|Review Comment: |
The authors have made their homework to accommodate the requests by the reviewers. I am satisfied from my part, but there are some linguistic and narrative issues that need to be solved to create a good SWJ camera-ready, so please read carefully my comments below:
1) The following sentence (p. 3) can be reformulated as I suggest below, for better understanding:
We have considered this approach appropriate because this concept of a legal institution (or of the domain to be represented, which amounts to the same thing) as a group of resources focused on the attainment of an objective is closely associated with the functional aspects of organizations, as is the case with computer applications or tools. For all these reasons, we can state that the PPROC ontology is “institution-oriented”.
We have considered this approach appropriate because considering public procurement (i.e. the domain to be represented) as a legal institution consisting of a group of resources focused on the attainment of an objective is closely associated with the functional aspects of organizations, as is the case with computer applications or tools. For those reasons, the PPROC ontology is “institution-oriented”.
2) The following sentences:
"This perspective has determined the semantic relationships of the model because these are organized according to the role that each concept plays ... In order to identify and define these relationships ..."
use "these" twice without any apparent referenced entity, please rewrite it (the whole paragraph is still suffering from readability issues).
3) At p. 5, the sentence:
"These three ontologies differ in two main aspects. The first is the source of the ontology knowledge."
does not mean much ... what is "the source of ontology knowledge"?!, please change this paragraph as well.
4) The authors use the term "competency questions" in the paper, which is quite common in ontology design, but still needing a bibliographic reference for the general public.