Property:HasUnderstandability
From Odp
This is a property of type Text.
(previous 25) (next 25)
Pages using the property "HasUnderstandability"
Showing 17 pages using this property.
R | |
|---|---|
| RinkeHoekstra about PeriodicInterval + | Ok |
S | |
| StefanoDavid about NegativePropertyAssertions + | See comments above: problem clear stated, but solution less documented |
| StefanoDavid about OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL) + | The modeling problem and proposed solutions need a rewording, but the purpose is clear. |
T | |
| TimLebo about LicenseLinkedDataResources + | 2) Definitions of new concepts The primar … 2) Definitions of new concepts The primary terms lldr:RightsExpression, lldr:LinkedDataResource, lldr:LinkedDataRight, lldr:hasSubject, lldr:hasRight, and lldr:hasObject are not given a natural language definition in the paper. While RightsExpression is given a good natural language definition in the OWL representation, and lldr:LinkedDataResource and lldr:LinkedDataRight are self-explanatory, the peculiar properties lldr:hasSubject, lldr:hasRight, and lldr:hasObject do not have any natural language comments. These three properties are by far the weakest part of the pattern because they are so poorly defined; they seem only to be "defined by example." And, unfortunately, they are the crux of the pattern. See comments "Use of Reasoning" and "No concrete examples" below. Looking at the subclasses of lldr:LinkedDataRight, what is "Linked Data" about it? It appears as though it should be more generally named lldr:Right, which would parallel your lldr: RightsExpression much more naturally and permit application to resources beyond your lldr:LinkedDataResources. Does the diamond in the UML diagram between RightsExpression and License/Contract indicate aggregation? Nothing is defined in the OWL representation except for a subclass relationship. This seems to be contradictory. 12) Approachability for a licensing novice The pattern proposal and description does not provide enough background information about the licensing domain to enable an expert OWL and Linked Data developer to apply the concept. Granted, licensing is a challenging topic, but the pattern should include at least a primer and pointers to authoritative resources that outline the challenges and best practices for licensing practitioners. est practices for licensing practitioners. |
V | |
| ValentinaPresutti about Context Slices + | Good |
| ValentinaPresutti about NegativePropertyAssertions + | poor |
| VioletaDamjanovic about Classification scheme - path enumeration model - to Taxonomy + | Well presented. |
| VojtechSvatek about Classification scheme - adjacency list model - to Taxonomy + | Understandable, even a bit too verbose in places. |
| VojtechSvatek about ConceptTerms + | Simple and understandable, except for clearly missing information. |
| VojtechSvatek about Context Slices + | Neat description aside the missing details as stated above. |
| VojtechSvatek about EventProcessing + | The pattern is relatively clear. Obviously, its presentation at such small space raises some questions. (I listed them rather in the paper review.) |
| VojtechSvatek about Faceted Classification Scheme + | Yes - the description is perhaps oversophisticated for a generic modeller; however, this is probably due to adaptation to the mindset of specialists in faceted systems, for which the pattern is intended. |
| VojtechSvatek about PeriodicInterval + | Partial, see the Problems section. |
| VojtechSvatek about Reactor pattern + | Good. |
| VojtechSvatek about SimpleOrAggregated + | OK |
W | |
| WimPeters about Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption + | good |
| WimPeters about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption + | good, although a very clear definition of what "definition" means is crucial for a proper understanding. |
