Pattern-based design applied to cultural heritage knowledge graphs

Submitted by Valentina Anita... on 11/12/2020 - 09:20

Tracking #: 2625-3839

Authors: 
Valentina Anita Carriero
Aldo Gangemi
Maria Letizia Mancinelli
Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese
Valentina Presutti
Chiara Veninata

Responsible editor: 
Special Issue Cultural Heritage 2019

Submission type: 
Full Paper
Abstract: 
Ontology Design Patterns (ODPs) have become an established and recognised practice for guaranteeing good quality ontology engineering. There are several ODP repositories where ODPs are shared as well as ontology design methodologies recommending their reuse. Performing rigorous testing is recommended as well for supporting ontology maintenance and validating the resulting resource against its motivating requirements. Nevertheless, it is less than straightforward to find guidelines on how to apply such methodologies for developing domain-specific knowledge graphs. ArCo is the knowledge graph of Italian Cultural Heritage and has been developed by using eXtreme Design (XD), an ODP- and test-driven methodology. During its development, XD has been adapted to the need of the CH domain e.g. gathering requirements from an open, diverse community of consumers, a new ODP has been defined and many have been specialised to address specific CH requirements. This paper presents ArCo and describes how to apply XD to the development and validation of a CH knowledge graph, also detailing the (intellectual) process implemented for matching the encountered modelling problems to ODPs. Relevant contributions also include a novel web tool for supporting unit-testing of knowledge graphs, a rigorous evaluation of ArCo, and a discussion of methodological lessons learned during ArCo's development.
Full PDF Version: 
PDF icon swj2625.pdf
Previous Version: 
Pattern-based design applied to cultural heritage knowledge graphs
Tags: 
Reviewed

Decision/Status: 
Accept

Solicited Reviews:
Click to Expand/Collapse
Review #1
Anonymous submitted on 18/Nov/2020
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

I'm almost sastified with the authors revision and I think that the paper at the current version is good enough to warrant acceptance.

Review #2
Anonymous submitted on 01/Dec/2020
Suggestion:
Accept
Review Comment:

In this latest revision, the authors improved the paper even further. All the issues I raised in my previous review have either been properly addressed in the paper or convincingly rebutted in the cover letter. Thus, I recommend it to be accepted for publication.

I found some minor grammatical errors the authors may want to adjust:

- Page 1: “it can impact on different” => “it can impact different” or “it can have an impact on different”
- Page 6: “there is still lack of tooling to ease their adoption” => a lack of
- Page 8: "CQs dealing with same modelling issues” => the same
- Page 8: “This is a complex cognitive task that, currently, lack proper tool support” => lacks
- Page 8: “In such case, the” => “In such a case” or “In such cases” (I remember seing this type of error somewhere else in the paper)
- Page 14: “a frame for evaluating reliability” => the reliability
- Page 16: “In accordance to the main” => “In accordance with” or “According to”
- Page 18: “describing something in the real word” => real world
- Page 18: “the same real-word object” => real-world
- Page 28: “annotate who run the test” => who runs
- Page 30: “for analysing the the distribution”
- Page 32: “the the value is high”
- Page 34: “has followed an homogeneous strategy” => a homogeneous
- Page 34: “following a similar design principles” => “following a similar design principle” or “following similar design principles”
- Page 34: “there is lack of well-documented” => a lack