Review Comment:
This manuscript was submitted as 'Data Description' and should be reviewed along the following dimensions: Linked Dataset Descriptions - short papers (typically up to 10 pages) containing a concise description of a Linked Dataset. The paper shall describe in concise and clear terms key characteristics of the dataset as a guide to its usage for various (possibly unforeseen) purposes. In particular, such a paper shall typically give information, amongst others, on the following aspects of the dataset: name, URL, version date and number, licensing, availability, etc.; topic coverage, source for the data, purpose and method of creation and maintenance, reported usage etc.; metrics and statistics on external and internal connectivity, use of established vocabularies (e.g., RDF, OWL, SKOS, FOAF), language expressivity, growth; examples and critical discussion of typical knowledge modeling patterns used; known shortcomings of the dataset. Papers will be evaluated along the following dimensions: (1) Quality and stability of the dataset - evidence must be provided. (2) Usefulness of the dataset, which should be shown by corresponding third-party uses - evidence must be provided. (3) Clarity and completeness of the descriptions. Papers should usually be written by people involved in the generation or maintenance of the dataset, or with the consent of these people. We strongly encourage authors of dataset description paper to provide details about the used vocabularies; ideally using the 5 star rating provided here .
I gave a ‘revise paper’ verdict, because I think the problems raised on the previous two reviews are fixable. The authors, however, did not address all the raised issues satisfactorily. As this is the third round, I’m going to reject the paper.
Additional details are reported in the following:
- The issue concerning the lack of lack of methodology, guidelines, or at least a set of practices still remain open since considering an rdf file and some data points is not enough for addressing the lack of best practices. For practices, a kind of process should be figure out while here the authors seem to be more oriented to the object.
- The claim of using a best practice doc is not explicitly addressed in the paper
- The way of reusing vocabularies is not convincing
- A proof of the validity of the process followed for the design process is still missing
- When a schema is changed this generally affect the whole dataset. This aspect should be analyzed within the paper. The analysis of the effect of the schema’s changes on the data set is instead missing. For instance, the annotation of the data and the data analysis etc stay the same regardless what’s in the schema? What is the effect on tools and queries using the modified dataset+schema?
|
