Review Comment:
Unfortunately, the paper still reads like a report for an incremental tool development, but not as a self-sustained, reflexive and complete research paper.
The quality of the paper has not really improved since the last submission.
There is no consistency in description of the challenges and the methodology is not clear. Requirements are generic, and it is not clear wherefrom they were derived. It is also not clear what are the use cases and scenarios that need this work. In the introduction, an ESWC 2023 event benchmark is mentioned, and in the next section already "EU H2020 funded iASiS project" as a base.
Who really needs this tool and what for?
The research questions themselves are mentioned for the first time in Section 5 (!). What were the authors doing till then - hacking?
There are lacks in essential details when describing the approach. Why, for example, RML is chosen to apply in the first place?
Or: "Three state-of-the-art RML engines, i.e., RMLMapper v6.08, Morph-KGC v2.1.19, and SDM-RDFizer v3.2, are utilized to create this portion of the KG; the engines timed out in five hours." -> in which environments, and on which machines and technical settings the experiments were run?
There is no clear comparison to the state of the art in the light of research questions. But there are unsubstantiated (sometimes self-praising) statements f.e. "Since its first release, the SDM-RDFizer has caught the attention of practitioners and knowledge engineers
due to its good results w.r.t. other RML engines." -> what are "good results" - where and on what? reference? "has caught" is also also another example of an informal language use, see also below.
The fact that the tool was "sold" in several EU project does not mean that much. One cannot just name-drop project names without any detailed explanations of what exactly the tool has improved there and how. And here are no such details provided (for the evaluation of the problems that are also not clearly described).
The text should be improved.
For example, KGs, DISs, RLM are introduced in the paper multiple times. One should introduce acronyms once, and then use them through the remaining paper and not introduce them over and over again.
There are sentences with unclear grammar, e.g. see this one right in the abstract: "We evaluate the effectiveness of SDM-RDFizer using established benchmarks, which demonstrate its superiority over existing state-of-the-art RML engines, highlighting the tangible benefits of our proposed techniques." -> what does "demonstrate" here - benchmarks?
Title of section 4: why the word "tool" is not starting with a capital letter?
| 
