http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Reviews%3AOlafNoppens_about_Inverse_n-ary_relationship 2026-05-14T13:38:36Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:OlafNoppens_about_Inverse_n-ary_relationship&diff=10107&oldid=prev 2010-09-16T13:22:12Z

<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/16 |SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship |RevisionID=10101 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |R...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2010/9/16<br /> |SubmittedBy=OlafNoppens<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=Inverse n-ary relationship<br /> |RevisionID=10101<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=This pattern is an extension of the W3C n-ary relationship in that a n-ary realtionship can be summarized in a simple relationship between two individuals.<br /> <br /> I can image that querying a knowledge base is easier - however, I encourage the author to clarify and explain how this aim is achieved (give an example, etc.). However, there is one problem with the pattern and that's the name: the pattern does not describe an inverse n-ary relationship but a special kind of it where only two distinguished individuals are considered with &quot;additional, and probably optional, argument&quot;.<br /> <br /> |ReviewConfidence=high<br /> |ReviewProblems=There are two problems: first, it's the name as mentioned above, second I would recommend to use the same notation as in the W3C n-ary relationship which is cited. This would make the difference and the understanding clearer.<br /> |ReviewRelevance=good<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=good<br /> |ReviewRelations=Unfortunately the n-ary relationship is not available on ontologydesignpatterns.org<br /> |ReviewMissing=Example in OWL<br /> }}</div>

OlafNoppens