http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Reviews%3AGerdGroener_about_Inverse_n-ary_relationship 2026-04-18T11:17:09Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:GerdGroener_about_Inverse_n-ary_relationship&diff=10100&oldid=prev 2010-09-10T16:43:59Z

<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/10 |SubmittedBy=GerdGroener |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship |RevisionID=10060 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |R...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2010/9/10<br /> |SubmittedBy=GerdGroener<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship<br /> |RevisionID=10060<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=The pattern extends (or restricts) the n-ary relationship pattern (Pattern1) from W3C. In the W3C pattern, the elements of the n-ary relation are non-distinguished. In this case, the inverse property means defining the inverse property of all properties.<br /> <br /> The proposed pattern makes a simple, but from my point of view a quite restricting assumption. In the n-ary relation, there are two distinguishable elements and the ontology engineer is only interested of the inverse property of the property that connects this two elements.<br /> The other elements are considered as optional.<br /> <br /> <br /> Concerning this restriction, I doubt that this is really a n-ary relation! The focus is only on the relations between this two distinguishable elements. The others can be neglected.<br /> <br /> <br /> |ReviewConfidence=high<br /> |ReviewProblems=As already said, the main problem is that this is not really a n-ary relation.<br /> |ReviewRelevance=high<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=good<br /> |ReviewReusability=borderline<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=Could be improved:<br /> <br /> Firstly, I would use the same type of diagram as on the W3C page. Secondly, I suggest to give an example with a diagram for your pattern. Moreover, I would use one of the examples that are given on the W3C page. <br /> |ReviewFigures=Could be improved (see above):<br /> Give the example in the same representation style like on the web page of W3C.<br /> <br /> }}</div>

GerdGroener