Review Comment:
This manuscript was submitted as 'Survey Article' and should be reviewed along the following dimensions: (1) Suitability as introductory text, targeted at researchers, PhD students, or practitioners, to get started on the covered topic. (2) How comprehensive and how balanced is the presentation and coverage. (3) Readability and clarity of the presentation. (4) Importance of the covered material to the broader Semantic Web community.
Review Comment:
As already written, this paper is suitable as introductory text, targeted at researchers, PhD students, or practitioners, to get started on the covered topic. Moreover, it is an interesting approach. Most of weak points have been ameliorated by authors, but a few of them still need to be tackled (see below).
In general, the presentation and coverage are comprehensive and well balanced, with (still) some points to improve:
1)Typo problem (a new one !) in section 4.6 (p.18)
The presentation is now totally readable and clear.
The covered material could be of interest for the broader Semantic Web community. Indeed, the paper depicts the problem encountered to deal with uncertain, incomplete, fuzzy and contradictory information. Solving the described difficulties could help to enrich the semantic aspect of data in Semantic Web in general.
Specific questions or requests to Authors:
2)Introduction, part 3: the clarification given to reviewer 1, relative to technical level, and using 3 dimensions to distinguish places from other ones introduces a new confusion: It is difficult to understand the difference between the “meaning” and the construction of the same meaning by “human experience”. Even if the paragraph has been rewritten, the clarification is not yet evident. Maybe adding an example would be useful?
3)Section 5.3: last sentence: “… a new model has yet to be developed…” my question: from scratch? or as an extension of existing model. In this case witch one? Even if the paragraph has been “clarified”, the requested precisions are not given.
4)Section 3.5 note 10: this reference could be of interest: G.-A. NYS, M. VAN RUYMBEKE, R. BILLEN, « Spatio-temporal reasoning in CIDOC CRM: an hybrid ontology with GeoSPARQL and OWL-Time », CEUR Workshop Proc., 2230, 2018.
|