Review Comment:
Very useful work which should be published here, with the following minor revisions:
section 2 - motivation - seems a little repetitive - could it be rolled up into section 1, Introduction?
section 3 - page 2 “We extend this meaning to de-
note the way an ontological concept adopts when ex-
pressed in natural language by using different morpho-
syntactic structures available in all natural languages.”
do you mean “adapts”? this is not clear as written.
page 2 - “In this particular case, as the addressed problem
does not involve neither the structure of ontology elements nor modeling elements we do not…”
“neither” —> “either”
insert comma after “elements”
page 4 - “In this use case we show how a class definition should have been created according to the presented pattern, it could also be applied to improve the current definition.”
“pattern, it could” —> “pattern. It could”
“The translators should have the adequate training and needed expertise in intercultural communication so as…target language complying…”
—>
“The translators should have adequate training, and the sufficient expertise in intercultural communication, so as……target language, complying…”
“So, a background on” —> “So, a background in”
“Before presenting the final product, the translated ontology should be revised by an editor and/or an ontology engineer.”
Please indicate specifically what an editor might do vs. an ontology engineer. The “and/or” construction here implies equivalency, but this does not seem likely.
page 5 - “Moreover, it should be advisable to…” —>
“Moreover, it would be advisable to…” OR “Moreover, it is advisable to…”
page 6 - “For the case of the property http://www.w3.org/ns/org#member from the ORG ontology is is neither clear nor intuitive the directionality of the property just from the label attached to it…” —>
“For the case of the property http://www.w3.org/ns/org#member from the ORG ontology, the directionality of the property is neither clear nor intuitive, just from the label attached to it…”
page 7 - “could have been provided…” —> “should have been provided…”
“could have been named…” —> “should have been named…”
page 8 - “straight forward” —> “straightforward”
“multi-word terms as for the case of the class…that is named as follows…” —>
“multi-word terms. This the case for the class…,which is named as follows…”
page 9 (Table 16 & Table 17) —> “in order to clarifying the directionality and meaning of the property…” —> “in order to clarify the directionality and meaning of the property…”
page 11 - “In this regard, Ishida 10)” —> “In this regard, Ishida 10”
“Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data” working group 11 in URIs for Linked Data,…” —>
“Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data” Working Group 11 on URIs for Linked Data,…”
“In this respect, we find some valuable guidelines presented at Common HTTP Implementation problems,…” —>
“In this respect, we find some valuable guidelines presented in Common HTTP Implementation Problems,…”
“which aims at deepening on the annotation issue…” —>
“which aims at deepening discussion of the annotation issue…” OR
“which aims at deepening understanding of the annotation issue…”
page 11-12
“the latter may also require to rely on…that allow to account for…”
“the latter may also require reliance on…that can account for…”
page 12
“We found that most ontologies analyzed do not use
meaningful labels for named entities.”
which ones were those you analyzed? this seems very cursory indeed
“that cover all different cases it could appear…” —>
“that cover the multiplicity of different cases which could appear…”
“alphabets that do not have distinction…” —>
:alphabets that do not distinguish…”
|
Comments
Submission in response to
Submission in response to http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/blog/special-call-ontology-design-pa...