<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Reviews%3AVojtechSvatek_about_ConceptTerms</id>
		<title>Reviews:VojtechSvatek about ConceptTerms - Revision history</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Reviews%3AVojtechSvatek_about_ConceptTerms"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:VojtechSvatek_about_ConceptTerms&amp;action=history"/>
		<updated>2026-04-25T10:40:08Z</updated>
		<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.25.6</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:VojtechSvatek_about_ConceptTerms&amp;diff=5742&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>VojtechSvatek: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=VojtechSvatek |ContentOPUnderReview=ConceptTerms |RevisionID=5714 |Score=0 - needs major revision |ReviewSummary=F...</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:VojtechSvatek_about_ConceptTerms&amp;diff=5742&amp;oldid=prev"/>
				<updated>2009-09-08T20:21:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=VojtechSvatek |ContentOPUnderReview=ConceptTerms |RevisionID=5714 |Score=0 - needs major revision |ReviewSummary=F...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;{{Content OP Proposal Review Template&lt;br /&gt;
|CreationDate=2009/9/8&lt;br /&gt;
|SubmittedBy=VojtechSvatek&lt;br /&gt;
|ContentOPUnderReview=ConceptTerms&lt;br /&gt;
|RevisionID=5714&lt;br /&gt;
|Score=0 - needs major revision&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewSummary=First of all, the pattern looks quite unfinished and/or sloppy in terms of documentation. Only when the modelling choices are explained, a true review could be done. &lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewConfidence=The pattern is currently so simple that not much special expertise is needed. I am confident in my assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewProblems=It is not clear what a compound non preferred term looks like and why it is only made of preferred terms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reification of the relation between a concept and the terms should be clearly justified.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scenario is too brief.&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewRelevance=The solution is kind of trivial. There are numerous efforts related to handling lexical aspects of ontologies.&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewReusability=High degree of reuse.&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewRelations=The pattern should probably mention the SKOS vocabulary, which addresses most of the problems in question.&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewUnderstandability=Simple and understandable, except for clearly missing information.&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewClearProblem=Could do, although I would imagine something a bit different under 'language complexity'.&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewClearRelevance=Not much information about consequences.&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewFigures=Only the basic diagram, which looks OK.&lt;br /&gt;
|ReviewMissing=Especially information (and examples) on compound non-preferred terms.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>VojtechSvatek</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>