GloSIS: The Global Soil Information System Web Ontology

This paper explains a transformation process from existing soil domain model available as pdf documents or UML schema (or...) into an OWL ontology related to soil analyses. The final ontology is named Glosis.
The main concern of the paper is to present how to translate an UML model into an OWL ontology using shape change tool. The ontology is based on the SOSA/SSN pattern to model measurements. The paper shows how to reuse code list using the pattern “Formal / Semi-Formal Hybrids -- Part OWL, Part SKOS” presented in https://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/skos-and-owl/master.html.”
the state of the art about soil standard is huge. The ontology is build based on international soil standard.
The Glosis ontology could become standard domain model that could be used to store any soil databases. The paper presents 3 databases (LUCAS, SRDB, Wosis) that are stored using the GLOSIS ontology into the Foodie sparql end point. 4 SPARQL queries related to soil description are proposed and documented in a wiki. Note that the last query launch an error “Virtuoso 42000 Error SQ070:SECURITY: Must have select privileges on view DB.DBA.SPARQL_SINV_2”
The authors take into account most parts of my changes.
My main problem concerning this paper is the quality of documentation ontology and annotation properties.
The documentation web page of glosis main module is empty, there is no classes nor property.
The natural language definitions are not provided and still only contained the indication of the source instead of the definition. For example in the Layer Horizon module which contain 212 classes. There are 193 definitions with the content “ISRIC Report 2019/01: Tier 1 and Tier 2 data in the context of the federated Global Soil Information System,…” . 96 definitions with the content “Guidelines for Soil Description issued by the FAO:…”
The authors propose “the addition of further human readable literals, (e.g. with rdfs:comment predicates) can certainly occur in later releases of the web ontology.”
To my point of view an ontology is not only a set of classes that could be used by software, but also a conceptualisation of a domain that should be understandable by human.
Due to the fact that the authors does not want to store the definitions from the source into annotation property, I let the editor decide if they want to accept this publication.
Note that I am one of the potential reuser of this soil ontology and as far as the classes are not defined correctly I will not be able to align it with our national standard. I will have to make some hypothesis.
Note that the internation standard iso contains some errors in the definition that could not be modified by the authors, thus the quality of the final documentation is an important topics.
I also ask the authors to propose that they have extends the pattern “Formal / Semi-Formal Hybrids -- Part OWL, Part SKOS” by adding new components instead of just reused it. They still prefer to say that they have just reused it.

Most of the issues from the previous review have been addressed. The text is virtually identical to the previous submission (3526), except for changes noted in response document #101, reordering of the discussion of previous models, updates to fig 3 and 4, and expanded content in 3.4.2.
The UML model link is better, and the html pages for the model from WIDOCO/github seem to be working as expected.

I still can't find reference #54.

p 15 line 20-- still have a 'Doublin Core' (the other 2 got fixed), footnote 15 link gets a 404.
p.2 line 26 left side-- still no verb in this sentence...
p.2 line 46, right side "..for the development of an authoritative global soil information. This system is envisioned.." would read alot more clearly as "...for the development of an authoritative global soil information system envisioned..."
p. 6 line 3 -- scenario should be plural