http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Reviews%3AMariaPoveda_about_OOPMetrics 2026-04-15T22:46:23Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:MariaPoveda_about_OOPMetrics&diff=11168&oldid=prev 2012-08-21T07:04:07Z

<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2012/8/21 |SubmittedBy=MariaPoveda |ContentOPUnderReview=OOPMetrics |RevisionID=11161 |Score=0 - needs major revision |ReviewSummary=The...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2012/8/21<br /> |SubmittedBy=MariaPoveda<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=OOPMetrics<br /> |RevisionID=11161<br /> |Score=0 - needs major revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=The patterns describes numerical values (float and integer) for onject-oriented software metrics.<br /> <br /> The pattern is reusable and general enough.<br /> <br /> There are some revisions needed.<br /> |ReviewConfidence=High<br /> |ReviewProblems=Main comments:<br /> <br /> .- The domain of the relationship &quot;hasMetric&quot; is set as the intersection of serveral classes, namely OOPClass, OOPProject, OOPMethod and OOPPackage. I think it should be defined as the union of theses classes so that if a instance holds this property it is not classified as instance of all these types, that might be disjoint, when running a reasoner over the ontology.<br /> <br /> .- The CPAnnotation schema is not imported in the OWL building block as stated in the call. It would be great if the pattern were annotated using such a schema.<br /> <br /> .- There are no labels nor comments in the OWL code.<br /> <br /> Minor comments:<br /> <br /> .- The already existing domain &quot;software&quot; should be added to the domains field.<br /> <br /> .- The figure could be improved by including the datatype properties.<br /> |ReviewRelevance=Good<br /> |ReviewReusability=Good<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=Even though the understandability is good, it would be advisable to explain in more detail the solution description.<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=Good<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=Good<br /> |ReviewFigures=The figure could be improved by including the datatype properties.<br /> }}</div>

MariaPoveda