Reviews:WimPeters about Enlarge Class Definition for Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption

From Odp

Revision as of 14:18, 9 September 2009 by WimPeters (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Review Summary: This pattern proposal deserves discussion, in combination with the pattern proposal "Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption", which is a solution variant to the same problem proposed by the same authors. I am not sure about the logical consequences of including definitions from a desired superclass for the hyponymic relation between the subclass enriched with this superclass definition and its orginal superclass.
Reviewer Confidence: medium
Problems: The problems and discussion points associated with this pattern are the same as those mentioned for the "Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption" pattern. The additional problem I see with this particular pattern is that, once the definition from the disjoint superclass has been added, the subclass relation between the enriched subclass and its original superclass may be compromised.
Community Relevance: high for best practise.
Relation to Best Practices: none that I know of.
Reusability: very reusable if approved.
Relations to Other Patterns: related to the "Define Hybrid Class Resolving Disjointness due to Subsomption" pattern.
Overall Understandability: good, although a very clear definition of what "definition" means is crucial for a proper understanding.
Clear Problem Description: description is clear.
Clear Relevance and Consequences: Consequences are unclear.
Clear Figures and Illustrations: clear enough. The enriched definition is not graphically linked to the class it originates from.
Missing Information: there is no owl ontology, nor a scenario description

Posted: 2009/9/9 Last modified: 2009/9/9

All reviews | Add a comment at the bottom of this page
Personal tools
Quality Committee
Content OP publishers