|Review Comment: |
The paper looks more structured and easy to read. Also the figures representing publication timelines are helpful since they provide
a syntetic description of how the different frameworks evolved.
The most of my previous issues has been fixed.
Here a few points that still need to be improved.
that there is already an assertion which states
that the user belongs to a given roles, as OWL is monotonic
it is not possible to removed this assertion from
the knowledge base."
Basically, you just rephrased this sentence. However, this is still confusing to me because,
first, non-monotonic extensions of OWL typically concerns preferential semantics, overriding, negation
as failure more than meta-predicates
like asserting or removing something. Furthermore, it is not clear why a framework cannot maintain the logic monotonic and deal these issues about the
dynamics of a knowledge base at a meta-level.
Why you need this at the object level? Provide a concrete example.
2.1.5 Policy specification
This part is still somewhat vague. Perhaps, some example would be helpful.
remove "which evaluates twelve different policy languages
against a set of criteria, that are deemed necessary
for ensuring security and privacy in a Semantic
"there is a direct mapping between
permissions and prohibitions in Rei and the positive
and negative authorisations in KAoS, and also between
obligations and dispensations in Rei and the positive
and negative obligations in KAoS."
do you mean that prohibitions (resp. dispensations) in Rei corresponds to
negative authorizations (resp. negative obligations) in Kaos?