http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Reviews%3AVojtechSvatek_about_Context_Slices 2026-04-25T10:43:36Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:VojtechSvatek_about_Context_Slices&diff=10118&oldid=prev 2010-09-16T20:57:57Z

<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/16 |SubmittedBy=VojtechSvatek |ContentOPUnderReview=Context Slices |RevisionID=10058 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |ReviewSumma...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2010/9/16<br /> |SubmittedBy=VojtechSvatek<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=Context Slices<br /> |RevisionID=10058<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=A reasonable, non-trivial logical pattern.<br /> <br /> Some associated modelling decisions should be made more precise. In particular, the domain/range of the new relation is not obvious: is it set to cs:ContextualProjection? How can it be distinguished from the general (factual) relation with the same meaning, which would have natural concepts (such as Company and Person) in domain/range?<br /> <br /> To unify terminology, I would prefer to use the name 'Contextual Projection' for the pattern itself, too. (Knowing that Anglo-Saxon people are fond of figurative names such as 'slices' ;-))<br /> |ReviewConfidence=The pattern is quite generic and I feel competent to judge it.<br /> |ReviewProblems=Just as outlined above.<br /> |ReviewRelevance=Yes, it addresses a pretty relevant and important problem.<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=For the problem in question, this (or just slightly modified) pattern seems to be best practice.<br /> |ReviewReusability=Rather generic.<br /> |ReviewRelations=There is obvious relation to the n-ary relation pattern (e.g. by SWBPD) and actually also to RDF reification as kind-of pattern.<br /> |ReviewUnderstandability=Neat description aside the missing details as stated above.<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=Yes, looks clear.<br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=Yes, but the consequences could still be elaboreted a bit more.<br /> |ReviewFigures=Yes.<br /> |ReviewMissing=As above.<br /> }}</div>

VojtechSvatek