| CreationDate
|
8 September 2009 +
|
| HasClearFigures
|
Clear, and a bit trivial.
|
| HasClearProblemDescription
|
As mentioned, the problem is oversimplified. The description of the simple problem, i.e. mechanically transforming a table into an ontology, is clear.
|
| HasClearRelevanceDescription
|
Not much.
|
| HasProblems
|
1) Although the semantics of the hierarchi … 1) Although the semantics of the hierarchical relation 'may vary depending of the context', there are no alternative modelling options offered; the subclass construct is uniformly used, which has the subset semantics; this may lead to discrepancies if the original resource is e.g. partonomy-oriented. This should at least be commented on, as a limitation of the pattern usage.
2) While the problem description assumes that the original source is structured as tree, the process description has a special provision for non-tree structures. This is confusing.
3) When a new 'ad hoc' class is created, it is not clear if it is to be identified with a standard class such as owl:Thing, or given the URI through some naming convention - I would expect such a convention as natural part of the pattern.
Text-level issues:
- what is caparentID?
- the last diagram (at example level) is trivial and could safely be omitted el) is trivial and could safely be omitted
|
| HasRelations
|
Obviously, the same non-ontological resources could be transformed to a different ontological form (such as instance-level), presumably using an alternative reengineering pattern.
|
| HasRelevance
|
This kind of patterns is naturally important, as reengineering of non-ontological resources is an ubiquitous problem.
|
| HasReusability
|
The pattern is specific to a particular category of non-ontological resources. However, its abstract part could be reused for some other categories.
|
| HasReviewScore
|
0 -needsmajorrevision +
|
| HasReviewSummary
|
A reengineering pattern for a predefined t … A reengineering pattern for a predefined type of tabular structure. Semantic aspects are not taken into account. There are some inconsistencies in the description.
However, it is a good starting point for discussion at WOP. I assume it should be explained in the context of reengineering patterns in general. text of reengineering patterns in general.
|
| HasReviewerConfidence
|
The problem is relatively transparent and the domain is generic, so I have high confidence in my assessment.
|
| HasUnderstandability
|
Understandable, even a bit too verbose in places.
|
| IsBestPractice
|
The problem is simplified such that the current pattern looks like the only straightforward solution. In reality a more complex solution would be needed.
|
| LastModifiedDate
|
8 September 2009 +
|
| Modification dateThis property is a special property in this wiki.
|
8 September 2009 19:44:19 +
|
| ReviewAboutSubmissionThis property is a special property in this wiki.
|
Classification scheme - adjacency list model - to Taxonomy +
|
| ReviewAboutVersion
|
5,681 +
|
| SubmittedBy
|
VojtechSvatek +
|
| Categories |
QCReview +
|
