http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Reviews%3AAlessandroAdamou_about_Inverse_n-ary_relationship 2026-09-20T13:29:56Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:AlessandroAdamou_about_Inverse_n-ary_relationship&diff=10117&oldid=prev 2010-09-16T20:15:17Z

<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/16 |SubmittedBy=AlessandroAdamou |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship |RevisionID=10101 |Score=0 - needs major revisi...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2010/9/16<br /> |SubmittedBy=AlessandroAdamou<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship<br /> |RevisionID=10101<br /> |Score=0 - needs major revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=The authors propose an extension to the N-ary relationship pattern where two major participants are short-circuited by means of an inverse property pair.&lt;br/&gt;<br /> While the intent is admirable (though it requires a clearer explanation), such a solution does not seem to take into account possible in-house solutions provided by the ontology language.<br /> |ReviewConfidence=Expert in ODPs, fairly competent in Description Logics and OWL(2) constructs.<br /> |ReviewProblems=The pattern naming can be confusing, since it somehow looks more like a &quot;bridged&quot; or &quot;short-circuited&quot; n-ary relationship.&lt;br/&gt;<br /> In OWL2, there should be some consideration for property chaining, which could link the properties that hold between the main actors and the N-ary relationship class. This would partly offer an in-house solution to the issue addressed as well as an elegant way to link relationships with one another, though it would probably require the intervention of reasoners.<br /> |ReviewRelevance=It would be useful to discuss in a workshop to what extent this proposal qualifies as a pattern.<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=Is this proposal supposed to provide an override for the practice of providing inverse property pairs for relationships? According to the figures, inverses appear to be superfluous for &quot;minor&quot; participants to the relationship.<br /> |ReviewReusability=Comparable to the n-ary relationship pattern.<br /> |ReviewRelations=This proposal extends the N-ary relationship pattern for particular yet not infrequent cases where two of the actors involved play a major role in the n-ary relationship.<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=Flawed. Could raise the score by one entire point if properly reformulated (see below).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> Watch out for a few typos : &quot;patter&quot; and &quot;exits&quot; in the motivation, &quot;querys&quot; in the problem example, &quot;taht&quot; in the consequences...<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=The problem is better described in the example than in the motivation. The three reasons for using this pattern are not very clear at all: what does it mean that a relationship &quot;is really amongst&quot; several things and that it &quot;really needs&quot; a further argument? Are these three conditions supposed to hold altogether? It looks like that.&lt;br/&gt;<br /> On the other hand, the aim to speed up frequent queries is comprehensible.<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=Clear if we don't take into account that the &quot;bridge&quot; property pair does not show a connection to those between the main participants and the n-ary relationship class.<br /> |ReviewFigures=The figures seem to show that some inverse properties may be unneeded for what are considered as additional arguments. Also, the abstract version should be made a little more &quot;general&quot;, by pointing out that the minor relations are in an arbitrary [1..n] amount.<br /> }}</div>

AlessandroAdamou