Review Comment:
# Feedback to the revised version
The revised version resolved several weaknesses. The following weaknesses still remain in my opinion:
Weakness: If most of the 150 papers are filtered out, why are they still considered in section 4? “We confirmed
that not all the surveyed articles conformed to the specific focus of our study, which centered on the generation of
triples from NL texts, and their insertion into an existing KG, adhering to predefined ontology specifications.” sounds like they were not in the scope of the study. Please clarify that.
Revision: Clarify the purpose of including the 150 papers. While you mention it helps answer RQ-05, the main scope is the remaining 15 papers. The role of the 150 papers should be explicitly stated.
Weakness: Why is entity linking not mentioned once? Yes, NER is important but if one wants to include new triples in a KG, identifying whether an encountered entity already exists in it, is important as well. :
Revision: While some of the reported methods use entity linking, it was not introduced in the paper.
#Comments/Suggestions/Typos
“Constributes” in line 42 on page 12
# Categories
(1) Suitability as introductory text, targeted at researchers, PhD students, or practitioners, to get started on the covered topic.
The text lacks an introduction to entity linking. Otherwise, it is suitable as an introductory text.
(2) How comprehensive and how balanced is the presentation and coverage.
It is comprehensive.
(3) Readability and clarity of the presentation.
Overall readability is good. However, it is unclear why both the 150 papers and the 15 papers are analyzed when the former are out of scope. A clarifying statement is needed.
(4) Importance of the covered material to the broader Semantic Web community.
The covered material is important to the Semantic Web community.
# Summary
The revised version resolved most of the previously mentioned flaws. However, two main issues need clarification:
1. The rationale for analyzing both the 150 and 15 papers.
2. The omission of entity linking, which is crucial for RDF Triple Generation.
Given these points, I lean towards accepting with minor revisions.
| 
