Ready.
No original questions. No original answers. Even the features copycat82 claims/lists about itself, either have no substance, or had been already published by others, or both.
The myths (false claims) of copycat82 include:
The False Claim about Using Guttag's Abstract Data Types
copycat82, in many ways, imitates E-nets - more specifically, imitates Da80 (although it
never cites Da80, and does not mention E-nets as a source, either. It is
provably, plagiarism.) Next, copycat82 does not follow even
what it republishes (copies):
Data out of control (ignores
control at design, leaning towards data, next, ignores data when verifying)
The E-net procedures are
necessary and sufficient for representing data-manipulation.
The E-net locations/places are
necessary, and sufficient for representing data-sharing (except read-only "sharing,"
possibly).
It is pencil-and-paper, and also rote memorization-overload/abuse (especially when two macros interact, over many phases, as with "socket calls"). At the both extremes of unusability, at once. Mental simulation, as it is ... Data-name boxes do not contribute, on the paper, next to the procedure-text, but they do increase the tediousness, to draw them at every level, yet again. Not to mention the long-distance travels of those arcs, within the cluttered graphs, when the graphs contain a lot of useless elements.
Start with a given graph. Halve it. Halve it. Halve it. Is that "design?" The section 4, about design, is only about halving, or joining. It is false, even at such a trivial task, but it is not worth mentioning, even if corrected.
N.B: This is Petri nets. Not sausage. When chopped as such, a lot of them turn out to exist as vaguely-chopped macros. Even its own examples, contain such impossibilities as "socket calls" (imitative of SARA) from within a subnet. That obviously, cannot be verified by a Petri net verifier. If no compatibility with Petri nets is to remain, the meaning is lost, as far as a Petri net verifier is concerned, and even English-sentences jotted on an envelope, would compare, to copycat82 "design method." Both would be equally senseless (i.e: without any formal meaning), as a representation - unless a human makes sense of the vagueness (a paradox, possibly, because vagueness is not sensible, in general, if ever), and converts it to some formalism that is verifiable.
From E-nets. That is a single-graph. Writes the E-nets formal-listings (text of the
procedures, and the names of the token-attributes), within the net figure. This is all of it.
That is equivalent to a full-join of VD78 control- and data-graphs, assuming Petri net
transitions and data-operators are one-to-one. When they are not one-to-one, the collapsed
copycat82 graph is chaotic.
cluttered-graph (even when one-to-one),
exploded graph-size when many-to-any
(and when multiple-instances of the same data-operator (procedure) rewritten all around the
graph, a potential inconsistency exists, as we know from relational database-theory - as already
known in 1970s)
,
impossible to represent, when zero-to-any
(data and/or data-operators must have an instance, to inform. i.e. The unnormalized,
full-joined graph, loses such possibility that was available, when there
was a federation, with data-graph standing elsewhere.)
Exhaustive-searches to find data (within
subnets-in-subnets)? (after all, copycat82 does not have any formal list of an example, and
all what it does is write the E-nets formal-listings, within the net figure. If everything is
only the graph, then when about to use a data-item, an exhaustive-search must be conducted, to
find out whether any subnet, somewhere, already uses it.)
Subnets show external-data as labels, any way. (cf. VD78),
ADTs would need their own separate graph (cf. VD78),
(if ADT-dependency networks are (visibly) represented, at all. The variable/ADT name serves only
as a label, similar to VD78 control-transition to data-operator labels. If VD78 was not a
single-graph, how is copycat82? By its ignoring that ADT-dependencies graph?)
confuses macros vs. reductions. (assumes them equivalent, verifies macros as if they were reductions) zero-wait transitions/subnets? sticky activation, lack of isolation
Both SARA, VD78, and Da80, reduce verifier complexity/dimensionanlity, in their own ways. Next, copycat82, in its confusion, loses Petri net verifiability. A new verifier is needed, but that is unfeasible, either. For example, an attempt to verify those vaguely-chopped macros, would explode the complexity. e.g: Even a two-side communication, with an interface-machine "macro" at the middle, would appear as twelve input/output locations at both sides. This is, probably, a simple token-flow, with a single token in/out, throughout its activity, and would have very little complexity, when not confined within a macro. But when the macro-internals are not visible, it could be an exponential-explosion for that verifier.
There are many points, for such "another verifier" to take into consideration, although never discussed by copycat82. It assumes a Petri net verifier would suffice (after only the i/o macros at the entrance/exit get replaced, and even this is unrealistically simplified, ignoring the vagueness of the chopped macro entrance/exits e.g: separate-paths at entry/exit, and/or "socket calls"). It also assumes those macros to be verifiable separately - as VD78 does. (It does not cite VD78 as its source, though.) As we discussed, it is not Petri nets, any more. Here we discuss that, it is not feasible, either, when it is not Petri nets. i.e: There is no such thing as "copycat82 method" - except the faultiness. You have to find examples that are trivially representable by all three of the E-nets, SARA, and VD78, to make it workable with copycat82, at all.
copycat82 does not study any of the problems that make distributed-systems difficult. At no level of the newtork hierarchy. It attempts to distinguish itself from Da80, and the similar, by distancing itself from network-layers. But, it does not discuss any of the application, and operating-systems difficulties, either. e.g: Nothing discussed about, consistency-of-replicated-data, process-migration, security issues, etc. etc. The comments about the global model, imitative of Da80.
It does turn out that, nobody ever cared to use what copycat82/83 proposed. Neither the authors, nor the jury(ies). If when approving copycat82/83, any jury member, had ever attempted to design anything the copycat82 way, it would be noticed that there is no free lunch.
As an alternative, for example, VD78 had published, a set of rules, to reduce complexity, by employing subnet-reductions. The VD78 restrictions, ensure the reduced-net to remain equivalent to the unreduced net.
copycat82, is an act of plagiarism, and it is seamful. When discussing design, and representation, and also in its examples, it tells about vague macros, (imitative of E-nets, but with a confused presentation of data), whereas in the section about analysis, it presents a figure with such a bottleneck that, it would exactly match VD78, save for the trivial entrance/exit macros at both sides. But accepting that as true, would leave the other sections irrelevant. It resembles the slogans such as "Eat as much fat as you want, and still be thin." That could not be true - except if you already do not want to eat fat.
The moment your example-designs, deviate from VD78 restrictions, they cannot be verified correctly. You get caught in errors. Instead of asking the Ph.D. nominee "How big was the fish? Was it lethal?" the jury should consider chewing the ideas, for real. It appears, they never preferred it for their own work, but they did act as if they found it any valuable work, and approved the publication(s).