Linked data schemata: fixing unsound foundations

Tracking #: 1435-2647

Kevin Feeney
Rob Brennan
Gavin Mendel-Gleason

Responsible editor: 
Guest Editors Quality Management of Semantic Web Assets

Submission type: 
Full Paper
This paper describes our tools and method for an evaluation of the practical and logical implications of combining com-mon linked data vocabularies into a single local logical model for the purpose of reasoning or performing quality evalua-tions. These vocabularies need to be unified to form a combined model because they reference or reuse terms from other linked data vocabularies and thus the definitions of those terms must be imported. We found that strong interdependen-cies between vocabularies are common and that a significant number of logical and practical problems make this model unification inconsistent. In addition to identifying problems, this paper suggests a set of recommendations for linked data ontology design best practice. Finally we make some suggestions for improving OWL’s support for distributed authoring and ontology reuse.
Full PDF Version: 


Solicited Reviews:
Click to Expand/Collapse
Review #1
Anonymous submitted on 14/Nov/2016
Major Revision
Review Comment:

The authors addressed the typos and minor issues I mentioned, but they did not address anyhow the main concerns I had (and also did not explain in the cover letter why they did not address these major issues):

The description of the methodology is a bit vague - what is missing is the more formal definition of the Challenges. Also section "recommendations/best practises" needs to be better justified by the findings in the evaluation phase and/or literature. My impression is that the paper is trying to bring too much - it would be enough to focus only on the Challenges, Methodology and Evaluation (thus skipping the recommendations/best practise).

Before accepting the paper, it is necessary to rework the paper:
- describe the challenges/methodology in a more formal way.
- think about skipping the section "recommendations/best practises" OR provide better justifications for the findings there (based on the results of the evalution/literature)

Review #2
Anonymous submitted on 24/Nov/2016
Review Comment:

This is the second revision of the paper. Although I still have some doubt about the significance of the research/results obtained, the authors have made a clear effort in showing how their approach compare to the most prominent "competitor" and what are the fundamental differences in the method.