Review Comment:
This manuscript was submitted as 'full paper' and should be reviewed along the usual dimensions for research contributions which include (1) originality, (2) significance of the results, and (3) quality of writing.
Summary
This paper presents an ontology-based framework that aims to reach knowledge formalization among different disciplines. The authors present the concept of a “boundary object,” a simple artifact that can be used to interact with people from other culture, and propose to use an ontology as a boundary object so researchers from different disciplines or even among the same discipline but within different perspectives can come to an agreement.
For this purpose, the authors present COLLA, a web-based application that is able to receive as input an RDF and allows the user to generate graphs with different levels of granularity depending on the users’ requirements. This RDF contains a domain of discourse and has to be generated previously using third-party tools.
Overview
The paper gives a brief but concise definition for boundary object and the study case.
The authors give a good analysis of both the weaknesses and strengths of ontology-based solutions.
Related work
No information is given related to other approaches, or researchers using this approach for this context (boundary objects).
It needs to analyze evaluation of boundary objects and the effectiveness of a boundary object to allow effective communication. In [1, 2] they state that they may “be perceived or used differently over time”.
Significance:
The challenge that the authors aim to solve is of recognized importance.
Clarity:
The authors give basic definitions of jargon used in the paper. (e.g., boundary object, Apache Jena Fuseki, ontology, triple)
Technical quality:
The paper does not show explicit details of the evaluation of COLLA (linked data used, number of members of the team, members’ background, experience on ontologies, etc.).
Future work
A comparison could be given concerning OWL visualization.
An evaluation could be made to use COLLA under different study cases.
• It is not clear if the authors developed COLLA or if it was developed by a third-party and they are just reviewing it.
• No PURL is given for COLLA.
• No evaluation of COLLA could be made by this reviewer given the fact that no PURL is found in the paper.
• No analysis is given for COLLA’s learning curve neither for researchers that have no experience of ontologies and have to use COLLA.
• As a conclusion, it is stated that the authors feel confident that their “collaborative environment approach can complement e-Research effectively,” this should also be addressed in future work.
• At the beginning of “conclusions,” the authors state that their proposal can be used to “ease collaborative work in scientific research.” How is “ease” measured?
• How is the ontology, that is used for this study-case, validated?
• No details are given on the output of COLLA, can the graphs be exported?
Given that the main research question tried to prove that an ontology-based framework can be used as a boundary object but lacked evidence of the proofs, it needs improvement.
To what extent can this solution be used in a different context? (e.g., languages, disciplines)
1. Pennington, D.: The dynamics of material artifacts in collaborative research teams. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 19, 175–199 (2010)
2. Akkerman, S.F., Bakker, A.: Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of educational research. 81, 132–169 (2011)
|