Review Comment:
Overall evaluation
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 3 strong accept
== 2 accept
== 1 weak accept
== 0 borderline paper
== -1 weak reject
== -2 reject
== -3 strong reject
1
Reviewer's confidence
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 (expert)
== 4 (high)
== 3 (medium)
== 2 (low)
== 1 (none)
4
Interest to the Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management Community
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 very poor
4
Novelty
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 very poor
3
Technical quality
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 very poor
3
Evaluation
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 not present
3
Clarity and presentation
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 very poor
4
Review
Please provide your textual review here.
The paper analyzes tools for visualizing ontologies. To this end several description categories are introduced, among them use case scenarios, functional features, and ontology language constructs covered by a tool. Based on the categories and the classification of the various visualization tools into these categories a system for recommending a visualization tool for a given task is presented. Thus the paper is more a "meta" paper, giving an overview and describing the foundation for giving guidelines and recommendations for selecting an ontology visualization tool.
Strong points of the paper:
Ontology visualization is an important but also quite difficult topic. The analysis and insights given by the paper are therefore valuable to the community. Furthermore, the framework used to analyze the visualization tools is also interesting in itself.
Weak points of the paper:
The distinction into use cases is an interesting approach but seems a bit arbitrary. The authors should discuss in more detail the suitability of the use cases for characterizing different kinds of interactions with an ontology. For example, why does it make sense to distinguish between uc7 and uc9? Sure, the use cases are different, but does it also mean that the kinds of interactions with an ontology are considerably different in these two use cases? The same with uc3 and uc4, etc. The same remarks holds for aggregating the use cases into use case categories: Are these categories really helpful to distinguish different kinds of interaction with an ontology? Although the evaluation results show that the distinction into use cases categories is widely accepted by the participants of the survey, the authors should still motivate in more detail why they think that their use case framework is suitable.
The description of the recommender system should explain more clearly how the various criteria introduced are actually used to make up rules. Figures 2 and 3b give some hints but some more elaboration including an example would be helpful. In particular, it should be explained how the suitability scores introduced in Sec.3.2 are used for rule formulation. How are rules combined to come up with a final recommendation?
Minor remark: The left part of Figure 3 is very difficult to read.
| 
