Review Comment:
I accept this paper having faith that the author will address the comments below (some in this version and others in future).
1) From rebuttal: "The approach proposed in the paper deals with the detection of abnormal situations, for which these situations must be defined in advance. These situations are defined in terms of observations that meet certain constraints and are interpreted as a whole according to spatio-temporal relationships between them and are not interpreted isolated. The value of each observation is interpreted in the context in which it was made to provide effective condition monitoring. Therefore, the aspects (parthood, location, and time) mentioned in the comment are important but also he concept of observation is key to the representation of the context and provide the notion of situation. Regarding the last sentence of the comment, we would like to emphasize that the objective of the proposed semantic model is not to describe a process but rather to describe the context of a process. Therefore, it is not relevant whether the instance of the process is a single instance or several instances of the same type of process."
If it is observed process then it needs to be distinguished from actual process, the actual process then may have different observations based on observation/measurement.
2) This is not addressed: "“The Time module comprises all information related to the current time and allows time-stamping all the context information that may change over time.” – if time is itself contextual, as previously mentioned, is time
information also time-stamped? "
3) From Rebuttal: "Regarding the example given in the comment, we are not sure what the reviewer means by p1."
It can be interpreted from the given domain restriction of hasDuration that p1 is a process.
"If p1 is a process and t1 is an interval, then t1 indicates the duration of the process p1."
Then does it mean this triplet doesn't need time-stamp. It is confusing which triples are time-stamped and which are not.
4) The covering axioms on Resource,... will not allow.
From Rebuttal: This has been corrected in the paper.
ManufacturingFacility ⊑ ∃operates−1 .Staff
⊓ (Line ⊔ Cell ⊔ WorkSation ⊔ Machine) Therefore, still has the covering axiom, 'Factory' cannot be declared as subclass of ManufacturingFacility.
6) “. . . the context of a Line and depicting the context of a Workstation that belongs to that Line” – The model does not tell what can be part of what. If Line, Cell, Workstation, and Machine are not constrained for the parthood then one can state that a line is part of a machine, which may not be true.
From Rebuttal: Line, Cell, Workstation, and Machine are disjoints classes.
That does not solve the problem. It requires some extra axioms: e.g., Workstation is partOf Only Cell.
7) From Rebuttal: It is not the objective of this paper to provide a complete formalization of industrial processes. The process module of our semantic model reuses concepts and relationships from other models oriented to represent industrial processes [44,47].
It may be the case that ontology development is not the aim but the real contribution of the paper is in the analysis of the data. But the ontology proposed here is not founded on rigorous ontological analysis.
8) From Rebuttal: "The concept Process refers to industrial-related processes. We believe that an observation is not a process, or at least it can be seen as the output of a process. We believe that the concept sosa:Procedure of SOSA could perhaps be considered as a process. The sosa:Procedure concept is not shown in Figure 2 as it is not fundamental to our approach."
The authors are advised not to use a generic label Process for a specific concept. It can be IndustrialProcess. If the authors believe that sosa:Procedure is a process, perhaps authors are conflating the specification of a process with process.
9) "If we consider a sensor as a resource then the two relations (locatedIn and isInLocation) are the same." Why not?
10) " abstractions of physical spaces it refers to representations of spaces [60], such as sectors of a factory, etc." Authors are advised not to use a generic label for a specific concept. Use FactorySpace / SectorOfFactory
14) "Yes, these concepts can be aligned with the geo:Feature class" - I could not find this reflection in the paper.
16) "Yes, they are." - I could not find this reflection in the paper.
17) "Background knowledge is the knowledge represented in the ontological model. If we consider the C-SPARQL query of listing 1, the line 14 ?m sosa:hosts sosa:S TG temp is background knowledge stored in the ontology. This means that a machine ?m hosts the sensor sosa:S TG temp. The ?m variable will be binding to a particular machine. " - Is this explanation included in the paper?
|