Reviews:LuigiIannone about OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)
Revision as of 08:51, 1 September 2009 by LuigiIannone (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/1 |SubmittedBy=LuigiIannone |ContentOPUnderReview=OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL) |RevisionID=5621 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |Re...)

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

LuigiIannone about OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL) (Revision ID: (OIL)?oldid=5621 5621)

Overall suggestion (score): 1 - needs minor revision

Review Summary: In order to avoid the confusion I would rather describe the solution as the pattern, rather than the anti-pattern. Therefore, i would leave the motivation untouched but I'd reword the aim. Instead of describing the common mistake and its possible correction, I would start describing the situation, i.e.: a universal value restriction on a property that has, in fact, as its range the union of two disjunct classes.

Reviewer Confidence: Good

Problems: I would add some natural language description of the problem example to the bare OWL code.

Community Relevance:

Relation to Best Practices:

Reusability:

Relations to Other Patterns:

Overall Understandability: Rewording the Aim section will avoid confusion between the anti-pattern and the proposed solution. Commenting the problem example with more text in addition to the OWL could certainly improve the understandability of the pattern.

Clear Problem Description:

Clear Relevance and Consequences: Something more could be said in the motivation about the consequences that using the wrong solution (anti-pattern) could have in terms of consistency of the ontology and satisfiability of its classes

Clear Figures and Illustrations:

Missing Information:

Posted: 2009/9/1 Last modified: 2009/09/1

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