Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|RevisionID=5597 | |RevisionID=5597 | ||
|CreationDate=2009/9/8 | |CreationDate=2009/9/8 | ||
− | |Score= | + | |Score=1 - needs minor revision |
|ReviewSummary=The proposal looks sensible to me, but I do expect that other peers might believe it to be rather trivial, thus I would recommend it for discussion at WOP. It is however essential that this proposal is presented in such a way as to target naive developers. | |ReviewSummary=The proposal looks sensible to me, but I do expect that other peers might believe it to be rather trivial, thus I would recommend it for discussion at WOP. It is however essential that this proposal is presented in such a way as to target naive developers. | ||
|ReviewConfidence=ODPs: medium/high | |ReviewConfidence=ODPs: medium/high |
{{#reviewabout:Submissions:DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC)|}}
Overall suggestion (score): 1 - needs minor revision
Since we are mentioning logical antipatterns, I think a couple of examples showing the bizarre consequences of a failure to apply such a pattern. Like, say, showing how statements such as :
- SaltLake isEquivalentTo not FreshWaterLake - Balkhash isA SaltLake - SpiderMan isDifferentFrom Balkhash
then reasoning could infer that SpiderMan is a FreshWaterLake. Anyway, the more absurd and shocking the examples, the higher the chance for inexperienced ontology developers to get it right.