http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/index.php?title=Reviews:AndreaNuzzolese_about_Normalization&feed=atom&action=historyReviews:AndreaNuzzolese about Normalization - Revision history2024-03-29T08:23:35ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.13.2http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/index.php?title=Reviews:AndreaNuzzolese_about_Normalization&diff=10126&oldid=prevAndreaNuzzolese: New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/19 |SubmittedBy=AndreaNuzzolese |ContentOPUnderReview=Normalization |RevisionID=10115 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |ReviewSumm...2010-09-19T19:14:36Z<p>New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2010/9/19 |SubmittedBy=AndreaNuzzolese |ContentOPUnderReview=Normalization |RevisionID=10115 |Score=1 - needs minor revision |ReviewSumm...</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{Content OP Proposal Review Template<br />
|CreationDate=2010/9/19<br />
|SubmittedBy=AndreaNuzzolese<br />
|ContentOPUnderReview=Normalization<br />
|RevisionID=10115<br />
|Score=1 - needs minor revision<br />
|ReviewSummary=The aims behind the proposal are very clear to understand and the Normalization pattern can be, with a few revisions, a good solution to them. I agree that in the case of a large polyhierarchy is much better to infer subsumption relationships than hardcode them, but it should be clarify better how the complexity of the reasoning is increased by a lot of new added restrictions, expecially with large data sets of triples. Furthermore adding disjointess can introduce inconsistence in the schema and incoherence in the data. <br />
|ReviewConfidence=High<br />
|ReviewUnderstandability=The example figure is not so clear and self-explained. I suggest to add some lines to explain how and where restrictions and disjointess clauses are added.<br />
}}</div>AndreaNuzzolese