Review Comment:
This is a revision of a previous submission called “A Survey of Semantic Technology and Ontology for e-Learning” which I reviewed with a Major Revision decision. First of all, I have to thank the authors for the effort they have made submitting a new version of this article. Now, the paper is more coherent and cohesive which makes it easier to follow. In addition, the use of the suggested tables and figures gives a better grasp of works differences and similarities. Sections 1, 2 and 3 are now clearer and they show more evidently the need for this survey. However, I have to say that the rest of the paper still remains a bit confusing to me and, sometimes, hard to follow.
In Section 4, it is interesting how different works are evaluated by categories. However, in tables, a brief description or a brief note on the contributions or differences of the mentioned ontology respect to other ones in the same category is missing. In different subsections only some works are cited but not all the surveyed ones. This makes more important the above mentioned brief description, because without it I am forced to look for the title on the references or to search the article to see the actual differences. Moreover, these subsections are written like a related work section of a research paper which does not give and added value to this survey. I already gave this comment on the previous review but it was not well addressed or understood in this new version.
Section 5 suffers from the same problems as Section 4 but in this case Table 9 seems clearly insufficient. Even, not all works cited in Section 5 are present in Table 9. I do not understand why. It is also written like a related work without a good interconnection nor a fluent story between them.
About conclusions and some other discussion sections along the paper I think that, even though they are OK and are coherent with analysed data, they are a bit simple without any further analysis.
I would recommend to the authors to review these aspects deeply to polish a future version. Due to the given reasons and, because the main problems are still not well solved I opted for a Major Revision.
|