Reviews:MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption Revision as of 15:05, 8 September 2009 by MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa |ContentOPUnderReview=Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsompt...) (diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

{{#reviewabout:Submissions:Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption|}}

MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption (Revision ID: Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption?oldid=5624 5624)

Overall suggestion (score): -1 - reject

Review Summary: It is not clear enough the motivation of this pattern. Indeed, in my opinion the example provided is not a good one (it seems strange to have a class called "Fauna-Flora"; what for me should be two different classes).

Reviewer Confidence: Normal.

Problems: The main problem for me is due to the example provide in the pattern. It is not clear that such situation should be represented having a class missed different domain elements.

Community Relevance:

Relation to Best Practices:

Reusability:

Relations to Other Patterns:

Overall Understandability:

Clear Problem Description:

Clear Relevance and Consequences:

Clear Figures and Illustrations:

Missing Information:

Posted: 2009/9/8 Last modified: 2009/09/8

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