Review Comment:
After carefully reading through the changes and the comments, I acknowledge that much of the points made in the review have been addressed, at least to some degree. In particular the related work section has been extended, although the selection of papers is not particularly targeted. At least some acknowledgement of work outside the strict Semantic Web community has been given. Rule generation and constraint taxonomy are somewhat improved.
Overall, this is still a quite inward-looking paper. Many limitations remain, as do the problems with the specific methods and languages employed. However, these are not sufficient to reject the paper and it is not clear how they could be addressed without a fundamental change in approach, while the evaluation is acceptable relative to the methods employed. I am tending to recommend acceptance, with one particular revision.
It is pointed out that a full list of rules has not been produced and cannot be evaluated. Given that the paper contains multiple techniques that are evaluated in more detail, such a preliminary aspect is perhaps acceptable, but not the claims that accompany this situation. In particular, Section 7.2 states that "only a subset of the rules was implemented", followed by the claim that "the approach's feasibility" was demonstrated. This claim is therefore false.
"The approach" in this paper (or rather section) is not just the implementation of some rules in SPARQL for extraction purposes. Of course this can be done, there is no innovation it. Rather, "the approach" is the overall use extraction and use of rules for semantic interoperability with OPC UA. But therefore the FEASIBILITY of the approach would be measured relative to that problem, and what has been stated is that this is actually work in progress, and in particular the scalability (one of the aspect of my original question) cannot be evaluated because a complete effort simply has not been conducted.
So, what can be claimed to have been demonstrated in 7.2 is that rules can be created and can then function correctly for its particular application area. The claim that "the feasibility of the approach has been shown", however, MUST be deleted.
Minor comment: Fig16 has two occurrences of the typo "Linguistc".
|