Review Comment:
This paper is a systematic literature review on Linked Data completeness. There were seven types of completeness identified (schema, property, population, interlinking), including three that were not previously identified (currency, metadata and labelling).
delta with previous journal on Linked Data quality
I am not sure if a dedicate survey is required on completeness or it would make more sense to have a revisited version of the original survey on Linked Data quality. Namely, I am not confident that the delta is significant and a posteriori of the original Linked Data quality survey. In the end, the paper from the literature that contribute to these new types constitute less than 10% of the total number of identified papers while the majority of the literature is repeated.
lack of analysis
The paper claims that it gathers existing approaches from literature and analyse them qualitatively and quantitatively.
However, in most cases certain works are mentioned to contribute to a certain type of completeness, but it is not clarified how. For instance,
“[48] investigate internationalisation of knowledge bases and proposed that all entities in a knowledge base have human readable labels. They also explored development of a metric for labelling completeness” but it is not mentioned neither the approach nor what these metrics are. This gives me the feeling that this is more a summarisation paper, rather than a survey paper. There are no comments or any insights about the state of the art that is presented.
I checked the call of the semantic web journal to find out what is expected from a journal article:
> full-length papers surveying the state of the art of topics central to the journal's scope. These submissions will 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.
(2) and (3) are well covered but (1) snd (4) might be questioned. The paper lacks the details level that I would expect to consider it introductory text. The covered material is indeed important but the way it is presented, I am not sure if the paper offers further isights to the semantic web community.
I looked what ACM mentions at its survey journals (being more specialised on surveys), and they mention:
> A survey article assumes a general knowledge of the area; it emphasizes the classification of the existing literature, developing a perspective on the area, and evaluating trends.
From that, I only see the former part being actually explored in this survey paper. Neither classification nor trends were presented.
one-dimension problem
> “by focusing on an individual dimension, we can explore certain aspects of detecting and mitigating the completeness data quality issue in a more thorough fashion”
It is not clear where the authors rely to assume this. Do you think completeness is a one-dimension problem? Don’t we miss context if we focus on only one dimension? In the discussion section, it is actually mentioned that it is rare to find research effort focused entirely on a single aspect of data quality dimension. Is it then safe to assume that looking into a single dimension is actually profitable?
The types of completeness are mentioned but not mentioned what each one is.
The new types are not introduced beyond barely being mentioned. Both old and new are clarified in sec 3.2. However, all types of completeness are used in sec 3.1 to classify the papers, without being explained how it is decided on which category each article belongs to.
definitions
In a survey paper definitions are introduced, but I assume that these definitions rely on certain conclusions which are derived based on the study of the literature and the definition is built on top of these conclusions whereas certain aspects remain open because literature might not be complete. The definitions in this survey paper seem to be adhoc, introduced by the authors, and there is no evidence that they align with the state of the art.
scope the keywords better
I think that the keywords could be scoped better. That might have helped to come up with a more diverse set of papers. For instance, why not “Knowledge Graphs” or “RDF”, eg “RDF dataset” “RDF graph”? Linked Data is a Knowledge Graph that is often represented in RDF. RDF is the most common way of representing Linked Data and a lot of quality assessment methodologies were performed relying on the properties of RDF without generalising their conclusions for the broader notion of Linked Data. I think significant papers might be missing from the list now.
incorrect interpretation of the figure
> “Figure 4 shows where researchers are publishing their work, where the top journal is Journal of Web Semantics and the top conference for publishing being European Semantic Web Conference."
