| CreationDate
|
16 September 2010 +
|
| HasClearFigures
|
Yes.
|
| HasClearProblemDescription
|
Yes, looks clear.
|
| HasClearRelevanceDescription
|
Yes, but the consequences could still be elaboreted a bit more.
|
| HasMissingInformation
|
As above.
|
| HasProblems
|
Just as outlined above.
|
| HasRelations
|
There is obvious relation to the n-ary relation pattern (e.g. by SWBPD) and actually also to RDF reification as kind-of pattern.
|
| HasRelevance
|
Yes, it addresses a pretty relevant and important problem.
|
| HasReusability
|
Rather generic.
|
| HasReviewScore
|
1 -needsminorrevision +
|
| HasReviewSummary
|
A reasonable, non-trivial logical pattern. … A reasonable, non-trivial logical pattern.
Some associated modelling decisions should be made more precise. In particular, the domain/range of the new relation is not obvious: is it set to cs:ContextualProjection? How can it be distinguished from the general (factual) relation with the same meaning, which would have natural concepts (such as Company and Person) in domain/range?
To unify terminology, I would prefer to use the name 'Contextual Projection' for the pattern itself, too. (Knowing that Anglo-Saxon people are fond of figurative names such as 'slices' ;-)) of figurative names such as 'slices' ;-))
|
| HasReviewerConfidence
|
The pattern is quite generic and I feel competent to judge it.
|
| HasUnderstandability
|
Neat description aside the missing details as stated above.
|
| IsBestPractice
|
For the problem in question, this (or just slightly modified) pattern seems to be best practice.
|
| LastModifiedDate
|
16 September 2010 +
|
| Modification dateThis property is a special property in this wiki.
|
16 September 2010 20:57:57 +
|
| ReviewAboutSubmissionThis property is a special property in this wiki.
|
Context Slices +
|
| ReviewAboutVersion
|
10,058 +
|
| SubmittedBy
|
VojtechSvatek +
|
| Categories |
QCReview +
|
