
From arodoni@MIT.EDU Mon Dec 28 11:14:24 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Robert Hoffman <hoff@isr.umd.edu>
From: Amedeo Odoni <arodoni@MIT.EDU>
Subject: CDM paper
Cc: MBall@rhsmith.umd.edu, whall@alum.mit.edu, wambsgan@metsci.com

Dear Bob:

        I spent much of yesterday going very carefully over the CDM paper
(Hoffman, Hall, Ball, Odoni and Wambsganss).  I would now like to offer
below some comments and suggestions for getting this paper out.

        1.  As a general comment, I think this paper has the makings of an
excellent contribution and I thank you for taking the lead in putting it
together (and doing most of the work at that).  We should try hard to get
it out ASAP for two reasons.  First, it will become a standard reference on
CDM.  And, second, the way CDM is moving, we may have to revise the paper
significantly if we don't move fast.

        2.  Before we finalize the paper, it is important to decide what
journal  it will be submitted to, because that will have a bearing on the
final "spin" of the paper.  My own inclination is to submit the paper to
ATC Quarterly.  This is not a particularly distinguished journal and its
direct readership is small.  However, the style of the paper, as it now
stands, fits that journal well, the readership is exactly on target for us
and, once we get published there, we can make lots of copies of the paper
and send them around.  We could also use a thus published paper to support
a nomination for the Endelman Prize of INFORMS next year.
        Alternatives might be Transportation Science or Transportation
Research.  My concern about these two is that the paper may be too "soft"
for them.  A second concern is that the paper may be obsolete by the time
these journals get to publish it.
        I invite the thoughts of you, Mike, Mike and Bill on this point.

        3.  Assuming that we are not going to change much the overall style
of the paper, a number of things need to be done:
        (a) Incorporate most of Bill's comments into a new draft (they are
in general very good comments).
        (b) Shorten and edit carefully the introduction (Section 1).  I
think the first three pages or so can easily be omitted or summarized in a
couple of paragraphs.  We should focus the paper as much as possible on CDM
and leave out the peripheral stuff.
        (c) Section 2 is very good overall. We only need to do some minor
editing, as well as the following important thing: define carefully the
various quantities we mention (ETA, CTA, EDCT, OGTA, etc.).  The
definitions that we currently have in the main part of the paper and in the
glossary section are often either non-existent or too vague and the reader
will be confused (I know I was).
        (d) Section 3 is also sound but needs some cleaning up
(definitions, etc.).
        (e) Section 4 is fine (just some minor editing).
        (f) Section 5 needs lots of editing.  One problem was that in the
hard-copy version that I read, most of the mathematical expressions have
printed as garbage and it was thus hard to follow the two algorithms.  My
suggestion is to clean up the two algorithms and have them as "Figures" in
the paper (mathematical notation and all) and then discuss and explain the
algorithms in the text of the Section.
        (g) Section 6 needs drastic cuts in length as well as editing.  I
would suggest omitting altogether subsection 6.1 (we can give some
references and summarize briefly this stuff in a couple of paragraphs) and
concentrating on fixing up (and reducing the length of) Section 6.2.
        (h) Section 7 also needs some editing which we can do after all
else is completed.
        (i)  Finally we need to add some missing references, missing
Figures, etc.

        4.  To bring all this to completion, everyone needs to chip in.  I
propose that I do 3(b), 3(g) and 3(h).  You may already have done 3(a) and
I think you and Mike B. are the best qualified to do 3(f) as well.  Perhaps
Bill could do 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e) with some assistance from Mike W. who
understands CDM so well. This leaves out only 3(i) which will be done
automatically if we do our job well in the other parts.

        How does all this sound?

        One thing that I will need from you to do 3(b), 3(g) and 3(h) is a
hard copy version of the latest draft of the paper (the one I have is dated
--gulp!-- September 12, 1998) as well as electronic copies of Sections 1, 6
and 7. If you are using some esoteric word processing software (e.g., Tek)
please send me something in plain text.

        Best regards and Happy 1999!
        Amedeo

Dear Amedeo, Bob, Mike and Mike,

I think Amedeo's plan sounds very good.  ATC Quarterly is exactly the
right place for this.  I'd be glad to do 3c,d, and e, and I promise not
to complain too much about working with Mike W.

I too will need an electronic copy, and I can get hold of whatever
editor is appropriate.

Regards,
Bill
--
William Hall
Draper Fellow, MIT Operations Research Center
mailto:whall@alum.mit.edu
http://snipe.mit.edu/bill/


Amedeo, Bill, I think the approach you out line is on-target.  I don't know
 much about
ATC Quarterly except that Donohue keeps pushing it.  I was thinking about
Trans Sci, but I could go along with ATC
Quarterly in an effort to get it published more quickly and also to stick
with the present style.  I generally agree with your
comments.

Relative to section 6, you are probably right that 6.1 could be eliminated
-- the topics presented in 6.2 are
good but perhaps rather than devoting 1 - 2 paragraphs to each we could
devote 2 - 3 sentences.

Why don't we get started with Amedeo's division of work, i.e. the assigned
persons can start editing
the appropriate sections.

As far as getting a copy.  The paper was prepared in latex.  I have
included the tex file below.  Also, you can find it as well
as a pdf file and a ps file at the following site.

http://alexandra.bmgt.umd.edu/~hoff/CDMpaper/

Bob is away right now, but I thought he was going to be in email contact --
 bob are you out there??

-- Mike

From wambsganss@metsci.com Thu Dec 31 09:37:58 1998
X-Sender: wambsgan@metsci.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
To: "William D. Hall" <whall@alum.mit.edu>, Amedeo Odoni <arodoni@MIT.EDU>
From: Mike Wambsganss <wambsganss@metsci.com>
Subject: Re: CDM paper
Cc: Robert Hoffman <hoff@isr.umd.edu>, MBall@rhsmith.umd.edu,
        wambsgan@metsci.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

But Bill, working with me can be such a pleasue.  Just ask me.

Amedeo's got a great plan here.  I'll need an electronic copy as well.
    -Mike

p.s.  Happy New Year

At 11:25 AM 12/28/98 -0500, William D. Hall wrote:
>Dear Amedeo, Bob, Mike and Mike,
>
>I think Amedeo's plan sounds very good.  ATC Quarterly is exactly the
>right place for this.  I'd be glad to do 3c,d, and e, and I promise not
>to complain too much about working with Mike W.
>
>I too will need an electronic copy, and I can get hold of whatever
>editor is appropriate.
>
>Regar

