http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=StefanoDavid 2026-04-29T22:22:35Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:StefanoDavid_about_NegativePropertyAssertions&diff=5795 2009-09-10T14:07:54Z

<p>StefanoDavid: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=NegativePropertyAssertions<br /> |RevisionID=5778<br /> |CreationDate=2009/9/10<br /> |Score=0 - needs major revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=The purpose of this pattern is to allowe negative object property assertion in OWL 1, which are not allowed directly.<br /> |ReviewConfidence=Not fully aware of all details of OWL2 constructors and semantics, but knowledgeable in Description logics and OWL1<br /> |ReviewProblems=Some comment:<br /> <br /> * The pattern seems very useful, expecially if used (possible use case) in knowledge systems where is difficult to migrate knowledge bases from OWL1 to OWL2, for different reasons. <br /> <br /> * the functional syntax seems wrong: According to the W3C specs, it should be NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(ns:prop ns:i1 ns:i2) <br /> <br /> * it seems to me more a reengineering pattern, as it relates two similar but different languages.<br /> <br /> * I am not completely sure that there is an equivalence relation among the LHS and the LHS, so I expect a proof or explanation accompaning it <br /> <br /> * The modeling problem is well stated, but besides the proposed solution, no documentation is provided (ise cases, scenario, etc.)<br /> |ReviewRelevance=medium<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=It can be seen as a good pattern to express (as stated by the author) a logical construct not present in one language<br /> |ReviewReusability=Possibly, but some use case should be provided.<br /> |ReviewRelations=Not in my knowledge<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=See comments above: problem clear stated, but solution less documented<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=Yes<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=They are not clearly stated, but intuitively understandable<br /> |ReviewFigures=None provided<br /> |ReviewMissing=Overall documentation<br /> }}</div>

StefanoDavid http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:StefanoDavid_about_OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5794 2009-09-10T14:07:16Z

<p>StefanoDavid: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/10 |SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid |ContentOPUnderReview=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL) |RevisionID=5787 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |R...</p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2009/9/10<br /> |SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |RevisionID=5787<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=The authors propose a solution to a common modeling error, the use of disjointness assertions, that causes inconsistencies. <br /> |ReviewConfidence=Good knowledge in Description logics and OWL<br /> |ReviewProblems=* I would rephrase the problem statement: I would suggest to call &quot;problem&quot; the modeling error (which is obviously an Anti-Pattern, as it causes the ontology to become useless), and &quot;pattern&quot; the proposed solution.<br /> <br /> * There are different hydrontologies in the &quot;Pattern solution example&quot;: I would point only to one of them, as they seem very similar, and use it also as use case.<br /> <br /> * Although the hydrontologies seem to be some official Spanish knowledge bases, I would rather use an english version of a part of them that clearly states the problem, as it is not so comfortable to search in the whole ontology the pattern.<br /> <br /> * I would extend the definition of this pattern by suggesting that it is allowed the use of multiple restrictions (i.e., C1 subClassOf R only C2, ... ,C1 subClassOf R only Cn) to be combined in a single disjointness axiom, e.g., for those languages, like OWL2, that allow DisjointClasses into a single axiom:<br /> C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or ... or Cn); disjointClasses (C2, ... Cn)<br /> <br /> * &quot;We have categorized them into three groups:&quot;. There are no three groups in the remainder, but the description of three classes<br /> <br /> <br /> |ReviewRelevance=Medium/High, since the wrong use and the misuse of disjointness is often difficult to spot.<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=High, as it solves modeling mistakes.<br /> |ReviewReusability=Yes, across different languages and every time a (wrongly defined) disjointness is involved<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=The modeling problem and proposed solutions need a rewording, but the purpose is clear.<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=No, it needs some rework. <br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=yes<br /> |ReviewFigures=None provided<br /> |ReviewMissing=ER/UML diagram<br /> }}</div>

StefanoDavid http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:StefanoDavid_about_NegativePropertyAssertions&diff=5793 2009-09-10T13:33:21Z

