Community:RinkeHoekstra about Partition
Revision as of 02:07, 25 October 2009 by RinkeHoekstra (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009-10-25 |SubmittedBy=RinkeHoekstra |ContentOPUnderReview=Partition |RevisionID=5901 |Score=0 - needs major revision |ReviewSummary=We...)

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

RinkeHoekstra about Partition (Revision ID: 5901)

Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision

Review Summary: Well.. what can I say. This pattern again (cf. the pattern for negative property assertions) describes what is already covered by the OWL 2 specification as syntactic sugar. Although I agree that this may be useful for those not willing or able to commit to OWL 2, the pattern should be attributed to the OWL 2 specification, and not the current author of this pattern.

Reviewer Confidence:

Problems:

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: 2009-10-25 Last modified: 2009/10/25

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