Reviews:AndreaNuzzolese about Normalization
Revision as of 19:14, 19 September 2010 by AndreaNuzzolese (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/19 |SubmittedBy=AndreaNuzzolese |ContentOPUnderReview=Normalization |RevisionID=10115 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |ReviewSumm...)

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

AndreaNuzzolese about Normalization (Revision ID: 10115)

Overall suggestion (score): 1 - needs minor revision

Review Summary: The aims behind the proposal are very clear to understand and the Normalization pattern can be, with a few revisions, a good solution to them. I agree that in the case of a large polyhierarchy is much better to infer subsumption relationships than hardcode them, but it should be clarify better how the complexity of the reasoning is increased by a lot of new added restrictions, expecially with large data sets of triples. Furthermore adding disjointess can introduce inconsistence in the schema and incoherence in the data.

Reviewer Confidence: High

Problems:

Community Relevance:

Relation to Best Practices:

Reusability:

Relations to Other Patterns:

Overall Understandability: The example figure is not so clear and self-explained. I suggest to add some lines to explain how and where restrictions and disjointess clauses are added.

Clear Problem Description:

Clear Relevance and Consequences:

Clear Figures and Illustrations:

Missing Information:

Posted: 2010/9/19 Last modified: 2010/09/19

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