| HasReviewSummary
|
Review Summary: The main reason I propose … Review Summary: The main reason I propose to reject this pattern is that it appears to be, just like the so called "Reactor Pattern", an attempt to generalize my "OOPMetrics" content pattern, but without citing the source.
Reviewer Confidence: High (afterall, it looks like a generalization of my own pattern).
Problems:
The main reason I propose to reject this pattern is that it appears to be, just like the so called "Reactor Pattern", an attempt to generalize my "OOPMetrics" content pattern, but without citing the source. Even if this is a collaborative website, I believe the source should still be cited, if it was based on it. There would have been ways of citing the source: put a link to the OOPMetrics ontology in the section "Web References" and in "Related CPs". The Standard Enforcer Pattern was submitted after the OOPMetrics (this can be checked on this website). After some time, the "Standard Enforcer Pattern" appeared, which looks like a generalization of it. Even some phrases look similar to me. Here are just a few reasons (there are others) why I believe it is a variant (generalization) of OOPMetrics:
-in my ontology pattern (OOPMetrics ontology pattern) one of the competency questions is:
"What are the software metrics for a particular project/package/class/method?"
-in the "Standard Enforcer Pattern" the description of the ProcessEnforcingStandard is:
"A process/operation/activity or serrvice that enforces one or more standard." (looks like a generalization)
-the intent is also similar, although explained differently and for a general domain.
-the ontology is not very complex, but it was made to appear that way by putting a lot of equivalences, textual descriptions/comments, but little "real content".
It seems that the "real content" and the idea is mostly "borrowed" from OOPMetrics. It looks like it was done in 10 min based on OOPMetrics, but for a general domain and without citing the source.
-in the scenario there are mentioned a "set of descriptive metrics", but there is no class about metrics in this pattern and it is unclear how this pattern can actually be of use in this scenario. It looks somewhat like my God Class scenario, but this is for "algal biomass production". Here the so called "guidelines" are similar to the rules needed to see if a class is a God Class, based on it's metrics. Again, it looks like it was created in 10 min, based on OOPMetrics, without citing the source.
-labels are missing, just like in the first version of OOPMetrics.
Community Relevance: Bad (a generalization of OOPMetrics could be useful, but I don't believe this particular pattern is a useful generalization, and does not cite the source).
Relation to Best Practices: I don't believe it was based on best practices of writing ontologies over the years, it looks like it was done in 10 min based on OOPMetrics.
Reusability: Bad (it was perhaps intended as a generalization, but it has some additional classes that are not necessary and I don't think it's very reusable)
Relations to Other Patterns: I believe it has a relation with the "Reactor Pattern" and with my "OOPMetrics", in the sense that
Reactor Pattern + Standard Enforcer Pattern = a generalization of OOPMetrics.
Unfortunately, neither one is mentioned as a Related CP.
Overall Understandability: A generalization of OOPMetrics would be useful, but I don't understand why this particular pattern would be useful and I can't understand why we need to have two generalizations: Standard Enforcer and Reactor Pattern.
Clear Problem Description: Bad
Clear Relevance and Consequences: Bad
Clear Figures and Illustrations: I don't see why there is rdfs:subClassOf in the diagram so many times instead of the "inheritance" relation. It's too much text in the diagram.
Missing Information: citations are missing in this pattern description. This website may be collaborative, but I still believe citations are required if it was based on another pattern, otherwise one could do even more strange things, like simply copy an existing pattern and just change the name of the author. And perhaps the citation is missing in the article that should have come with this pattern as well. Also, the domain is not stated, perhaps it's "general".
Overall, it is a very strange pattern. ".
Overall, it is a very strange pattern.
|
