Reviews:StefanoDavid about OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL)

From Odp

Revision as of 14:07, 10 September 2009 by StefanoDavid (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

StefanoDavid about OnlynessIsLoneliness (OIL) (Revision ID: (OIL)?oldid=5787 5787)

Overall suggestion (score): 1 - needs minor revision

Review Summary: The authors propose a solution to a common modeling error, the use of disjointness assertions, that causes inconsistencies.
Reviewer Confidence: Good knowledge in Description logics and OWL
Problems: * I would rephrase the problem statement: I would suggest to call "problem" the modeling error (which is obviously an Anti-Pattern, as it causes the ontology to become useless), and "pattern" the proposed solution.
  • There are different hydrontologies in the "Pattern solution example": I would point only to one of them, as they seem very similar, and use it also as use case.
  • Although the hydrontologies seem to be some official Spanish knowledge bases, I would rather use an english version of a part of them that clearly states the problem, as it is not so comfortable to search in the whole ontology the pattern.
  • I would extend the definition of this pattern by suggesting that it is allowed the use of multiple restrictions (i.e., C1 subClassOf R only C2, ... ,C1 subClassOf R only Cn) to be combined in a single disjointness axiom, e.g., for those languages, like OWL2, that allow DisjointClasses into a single axiom:

C1 subClassOf R only (C2 or ... or Cn); disjointClasses (C2, ... Cn)

  • "We have categorized them into three groups:". There are no three groups in the remainder, but the description of three classes
Community Relevance: Medium/High, since the wrong use and the misuse of disjointness is often difficult to spot.
Relation to Best Practices: High, as it solves modeling mistakes.
Reusability: Yes, across different languages and every time a (wrongly defined) disjointness is involved
Relations to Other Patterns:
Overall Understandability: The modeling problem and proposed solutions need a rewording, but the purpose is clear.
Clear Problem Description: No, it needs some rework.
Clear Relevance and Consequences: yes
Clear Figures and Illustrations: None provided
Missing Information: ER/UML diagram

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