A Ph.D. dissertation must contain fresh ideas, but copycat82, the un-credible Ph.D. does not contain any fresh ideas, or improvements. It contains only fake claims. No original questions, and no original answers. This spells the plagiarism of copycat82.
When such a multi cut-and-paste is hurt with its self-contradictions, the published fake
claims cannot be taken in full. In fact, the faked publication, may even be
stuck as a subset of every single one of those papers, it cuts a piece of. That is noticeable,
when we review the (prior art) literature.
copycat82 imitates the E-net formalism, with examples imitative of SARA, and attempts to verify, imitative of VD78. All of these, bump at one another, although it is trivial, any way. i.e: It turns out that copycat82 is not workable, whenever it differs, from any of these prior art papers:
copycat82 is worse than trivial, because copycat82 does not warn you about those gotchas. No ideas in it, about where to stop. This leaves copycat82 only as a vague subset of each of those prior art papers. It is stuck at the intersection of them, because of conflicts.
It is without, for example, the VD78 requirements for well-formed subnets. You may prepare a net, and (falsely) assume you have verified it with copycat82, but it might not be truly-verified. This is because, copycat82 does not preserve equivalence, when it "lets" the designers abstract ("reduce") the nets with macros, and next, attempts to verify the macros separately, with reachability-test.
With the works of those mid-80 (prior art) researchers, this never occurs. When we represent our examples with E-nets, VD78, or SARA, they do not acquire any more faults, and very probably, if not necessarily, those systems would highlight the errors, facilitating our finding out the deadlocks, etc. In copycat82's gotchaful, cut-and-pasted "method," even when nothing appears to deadlock, in fact, there might exist deadlocks.
For the purposes of this page, we are in the middle of the year 1980.
The non-exception is copycat82, which was published in 1982. Because of its plagiarism, copycat82 is not a(n original) source of information, any way. It is only a subset of the research, that had been already published. Such a cut-and-paste is trivial. It contains nothing new - except its fake claims, and its immense number, and variety of faults.
Therefore, even when we refer to copycat82, that is still no further information, beyond what was already published by mid-1980.
After a subnet is (properly) reduced, its intricacies need not be known/remembered. If it is not feasible to represent with ready-reduced subnets, Macros may help. Macros are not for the interpreter/verifier, though. They help the human who writes/reads them, but they need replacement with the equivalent subnet, for the interpreter/verifier to make sense of the net. A net-reduction algorithm may reduce the full-net, after all that. (This is what SARA CFA does.)
NN73, refers to an alternative in representation: "transition procedure involving statistical terms" (p.724). For experimental studies, to model real-world phenomena, as events, such an idea would fit. An experimenter may run enough rounds (sample points), and do statistics. e.g: A transition-procedure with a Poisson/Gaussian/etc. distribution. Process the experimental-results with ANOVA, linear regression, etc. This is the interpreted-abstraction, for evaluating data (internal states) at run-time, within net structures.
copycat82 is unoriginal. There are many ways to prove its plagiarism. For example, simply point at the prior art, and ask the question "What has copycat82 contributed, after this?" This page expresses that strategy. There are also pages, for a direct-evaluation of copycat82's plagiarism, through what its fake claims attempt to own. Either way, the paths converge, to spell the same.
On another page, we discuss copycat82's lack of achievement. Although there had been quite a few research achievements, copycat82 junks what those other researchers had accomplished, over many fruitful Ph.D. studies. The unreflecting cut-and-pastes, has left copycat82 unusable, although the task was trivial. As such, it is worthless, even as a literature-survey, let alone as a Ph.D. text.
On a few other pages, at this site, we discuss the plagiarism of copycat82. On this page, we concentrate on the prior art, mid-1980. In other words, if you have a need to solve some problems, and you happen to notice the existence of copycat82, you should rather check out for the previously existing, huge and successful, research lines (e.g: NN73, Pe77, VD78, Da80, SARA). On this page, we discuss why we must prefer those previously published successful methods, and those software tools that had already existed, instead of the catastrophical copycat82.
copycat82 attempts to own the mid-80 research. i.e: They are the same, but next, copycat82 contains the faultfull examples, and its fault-prone "method" attempts to dump away necessary parts of the existing methods, too. These signal a basic lack of achievement. That is the "product" of plagiarism.
The question may occur to the reader's mind: "Why would anybody publish junk?" e.g: Think of the next (generic) example, to find clues:
Johnny does his homework. Sammy wants to "borrow" it. Why? That is the question about plagiarism. Sammy probably wants to duplicate Johnny's homework. If the person who evaluates the homeworks, is careless, Sammy may get an undeserved point, without any real work, except a change of variables/names, and/or some shuffled paragraphs or figures.
This is only part of the story. It still assumes Sammy knows the stuff, although he is lazy. If Sammy does it all the time (long given up any real study, always copies homeworks), and/or if the person who evaluates the homeworks is keen for ensuring originality (necessitating Sammy not to rely on a single homework, but to cut-and-paste multiple papers), then Sammy's homework may become a mess, when Sammy is lost in his own plagiarism.
To do what copycat82 did, pick a comparative overview/tutorial, about mid-80 nets, and insert a column with new names. Such a literature survey need not even be publication-quality, as copycat82 itself is not workable, either. Here is the list of new names. I also discuss, why the original (E-net, UCLA/SARA, VD78) names are preferrable, over the verbose, and vague copycat82 names.
