Review Comment:
I am satisfied with the revised version of the paper and with the way the authors have addressed several of the points raised in the review process. In particular, the clarification of the methodological scope of the contribution and the discussion of the limits of ontological mapping and alignment significantly improve the overall coherence and transparency of the work.
The paper remains, in my view, a solid and valuable contribution, not only as a critical survey of existing ontologies for narrative and fiction, but also for the concrete effort of harmonisation and alignment across heterogeneous models. Given the intrinsic difficulty of ontology mapping, the results presented are appropriate for the stated aims of the paper.
One issue, however, remains open and should, in my opinion, be acknowledged more explicitly, even if it is not meant to be solved within the scope of this work. Namely, the attribution of properties or attributes to fictional characters is not a neutral operation, but a practical and interpretative act rooted in literary and scholarly practices. Deciding whether a character possesses a given attribute (for instance, whether Hamlet is mad) is often controversial, context-dependent, and subject to competing interpretations. This raises the practical question of who is entitled to populate the ontology with such attributes, and according to which criteria.
I fully agree that addressing this issue in a systematic way would go beyond the objectives of the present contribution. However, I would recommend explicitly flagging this limitation, possibly in a note pointing to alternative approaches in applied ontology rather than treating character attributes as unproblematic facts. This would help situate the proposed pattern within the broader landscape without requiring any substantial extension of the current model.
Overall, I recommend acceptance with minor revisions.
|
