Review Comment:
The new version improves on the concerns raised in the previous reviews nicely guided by the answer-letter. In particular, the critical section 5.2 is improved and new references and evidence on N3 logic are provided. The authors also addressed the other minor language and terminological issues given in the previous.
Below I list more comments on further possible improvements.
- “A formal specification is available in related works [3, 17]”. I would suggest that the authors spend more space in explaining the work there. In fact, for the sake of paper completeness, I would suggest that they introduce the Fig 1 from [5 (in paper, or 3 in letter)] and adding a couple examples of N3 logic and it’s translation to FO-logic as listed in [5]. Otherwise, it looks incomplete for the non-N3 expert.
- Among all listed reference, again with all respect with the listed, only [5] is of significant importance and quality to support the authors claim. With all respect, venues such as BioMed Research International and Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, etc are hard to take as an authority on correct usage of a formal Web language.
- Taken from the abstract of [5]: "Notation3 Logic...applied in different reasoning engines like Cwm, EYE, and FuXi. But despite these developments, a clear formal definition of Notation3’s semantics is still missing." and "Notation3 implementations from former research projects and test cases developed for the reasoner EYE. We find that 31% of these files are understood differently by different reasoners.". I would suggest that the authors tries to incorporate similar statements in their work to make clear to the reader (maybe more formally minded like me) that N3 is still needs to be polished.
- The issue on decidability is still partially addressed. The issue is not that N3 validation (or proof generation) is undecidable or not, the issue is that we do not even know if it is undecidable (following the cited literature). Also you have to be precise in asking what is undecidable. “Prolog is undecidable” is not a correct statement, but checking properties over a “Turing complete language” is indeed undecidable. Please correct that in the final version.
- “The purpose of RDF-CVis not to invent a new constraint language: it is a concise ontology which is universal enough to describe any constraints expressible by any constraint language” -- this claim is too strong, maybe the authors had in mind some more particular constraint languages
- Please move web links in footnotes (not in the body of the text)
| 
