Review Comment:
This review addresses Review #2 from the previous revision.
First, off thank you for your response to my comments. However, I find them to be lacking appropriate detail to make an improved judgement. Perhaps this is reasonable since my own comments are quite top-level. On the other hand, I also see that the response to my review is unfinished.
The manuscript is still, unfortunately, quite disjointed. It's also still missing a strong identity. The introduction does not have an explicit list of what contributions this manuscript makes. The discussion section does not have an exhaustive address of next steps or meaningful way to accomplish filling of identified gaps. (Also, I don't think that, in general, design patterns are known as nanopublications).
What is the purpose of Section 2? I would guess this should be a /governance/ section. And in that, it does not seem to be exhaustive. It is missing the canonical citation to protege (and it should be capitalized as well). I see that MIREOT is motivated, but not really explained. It's mentioned to be a minimum requirement, but you follow up that not everyone uses it.
The paper still suffers from significant formatting and presentation issues.
* The article does not conform to proper iosart style
* The Abstract is the wrong font and is not justified
* at least one affiliation is out of date.
* The first table should probably be an appendix. It also does not conform to the proper table style for iosart
* heading font and size are incorrect
* spaces should appear before a citation (this is inconsistent anyway, across the manuscript)
* Figure 1 does not have a thorough explanation, still. What does bidirectional import really mean? What are non-dotted arrows?
* third, 3rd, 3^rd
* inconsistent use of UK vs American English styling "e.g.," vs "e.g."
* There are, in bright red and caps, missing references.
* Captions of figures are inconsistently centered, have the wrong font sizes.
* Pages 7, 10, has a ton of open space for some reason
* Inconsistent usage of your defined acronyms.
* Inconsistent usage of styling for uris, footnotes, namespaces, references to data. There is at least one url styled as a hyperlink.
* References are not formatted properly
Overall, I find that the paper suffers from exactly the same (content) problems as the first review, and I maintain that significant improvements are necessary.
|