Community:RinkeHoekstra about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption

{{#reviewabout:Submissions:Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption|}}

RinkeHoekstra about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption (Revision ID: Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption?oldid=5867 5867)

Overall suggestion (score): -1 - reject

Review Summary: The reason I propose to reject this pattern is that it is decidedly silly.

The authors say that "The definition of the Hybrid Class is the union (OR) of the definitions of the disjoint classes."

The reason is that the two classes A and B are subsumed by their union A V B. What the pattern does is that we leave implicit what the proper type of the individual is: we simply do not know whether the individual is in A or B. However, any individual instance of A V B will always be either in A or in B, but never in both (since this is what disjointness specifies).

The example therefore does not applies. If Animal_Plant is defined as the union of Animal and Plant (both disjoint) then there still exist no Animal_Plant instances... and this is what the pattern supposedly tries to solve.

Reviewer Confidence:

Problems:

Community Relevance:

Relation to Best Practices:

Reusability:

Relations to Other Patterns:

Overall Understandability:

Clear Problem Description:

Clear Relevance and Consequences:

Clear Figures and Illustrations:

Missing Information:

Posted: 2009-10-25 Last modified: 2009/10/25

All reviews | Add a comment at the bottom of this page