will change his role to Role B. In consequence, the system can have a correct rule inference.
4.3 Anonymity Control Based On RBAC Model
4.3.1 Anonymity in a Paper Review Process
In the process of paper submission, to take fairness into account, anonymous reviewing mechanism is emphasized in some conference/journal. No matter the chief editor or reviewer an end-user is, there is no influence about the judge result by the author’s identity. The previously research [3] also shows that anonymous Reviewing helps fairness of paper review, and the openly stated criticism might have some influences upon the reviewers’ careers. So the anonymity issue should be taken into account.
Although the anonymity reviewing is important, different research group may have different levels of anonymity requirement. For example: Conference A claims that reviewer is anonymous with author. Event the reviewer’s comment about the manuscript is not opened to author; however, conference B claims that reviewer is anonymous with author, but the reviewer’s comment about the manuscript is accessible by author. For the different anonymity control, we have to propose a management approach.
23
summarize the section need to keep anonymous in the paper review process based on Figure 4.1. They are follows (the role pair (AB) in each section stands for that “Should Role A’s identity be known by Role B?”):
a. Paper submission (AuthorEditor): When submitting paper, it may have an influence on editor about the decision making when dispatching paper. That is, dispatching the paper to the reviewer who review paper loosely, to rise up the accept rate of this paper; or when judging the paper, the judge result may be influenced by the editor’s preference for the author.
b. Paper dispatching (ReviewerEditor): Editor should dispatch the submitted paper based on the correlation between the content of paper a nd reviewer’s research domain. It seems like that there is no need to keep anonymous between reviewer and editor in this section. However a research [3] showed that because the editor knows
the relationship between the reviewers and their comments on a paper. She/he is able to convince the author that someone has reviewed the paper. And that may cause the privacy leakage problem. Therefore, we assume that there is a conference/journal
would like to keep the anonymity in the paper dispatching section.
c. Responding the paper reviewing job (AuthorReviewer): When reviewer receiving the commission of reviewing paper, he/she should decide review this paper or not based on the content of the paper and the workload on herself/ himself. However, if review knows the author’s identity, reviewer may take the relation between her/him and the author in consideration of review this paper or not. For example: if the author used to be an advisor of the reviewer, the reviewer may refuse this reviewing job because she/he doesn’t like to offend on the author.
d. Reviewing paper(AuthorReviewer): Same as c., When reviewer accepted the review job assignment, the reviewer’s comment may be influenced by the relation between her/him and the author.
e. Judged Paper(ReviewerAuthor): After the author receiving the paper judge result, editor will have appropriate feedback on the paper. Moreover, reviewer may have some feedback, too. Since an editor always stands for the conference/journal, there is no need to maintain the anonymity between editor and author. However, if there is no anonymity between reviewer and author, it may have negative influence between them if the reviewer has a negative rating about the paper.
We have summarized the sections which need to care the anonymity in the paper review process. For different research groups, they may have different anonymity setting on his conference/journal paper review process. They may think that not all
24
sections stated before should be kept anonymous. In consequence, we proposed a management approach, which extended from RBAC model introduced in Chapter 4.2. Because that we found that based on RBAC model, the anonymity setting can be managed conveniently.
4.3.2 Using RBAC Model to Control the Anonymity
This thesis used the RBAC model to manage the anonymity of the whole paper submit/review process. At first, we let system manager define the anonymity between roles when she/he is defining the role frames. After defining the anonymity between roles, system can generate a 2-dimension anonymity setting matrix like Table 4.1. The Matrix [i][j] stands for the useri is anonymous with userj or not. For example: Matrix
[1][2] is Anonymous. It stands for the user information of Author should be hidden with Editor.
Table 4.1: Anonymity Setting Matrix
Author Editor Reviewer Administrator
Author Public Anonymous Anonymous Public
Editor Public Public Public Public
Reviewer Public Public Anonymous Public
Administrator Public Public Public Public
We can notice that the anonymity setting matrix in Table 4.1 is not a symmetric matrix because that the anonymity relation is not an equivalence relation, author is anonymous with editor doesn’t stand for that editor should keep anonymous with author.
After generating the anonymity setting matrix, we should let system manager define the “Public Part” and “Private Part” in the section that need the anonymity control (summarize in Chapter 4.3.1). For example, some information should be hidden when paper submission. System manager should declare what’s the private information and what’s public information. After the declaration, the preparation of anonymity control based on RBAC is done. When end-user submitting paper, in the process of the interaction with other user, the system may decide to show the private information or not based on the both end users’ role relation in the anonymity setting matrix. In Figure 4.3(a), Role 1 is anonymous with another Role 1, If User A becomes Role 1, and has some interactive with User C, who is another Role 1. User A should be anonymous with User C, so the private information should be hidden from User C. However, in Figure 4.3(b), Role 2 is public with Role 1. When User A becomes Role 2,
25
and have some interactive with User C, who is Role 1, User A should not be anonymous with User C, so the private information should be accessed by User C.
