Review Comment:
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for their effort in accommodating my previous comments and improving the quality of the paper. However, IMO the paper requires another round of review as I still have the following concerns:
1) There are still many sentences that are really long and very complex to understand and are key for the comprehension of the paper. For example, the 9th paragraph of the introduction (contribution description) is a long sentence with many technical words difficult to follow. I would encourage the authors to re-review the text and simplify sentences (better to be clear and concise) to enhance the readability and also to not increase the complexity with concepts or ideas that are not well introduced or explained in the text, it should be self-contained.
2) Missing a motivating example or a set of examples to clarify and enhance the understandability of some explanations. I would suggest adding it together with the description of the use-case in Section 2 as a specific real example, and it could be reused to support other ideas and explanations along the rest of the paper.
3) Review all repositories (neither DOI nor License is provided) because we do not know if they can be reused and how at this moment.
4) Review R2RML to be consistent. There are some cases where rr:class in the SubjecMap is used and others where is declared using rdf:type in the POM. There are ObjectMaps with templates, aiming to generate an IRI but without rr:IRI (so the engine would generate a literal). Listing 4 still contains RDF errors (e.g., daq#value object), datatype for isEstimate (which is defined in the mapping rules).
5) Fine-grained contributions: in my previous review I was concerned about the number of contributions in the paper but I was surprised that in the new version they have been removed. I would like to see the contributions of the work in detail but in a more concise and clear way.
6) Missing a Figure with the general procedure (maybe improving Fig4 with more details), that gives an overview of all the steps and processes involved. In addition, there are other figures (e.g., fig 5) that can be improved with more details and better organization (is difficult to see that there are arrows from data access to data principles).
| 
