KarlHammar: Article updated via HTTP request

2013-08-05T15:22:28Z

Article updated via HTTP request

KarlHammar: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2013/8/5 |SubmittedBy=KarlHammar |ContentOPUnderReview=LicenseLinkedDataResources |RevisionID=11657 |Score=0 - needs major revision |Rev...

2013-08-05T15:16:11Z

New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2013/8/5 |SubmittedBy=KarlHammar |ContentOPUnderReview=LicenseLinkedDataResources |RevisionID=11657 |Score=0 - needs major revision |Rev...

New page

{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2013/8/5
|SubmittedBy=KarlHammar
|ContentOPUnderReview=LicenseLinkedDataResources
|RevisionID=11657
|Score=0 - needs major revision
|ReviewSummary=The pattern as introduced and described in the associated WOP 2013 short description seems relevant, and reasonably constructed, with good reuse of existing schemas, and solving an important problem. Unfortunately however, the pattern as published here in the ODP portal is lacking in several key fields, making it difficult to understand.
|ReviewConfidence=High
|ReviewRelevance=The problem the pattern addresses (expressing actor- or context-specific licensing details for RDF data) seems to be highly relevant in the future Semantic Web.
|ReviewBestPractice=The pattern makes use of and extends established schemas in a seemingly well thought-through way.
|ReviewReusability=The pattern is domain-independent and may be used for any type of RDF data that has rights restrictions in place (i.e., it is highly reusable).
|ReviewUnderstandability=Due to the lack of many fields, the pattern is difficult to understand as here posted (i.e. without access to the WOP 2013 pattern summary paper). I would strongly urge the authors to spend some time on developing this pattern page.
|ReviewClearProblem=The problem that the pattern solves can be partly inferred from the intent field, but this could be expanded upon and exemplified.
|ReviewClearRelevance=Relevance of the problem can partly be inferred from reading the bullet points under "Solution description", but this can be expanded upon and exemplified.
|ReviewFigures=My preference would be for ODP illustrations in the portal to not only illustrate the pattern structure itself, but also illustrate a usage example. This pattern is however not unique in not doing so (in fact, most don't).
|ReviewMissing=Competency questions, consequences, scenarios, solution description..
}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 5 August 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:
	\|ReviewMissing=Competency questions, consequences, scenarios, solution description..		\|ReviewMissing=Competency questions, consequences, scenarios, solution description..
	}}		}}
		+	<noinclude>=====5-08-2013 [[User:KarlHammar]] says:=====
		+	Note that for this review, I only studied the ODP portal page (as instructed by WOP pattern track chairs in an email), and did not go through the associated OWL building block. Tim Lebo points out in his review that there may be some issues with that associated OWL building block, both in terms of inconsistency with the paper description of the same pattern, and in terms of actual flaws/weird design choices. I unfortunately do not have the time to dig deeper into this before the review deadline, but if these comments are valid, obviously the pattern would require more work.</noinclude>

Reviews:KarlHammar about LicenseLinkedDataResources - Revision history

KarlHammar: Article updated via HTTP request

KarlHammar: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2013/8/5 |SubmittedBy=KarlHammar |ContentOPUnderReview=LicenseLinkedDataResources |RevisionID=11657 |Score=0 - needs major revision |Rev...