http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Reviews%3AAndreaNuzzolese_about_Normalization 2026-06-09T19:03:07Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:AndreaNuzzolese_about_Normalization&diff=10126&oldid=prev 2010-09-19T19:14:36Z

<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/19 |SubmittedBy=AndreaNuzzolese |ContentOPUnderReview=Normalization |RevisionID=10115 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |ReviewSumm...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2010/9/19<br /> |SubmittedBy=AndreaNuzzolese<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=Normalization<br /> |RevisionID=10115<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=The aims behind the proposal are very clear to understand and the Normalization pattern can be, with a few revisions, a good solution to them. I agree that in the case of a large polyhierarchy is much better to infer subsumption relationships than hardcode them, but it should be clarify better how the complexity of the reasoning is increased by a lot of new added restrictions, expecially with large data sets of triples. Furthermore adding disjointess can introduce inconsistence in the schema and incoherence in the data. <br /> |ReviewConfidence=High<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=The example figure is not so clear and self-explained. I suggest to add some lines to explain how and where restrictions and disjointess clauses are added.<br /> }}</div>

AndreaNuzzolese