Reviews:GerdGroener about DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC)

From Odp

Revision as of 12:18, 10 September 2009 by GerdGroener (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

GerdGroener about DisjointnessOfComplement (DOC) (Revision ID: (DOC)?oldid=5780 5780)

Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision

Review Summary: The motivation of the pattern is very good and in fact the misunderstanding of DL expressions leads to modeling errors and ambiguity. However, I'm not sure whether this pattern is very helpful.

With respect to the described "Aim" in the pattern, I don't understand why a developer defines C1 as the logical negation of C2 instead of (probably more intuitive) using a disjointness axiom.

This could be a very interesting pattern/topic for discussion at WOP, for instance what is the intention of using disjointness instead of negation (are there benefits)?

However, the submitted pattern proposal so far is to weak to be accepted as a pattern. At least more explanation is necessary.
Reviewer Confidence: good
Problems: For acceptance the pattern needs further explanations why it is beneficial to use disjointness instead of negation.
Community Relevance: good
Relation to Best Practices: Here an explanation is missing why this kind of pattern refer to good practice. Simple examples would improve the understanding.
Reusability: This would be reusable since it refers to a very common and frequent modeling problem.
Relations to Other Patterns:
Overall Understandability: medium
Clear Problem Description: medium
Clear Relevance and Consequences: medium
Clear Figures and Illustrations: medium, no Figures
Missing Information:

Posted: 2009/9/10 Last modified: 2009/9/10

All reviews | Add a comment at the bottom of this page
Personal tools
Quality Committee
Content OP publishers