Reviews:StefanoDavid about NegativePropertyAssertions

Revision as of 14:07, 10 September 2009 by StefanoDavid (Talk | contribs)

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

StefanoDavid about NegativePropertyAssertions (Revision ID: 5778)

Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision

Review Summary: The purpose of this pattern is to allowe negative object property assertion in OWL 1, which are not allowed directly.

Reviewer Confidence: Not fully aware of all details of OWL2 constructors and semantics, but knowledgeable in Description logics and OWL1

Problems: Some comment:

• The pattern seems very useful, expecially if used (possible use case) in knowledge systems where is difficult to migrate knowledge bases from OWL1 to OWL2, for different reasons.

• the functional syntax seems wrong: According to the W3C specs, it should be NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(ns:prop ns:i1 ns:i2)

• it seems to me more a reengineering pattern, as it relates two similar but different languages.

• I am not completely sure that there is an equivalence relation among the LHS and the LHS, so I expect a proof or explanation accompaning it

• The modeling problem is well stated, but besides the proposed solution, no documentation is provided (ise cases, scenario, etc.)

Community Relevance: medium

Relation to Best Practices: It can be seen as a good pattern to express (as stated by the author) a logical construct not present in one language

Reusability: Possibly, but some use case should be provided.

Relations to Other Patterns: Not in my knowledge

Overall Understandability: See comments above: problem clear stated, but solution less documented

Clear Problem Description: Yes

Clear Relevance and Consequences: They are not clearly stated, but intuitively understandable

Clear Figures and Illustrations: None provided

Missing Information: Overall documentation