An E-net transition-procedure, corresponds to a VD78 data-operator. This corresponds to the SARA interpretation domain - except the "@output_arcs = " statement of SARA.
In copycat82, it is the "data-transfer specification" whether anything gets transferred to anywhere, or not - as with the data in shared-memory ("LD" in Fig.6.5), in "the example application" at the end of copycat82.
An E-net resolution-procedure, corresponds to a VD78 data-predicate. SARA is different, with its single-procedure architecture. The "@output_arcs = " assignments correspond to an E-net resolution procedure, within a SARA interpretation-domain. The formal representation of copycat82 is the former, the figures are the latter. Therefore, an example, if to be represented with copycat82, must keep resolutionful transitions, strictly without any transition-procedures. Otherwise, because copycat82, imitative of SARA, cannot show the two pieces together, for a subnet/macro/transition.
copycat82 names "data-dependent control transfer specification" versus "data-independent control transfer specification," correspond to the non-existence versus existence of a resolution-procedure, or more specifically its referring to data, or not. e.g: F-transition in an E-net does not need a resolution-procedure. Its behavior is fixed, whenever it fires. An X-transition necessitates it, though - unless left non-deterministic (random, or blocked). SARA has multi-arcs for non-determinism.
The name "resolution procedure" in E-nets expresses why it is needed. The "control transfer" in copycat82 is vague, especially with the multiple-step-tokens-input/output, and with the undefinedness of the mythical abstract data-types, as a vague duality.
An E-net macro, has no correspondence in VD78. Instead, VD78 studies reductions, to improve reachability-test performance. A SARA SL module corresponds to an E-net macro, with extras of the SARA system. e.g: A module-sockets semantics. The "software component"s in copycat82 turn out to be especially-vague macros, which copycat82 attempts t verify as if they were eqivalently-reduced nets.
The macro/"component" vagueness, in copycat82 includes, e.g., spread-around-data-boxes between macros that have many lines between them. This would not occur in E-nets, because even with a macro, the token-attributes are with the token, and in SARA, the data is mapped to the socket. i.e: If there are multiple sokets to a SARA SL module, we are able to track which data elements are employed, when that particular socket is invoked.
Another example of macro/"component" vagueness, in copycat82, is the unrepresentability of even some of its example figures. For example, in its "producer-consumer" example, the "putbuf" lets independent separate entry points (p3 separate from the p4-and-p8), although it is not even representable by copycat82's "data-independent control-transfer specifications." (Let alone, any verifiability by a Petri net verifier.)
That is, the exact analogue to an attempt to represent the inputs/outputs of a SARA SL module, only with a SARA node's control-logic. It is not possible with a single node, when multiple sockets exist for that module.
copycat82's fake claim about Guttag's abstract data types, is only an absurd overspecification. Whatever the data-representation is, it must exist elsewhere, written in a procedure - probably Guttag'ish, but we only guess it, because copycat82 does not present even a single example of any studied type-abstraction procedure-text (a la Guttag).
It is problematic, too, as a vague duality because now, there are two sets of procedures, to arbitrate, when there are possible token-flow conflicts between (the unseen) ADTs and those "control/data transfer specs" (imitative of E-net procedures).
Such a separate set of (ADT) procedures, elsewhere, with its own internal organization/network, screams about the "single-graph"ness as yet another fake claim of copycat82, because this suggests a two-graph representation, the way VD78 does with data- and control-graphs, albeit, now it is about an altogether useless page-filler in copycat82 - the vague-duality of ADTs. We may truncate that (unstudied) attempt, without any loss. Then, copycat82 is exactly E-nets, again. This stresses the fact that, in copycat82 even any missing is missing, as it is only to fill pages. The whole copycat82 is only a case of plagiarism.
The existence of E-nets (NN73) suffices to prove the plagiarism of copycat82, and to point out the self-contradictions, when copycat82 ignores the differences between-E-nets-and-SARA, between-E-nets-and-VD78, and/or between-SARA-and-VD78. e.g: SARA SL modules must be expanded as macros, for a Petri net verifier (in SARA CFA) to read it. The "socket call"s would not make sense to a verifier, but they appear in copycat82/83 examples.
Next, we find that even the idea to merge NN73 with Petri nets, was not original (although trivial in copycat82 case), as it is a subset of Da80 formal work. The plagiarism of copycat82, with portions of Da80 is its "extra." Da80 refers to E-nets. Therefore, in a topological sort, we may expect either way. i.e: Either Da80 was the framework, where NN73 was the natural graft, or copycat82 searched the citers of E-nets, and merged them. (SARA team also refer to E-nets, and SARA SL resembles Macro E-nets, to some extent.) In other pages, I point out the patterns of similarities with Da80, when it is an especially Da80'ish context.
copycat82 represents with the E-net formalism (especially, Da80'ish, but vague), with examples imitative of SARA, and attempts to verify, imitative of VD78. All of these, bump at one another, although it would be trivial, any way.
It is the menu-driven cut-and-paste of copycat82 plagiarism. That menu, is Da80, at the formal-side, and it is SARA with its examples, where copycat82 is vague with such ideas, although apparently imitative of the already published SARA-based experimental-research.
I do not publish copycat82, with its full reference, at this site. It is available, though, through e-mail, to those who are qualified - either involved with computers/software/systems, professionally, or semi-professionally, and/or if you feel the responsibility to be active in revoking such falsely-granted (undeserving and/or plagiarizing) Ph.D. titles.