Reviews:MathieuDAquin about ConceptGroup

Revision as of 12:34, 8 September 2009 by MathieuDAquin (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)

MathieuDAquin about ConceptGroup (Revision ID: 5660)

Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision

Review Summary: This pattern, as far as I understand, to represents groups of concepts. I think the pattern would be interesting to discuss, but suffer from a number of problems as detailed below.

Reviewer Confidence: I am not really clear about this particular pattern.

Problems: The general issues I see here concern clarity and possible usage.

The first thing is that I am not sure what is meant by concept here. Does it corresponds to the concept of an ontology? In this case shouldn't it be related to owl:Class in the OWL description? This would cause a number of issues at the logical level, in particular, if Group is a concept. This needs to be made clear in my opinion.

Also, Group should be called ConceptGroup.

I don't really understand the difference between subgroup and narrowerThan. Isn't a subgroup narrower?

Finally, I don't see a clear application for this pattern as is.

Community Relevance: Not clear to me.

Relation to Best Practices: The current form of the pattern doesn't seem to relate with best practices, and at least in naming, is not really appropriate.

Reusability: Unclear.

Relations to Other Patterns: PartOf pattern applied to concepts?

Overall Understandability: Low

Clear Problem Description: Not really. I don't in which scenario this helps.

Clear Relevance and Consequences: Not really.

Clear Figures and Illustrations: OK.

Missing Information: example of usage, clear description/definition of the entities.