But Figure 4 shows that most papers are published at Semantic Web Journal and not Journal of Web Semantics. The Journal of Web Semantics does not appear at all in the Figure. Moreover, ESWC is not the top conference. According to the figure, ESWC has as many papers as ICWE.
conferences Vs journals
> researchers are now publishing more in conferences with 29 articles (54%) published at a conference even though no one conference seems to be over represented"
What is now? Do you mean 2019? And more compared to when? And before there was a conference picked as top, which conflicts with the current statement that there is no conference overrepresented. Could that be interpreted differently? For instance that the domain is not mature enough?
identified papers
Each time the subsection approaches and metrics starts, it is mentioned how many papers talk about this aspect of completeness. I would suggest to cite them each time, so the text is self-standing and one should not depend on the table to find this information (the accompanying table is meant to accompany, can’t substitute the actual text). In the same context, it would be nice to also have the total number of papers talking about each aspect as a last row on the table. Of course, these are style refinements, the most important question is why the reader should care about those numbers?
identified Vs mentioned papers
Even more important, those numbers do not typically align with the papers that are cited. For instance, in the case of interlinking completeness, it is mentioned that there are 11 articles identified but in the end within the paragraph there are only 6 articles cited! The same holds with the rest types of completeness. Why only a few of the articles are cited? What about the rest?
problems Vs approaches
I am not sure if the problems Vs approaches & metrics paragraphs have anything different. For instance, in the problems paragraph of interlinking completeness, the approach followed by [15] is presented but not the problems. Then why is [15] mentioned under problems and not under approach? And this is only an example, it happens in most cases.
no concrete problems nor metrics mentioned
In most cases, I do not see neither problems nor metrics explicitly mentioned. For instance, in the case of population completeness, it is mentioned that there are 14 articles identified, but not one metric is mentioned. As far as the approaches is concerned, it is typically mentioned that there is _a_ framework but it is not explained which framework or what the idea is.
For instance, “[15, 16, 20, 41, 44, 52, 55, 57] all proposed novel models, methodology and/or metrics for measuring property completeness as part of general data quality assessment.” What did they propose? In the end this is not specified.
There is a table (Table 4) in the end that summarises certain information that is not aligned with the text and the table is not mentioned in the text.
metrics
In the discussion section the paper concludes that there were 23 metrics identified however those 23 metrics were not clearly indicated earlier.
relatedness to the survey
On certain other cases, it is never explained how the article that is mentioned is related to the survey. For instance, [30] is focused on disambiguation and resolving entity coreference but it is not explained how it becomes relevant to population completeness.
mismatch of metrics per type & per tool
There are certain metrics and approaches mentioned under each tool but these are not mentioned earlier even though the completeness types and the tools rely on the same set of referencing papers.
discussion
The overview of the discussion section reads more like statistical analysis of the tools rather than actual discussion of the observations, while the paragraphs on maintenance and stream-lining future surveys read more like a manual, not even guidelines, rather than actual discussion.
I debated a lot on my suggested decision. It is very interesting material but considering all the above comments, I don't think that a major revision would be enough and more radical changes need to happen before the paper is in shape to be considered for revisions. I would suggest then the paper to get rejected and resubmitted.
Minors
What does the abbreviation “SLR” stand for? It is first mentioned at page 2 line 15 but it is only introduced at line 27 Introduce the full before the abbreviation and use the abbreviation later on. If the abbreviation is not going to be reused, then why is it introduced?
Not sure why [7] is cited at page 2, line 28
According to the exclusion criteria, papers which are not peer reviewed should not be included. However, the paper by Snap and Micheilfeit on “Linked Data Aggregation Algorithm: Increasing Completeness and Consistency of Data” is not peer reviewed but it is still included in the list.
[53] —> the reference is wrong
It is not clear what Fig 2 tries to show. I think the visualisation type that was used is not adequate for the message it was desired to be communicated.
Typo: “In [46], the authored gathered” —> the authors gathered? (A couple more typos exist)
It is not explicitly mentioned in the text what type of completeness is addressed by slint+
I am not sure if the figure with the tools comparison is more descriptive compared to a corresponding table.
“This type is related especially to Linked Data.” —> the other types are not related to Linked Data? I thought the paper was about Linked Data completeness
On property completeness, So if a property does have a value, but the value is invalid, is it considered among the complete properties?
Table 4 is included in the paper but not linked in the text
|