http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Reviews%3ALuigiIannone_about_OnlynessIsLoneliness_%28OIL%29 2026-05-06T01:36:29Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:LuigiIannone_about_OnlynessIsLoneliness_(OIL)&diff=5661&oldid=prev 2009-09-01T08:51:04Z

<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/1 |SubmittedBy=LuigiIannone |ContentOPUnderReview=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL) |RevisionID=5621 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |Re...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2009/9/1<br /> |SubmittedBy=LuigiIannone<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)<br /> |RevisionID=5621<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=In order to avoid the confusion I would rather describe the solution as the pattern, rather than the anti-pattern. Therefore, i would leave the motivation untouched but I'd reword the aim. Instead of describing the common mistake and its possible correction, I would start describing the situation, i.e.: a universal value restriction on a property that has, in fact, as its range the union of two disjunct classes.<br /> <br /> |ReviewConfidence=Good<br /> |ReviewProblems=I would add some natural language description of the problem example to the bare OWL code.<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=Rewording the Aim section will avoid confusion between the anti-pattern and the proposed solution.<br /> Commenting the problem example with more text in addition to the OWL could certainly improve the understandability of the pattern.<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=Something more could be said in the motivation about the consequences that using the wrong solution (anti-pattern) could have in terms of consistency of the ontology and satisfiability of its classes<br /> }}</div>

LuigiIannone