A Holistic View over Ontologies for Streaming Linked Data

This survey paper focuses on reviewing different ontologies as KR formalism for streaming linked data (SLD). Three perspectives are considered: the suitability of a given ontology for SLD as web resources, assessed based on FAIR principles; ontologies used for describing stream structure, assessed based on metadata and reasoning capability of such ontologies with respect to Stream Reasoning tasks; and ontologies for the stream content, assessed based on the suitability of the representation to characterise event patterns.

The topic as well as the need for the proposed survey is well presented, and the provided tables are instrumental in enabling a full-fledged comparison.

The issue of expressivity is also clarified and clearly presented.

The gaps in the analysis and discussion identified in previous version of the paper have been duly addressed, including the formal specification of properties and expressivity at each meta-structure Level.

The survey paper is presenting an interesting analysis of different ways for representing and manipulating Linked Stream Data in RDF, and can be valuable as a guide for the research community working in this area specifically. Best practices are proposed that can be valuable for the community doing research in this area.

Sharing code not applicable to this survey type article

Clarity has improved and the identified issues have been fixed from my previous review.

I thank the authors for the replies to my comments and the subsequent edits which solve many of the issues I had. However there are still some open points:
- I criticized that the given definitions are not helpful in assigning ontology entities to the concepts L1 to L5. The authors now added additional explanations to the definitions but those explanations make the connection to the analysis not clearer to me. Especially the explanation after Definition 1 is really incoherent and I cannot see how exactly this is related to the analysis.
- I really appreciate the inclusion of a decision diagram for assigning ontology entities to concepts, however, the meaning of the questions in the decision nodes does not get clear from the paper, especially as the questions are referring to the concept of "punctuation" that is only mentioned in later section and does not really seem related (What does "Is time a form of punctuation?" even mean?). I would expect the questions to use terms from the definitions instead.
- A section about "Reasoning Capabilities" has been added where a differentiation is made between Inference and Restriction definitions. This differentiation seems arbitrary as the examples for Inference and Restriction ("∃observes.Temperature ⊑ TemperatureSensor" and "Observation ⊑ ∀madeBySensor.Sensor") both allow new inferences ("observes(a, b) & Temperature(b) → TemperatureSensor(a))" and "madeBy(a, b) & Observation(a) → Sensor(b)") and both can act as restrictions ("observes(a, b) & Temperature(b) & ¬TemperatureSensor(b) → ⊥" and "madeBy(a, b) & Observation(a) & ¬Sensor(b) → ⊥").
- A section about "Best Practices for Streaming Linked Data" has been added as demanded by another reviewer. The best practices are, however, not discussed as claimed in the beginning of the section, but they are just enumerated. They are not justified at all and it is not clear on what objective basis they have been created. For "BP7 Keep the kernel as small as possible." e.g., I can find no argument in the paper why this should be valuable practice.

After reading the revised paper and the authors' answers, I suggest accepting the paper. Formatting, however, must be improved.