http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=JoseEmilioLabraGayo 2026-05-28T20:51:07Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:JoseEmilioLabraGayo_about_LicenseLinkedDataResources&diff=11671 2013-08-08T15:13:55Z

<p>JoseEmilioLabraGayo: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2013/8/8 |SubmittedBy=JoseEmilioLabraGayo |ContentOPUnderReview=LicenseLinkedDataResources |RevisionID=11657 |Score=1 - needs minor revi...</p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2013/8/8<br /> |SubmittedBy=JoseEmilioLabraGayo<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=LicenseLinkedDataResources<br /> |RevisionID=11657<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=The authors propose a pattern to assert license issues based on n-ary relations between license, action, agent, resource and condition. <br /> <br /> The accompanying paper contains a more detailed introduction than the web page. Although the authors don't mention if the pattern has been employed in some real scenarios.<br /> |ReviewConfidence=High<br /> |ReviewProblems=The authors declare that they relate license, author, agent, resource and condition. It is not clear if condition is the same as &quot;cc:Requirement&quot;. If it is, I would advise to clarify or to define a property &quot;lldr:Condition&quot;. <br /> <br /> Although reusing existing properties can be a good practice, if those properties have different meanings, it may be better to define new properties with a more specific meaning and relate the new properties to the others.<br /> <br /> It is not clear if the authors separate instances and classes. It is also not clear the granularity of their proposal. The goal is to add licensing information to a statement (in the PDF document they use a partial statement about google stimated stock price) or about a dataset, or both.<br /> <br /> <br /> The submission does not contain OWL examples. The examples in the PDF paper are very simple.<br /> |ReviewRelevance=The pattern can be applied to any context.<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=The pattern is related with the work on Provenance. The final goal is how to add metadata information about a dataset.<br /> <br /> Some information that would be complimentary is the time period in which that license information is valid.<br /> <br /> <br /> |ReviewReusability=I think the proposed ontology/pattern is necessary and although this proposal may still need some work, it has a lot of potential for the future of linked data adoption.<br /> |ReviewRelations=As I said, the pattern is related with the work that is being done in defining provenance.<br /> <br /> It is also related with n-ary relations.<br /> <br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=The pattern lacks some fields in the description that could improve its understandability. A good set of examples and use scenarios could help its adoption.<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=The problem is clearly described.<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=This pattern or some variation of this pattern should be adopted in order for the linked data project to success.<br /> |ReviewFigures=The figures are clear. Although, it would be interesting that the authors had provided some good example.<br /> |ReviewMissing=There is a lack of several fields in the description, specially the examples field. <br /> <br /> <br /> }}</div>

JoseEmilioLabraGayo