(New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/16 |SubmittedBy=AlessandroAdamou |ContentOPUnderReview=Symmetric n-ary relationship |RevisionID=10106 |Score=0 - needs major revi...)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
 
{{Content OP Proposal Review Template
|CreationDate=2010/9/16
 
 
|SubmittedBy=AlessandroAdamou
 
|SubmittedBy=AlessandroAdamou
 
|ContentOPUnderReview=Symmetric n-ary relationship
 
|ContentOPUnderReview=Symmetric n-ary relationship
 
|RevisionID=10106
 
|RevisionID=10106
 +
|CreationDate=2010/9/16
 
|Score=0 - needs major revision
 
|Score=0 - needs major revision
 
|ReviewSummary=While the problem this pattern tries to address cannot go unnoticed in OWL modelling, little explanation is provided as to how it distinguishes from built-in symmetric properties in OWL. As it is, the proposed pattern seems rather awkward for production use, and its naming can be misleading.
 
|ReviewSummary=While the problem this pattern tries to address cannot go unnoticed in OWL modelling, little explanation is provided as to how it distinguishes from built-in symmetric properties in OWL. As it is, the proposed pattern seems rather awkward for production use, and its naming can be misleading.
 
|ReviewConfidence=Expert in ODPs, fairly competent in Description Logics and OWL(2) constructs.
 
|ReviewConfidence=Expert in ODPs, fairly competent in Description Logics and OWL(2) constructs.
 
|ReviewProblems=The pattern as it is conceived seems to be trying to cover all with a short blanket. While it does eliminate the redundancy of providing property pairs, it lends itself to the risk of an uncontrolled growth of n-ary relationship subclasses. What happens if we need to determine the distances between lots of places? Would this result in a new class for each distinguished value for a distance between to places?
 
|ReviewProblems=The pattern as it is conceived seems to be trying to cover all with a short blanket. While it does eliminate the redundancy of providing property pairs, it lends itself to the risk of an uncontrolled growth of n-ary relationship subclasses. What happens if we need to determine the distances between lots of places? Would this result in a new class for each distinguished value for a distance between to places?
 
+
<br/>
 
Talking about "n-ary" symmetry sounds a bit confusing, as symmetry is commonly supposed to hold for binary relationships. The way the pattern is built, "binary" instead of "n-ary" could perhaps suit better.
 
Talking about "n-ary" symmetry sounds a bit confusing, as symmetry is commonly supposed to hold for binary relationships. The way the pattern is built, "binary" instead of "n-ary" could perhaps suit better.
 
|ReviewRelevance=Unquestionably relevant.
 
|ReviewRelevance=Unquestionably relevant.

Latest revision as of 19:53, 16 September 2010

{{#reviewabout:Submissions:Symmetric n-ary relationship|}}

Reviewer.png
Review Summary: While the problem this pattern tries to address cannot go unnoticed in OWL modelling, little explanation is provided as to how it distinguishes from built-in symmetric properties in OWL. As it is, the proposed pattern seems rather awkward for production use, and its naming can be misleading.
Problems: The pattern as it is conceived seems to be trying to cover all with a short blanket. While it does eliminate the redundancy of providing property pairs, it lends itself to the risk of an uncontrolled growth of n-ary relationship subclasses. What happens if we need to determine the distances between lots of places? Would this result in a new class for each distinguished value for a distance between to places?


Talking about "n-ary" symmetry sounds a bit confusing, as symmetry is commonly supposed to hold for binary relationships. The way the pattern is built, "binary" instead of "n-ary" could perhaps suit better.
Community Relevance: Unquestionably relevant.
Relation to Best Practices:
Clear Problem Description: From a purely OWL perspective, this problem seems to come into play when datatype properties are involved, while for object properties it should suffice to set the symmetric flag. This distinction should be pointed out, otherwise an explanation why it is not pertinent to the datatype/object property pair should be given.
Missing Information:

Posted: 2010/9/16 Last modified: 2010/09/16

All reviews | Add a comment at the bottom of this page
The page [[Bootstrap:Footer]] was not found.