Reviews:VojtechSvatek about Reactor pattern

From Odp

Jump to: navigation, search

VojtechSvatek about Reactor pattern (Revision ID: pattern?oldid=11175 11175)

Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision

Review Summary: On the positive side, the pattern is sound and neatly described.

On the negative side: - it doesn't bring much novelty, as its design is rather straightforward; it seems to me that an ontology author could, with relatively high probability, use this kind of modelling anyway when dealing with processes in a certain domain - it doesn't position/link this pattern with respect to related CODPs already in the repository

From the conceptualisation viewpoint, the author doesn't make clear that the pattern is actually meant to model *types* of processes rather than individual processes. This only cames out when looking at the use case.
Reviewer Confidence: I have solid background in ODPs in general. Not particularly in process modelling, however, the pattern doesn't raise any sophisticated issues.
Problems: I did not notice any technical problem proper. The modelling seems sound.
Community Relevance: As said above, the pattern is intuitive. Therefore, on the one hand there is no mental threshold for its adoption. On the other hand this decreases its utility, as I would expect that many modellers would use this kind of modelling anyway; the added value then only consists in reusing the 'standard' entities from the portal, which would then be traded off for possible inconvenience when one would need to deviate from the pattern a bit, in a specific setting.
Relation to Best Practices: Alternative solutions are not discussed.
Reusability: The reusability is high.
Relations to Other Patterns: Other relevant CODPs from the portal are neither reused nor discussed.
Overall Understandability: Good.
Clear Problem Description: Clear.
Clear Relevance and Consequences: The consequences of pattern use are not properly discussed, as no modelling alternatives are compared.
Clear Figures and Illustrations: OK
Missing Information: None aside what mentioned above.

Posted: 2012/8/31 Last modified: 2012/8/31

All reviews | Add a comment at the bottom of this page
Personal tools
Quality Committee
Content OP publishers