Review Comment:
First, I would like to thank the authors for their detailed response. In my opinion, this version has addressed most of my concerns. However, my recommendation is minor revision, since the presentation of the paper can be further improved as it described with more details, below:
*Concerning the weak points 1 & 2 that I have mentioned in the previous version, the related work section has been improved. Also, I like Table 1, which provides a comparison with existing Online Consent Request approaches. However, Ι believe that Table 1 and its textual description should be moved in the related work section, e.g., in a subsection of Section 2.
*In the evaluation section, I think that the presentation of the paper should be improved, now it is not so easy to follow. In particular:
*There is no need to repeat all the numbers that are presented in Figures 7 & 8, so it is better to provide a less-detailed version of Section 5.
*Provide a better link between the text and the figures, e.g., write Fig. 8 (a) when you refer to the corresponding chart and not just Fig. 8.
*An alternative option could be to provide additional Tables (e.g., for Section 5.2.2).
*I also think that in some parts the introduction can be improved, e.g., parts of the text “ KGs also support data … new knowledge” should be described in the related work section and not in the introductory section. Moreover, it would be also good to mention in the introduction, e.g., in the second bullet of the contribution, that you perform a user-based evaluation with 40 participants, and not just to say “cookies of 40 users”.
*In the conclusion section, please provide 1-2 sentences about the results of the evaluation.
Finally, as a general advice, for aiding the reviewers in my opinion it is preferable to use a different color in the text (e.g., blue), for showing the revised content of the manuscript.
Minor Issues
predominately → predominantly
as consent represented → as consent is represented
GaphDB→ GraphDB
The tool is build → The tool is built
|
