Review Comment:
We thank the authors for taking all the issues pointed out into consideration, such as making a more precise conclusion, describing other works surveying RDFS-based systems, and discussing the choice of the systems and dimensions.
After reading the reviewed manuscript several times, I have the following extra comments:
1. I do not think the dimensions of their proposed model are strictly orthogonal. The three dimensions, i.e., blank nodes, deductive capabilities, and explanation of the results, are inter-playing. In particular, if a system does not support reasoning, it will not contain the ability to explanation.
2. The authors start both the Abstract and Introduction by introducing their work directly. The Abstract starts with "In this paper, we present a systematic classification of 48 RDFS-based Semantic Web reasoners and applications, ..." and the Introduction starts with "In this paper, we perform a systematic classification of 48 RDFS-based Semantic Web (SW) reasoners and applications".
Without giving the motivations and background of this work, it is hard for readers to understand the significance of this work directly.
3. Why the model is called the "maturity model"? A mature RDFS system does not necessarily support all the features considered here.
4. The sentence "This yielded 48 systems to classify, which were already enough for the comparative tables of a single paper" is strange.
You should give the supporting materials or criteria that make you think that 48 systems are enough. Consider rephrasing this sentence or even dropping this sentence.
5. The newly added two paragraphs, i.e., the two paragraphs of Section 1 before the last one, are also very important but I cannot fully agree.
Our motivation is to let them to make more explanation on why the considered three dimensions are crucial rather than letting them compare these dimensions with efficiency. Besides, the claim "such dimensions are orthogonal to efficiency" is not really correct, since reasoning or deduction effects efficiency. Obviously, query answering by taking reasoning, no matter backward or forward, is less efficient than query answering without considering reasoning.
6. For the "Blank nodes" dimension, why "Consider full denotations for blank nodes" is not included. The authors should make some explanation.
7. In Tables 1 and 2, the rows containing "No mention" are hard to understand. Take the row about FRED as an example. Does "No mention" denote how to process blank nodes is no mentioned or whether it discards triples with blank nodes are not mentioned? What is the meaning of 'x'?
|