Review Comment:
Summary of the paper
The paper ontologies, which have been developed the European NOVI project,
for Future Internet (FI) applications.
The motivation is to use ontologies (and semantic web technologies in general)
to meet the challenge of managing federated heterogeneous resource on the Web,
as required in the FI context. Besides the presented ontologies (NOVI ontologies),
the paper describes how the NOVI architecture uses these ontologies,
including reports on experiences and lessons learned.
Evaluation of the paper
The idea of using ontologies to cope with the management of distributed and heterogeneous
resources is quite meaningful and promising. The potential of semantic web technology
in the realm of FI is outlined. It is promising to use the developed ontologies as a
mediator between NOVI services and the physical layer. It is positive that a lot of work
and implementation has been done within the NOVI project. The mapping descriptions (Sect. 6)
and the recommendations (Sect. 8) are useful, even if it is written at a very high abstraction level.
Unfortunately, the paper has several weaknesses.
First, the presentation is very bad. Besides typos and grammatical errors (see below)
the storyline of the paper is not very clear.
The paper reads like a summary of project results,
but not like a research paper. The ontologies are mentioned and the NOVI architecture is introduced,
but none of them is properly explained. It is not clear why ontologies are
needed and how they are used in the system.
The overall motivation is missing and a coherent story can not be found.
Second, the need for a new modeling approach (i.e., the NOVI ontologies)
is not well explained. Sect. 2 mentioned features like virtualization,
monitoring and policies, but it is neither stated where these features / requirements
come from nor why ontologies are needed.
Third, again the bad presentation makes it hard to understand the modeling decisions.
In Sect. 3, the basic ontologies are introduced. It is not described why three parts
are needed and there modeling scope is mentioned, but not explained, i.e., it is not
clear what “Node”, “NodeComponent” and “Network Element” are used for and where these
entities are originally defined.
Fourth, the architecture in Sect. 4 is not understandable due to limited explanation.
It is not clear where and how the ontologies come into play.
Fifth, the most important criticism is the missing explanation on ontology modeling,
knowledge engineering and application of semantic web technologies like reasoning
and querying. There is only a short excerpt of some request specified by some
triples. However, any interesting experiences and modeling issues for
semantic Web interested reader is not provided.
Sixth, related to the previous issue, the experience description (e.g.,
regarding the mapping principles) could be some interesting work for semantic
Web researcher. However, there are only very few details given and the
description is mainly on a very high abstraction level,
discussing rather known issues on triple-object mapping.
Minor comments
- Several grammatical errors (especially various commas are missing)
- Figures (e.g., Fig. 3) are not readable
- Several typos, e.g.,
+ p. 6 these model -> this model
+ P. 6 object model are -> object models are
+ Alibaba vs. AliBaba
+ P.9 a different implications -> a different implication
+ P. 10 to is what -> to what
|