Review Comment:
I would like to thank the authors for the new version. Though I had said I was already trustful in the last review, that they could fix the remaining problems, I am giving further feedback now.
I acknowledge that the authors have tackled the minor comments/suggestions I had made in my earlier review. It seems that the paper has greatly improved.
There are still aspects that I am not very satisfied with, for example I still think section 2.4 on scope clarification is unnecessary long, and I don't fully get the gist of the various visualisation efforts in 3.2. But it is probably up to the author to decide how to treat their reader now. I would however argue that another proofread is welcome, as it seems the one that has been done between version 2 and 3 has been done before some additions in 3. Therefore, some editorial issues re-appear, such as in definition 1 which has two main verbs ("is"), or a sentence on p31 that just doesn't make sense to me (the one with "regarded as perspective")
Some other comments on new parts:
On p6 I don't see how the SPARQL SELECT queries may qualify as a mapping. They just extract resources from data patterns in the target and destination datasets, but don't express (or process) any correspondence (as opposed to the following CONSTRUCT example)
Table 1 could be ordered to follow the order in 3.1, and I don't understand why the xR2RML line has "mixed formats" while the D2RML has not (it seems like it's the same kind of format enumeration)
|