Difference between revisions of "Reviews:Biological Entities Review ValentinaPresutti"

Latest revision as of 09:13, 5 August 2009

ValentinaPresutti about Biological Entities (Revision ID: Entities?oldid=2011 2011)

Overall suggestion (score):

Review Summary: The CP needs to be improved.

All ontology elements have to be associated with a description.
The domain and range is the same for the three object properties: biological_entity.

However, there is a local restriction on their usage. It seems to me that domain and range should be personalized for each object properties as the classes you restrict on are disjoint. In other words, you do not want to allow for example the assigment of a value of includesOrder for a certain family. This is now possible as the includesOrder property has domain biological_entity.

The CP should import the CP annotation schema (http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/schemas/cpannotationschema.owl).
Which are the competency questions of this CP? And examples?;

Reviewer Confidence:

Problems:

Community Relevance:

Relation to Best Practices:

Reusability:

Relations to Other Patterns:

Overall Understandability:

Clear Problem Description:

Clear Relevance and Consequences:

Clear Figures and Illustrations:

Missing Information:

Posted: 2008-04-10 Last modified: 2009/08/5

All reviews | Add a comment at the bottom of this page

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Content OP Proposal Review Template
-|SubmittedBy=User:ValentinaPresutti
+|SubmittedBy=ValentinaPresutti
-|ContentOPUnderReview=Submissions:Biological Entities
+|ContentOPUnderReview=Biological Entities
-|ReviewText=the CP needs to be improved.
+|CreationDate=2008-04-10
-All ontology elements have to be associated with a description.
+|RevisionID=2011
-The domain and range is the same for the three object properties: [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/biological_entity| biological_entity]]. However, there is a local restriction on their usage. It seems to me that domain and range should be personalized for each object properties as the classes you restrict on are disjoint. In other words, you do not want to allow for example the assigment of a value of [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/includesOrder| includesOrder]] for a certain [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/family| family]]. This is now possible as the [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/includesOrder| includesOrder]] property has domain [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/biological_entity| biological_entity]].
+|ReviewSummary=The CP needs to be improved.
-The CP should import the [http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/schemas/cpannotationschema.owl| CP annotation schema].
+* All ontology elements have to be associated with a description.
-Which are the competency questions of this CP? And an example?
+* The domain and range is the same for the three object properties: [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/biological_entity|biological_entity]].
+However, there is a local restriction on their usage. It seems to me that domain and range should be personalized for each object properties as the classes you restrict on are disjoint. In other words, you do not want to allow for example the assigment of a value of [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/includesOrder| includesOrder]] for a certain [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/family|family]]. This is now possible as the [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/includesOrder|includesOrder]] property has domain [[Submissions:Biological_Entities/biological_entity|biological_entity]].
+* The CP should import the CP annotation schema (http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/schemas/cpannotationschema.owl).
+* Which are the competency questions of this CP? And examples?;
 }}