Related Work [TODO]

The current document features six slides. The first two slides try
to explain and distinguish between operational and denotational
semantics. Next, the slides try to explain some problems with
each of these two approaches. This is followed by a surprising
brief discussion of a surprisingly small number of papers.

Things that are needed:
-At the very beginning, give a clear description of your own work.
This is necessary here, because this is a stand alone document.
A very important part of this will be a clear statement of the
problem (or problems) that you are trying to solve. Then, the
papers that you will talk about in the related work sections will
be essentially all the papers that try to solve the same problem or
problems.
- Diagrams are fantastic, but it is absolutely essential to have
text that explains exactly what the intended meaning from each
one of these diagrams is. This kind of textual explanation should
be the rule for any kind of display (diagram, equation, table, graph,
mathematical formula, etc).
- When you start thinking about related work, you should immediately
start working on an extended "Related Work" section. Such as an
extended related work section can be thought of as an annotated
bibliography: It is a list of references, with your comment about
these references. It is useful (for you, mainly) to have your
comments about all papers that you have read. More important for
presentation to me is how you classify these papers (that is, how
you organize them into related groups) and how you explain the
relation between each of these other projects and your work.
- Vitally, you need to add specific citations. Yes, it is very
useful to explain how the literature can be divided, but it is
essential that such an explanation comes with statements about how
individual papers fall in each group. It is also especially important
that you identify both examples papers in each group as well as
the papers that you and others view as important (not necessarily
the same).

Things that need rethinking:
- Whatever classification you introduce, you should make sure that
you already know where your work falls. It might be useful for
you to make a table (similar to the one in the concoqtion paper)
as you are trying to figure out how to organize the related work.
It is OK to find that you are redoing the table several times
until you get to something that you are happy with.
- Avoid complex definitions, especially for things that are not
necessarily essential for your related work section. Examples
are the subjects of operational and denotational semantics. If
you think about what you have done, you have not really focused
on related work. Instead, you tried to explain why there are
problems with operational and denotational semantics based design.
This is not a good idea, for two reasons. First, it may not
be something that can be done very clearly. Second, it is not
essential for your goal, which is organizing the related work,
and explaining where in this context your paper falls.
- When you are doing a classification of papers, you can't do that
based on the title or the topic or what you heard about papers
or projects. You really have to read the papers carefully and
determine for yourself what you think about the extent and the
way they have managed (or not managed) to solve "The Problem(s)"
that you have identified at the beginning of your related work
section.