Figure 4.3(a): The anonymous setting between Role 1 and another Role 1
Figure 4.3(b): The anonymous setting between Role 2 and Role 1
From Figure 4.3(a) and Figure 4.3(b), we can notice that even if the interaction between the same user pair, under the RBAC model, if the role of user is different, it may cause different anonymity control result, and that is just one of the characteristic of RBAC.
26
Chapter 5 Requirement Acquisition and System Generating
Method
This thesis defined several types of frame and rule and then used them to represent the paper-review process in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 introduced the actions access control and the anonymity management in the interaction between different roles. In this chapter, this thesis presented an authoring approach that facilitated user constructing her/his paper-review process. With the interaction mechanism between user and authoring tool, the construction time cost could be reduced.
Thus, this thesis proposed a friendly configuration interface for user. User could edit the paper-review process thought this interface and watch the corresponding change immediately. She/he could load the configuration and edit it again and again. The construction process was a kind of rapid prototyping. The interaction between the authoring tool and user was emphasized.
As shown in Figure 5.1, the requirement acquisition method was proposed. First, this thesis illustrated the architecture of the authoring tool, the interaction between user and authoring tool, and the operation of frames and rules during user’s configuration. In Chapter 5.2, in addition to summarizing how to convert the user configuration to process authoring script, this thesis also explained that how to generate the paper-review system by the authoring script. Finally, this thesis discussed some problems might occur in the output paper-review system, and brought up the solutions of them.
Figure 5.1: The detailed architecture of requirement acquisition and system generating model
27
5.1 An Interview-Based Authoring Tool
5.1.1 Overview about the Interview-Based Authoring Tool
As stated in the architecture in Chapter 3, the authoring tool was a web-based application. User could just launch the browser and connect to the paper-review process authoring tool. By the observation, it could split the process of construction into 7 phases (These phases were illustrated in Chapter 5.2 one by one). By the “step by step” operation environment, this thesis facilitated user to complete the process construction work.
In order to collect the configuration in each phase set by user, several interview-based questions were proposed. Through the process of answering questions, the authoring tool made the corresponding setting. In addition to the ordinary multiple choice questions, this thesis also prepared the form-filling style questions for user. It was suitable for user answering specific types of questions. For example: different conference deadline, the criteria of reviewing paper, or the role frame setting described in Chapter 4.
In the process of answering questions, different questions could be mapped to different frames and rules setting. This thesis divided these questions into several types as follows:
a. Frame Structure Setting: after answering the questions, it could generate the corresponding frames. Different users might generate different frame structures after answering questions. For example: when user decide the information slots that end-user should provide, our authoring tool would alter the S-tuple of ResourceFrame(“User”, FR, S, VR) (see Definition 1 in Section 3.1) correspondingly.
b. Frame Instance Generating: There were some existent frame structures in the reconfigurable paper-review system generator. User could define new frame instances according to her/his demand. For example: When user defined the roles in his paper-review system, she/he just generated new role frames and made different setting on the slots in each role frame.
c. Rule Generating: During the user answering questions, it might add or change different types of rules defined in Chapter 3. These rules are generated by user after answering questions. For example: System generated the process control rules when user defined the mail sending rules; system generated the authentication rule when user set whether the paper is public or not; Moreover, when user defined the paper frame structure, it may
28
generate some verification rules. (such as “Non-Empty”, “Restricted in Some Options”) Data verification rules were attached in the VR-tuple (Verification Rules) of the 5-tuples in resource frame.
d. Action frame authentication setting: This section was related to role-based access control described in Chapter 4. When user made the configuration in role frames, she/he might set the allowed actions in each role.
User could switch between phases in Configuration System and reconfigure in each phase. Of course, the configuration in previous phases sometimes affected the configuration in following phases. That was the interaction between authoring tool and user, which were elaborated in Section 5.1.3. In next section, this thesis introduced the purpose of each phase in the process of paper-review process construction.
5.1.2 Different Configuration Phase in Authoring Tool
As stated before, this thesis defined several phases based on different purpose of the interview-based questions. For the mainly paper-review process construction, 5 construction phases were defined. In addition, this thesis defined 2 additional phase in the head and tail of these 5 construction phases for the initializing and saving configuration purpose. The structure of our authoring tool was shown in Figure 5.2. The purposes of all the seven phases were stated as follows:
29
Phase 1(Initial Phase): Since this thesis made different users generate their own paper-review process through the authoring tool, this thesis let user create a new configuration session. After creating the session, they could make the following configuration. User had to create a system manager identity. Different paper-review processes could be recognized through this identity. In addition, user could modify her/his configuration in the future through this identity.
