Reviews:VojtechSvatek about SimpleOrAggregated

Revision as of 21:29, 16 September 2010 by VojtechSvatek (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)

VojtechSvatek about SimpleOrAggregated (Revision ID: 10097)

Overall suggestion (score): 1 - needs minor revision

Review Summary: A reasonable pattern with somewhat imprecise description.

Reviewer Confidence: The pattern is quite generic and I feel confident to judge it.

Problems: There is at least one inadequacy in the pattern description. The author claims to model that an aggregated individual is "made up of several individuals of the same concept". This is however clearly not (necessarily) the case, as there is no guarantee that the individuals gathered in an aggregated object are of the same class within themselves and/or wrt. the aggregated object!

For each specialization of this pattern, such a requirement would have to be stated explicitly, i.e. not inherited from the pattern itself.

There is a typo: instanciate. I also wonder if Spanish translations within the Elements descriptions are not a bit distracting.

Community Relevance: The pattern is relevant.

Relation to Best Practices: Could be seen as best practice.

Reusability: Medium.

Relations to Other Patterns: I would expect a reference to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/.

Importantly, the submitted pattern is based upon a more generic pattern that I have not come across yet: using different mutually equivalent classes to model different partitions (here, the distinction between 'simple' and 'aggregated') of the given class. This pattern should be either explicitly references (if already published) or submitted separately. Interestingly, this pattern may be used for a similar purpose as another submitted pattern, called Normalization: both can be used to dismantle a complex (possibly, multi-)hierarchy.

I also wonder if the Object class can be considered similar as the Object class e.g. in the ObjectRole pattern.

Overall Understandability: OK

Clear Problem Description: OK

Clear Relevance and Consequences: Consequences not particularly analysed.

Clear Figures and Illustrations: OK

Missing Information: As above