<p>StefanoDavid: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=NegativePropertyAssertions<br /> |RevisionID=5778<br /> |CreationDate=2009/9/10<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=The purpose of this pattern is to allowe negative object property assertion in OWL 1, which are not allowed directly.<br /> |ReviewConfidence=Not fully aware of all details of OWL2 constructors and semantics, but knowledgeable in Description logics and OWL1<br /> |ReviewProblems=Some comment:<br /> <br /> * The pattern seems very useful, expecially if used (possible use case) in knowledge systems where is difficult to migrate knowledge bases from OWL1 to OWL2, for different reasons. <br /> <br /> * the functional syntax seems wrong: According to the W3C specs, it should be NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(ns:prop ns:i1 ns:i2) <br /> <br /> * it seems to me more a reengineering pattern, as it relates two similar but different languages.<br /> <br /> * I am not completely sure that there is an equivalence relation among the LHS and the LHS, so I expect a proof or explanation accompaning it <br /> <br /> * The modeling problem is well stated, but besides the proposed solution, no documentation is provided (ise cases, scenario, etc.)<br /> |ReviewRelevance=medium<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=It can be seen as a good pattern to express (as stated by the author) a logical construct not present in one language<br /> |ReviewReusability=Possibly, but some use case should be provided.<br /> |ReviewRelations=Not in my knowledge<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=See comments above: problem clear stated, but solution less documented<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=Yes<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=They are not clearly stated, but intuitively understandable<br /> |ReviewFigures=None provided<br /> |ReviewMissing=Overall documentation<br /> }}</div>

StefanoDavid http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Submissions:NegativePropertyAssertions&diff=5792 2009-09-10T13:25:27Z

<p>StefanoDavid: Review has been created. Annotation 'assigned' has been removed.</p> <hr /> <div>{{Logical_OP_Proposal_toolbar}}<br /> {{Include Image}}<br /> {{Logical OP General Template<br /> |Name=NegativePropertyAssertions<br /> |SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens,<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Description Template<br /> |Motivation=Prior to OWL 2 negative property assertions (NPA) are difficult to model and, if it they are contained in an ontology, difficult to understand by humans. On the other side, using OWL 2 one can transform these ''helping'' axioms modeling NPAs into OWL2 NPA axiom.<br /> <br /> This pattern describe NPA for ontologies not containing explicit NPA axioms as syntactical sugars and allows for transforming axioms into OWL NPA axioms.<br /> |Aim=Expressing NPAs in ontologies prior to OWL 2 as well as given an transformation rule when using OWL 2.<br /> |Solution=NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(i1 prop i2) is equivalent to:<br /> <br /> SubClassOf(ObjectOneOf(i1), ObjectComplementOf(ObjectSomeValuesFrom(prop, ObjectOneOf(i2)))))<br /> |Elements=Individiual i1<br /> <br /> Individual i2<br /> <br /> ObjectProperty prop<br /> }}<br /> {{Logical OP Example Template}}<br /> {{Logical OP Reference Template}}<br /> <br /> {{Scenarios about me}}<br /> {{Reviews about me}}<br /> {{Submission to event<br /> |Event=WOP2009:Main<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Review assigned]]</div>

StefanoDavid http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:StefanoDavid_about_NegativePropertyAssertions&diff=5791 2009-09-10T13:25:26Z

<p>StefanoDavid: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/10 |SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid |ContentOPUnderReview=NegativePropertyAssertions |RevisionID=5778 |ReviewSummary=The purpose of this...</p> <hr /> <div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2009/9/10<br /> |SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=NegativePropertyAssertions<br /> |RevisionID=5778<br /> |ReviewSummary=The purpose of this pattern is to allowe negative object property assertion in OWL 1, which are not allowed directly.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> |ReviewConfidence=Not fully aware of all details of OWL2 constructors and semantics, but knowledgeable in Description logics and OWL1 <br /> |ReviewProblems=Some comment:<br /> <br /> * The pattern seems very useful, expecially if used (possible use case) in knowledge systems where is difficult to migrate knowledge bases from OWL1 to OWL2, for different reasons. <br /> <br /> * the functional syntax seems wrong: According to the W3C specs, it should be NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(ns:prop ns:i1 ns:i2) <br /> <br /> * it seems to me more a reengineering pattern, as it relates two similar but different languages.<br /> <br /> * I am not completely sure that there is an equivalence relation among the LHS and the LHS, so I expect a proof or explanation accompaning it <br /> <br /> * The modeling problem is well stated, but besides the proposed solution, no documentation is provided (ise cases, scenario, etc.)<br /> <br /> |ReviewRelevance=medium<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=It can be seen as a good pattern to express (as stated by the author) a logical construct not present in one language<br /> |ReviewReusability=Possibly, but some use case should be provided.<br /> |ReviewRelations=Not in my knowledge<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=See comments above: problem clear stated, but solution less documented<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=Yes<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=They are not clearly stated, but intuitively understandable<br /> |ReviewFigures=None provided<br /> |ReviewMissing=Overall documentation<br /> }}</div>

StefanoDavid