Reviews:MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa about Normalization Revision as of 10:19, 17 September 2010 by MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/17 |SubmittedBy=MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa |ContentOPUnderReview=Normalization |RevisionID=10115 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |R...) (diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

{{#reviewabout:Submissions:Normalization|}}

MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa about Normalization (Revision ID: 10115)

Overall suggestion (score): 1 - needs minor revision

Review Summary: The pattern provides a solution to represent multi-inheritance.

Reviewer Confidence: High

Problems: Apart from the problems already pointed out by Catherine and Boris, I would like to mention that the solution has also inconvenience that should be included in the description. For example, sometimes to state explicitly the hierarchy is better than provide axioms to implicitly define it (e.g. Naïve developers can include errors in the axioms).

Community Relevance:

Relation to Best Practices:

Reusability: I see here a problem with respect to the restrictions that should be included by developers. This could be a place of problems in the modelling, because of the difficulties of thinking about restrictions that allow to classify classes.

Relations to Other Patterns:

Overall Understandability: In general the pattern is well explained.

Clear Problem Description: The problem description is ok; however, I would like to comment that the problem example (with the figure) is not clear enough. I mean it is not clear the meaning of the first hierarchy and of the second; I assume 'classify' means to run a reasoner, but I think this should be explained in the pattern.

Clear Relevance and Consequences:

Clear Figures and Illustrations:

Missing Information:

Posted: 2010/9/17 Last modified: 2010/09/17

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