Review Comment:
The paper is based on previous work and that shows in the overall well-written text and clear presentation of the work. The methods are sound and results are in line with current state of the art (though they difficult to compare due to differences in data and evaluation sets).
I recommend this sound work for publication, though some minor issues should be improved before it appears as a journal article.
I'd like to see a clearer explanation related to the domain independence of the approach. Even though the method itself is domain independent, it does require a knowledge base of a significant size from the domain. The domain specific effort is thus still present, but on the knowledge base side rather than the text analysis side. This does not influence the overall impact of the work, but it is important to be clear about this. Addressing the starting size a knowledge base should have in order for the approach to be successful would make interesting future work.
Some minor comments to improve the presentation of the work:
Abstract:
1) Populating knowledge bases does not require methods that are suitable across domains, domain specific methods work as well, despite their obvious inconveniences. I'd suggest to reformulate this sentence.
2) It is a little confusing to read what the authors will do and then again back to where related work lacks behind: I recommend swapping the sentences: 'In this paper.....' and 'Although....'
Section 1:
1) The part that introduces the challenges addressed in this paper could be formulated a bit clear. In particular, the sentence 'Although promising, ...': there is no need to both mention 'ignored issues' and 'limitations' and since the issues that are listed afterwards are not completely ignored by all, I'd recommend reformulating that part. Maybe state that your work improves on existing approaches addressing four challenges which are illustrated to the example 'Let It Be'?
2) The contributions listed at the end of the paper do not all improve the state of the art (the last two do not). I suggest to call them 'contributions of this research/paper' rather than improvements of the state of the art.
Section 2:
1) typo: Riedel et al. [25] argues -> Riedel et al. [25] argue
Section 3:
1) State at the beginning of the section that you will present the approaches you use and that they will be indicated in bold font (it is easy to guess that the bold abbreviations are method names, but the reader shouldn't have to guess).
2) reformulation: otherwise we want to discard it -> otherwise we discard it
3) typo: one of which does not use attempt resolve -> one of which does not attempt to resolve
4) typo: there is a space between the full stop and footnote 1
Section 4:
1) typos: there are spaces before several footnotes
2) typos: 'Features marked with (*) are only used in the normal setting, but for NoSub setting(Section 3.2)
-> Features marked with (*) are only used in the normal setting, but not for the NoSub setting (Section 3.2)
Section 5:
1) when reading this, one wonders about Mintz et al.'s results. They cannot be compared directly and they only present slightly comparable results in a graph, so I understand you don't compare your results, but maybe briefly explain this in a footnote.
2) typo: textbfinformation -> \textbf{information} (but why is this in bold font?)
Section 6:
1) typo: 'To populate knowledge bases, we test different information integration strategies, which differ in performance by5We'
The first sentence is not finished...
|