Review Comment:
Looking at the updated version of the paper, I find it better organised and clearer written than before. Apart of a number of minor issues listed below, I do not think it can be further improved significantly without major changing in the results. The contribution of the paper can be summarised as follows:
(1) a system is designed that allows to run and measure performance of ontology reasoners on mobile platforms using subsets and modifications of the set of OWL2 RL inference rules;
(2) several such subsets and modifications are designed, some of which are equivalent to the normative and some guarantee only incomplete reasoning;
(3) the experimental performance comparisons of the sets from (2) are given using the system from (1) for two existing well-established reasoners.
Contribution (1) is a good engineering effort and can be useful for OWL 2 RL reasoner designers.
Contribution (2) is slightly less convincing to me, because I often could not find any justification for the suggested sets of inference rules, except something like “we believe it may be useful”—that is, I do not see any explanations why these particular sets are better than many others possible.
Contribution (3) is even less convincing to me, because the (qualitative) results are often trivial. For example, I can tell without any experiments that if some inference rules are removed from a ruleset making it incomplete, then the materialisation is done quicker on any (reasonable) reasoner. Same holds if I delegate a part of reasoning to a preprocessing step. On the other hand, the quantitative part of the experimental results can have some value.
Personally, I find these contributions as a whole on a borderline of being publishable in the Semantic Web Journal. However, if other reviewers find the paper good enough, I suggest to listen to them when making the final decision.
List of minor issues:
— page 2: Section 22 should be Section 2 and Section 44 should be Section 4;
— page 4: it is not clear why variables are mentioned in T(?s, ?p, ?o);
— page 10: “subset (L1) of these rules list” -> “… lists”;
— page 12: a whitespace before # is missing;
— page 14: footnotes numbers are screwed up;
— page 15: meaning of “instances” in “instances D” in Theorem 1 is unclear;
— page 15: the border between the formulation of Theorem 1 and its border is unclear;
— page 15: notation R_0^- appears just ones in the paper, so its role is unclear;
— page 16: is it true that “the final result of sequentially applying …” is just an experimental check that Theorem 1 and the fact that “can be similarly shown” (page 15, end of column 1) hold? If I’m correct, then this result is useless, proved theorems do not need experimental confirmations.
|