Review Comment:
Basically, the paper proposes a new and interesting use case for using Linked Open Data (LOD) in combination with smart-phones: the identification of suitable plants to cultivate them in the current environment. Therefore, the authors describe how they created the required LOD content and how the use it. The article closes with an evaluation of the content generation and of the usefulness of the entire application.
However, the article is a more practical one with a low theoretical originality, thus I tended to re-categorize it as application report. The authors should clearly state what the scientific contributions of the article are. Furthermore, some questions arose and I identified problems with regard to the writing and the quality of some figures, which are both detailed per section in the following. All in all, the work requires a major revision to be part of the special issue of the semantic web journal.
## Abstract ##
- “after description of LOD” -- “after the description of LOD”
## Introduction ##
- “greenery” is used to much in the first column
- “… expertise were available … “ -> “is available”
- What is “3DCG”? It is mentioned nowhere.
- Acronyms should be introduced _after_ the complete word(s), thus, switch the order for “AR (Augmented Reality)” and “LOD (Linked Open Data)”. The problem occurs in other sections as well. Please check it.
- The challenges and the (scientific) contribution of the article are not discussed!
## Proposal of Green-Thumb Camera ##
- Page 2: Introductions between headlines of 2. and 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1 are missing.
- P. 2: Although problems to solve are discussed, the technical ones are not clearly stated in 2.1.
- P.2: Fig. 1 is hard to read
- Names of applications, classes … should be emphasized at least on their first occurrence.
- P. 4: Fig. 2 should be moved to page 2 or 3. Furthermore, the arrows cross some labels, which decrease their readability.
- P. 2: “10,000+” -- more than 10.000
- P. 3: Fig. 3, here the graphics in the middle, are not readable.
- P. 3: The enumeration of the properties “{ … }” at page 3 is hard to read and maybe not necessary.
- There is always a missing space before a reference, not only in Sect. 2.
- P. 3: “LOD generation is as follows” -- “works as follows”
- P. 3: Why is Google used for ranking? Why 100 pages?
- P. 3: Where do you get the synonyms for the property names within the bootstrapping method? An example would increase the understandability.
- P. 3: The extraction of triple from unstructured text using “dependency parsing” seems to be easy. In my opinion, this approach neglects many special cases, e.g., occurrence of multiple plant or property names in a sentence, sentiments … Is there a solution for this cases?
- P. 3: Remove spaces in < plantname, property, value > and the following triples.
- P. 3: I did not understand the part “Furthermore, for exclusion of … and the second-best.”
- P. 3: I did not understand the last two sentences as well.
- P. 4: Fig. 4, the font size is a bit too small as well.
- P. 4: Remove the after the footnote behind “for Android^2,”
- P. 4: “To begin with we believe…” is not to understand
- P. 4: The usage of the “Sunlight” factor is really questionable since it may hardly depend on the weather or the day time. I think, there is a database required which holds an average sunlight value for a specific region.
- P. 5: The factor “Planting season” comprises an high uncertainty as it is shifted using one or two months. Is it crucial?
## Evaluation ##
- P. 5: Intro is missing between section and subsection.
- P. 6: Again, the clustering, which is introduced at page 3, is hard / not to understand.
- P. 7: The plants are hard to see in Fig. 6.
- P. 7: The description of the lines is missing in Fig. 7.
## Related Work
- P. 8: I did not understand the first method to generate LOD. Maybe example papers would assist to understand the mentioned approach.
- P. 8: “AGROVOC does not include the knowledge for plant cultivation” -- Please, add some information about the concepts of the vocabulary and how you distinguish your approach. Why was it not possible to reuse the vocabulary?
|