Review Comment:
The authors have modified their manuscript and addressed most of the reviewers' comments. The new preliminaries section looks better, albeit it does require some more modifications and structuring, whilst their contributions are better positioned against the work of Zaveri et al.
In Section 2.3 I suggest to focus on meta-models (DQV and daQ), whilst moving the rest to Section 2.1 or a separate section "Related Work". In this model, my major concern is still related to the "Granularity". My remarks from the previous review still stand, that is; granularity can still be represented by the vocabularies that this model extends.
It would also be helpful for the reader if the authors create a section or appendix with a better TBox-ABox example (rather than Figure 7) and sample SPARQL queries for this model.
Regarding the use case tool, I appreciate the effort done by the authors to create a tool to accompany such a paper, but for the reader, the tool might be a bit difficult to use, thus I suggest that a more practical solution is found (maybe a docker with a pre-installed local web interface?).
Some other questions that the authors might clarify:
(1) Why was this model evaluated on just a few selected metrics and just one data source?
(2) Considering that only 2 slices of DBpedia were evaluated, as a data consumer what will I learn about the overall quality of DBpedia, considering that quality LDQM resources are now available online?
The manuscript is well written, but there are some typos such as:
Zavery -> Zaveri (section 3)
dereferenciable -> dereferenceable (section 5)
dereferenciability -> dereferenceability (section 5)
Please proof-read the manuscript once more.
|