Review Comment:
Dear authors,
thank you for you detailed and helpfully clarifying responses to my review (review #2). The new submission of your paper is a great improvement. There are only minor points that I'd like to mention:
p1, abstract. "the case or Apertium RDF" -> "the case of Apertium RDF"
p2, column 1, line 41. "evaluation methods that are more reflective". Although I have a rough idea what you mean with the term reflective, there might eb a better term or a more detailed explanation, or simply remove that term from the abstract.
p2, column 2, Fig. 1. "Apertium RDF graph". What is shown here is nit an RDF graph, but instead a graphical visualization of language pairs within Apertium RDF graph and their interconnectedness. The same holds for the graphs shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 - these are not RDF graphs.
p5, column 2, footnote 12. This is not a full sentence.
p12, column 2, lines 27 & 28: "While the in-production Apertium language pairs that are used in RDF". Maybe drop "that are used in RDF"?
p18, Fig. 6. One could remove the legend, as the labels occur below the plots. Also, one could remove the colors, as they do not provide additional information.
|