-1

In an academic paper I currently say the following:

State-of-the-art research tackles parts of the problem: security and multi-tenancy solutions exist but require hardware, do not meet shared use security concerns or are not applicable to constrained devices.

What I intend to convey is that these solutions either:

  1. require possible hardware

    and/or

  2. not meet shared-use security concerns

    and/or

  3. be inapplicable to constrained devices.

That is, at least one of the properties enumerated above applies here, but others from the list may apply as well. I don’t mean to imply that exactly one and only one of them applies, only that at least one of them applies.

Is my initial idea on how to formulate this sufficiently clear without introducing too many words?

  • Hello, Sven. Your question sounds as if it might be interesting, if you could just give a little more context. What is the problem to which these are possible solutions? None of my guesses is obviously the right one. I have one observation, for what it is worth. You are using a style of grammar that is increasingly widespread and (by die-hards like me) regrettable. For want of a better word, I might call it ‘nominal epitheticism’, by which I mean the use of abstract and other nouns as adjectives. EG “Security and multi-tenancy solutions”. It’s in line with current usage but... – Tuffy Jul 23 '18 at 11:07
  • I've added the full sentence. The problem in question is that "Resource-constrained devices are not fully utilized because they cannot support multiple services or do so securely." – Sven Jul 23 '18 at 11:19
  • That’s clearer. My difficulty now is that I cannot see how a ‘security solution’ could possibly be a “possible candidate for discussion if there remained security concerns! – Tuffy Jul 23 '18 at 11:27
  • 1
    In that case, it is as clear as is possible within the limitations of brevity. I assume your intended audience is expert or at least sufficiently informed. So you will be picking out a familiar problem. So the person apologising for density should be me! – Tuffy Jul 23 '18 at 11:45
  • 1
    Composition questions better be asked on Writing – Kris Jul 23 '18 at 12:21
0

I'm sure a poet could do it better justice, but here is a stab at rephrasing. Would also suggest remove hyphen from multitenancy (within the scope of your paper)

State-of-the-art research addresses only part of the problem. Security and multitenancy solutions exist, but with several challenges which can occur in tandem or in isolation, i.e.; requisite hardware, shared-use security protection, or applicability with constrained devices.

  • In a very jargonistic sentence, you might improve readability by dropping the reference to 'state-of-the-art' if you mean 'even the latest research...' – JeremyC Jul 23 '18 at 21:57
  • @JeremyC 100% yes – tidbertum Jul 24 '18 at 0:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.