(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Review Summary: The pattern is interesting and useful, and well described besides possible improvements that can be done.
A nice problem, very often met in real ontology engineering situations. It would give us the opportunity to have a very interesting discussion at the workshop, I am sure.
In summary my comments are the followings: I see a clear analogy with the DnS (Description and Situation) Content ODP, however I can see the additional value given by a more intuitive and specific vocabulary for a "context terminology" and the additional more specific axioms. I would ask the author to describe why CS provides a benefit with respect to RDF reification of statements. I didn't know the concept of "obtainment" (my fault) but it's still unclear why CS allows more than reification of obtainment.
Additionally I have a question (maybe the author wants to add something in the description that avoids this potential doubt): are contextual projections conceived as concepts? I mean, the object is one, its projection is a concept representing the object's interpretation in a certain situation (context). Makes sense?
Reviewer Confidence: High
Problems: An inaccuracy that I noticed is that this ODP is a Content ODP while the author refers to it as a Logical ODP. At least according to the taxonomy of ODPs currently used in this portal. Such taxonomy is not a law of course, but provides reasonable distinctions, useful for building a "pattern language" in a community like the one we are building altogether. The motivation why I would define it as a content ODP is that it provides a vocabulary and can be easily put in a partial order hierarchy, such as that of CPs.
Community Relevance: The pattern can be potentially applied to all domains. A possible application is the representation of knowledge to be filtered based on contextual constraints, and/or preferences.
Relation to Best Practices: The pattern is described and can be read as a best practice, in the sense that it provides a clear, small, and easy to apply solution to a recurrent problem.
My understanding of the pattern is that it provides a nice vocabulary and specific axiomatization for the usage of the n-ary relation pattern when dealing with modeling contexts. This is perfectly fine, but in the text it seems that the author refers to some additional logical benefit that cannot be obtained with other solutions. I recommend to clarify this aspect.
Reusability: High reuse potential
Relations to Other Patterns: I would describe it as a specialization of DnS , makes sense?
Overall Understandability: Good
Clear Problem Description: It could be improved: see above
Clear Relevance and Consequences: It could be improved: see above
Clear Figures and Illustrations: yes
Missing Information: Nothing to add with respect to the above comments.
