http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Reviews%3AWimPeters_about_ConceptTerms 2026-04-25T10:38:42Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.25.6 http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/index.php?title=Reviews:WimPeters_about_ConceptTerms&diff=5713&oldid=prev 2009-09-08T11:18:49Z

<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=WimPeters |ContentOPUnderReview=ConceptTerms |RevisionID=5626 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |ReviewSummary=Overa...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br /> |CreationDate=2009/9/8<br /> |SubmittedBy=WimPeters<br /> |ContentOPUnderReview=ConceptTerms<br /> |RevisionID=5626<br /> |Score=1 - needs minor revision<br /> |ReviewSummary=Overall, this pattern constitutes a good candidate, because it is based on an existing standard. This indicates the need for the incorporation of more standard representations for this particular modeling issue in ODP. Only then a proper discussion of this pattern is possible. Until then, the fact that it bases itself on a standard warrants acceptance.<br /> <br /> <br /> |ReviewConfidence=My confidence is high for modeling the relation between linguistic/terminological knowledge and ontology classes.<br /> |ReviewProblems=The pattern has been used in various scenarios, and is from that perspective interesting to discuss.<br /> <br /> The model, which has been re-engineered directly from a terminological standard model, is too simple to express many linguistic notions that contribute to the quality of information extraction.<br /> It is very important to acknowledge that the pattern fits into a range of proposed standard formats for the expression of concept labels in terms of preference and constitution, such as SKOS, TBX, TMF, LMF, LIR and LingInfo.<br /> It is only after the inclusionof these patterns that it is possible to have a proper discussion of the merits of this pattern on the basis of a comprehensive comparison.<br /> <br /> <br /> |ReviewRelevance=high for users adhering to the BS8723-2 standard. Insufficient for users who need to model more comples linguistic knowledge.<br /> |ReviewBestPractice=The pattern does represent a best practise, since it is based on a standard.<br /> There are may alternative solutions, which need to be modeled as alternatives, and linked to this pattern in order to maximize coverage and usage.<br /> |ReviewReusability=very re-usable, because of its modular nature.<br /> |ReviewRelations=other standards and best practises need to be proposed as alternatives.<br /> |ReviewClearProblem=the description of the problem is <br /> |ReviewClearRelevance=these are clearly stated.<br /> |ReviewFigures=Not sll relatons are named in the diagram, more specifically the relations involving terms.<br /> |ReviewMissing=A scenario should be added, in which ideally all classes come into play, in order to show why this particular constellation of simple/compound (non)prefered terms is necessary versus a more straightforward list of components model from LMF (see http://gate.ac.uk/gate-extras/neon/ontologies/Lmf-component-module.owl and http://ontoware.org/frs/download.php/606/lmf.owl<br /> <br /> The authors should be more specific about the way in which the re-engineering of this particular BS8723-2 fragment is incomplete.<br /> It omits the Equivalence relation between SimpleNonPreferredTerm and PreferredTerm. Also, the CompoundEquivalence relation between PreferredTerm and CompoundNonPreferredTerm is lacking. The model is available from http://schemas.bs8723.org/Model.aspx.<br /> }}</div>

WimPeters