Review of AOPs should also be made "modular"

[JasonOBrien]

We need a solution for the review of AOP that have shared KEs and KERs.

This is especially important if these KEs/KERs have been borrowed from AOPs that have already been reviewed.

One suggestion is that during the review, each KE and KER gets reviewed independently of each other, and each have their own "review documentation" attached to them.

This way, any review conducted will "follow" that KE/KER wherever they go. This is the same as all the other information related to KEs and KERs

i.e. We should consider making AOP reviews "modular" as well. Or rather, a "review" is an attribute/property for each KE, KER and AOP in KB.

just like AOPs are make up of KEs and KERs, the "AOP Review" can be "made of" its component "KE Reviews" and "KER reviews", along with any higher level synthesis that occurs at the AOP level.

All of these "sub-reviews" can be conducted by the same group of reviewers (as is currently done) or can optionally be conducted individually, as needed.

I've included an image describing this idea (hope it makes sense :))


  modular review.png (Size: 232.63 KB / Downloads: 3)

[DanV-AOP]

I agree there is a need for something like this. If contributor tagging gets implemented, it seems like it would be feasible to tag which contributions to a page have been reviewed during various rounds of AOP review. This would allow AOP reviewers to focus mostly on any new content that was added.