Reviews:VojtechSvatek about ConceptTerms Revision as of 20:21, 8 September 2009 by VojtechSvatek (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/8 |SubmittedBy=VojtechSvatek |ContentOPUnderReview=ConceptTerms |RevisionID=5714 |Score=0 - needs major revision |ReviewSummary=F...) (diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

{{#reviewabout:Submissions:ConceptTerms|}}

VojtechSvatek about ConceptTerms (Revision ID: 5714)

Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision

Review Summary: First of all, the pattern looks quite unfinished and/or sloppy in terms of documentation. Only when the modelling choices are explained, a true review could be done.

Reviewer Confidence: The pattern is currently so simple that not much special expertise is needed. I am confident in my assessment.

Problems: It is not clear what a compound non preferred term looks like and why it is only made of preferred terms.

The reification of the relation between a concept and the terms should be clearly justified.

The scenario is too brief.

Community Relevance: The solution is kind of trivial. There are numerous efforts related to handling lexical aspects of ontologies.

Relation to Best Practices:

Reusability: High degree of reuse.

Relations to Other Patterns: The pattern should probably mention the SKOS vocabulary, which addresses most of the problems in question.

Overall Understandability: Simple and understandable, except for clearly missing information.

Clear Problem Description: Could do, although I would imagine something a bit different under 'language complexity'.

Clear Relevance and Consequences: Not much information about consequences.

Clear Figures and Illustrations: Only the basic diagram, which looks OK.

Missing Information: Especially information (and examples) on compound non-preferred terms.

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

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