Review Comment:
This manuscript discusses the ontology engineering aspects of an ontology named ROH. It captures the entities and relations in the academic and research domains. ROH reuses concepts and relations from existing vocabularies/ontologies. Competency questions and SHACL rules are used to validate ROH.
I appreciate the authors for putting in efforts to build a high quality ontology.
The following are the strengths of this submission.
1) Several terms from existing vocabularies/ontologies have been reused in ROH.
2) A good number of competency questions (CQs) have been used to validate the ontology.
3) A continuous development and integration step has been included in the ontology engineering process where the competency questions are rerun, and the ontology documentation is regenerated when there is a change to the ontology.
4) Good documentation has been provided for the ontology.
5) Permanent URLs have been used to identify the ontology resource.
6) Code is open-sourced.
7) The labels and descriptions of classes and properties are available in English and Spanish.
I have the following questions/suggestions for the authors.
1) A sample/synthetic dataset is generated and used to validate ROH. Why isn't real-world data from a university used instead? Please replace the synthetic dataset with a real-world dataset to validate the ontology.
2) The use of ontology design patterns (ODPs; http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Main_Page) would make the ontology more modular. I would encourage the authors to explore the ODP repository and pick a few relevant ODPs to use in ROH. AgentRole ODP (http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Submissions:AgentRole) and ActivitySpecification ODP (http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Submissions:AgentRole) are two possibilities.
Other comments/questions.
1) As mentioned in Section 5.3, the authors consider Funding as an action. Should there be a class for an action or would a property be more suitable? To me, the latter (property) seems more appropriate, especially after looking at Fig. 7, where several classes are connected to funding through the same relation (funds). We can use roh:funds to connect these classes with the classes that roh:Funding connects to (perhaps, for example, Project?). Properties such as hasFundingID can also be added to capture the other details. Also, on page 10, line 49 (and Eq. 1), funds to some Funding seems wrong.
2) From Section 5.3, having FundingAmount as a class is a little confusing. What are the potential instances of this class? Why can't it be a property?
3) In Table 2, is "Researcher Role" a single class? Is it meant to represent a Researcher? If so, a Research Fellowship is a type of fellowship and does not seem like a researcher or a role played by a researcher?
4) In Table 2, what is the difference between the Subject and Degree entities?
5) In Table 2, the subclasses of Internship are Predoc and PostDoc. I don't think this hierarchy is appropriate because interns are temporary whereas the other classes are full-time positions.
6) On page 10, it is mentioned that entities have categories instead of a hierarchy based on some criteria. What are these categories, and where are the criteria defined/discussed?
7) How are the rules (Eq. 1, 2, 3, ...) implemented?
8) On page 13, the range of inScheme can be either KnowledgeArea or ProjectClassification or HRClassification or FundingProgramClassification. Is it justified to use this property in four different contexts?
9) In page 17, why is hasPublicationVenue connected to a Collection? What information is captured as part of the publication venue?
10) Does Eq. (9) mean that there can only be two publication metrics for a Journal? The case when z is equal to t is not handled.
11) On page 18, hasMetric connects to Journal as well as a JournalArticle. What is the relation between a Journal and a JournalArticle? Unless one is a subclass of another, this doesn't seem right?
12) On page 20, generally, properties follow the lower camel case naming convention. For some properties, such as roh:ImpactFactorName, this is not followed.
13) Include a brief explanation of Listings 6, 7 and 8.
14) Section 6.4, why should Pellet be compiled when there are changes to ROH? Why can't the executable of Pellet be used directly?
15) In Section 7, it was mentioned that "machine learning techniques will be applied to continuously enhance the existing contents of universities’ knowledge graphs". This seems very vague. Either add a few more details or drop this line.
16) Perhaps the short Section 3 can be merged with the ontology description section.
17) Figure 1, how were the requirements gathered?
18) Table 1, how were the scenarios identified?
19) Page 9, line 44, vivo:Relationship seems to be a very general relation that can be used anywhere.
20) Please comment on the OWL 2 profile/description logic to which ROH belongs.
Typos/grammar issues
1) Page 1, Introduction, line 1, add "the" between presents and Hercules Network of Ontologies.
2) Page 1, line 42, it should be funding rather than founding.
3) Page 2, line 15, please rephrase the usage of the word "describing" here.
4) Page 2, line 20, "MA" should be "The main".
5) Page 4, line 9, the word "on" can be dropped.
6) Page 4, lines 32 and 33 should be rephrased.
7) Page 5, line 43, this line should be rephrased. "At this analysis" => "After this analysis"?
8) Page 6, line 27, it should be eg., European.
9) Page 6, line 49, "which they have participated" => with whom they have collaborated.
10) Page 6, line 50, "which are" can be removed.
11) Page 7, line 33, extend => extent
12) Page 7, line 46, at => in
13) Page 9, line 32, it should be roh:PeerReviewedArticle and not PeeReviewedArticle.
14) Page 10, where and how is the Web Annotation Data Model used? Anotation is spelt wrong in Table 4.
15) Page 11, line 7, the phrase "sparsely but just in succint remarks" should be rephrased.
16) Page 13, line 21, at => in
17) Page 20, line 13, cite => citation
18) Page 21, line 7, "Last" can be removed
19) Fig. 13, competence => competency
20) Page 26, line 27, the phrase "particularities of" can be removed.
In general, please run a grammar checker on the entire document.
|