Review Comment:
This manuscript was submitted as 'Survey Article' and should 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.
(I was already enthusiastic about this paper - see my previous review. And I am still!)
The issues that I have raised in my previous review of this paper have been addressed adequately or I agree with rebuttals; only a few, very minor issues remain:
- Page 1: ‘they cater’ should be switched back to ‘catered’, I think.
- Page 7-8, Section 3.2.4: The rebuttal ‘The heuristic was used in addition to the usage of the prefix relation in the ontologies. The heuristic does not detect “hectare”, but “hectare” is marked as prefix in, e.g., OM, so it is already known as prefixed unit. ” does not address that ‘hecto’ will not be recognized in the string ‘hectare’ in case this unit does not have an explicit prefix relation in an ontology.
- Page 8, Section 3.2.5: "an lexicological" -> "a lexicological"
- Page 14: OM updates have led to releases 1.8.6 and 2.0.6, not 2.0.3 (I always process changes in versions 1 and 2 of OM synchronically).
- Page 14: I still have a bit of a problem with the phrasing “While we started our analysis with version 1.8, the latest version 2.0.3 is still affected by the following issues:” The cited sentence gives a little bit the impression (unintendedly, I am convinced about that) that *still* the following issues have not been addressed. Perhaps the cause is in that the authors are not native English (like me). I have presented this formulation to a native English colleague of mine, and she suggested: “We started our analysis with version 1.8. As of the latest version, 2.0.6, the following issues remain to be addressed:” To my opinion that is a very good formulations, neutral and objective.
I have doubted whether not just to accept the paper, regarding how minor the remaining issues are. However, having stated this, I hope that the authors will perceive this minor revision as a very minor revision. The paper and the work, namely, are very good!
|