Phase 2(Global Setting Phase): In this phase, user decided the purpose of the paper-review system. For a paper-review system, the paper-review process was similar no matter what the purpose of her/his system is. However, when papers were published, publishing to conference and publishing to journal were totally different. Thus, we made user have a choice. User could also set the profile about this conference/journal. In addition, user could add the other static information such as call-for-paper, location information, etc. Moreover, user could define some important dates as well as the subtopics in the conference/journal. They would be the inference facts of the rule which were defined in following phases
Phase 3(Role Definition Phase): In this phase, user generated Role frames and defined the User frame structure. User had to set the actions which could be performed by each role when setting Role frames. Different roles might contain a subsidiary relation (for example: in Figure 4.1, co-editor could be generated by editor) as well as the setting of anonymity. In addition to setting the slot/slot type of
User frame, user has to setting the verification rules of User frame (if need).
Phase 4(Manuscript Definition Phase): In this phase, user made the manuscript-related configuration. For a reconfigurable paper-review system generator, there were several setting options about the manuscript. Thus, this thesis divided this phase into 4 sub-phases: (a) Paper Frame Setting: To define the Paper frame structure. (b) Paper Category setting: To define the category structure. If user had defined the subtopics information in Phase 2, it generated a sub category stood for each subtopic in advance. (c) Paper State Setting: To define the varied paper states of the manuscript could be. (Ex: accept, reject, revise…) These states defined here might be the inference facts of the process control rules. (d) Paper Important Dates Setting: There were some important dates belonging to the conference/journal as well as belonging to the manuscript itself. (for example: the paper re-upload deadline was always set as a few days later after the paper state was set as “revise”) Thus, in this sub-phase, user could define the important dates based on the manuscripts.
30
There were some data verification rules, authentication rules setting among them. The following 2 phases focus on the process control rules setting.
Phase 5(Action Configuration Phase): In this phase, user made configuration about each action in the paper-review process. This thesis split this phase into 5 sub-phases based on the difference of actions as follows: (a) Submit setting: User could define the 2-stage submission process in this sub-phase. Some paper-review process of conference/ journal request authors submit a part of information of the manuscript then continued the submission after editor permitting. If user wanted to use the 2-stage submission, she/he had to set what information should be provided first. (This information is referred to the Paper frame structure in Phase 4) (b) Dispatch Setting: If the manuscript would be reviewed by reviewers, user had to make the related configuration. (c) Review Setting: In This sub-phase, user set the review criteria about the submitted manuscripts. (d) Proof Reader Setting: User set the information which should be provided when proof reading as well as the following operation after proofreading. (e) Publishing Setting: According to the different purpose settings in Phase 2, the configuration in this sub-phase may be different. If this paper-review system was for a journal system, user could decide the indexing format of the journal and set the Journal frame structure. If the purpose of paper-review system was for conference, user could determine the agenda of this conference.
There was another configuration in Phase 5, which was defined the paper state transition rules under different actions. It might have several state transition rules within an action. These rules might form the flow of paper-review process as the example of Figure 5.3.
Phase 6(Messages Configuring Phase): In this phase, user could configure about the message passing. To simplify the problem, this thesis assumed that the entire messages among the paper-review system were sent by e-mail. Thus, user could define the mailing rules in the paper-review system. The timing of sending email could be classified as follows: (a) Send mails on the change of paper state (mapping to the large dots on the arrows in Figure 5.3) (b) Send mails before the important dates of system or manuscript. (c) Send mail after specific actions that would not cause the paper state transition. User could define the Mail frame, where contained the title, content, and receiver of this mail. Then set when to send this mail. In addition, user could use the “dynamic slot” of other frames in the title/content of the mail. The dynamic slot could be replaced with the corresponding slot values of specific frames before the mail was sent.
31
Figure 5.3: A scenario of paper-review process: the paper state transition
rules were mapped to the arrows between rectangles of this figure. On the other hand, some of the mailing setting rules were mapped to the large dots on the arrows.
Phase 7(Saving Configuration Phase): After making the configuration in Phase 1~Phase 5, user could save the configuration at this phase. Authoring tool could check if there was an error in previous configuration phase and report the error to user. If there was no missing in configuration, this phase could generate the authoring script of the paper-review system. Then gave a URL linked to the output paper-review system. User could access the output paper-review system immediately. If there was still other configuration need to be made, or the configuration should be changed, user could reconfigure in the previous phases immediately.
5.1.3 Humans’ Interaction with Authoring Tool
In order to facilitate user generate her/his own paper-review system, this thesis emphasized the interaction between authoring tool and user, where could help user avoid the unnecessary configure error. The interaction mechanisms were stated as follows:
a. Default Knowledge Loading: It is difficult for user to construct her/his paper-review process from the very beginning. Since the paper-review process were stereotyped (that is why we use frames to represent our paper-review process knowledge). Before user started up the paper-review process construction, the authoring tool loaded the default setting of the resource/action frames in advance. A part of setting was changeable or delectable but the other part of setting wasn’t because that it was involved in the system operation. For example: The email slot in user frame was the identification for end-user, so it could not be deleted from User frame. In addition to loading the default knowledge, user could load the authoring script into the authoring tool (the authoring script may created by other users) and modify it to generate a new paper-review process.
b. Enabled/Disabled Some Interview-based Questions: User’s answer of the question in previous phases might cause that the other questions have no
