Reviews:StefanoDavid about NegativePropertyAssertions
From Odp
(Difference between revisions)
(New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/10 |SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid |ContentOPUnderReview=NegativePropertyAssertions |RevisionID=5778 |ReviewSummary=The purpose of this...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Content OP Proposal Review Template | {{Content OP Proposal Review Template | ||
| - | |||
|SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid | |SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid | ||
|ContentOPUnderReview=NegativePropertyAssertions | |ContentOPUnderReview=NegativePropertyAssertions | ||
|RevisionID=5778 | |RevisionID=5778 | ||
| + | |CreationDate=2009/9/10 | ||
| + | |Score=1 - needs minor revision | ||
|ReviewSummary=The purpose of this pattern is to allowe negative object property assertion in OWL 1, which are not allowed directly. | |ReviewSummary=The purpose of this pattern is to allowe negative object property assertion in OWL 1, which are not allowed directly. | ||
| - | + | |ReviewConfidence=Not fully aware of all details of OWL2 constructors and semantics, but knowledgeable in Description logics and OWL1 | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | |ReviewConfidence=Not fully aware of all details of OWL2 constructors and semantics, but knowledgeable in Description logics and OWL1 | + | |
|ReviewProblems=Some comment: | |ReviewProblems=Some comment: | ||
| Line 20: | Line 18: | ||
* The modeling problem is well stated, but besides the proposed solution, no documentation is provided (ise cases, scenario, etc.) | * The modeling problem is well stated, but besides the proposed solution, no documentation is provided (ise cases, scenario, etc.) | ||
| - | |||
|ReviewRelevance=medium | |ReviewRelevance=medium | ||
|ReviewBestPractice=It can be seen as a good pattern to express (as stated by the author) a logical construct not present in one language | |ReviewBestPractice=It can be seen as a good pattern to express (as stated by the author) a logical construct not present in one language | ||
Revision as of 13:33, 10 September 2009
StefanoDavid about NegativePropertyAssertions (Revision ID: 5778)
Overall suggestion (score): 1 - needs minor 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
Posted: 2009/9/10 Last modified: 2009/9/10
