Reviews:FrancoisScharffe about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption
Revision as of 12:54, 11 September 2009 by FrancoisScharffe(Talk | contribs)(New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/11 |SubmittedBy=FrancoisScharffe |ContentOPUnderReview=Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption |Re...)
Reviewer Confidence: Medium
(review by Ondrej Zamazal)
Problems: The patterns suggests to enlarge class definition. However afterwards what about disjointness of original siblings (from example Animal and Plan). Enlarged class will still be disjoint with the Animal class or not? It is not clear for me now and it would be good to discuss this in the pattern description. This pattern is strongly related to pattern 'Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption' which should be explicitly mentioned there (they are from the same author). Perhaps it would be even better to have these two solutions for one problem in one pattern description with clear distinguishing when which solution should be applied (also wrt. an application of ontology which influence modeling choice). Defining hybrid class seems to me be better solution. Therefore it would be good to mention arguments against and in favor of these two solutions of one specific problem. General remark: If I remember well there is one category of ODP patterns 'Change Management Patterns' and sub-category 'Inconsistency pattern'. It seems it perfectly fits into this category. But perhaps it is not in official catalog so far.
Missing Information: relation to 'Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption' pattern, dicussion about logical and modelling consequences of this solution, argumentation wrt. the other solution ('Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsumption') to the same problem
'Ontology Design Patterns'