Review Comment:
This paper presents a systematic review of semantic web-based approaches in SDSCs and proposes a framework named GeoPROV that extends W3C PROV. The authors discuss limitations of existing work and provide insights into implications and potential research directions.
Strengths
S1: A good coverage of existing work
S2: Valuable insights into open challenges in the domain
Weaknesses
W1: For a review paper, previous works are not sufficiently introduced or discussed. The introduction relies heavily on tables, but the tables are not very detailed. The columns are not always intuitive and sometimes appear arbitrary without further explanation, and the keywords are unclear. More discussion is needed to give readers a clear overview of the research field.
W2: While the paper lacks an effective overview of existing work, it spends a large portion discussing gaps. Without a solid grounding in prior work, it is difficult to relate to or evaluate these gaps.
W3: The review lacks a clear structure.
W4: GeoPROV, as one of the main contributions, is not clearly described, and its importance and potential impact are not well justified.
More comments
Table 2 presents a list of themes that mixes application domains, techniques, and research challenges. A more structured categorization of research directions would improve clarity.
The paper should first summarize existing approaches and their innovations before discussing their limitations.
The choice of columns in Table 2 is not well motivated.
The labeling system in the “SDSC relevance” column in Table 2 is unclear. It contains tags: Core, High, Central, Moderate, Direct, SDSC case study, Frames SDSC process, etc. They are used without a clear definition or consistent system.
The column names of Table 3 are not clearly described.
In Section 3.2, Table 3 is referenced, but this seems incorrect.
The statement “However, findings summarized in Table …” is difficult to follow, and the connection between text and table needs to be better grounded.
Section 3.3 discusses versioning as one technique within provenance concepts and standards. It is unclear whether this is intended as an example or a main focus. A review paper should provide more balanced coverage of techniques in the field.
In Section 3.4, the first paragraph is too generic. Statements such as “recent developments incorporate big data integration” are not sufficiently informative. More concrete examples and references are needed.
The description in Section 3.5 is also too abstract, and no specific data models or frameworks are clearly explained.
Similarly, Section 4 focuses on limitations without sufficiently reviewing or grounding them in prior work.
The scales used for “Complexity level” in Table 7 and “Compliance level” in Table 8 are not clearly defined.
Many statements lack sufficient citations.
| 
