|Review Comment: |
In general, all my previous comments have been addressed, and the organization and argumentation in the article have both improved. Thereby, I suggest accepting the article. Nonetheless, below you'll still find just a couple of totally minor issues I suggest ironing out before publication.
Page 2: "The combination of computational tractability, the strong reasoning support for consistency checking and generating the inferred class hierarchy, as well as the use of XML-based syntaxes and unique identifiers (IRIs/URIs) are considerable advantages and a reason for the high popularity of OWL-DL as compared to other truth conditional logical systems." is slightly too strong on the one hand and too hand-wavy on the other hand to my taste.
Page 4: RDF Semantics (RDFS) -> RDFS Semantics
Page 5: "One has to consider, though, that there is an RDF-based semantics for the OWL syntax . However, this semantics nullifies important syntactical distinctions of OWL, including the distinction between class terms and individual terms, or between TBox and ABox.". I don't agree with this statement. What even is a syntactical distinction and how is that important? As this assertion is anyway a runaway one, you could just delete it.
Page 6: wonky layout
Page 25: neclected->neglected
Page 25: "The authors very much thank Jens Wiebensohn from the Agricultural Science at the University of Rostock for sharing his knowledge about fertilizers." <- should there be a "Department" or something in this affiliation?