Difference between revisions of "Reviews:StefanoDavid about NegativePropertyAssertions"

Latest revision as of 14:07, 10 September 2009

StefanoDavid about NegativePropertyAssertions (Revision ID: 5778)

Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision

Review Summary: The purpose of this pattern is to allowe negative object property assertion in OWL 1, which are not allowed directly.

Reviewer Confidence: Not fully aware of all details of OWL2 constructors and semantics, but knowledgeable in Description logics and OWL1

Problems: Some comment:

The pattern seems very useful, expecially if used (possible use case) in knowledge systems where is difficult to migrate knowledge bases from OWL1 to OWL2, for different reasons.

the functional syntax seems wrong: According to the W3C specs, it should be NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(ns:prop ns:i1 ns:i2)

it seems to me more a reengineering pattern, as it relates two similar but different languages.

I am not completely sure that there is an equivalence relation among the LHS and the LHS, so I expect a proof or explanation accompaning it

The modeling problem is well stated, but besides the proposed solution, no documentation is provided (ise cases, scenario, etc.)

Community Relevance: medium

Reusability: Possibly, but some use case should be provided.

Relations to Other Patterns: Not in my knowledge

Overall Understandability: See comments above: problem clear stated, but solution less documented

Clear Problem Description: Yes

Clear Figures and Illustrations: None provided

Missing Information: Overall documentation

Posted: 2009/9/10 Last modified: 2009/09/10

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |RevisionID=5778
 |CreationDate=2009/9/10
-|Score=1 - needs minor revision
+|Score=0 - needs major revision
 |ReviewSummary=The purpose of this pattern is to allowe negative object property assertion in OWL 1, which are not allowed directly.
 |ReviewConfidence=Not fully aware of all details of OWL2 constructors and semantics, but knowledgeable in Description logics and OWL1