Review Summary: The purpose of this pattern is to allowe negative object property assertion in OWL 1, which are not allowed directly.
Reviewer Confidence: Not fully aware of all details of OWL2 constructors and semantics, but knowledgeable in Description logics and OWL1
- The pattern seems very useful, expecially if used (possible use case) in knowledge systems where is difficult to migrate knowledge bases from OWL1 to OWL2, for different reasons.
- the functional syntax seems wrong: According to the W3C specs, it should be NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(ns:prop ns:i1 ns:i2)
- it seems to me more a reengineering pattern, as it relates two similar but different languages.
- I am not completely sure that there is an equivalence relation among the LHS and the LHS, so I expect a proof or explanation accompaning it
- The modeling problem is well stated, but besides the proposed solution, no documentation is provided (ise cases, scenario, etc.)
Community Relevance: medium
Relation to Best Practices: It can be seen as a good pattern to express (as stated by the author) a logical construct not present in one language
Reusability: Possibly, but some use case should be provided.
Relations to Other Patterns: Not in my knowledge
Overall Understandability: See comments above: problem clear stated, but solution less documented
Clear Problem Description: Yes
Clear Relevance and Consequences: They are not clearly stated, but intuitively understandable
Clear Figures and Illustrations: None provided
Missing Information: Overall documentation
Posted: 2009/9/10 Last modified: 2009/9/10