Ontology-based Thematic Framing of Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage

This manuscript was submitted as 'full paper' and should be reviewed along the usual dimensions for research contributions which include (1) originality, (2) significance of the results, and (3) quality of writing. Please also assess the data file provided by the authors under “Long-term stable URL for resources”. In particular, assess (A) whether the data file is well organized and in particular contains a README file which makes it easy for you to assess the data, (B) whether the provided resources appear to be complete for replication of experiments, and if not, why, (C) whether the chosen repository, if it is not GitHub, Figshare or Zenodo, is appropriate for long-term repository discoverability, and (4) whether the provided data artifacts are complete. Please refer to the reviewer instructions and the FAQ for further information.

The authors have made corrections to the paper based on the previous round of reviews. Overall, my comments have been taken into consideration.

My specific comments:

(A) whether the data file is well organized and in particular contains a README file which makes it easy for you to assess the data,

The repository is now well organized (and contains a README file).

(B) whether the provided resources appear to be complete for replication of experiments, and if not, why,

The GitHub repository of the source code of the system (REST API) and the Docker Hub page for the server container image now contain documentation and instructions for running the application, and thus seem to be complete for replication.

(C) whether the chosen repository, if it is not GitHub, Figshare or Zenodo, is appropriate for long-term repository discoverability, and

GitHub and Zenodo are used as repositories.

(4) whether the provided data artifacts are complete.

Instead of copying the ontology in the KG file, the ontology is now imported, which helps to keep the KG and ontology file in sync.

The Zenodo repository and the GitHub repository seem to be in sync now.

The repository now contains instructions for running the SPARQL endpoint.

The data artifacts seem to be complete.

Minor/language remarks:

- Page 8: "the concepts and relationships the concepts and the relationsthe concepts and the relations refinement of ArCo are summarized below." - Please correct.

- Page 17: "list 1" -> "listing 1"

- Page 23: "As seen in the implementation of the previous CQ, the relation hermes:isCorrelatedWith* is used in conjunction with the pattern on the subject of the retrieved triples, rdfs:subClassOf*." - 1) "hermes:isCorrelatedWith*" -> "hermes:isCorrelatedWith"; 2) The sentence is difficult to understand ("in conjunction with the pattern on the subject of the retrieved triples"), please reformulate.

This manuscript is the third version that I am reviewing of a paper that presents the ArCo-based HerMeS ontology, which realises tangible and intangible cultural heritage through the use case of cultural itinerary planning.

Considering the great effort made in bringing the initial, problematic version to one that was appealing to a scholar on the topics this journal, there were only a few punctual improvements remaining that would have helped said reader make sense of some ways to present the ontology, that appeared more than a little confusing. The authors have since onboarded that advice and made all the necessary corrections on the illustrations, competency question queries and result sets. The changes have introduced no further clarity issues.

On top of that, I must acknowledge that the remarks made by fellow reviewers, such as documenting the GitHub repository and introducing Zenodo, were also essential, as was addresing them by the authors.

Sorry to have possibly sounded pedantic regarding the REST API denomination, but honestly, I feel it reads better the way it is now.

I have no more changes to request and am now happy to recommend the paper for publication.