http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Reviews%3ARinkeHoekstra_about_OOPMetrics 2026-04-29T23:59:32Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:RinkeHoekstra_about_OOPMetrics&diff=11170&oldid=prev 2012-08-21T11:51:11Z

<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2012/8/21 |SubmittedBy=RinkeHoekstra |ContentOPUnderReview=OOPMetrics |RevisionID=11169 |Score=-1 - reject |ReviewSummary=The ontology h...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2012/8/21<br /> |SubmittedBy=RinkeHoekstra<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=OOPMetrics<br /> |RevisionID=11169<br /> |Score=-1 - reject<br /> |ReviewSummary=The ontology has very limited motivation, and it is unclear to me how the ontology would form a reusable pattern across different ontologies. The idea of ontology design patterns is that they present fragments of ontologies that are common across multiple domains. An ontology for evaluating OOP, however useful, is not a pattern in that sense, it is a very small ontology in its own right, that has a very specific purpose. Perhaps if this ontology could be generalized to rating/ranking/measuring things in general, it could be a pattern. However, this will require some more substantial backing.<br /> |ReviewConfidence=High<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=It is an ontology for measuring best practices in OOP, which is good. However, the ontology itself does not follow best practices (lack of labels, limited documentation etc.<br /> |ReviewReusability=Reusable but only for a very specific task.<br /> |ReviewRelations=None<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=Ok<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=Far to limited discussion<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=Relevance is clear for OOP metrics, but not as a pattern.<br /> |ReviewFigures=Yes<br /> }}</div>

RinkeHoekstra