Review Comment:
1. Introduction
Statistics regarding the growth of digital data are unnecessary since they are questionable, and the storage of data isn't crucial to the argument being made.
RQ -
a) I assume this stands for the research question, but you need to expand on this acronym here.
b) In fact, the use of an acronym is unnecessary here.
c) The research question can be rephrased for clarity - “How does the federated knowledge graph framework improve data integration and interoperability issues using a materialized knowledge graph approach in federated information systems (IS)?” -> “How does using a materialized knowledge graph approach improve data integration and interoperability issues in federated information systems?”
Virtual Knowledge Graph - When you introduce the term, expand on what is meant by a virtual knowledge graph. How is it different from a regular knowledge graph?
Materialized Knowledge Graph - When you introduce the term, expand on what is meant by materialized knowledge graph and materialized federated knowledge graph.
2. Theoretical Background
2.2 1st Sentence - the items in the enumeration don’t need to be capitalized. This likely also applied to other in-paragraph enumerations in the paper. - “...into three main classes: 1) Data-level heterogeneity, 2) Ontological heterogeneity, and 3) Temporal heterogeneity…” -> “...into three main classes: 1) data-level heterogeneity, 2) ontological heterogeneity, and 3) temporal heterogeneity…”
2.1 Paragraph 1, 3rd to last sentence - “data set” -> “dataset”
2.2 Paragraph 2 - unnecessary capitalization: “Semantic interoperability” -> “semantic interoperability”
2.2 Paragraph 2, second to last sentence - unnecessary capitalization in enumeration: “...into three further main categories: 1) Classification, vocabulary, and terminology standards; 2) Data interchange standards; and 3) Health record content standards.” -> “...into three further main categories: 1) classification, vocabulary, and terminology standards; 2) data interchange standards; and 3) health record content standards.”
2.3 Paragraph 1 - unnecessary enumeration: “...present at two distinct levels: 1) The system level and 2) The semantics level.” -> “...present at two distinct levels, the system level and the semantics level.”
2.3 Paragraph 1 - incorrect usage of a proper noun: “Unknown-formats” -> “unknown formats”
2.3 Paragraph 1, last sentence - missing Oxford comma: “...by utilizing proprietary bridges, adapters, wrappers or common intermediaries…” -> “...by utilizing proprietary bridges, adapters, wrappers, or common intermediaries…”
Note: I’m not going to list out every instance of missing Oxford commas. Sometimes you use them, sometimes you don’t. Either always use them or never use them, but don’t switch between usage preferences.
3. Methodology
Paragraph 1, Sentence 4 - run-on sentence, consider shortening or splitting into multiple sentences: “This strategy helps to understand contextual knowledge within the healthcare domain (e.g., cardiovascular ontological metadata model) and other data models and their integration and knowledge management to facilitate end-users with shared understanding and unification of the data to resolve the data interoperability and data exchange issues.”
Note regarding footnotes: I’m not going to list out every time this occurs as it happens maybe 10 times throughout the paper, but footnotes go after, not before, the punctuation. Please update.
Note regarding figures: Texts in many of the figures tend to be very small, making them difficult to read, especially in a printed version of the document. Update Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 16.
3.3 - You list out written numbers for each bullet, so you might as well enumerate here.
4. Experimental Results
One of the main contributions of this work is the proposed Cardiovascular Disease Ontology (CVO). There is already an ontology by this name (CVDO) which was first published in 2016/2017. This existing ontology is not cited at all. This is the first major flaw of this paper. If you propose a new cardiovascular disease ontology, you must highlight the difference and why the new ontology is necessary.
Many of the classes in CVO are plural (e.g. Cardiovascular_Diseases, Cardiac_Disease_Causes, Recommendations, Risk_Factor_Indicators, etc.). While this is not forbidden, it is generally thought of as a bad practice.
4.1.2 - “Virtual Semantic View Framework” is the title of the subsection so the expansion of the acronym “VSVF” can be inferred, but technically it is not introduced before the usage of the acronym.
4.1.3 - typo in the first sentence but also unnecessary punctuation: “Table 3., delineates…” -> “Table 3 delineates…”
This happens more than once but I’ll just mention it here. An article is often missing when using the word “ontology.” For example, in the first sentence of this section: “...the process of converting structured relational data sources, such as relational databases, into ontology…” -> “the process of converting structured relational data sources, such as relational databases, into an ontology…” Please fix missing article usage throughout the paper.
4.4 - typo: “Pallet” -> Pellet”
4.4 - typo in the last sentence, a period is inserted twice
5. Evaluation and Testing
Combining multiple knowledge graphs is not federation. Combining multiple ontologies is not federation. Federation involves querying from multiple sources of data in an integrated way without necessarily mutating or combining the data sources. This is another major flaw of this paper. All the queries presented are regular queries. Where are the federated queries? Despite the title of the article, you are not actually doing federation.
Acronym usage -
a) You don't need to and arguably shouldn't include acronyms in the abstract.
b) Don't introduce an acronym more than once; just include it the first time the phrase is introduced and subsequently use the acronym.
c) If you use a phrase only once, most likely you don't need to introduce the acronym for it.
d) Don't use acronyms that you haven't introduced.
Third-person voice - Don't refer to yourselves as "the authors" and instead use a first-person pronoun such as "we." I won’t list all the times this happens, but it should be updated throughout the paper.
Decision: Reject
The two major flaws of this paper are the following:
The ontology proposed has already been published by another group. That existing ontology is neither cited nor compared against. Furthermore, upon inspection, the existing ontology uses better ontology design patterns than the one presented here.
The title of this paper is misleading since the approach does not implement any federation.
|