Milestone-Proposal talk:QR Code: Difference between revisions

From IEEE Milestones Wiki
Line 83: Line 83:


I recommend that the proposer consider the suggestions made in part b of the second reviewer's assessment.
I recommend that the proposer consider the suggestions made in part b of the second reviewer's assessment.
===Re: Follow-up to the Second Reviewer's Comments -- [[User:Kunihiko Sasaki|Kunihiko Sasaki]] ([[User talk:Kunihiko Sasaki|talk]]) 01:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)===
: Replace this text with your reply
Dear Dr. Vardalas,
I would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Then, I completed the amendment of the application contents to the matters pointed out by the reviewers.
Thank you very much.

Revision as of 01:56, 15 May 2020

Introduction and next steps -- John Vardalas (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Proposer:

I am a member of the IEEE History Committee and I will be the Advocate for this proposal. As Advocate, my responsibility is to help you get this proposal to a successful vote by the History Committee. Before I can recommend this proposal to the Committee, at least two external, expert reviews are required.

I will start putting together a list of possible reviewers. If you have names to recommend, please send them on to me. I will contact you by email.

John Vardalas, Ph.D.

IEEE History Committee

Assessment by First Reviewer -- John Vardalas (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Below is the first review from Prof. Yoshimitsu Aoki, Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Keio University, Japan

++++++++++++++++

"The QR code developed by DENSO is a very simple and strong coding technology composed of a two-dimensional binary rectangular array.

Due to its simplicity, QR codes have made it possible to reduce the cost of reading hardware and speed up image processing algorithms. This point was novel in history and was a very technically excellent.

The services provided by this technology are indispensable in the daily life, not only in production management and logistics, but also , such as the Internet, SNS and electronic payment.

The supplementary texts and resources provided by DENSO are sufficient to prove the technical superiority and historical significance of this proposal, the date and locations of achievements.

"In 1994, DENSO developed QR Code, a two-dimensional code that is simple, inexpensive, and high speed reading. QR Code, which started with production management, has since become a technology used around the world due to the spread of mobile phones, Internet, and electronic payments. It has become one of the most popular information products in human history in terms of the number of users and uses."

in my opinion, the wording of the above claim is accurate.

Totally, this proposal seems to properly support the IEEE milestone claim."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: Assessment by First Reviewer -- Kunihiko Sasaki (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Replace this text with your reply

I would like to thank the comments and suggestions of the first reviewer. Thank you very much.

Assessment by Second Reviewer -- John Vardalas (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The second review of this Milestone proposal is from Dr. Kris Kitani. At Carnegie Mellon University, he holds the positions of Associate Research Professor in the Robotics Institute, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Courtesy Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) department, and Director of the Master of Science Computer Vision (MSCV) Program Carnegie Mellon University. He is also Research Fellow in the Institute of Industrial Science at the University of Tokyo. Below is his review.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"a) Have the proposers established clear historical significance?

Yes, they have given sufficient historical context in which the QR code was developed and how it became an international standard.

b) Are their arguments technically strong?

The text mainly describes the *result* of overcoming of technical obstacle (e.g. computational efficiency, distractor patterns, code damage) but there is little description about *how* the obstacles were actually overcome. Adding a short description of the technical innovation (the method) would help strengthen the technical arguments to demonstrate significance of the technology. The description of the "finder pattern" was of sufficient detail (maybe too much detail for this document) but other methods such as alignment, timing and error correction were not described.

c) Do the answers adequately support the Milestone claim:

"In 1994, DENSO developed QR Code, a two-dimensional code that is simple, inexpensive, and high speed reading. QR Code, which started with production management, has since become a technology used around the world due to the spread of mobile phones, Internet, and electronic payments. It has become one of the most popular information products in human history in terms of the number of users and uses."

d) In your view, is the wording of the above claim accurate? The content is accurate.

e) Finally, have the proposers provided adequate "Supporting texts and citations to establish the dates, location, and importance of the achievement:"

Yes citations are adequate.

Other comments:

I found that the text was a bit hard to read at time as there were several spelling and grammar mistakes (e.g., incomplete sentences). If this is going to be published, then I would suggest more proof-reading. For example, I believe the "cord" is a misspelling for "code." "high speed reading" is grammatically correct but stylistically awkward."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: Assessment by Second Reviewer -- Kunihiko Sasaki (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Replace this text with your reply

I would like to thank the comments and suggestions of the second reviewer. Then, I have completed the amendment of the application contents in response to your indication. Thank you very much.

Follow-up to the Second Reviewer's Comments -- John Vardalas (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I recommend that the proposer consider the suggestions made in part b of the second reviewer's assessment.

Re: Follow-up to the Second Reviewer's Comments -- Kunihiko Sasaki (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Replace this text with your reply

Dear Dr. Vardalas, I would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions. Then, I completed the amendment of the application contents to the matters pointed out by the reviewers. Thank you very much.