Reviews:KarlHammar about LicenseLinkedDataResources

From Odp

Revision as of 15:22, 5 August 2013 by KarlHammar (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

KarlHammar about LicenseLinkedDataResources (Revision ID: 11657)

Overall suggestion (score): 0 - needs major revision

Review Summary: The pattern as introduced and described in the associated WOP 2013 short description seems relevant, and reasonably constructed, with good reuse of existing schemas, and solving an important problem. Unfortunately however, the pattern as published here in the ODP portal is lacking in several key fields, making it difficult to understand.
Reviewer Confidence: High
Community Relevance: The problem the pattern addresses (expressing actor- or context-specific licensing details for RDF data) seems to be highly relevant in the future Semantic Web.
Relation to Best Practices: The pattern makes use of and extends established schemas in a seemingly well thought-through way.
Reusability: The pattern is domain-independent and may be used for any type of RDF data that has rights restrictions in place (i.e., it is highly reusable).
Relations to Other Patterns:
Overall Understandability: Due to the lack of many fields, the pattern is difficult to understand as here posted (i.e. without access to the WOP 2013 pattern summary paper). I would strongly urge the authors to spend some time on developing this pattern page.
Clear Problem Description: The problem that the pattern solves can be partly inferred from the intent field, but this could be expanded upon and exemplified.
Clear Relevance and Consequences: Relevance of the problem can partly be inferred from reading the bullet points under "Solution description", but this can be expanded upon and exemplified.
Clear Figures and Illustrations: My preference would be for ODP illustrations in the portal to not only illustrate the pattern structure itself, but also illustrate a usage example. This pattern is however not unique in not doing so (in fact, most don't).
Missing Information: Competency questions, consequences, scenarios, solution description..

Posted: 2013/8/5 Last modified: 2013/8/5

All reviews | Add a comment at the bottom of this page
5-08-2013 KarlHammar says:

Note that for this review, I only studied the ODP portal page (as instructed by WOP pattern track chairs in an email), and did not go through the associated OWL building block. Tim Lebo points out in his review that there may be some issues with that associated OWL building block, both in terms of inconsistency with the paper description of the same pattern, and in terms of actual flaws/weird design choices. I unfortunately do not have the time to dig deeper into this before the review deadline, but if these comments are valid, obviously the pattern would require more work.

Personal tools
Quality Committee
Content OP publishers