Reviews:VojtechSvatek about Context Slices
Revision as of 20:57, 16 September 2010 by VojtechSvatek (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/16 |SubmittedBy=VojtechSvatek |ContentOPUnderReview=Context Slices |RevisionID=10058 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |ReviewSumma...)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

VojtechSvatek about Context Slices (Revision ID: Slices?oldid=10058 10058)

Overall suggestion (score): 1 - needs minor revision

Review Summary: A reasonable, non-trivial logical pattern.

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?

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' ;-))

Reviewer Confidence: The pattern is quite generic and I feel competent to judge it.

Problems: Just as outlined above.

Community Relevance: Yes, it addresses a pretty relevant and important problem.

Relation to Best Practices: For the problem in question, this (or just slightly modified) pattern seems to be best practice.

Reusability: Rather generic.

Relations to Other Patterns: There is obvious relation to the n-ary relation pattern (e.g. by SWBPD) and actually also to RDF reification as kind-of pattern.

Overall Understandability: Neat description aside the missing details as stated above.

Clear Problem Description: Yes, looks clear.

Clear Relevance and Consequences: Yes, but the consequences could still be elaboreted a bit more.

Clear Figures and Illustrations: Yes.

Missing Information: As above.

Posted: 2010/9/16 Last modified: 2010/09/16

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