Review Comment:
The paper is presented as a survey, but only part of it is actually written according to qualitative survey standards.
The paper selection method is quite minimal, e.g. just by simply scrambling the keywords for a Scholar search (“ontology” “semantics” “learning technology” “education” -"ontology learning"), I have got two relevant papers that are not targeted in the survey:
Panagiotopoulos, Ioannis, Kalou, Aikaterini, Pierrakeas, Christos, Kameas, Achilles. An Ontology-Based Model for Student Representation in Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Distance Learning. In Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations, springer, 2012
Marilza Pernas, A., Diaz, A., Motz, R. and Palazzo Moreira de Oliveira, J. (2012), "Enriching adaptation in e‐learning systems through a situation‐aware ontology network", Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 60-73. https://doi.org/10.1108/17415651211242215
While seeding the search with a few keywords is a decent bootstrap, after that you'd need to build genealogies of related papers, with appropriate features that eventually provide you material for a useful overall comparison of ontologies and related systems.
Indeed, while some parts of the paper are definitely useful, I miss a formal comparison method, which should be supplemented in order to make this survey a state-of-the-art one.
An immediate advantage would come from a summary table for Section 3, which is only textual at the moment, but would benefit from an organised comparison of the tools/approaches discussed.
A similar consideration can be made about Section 4 (educational ontologies), which only addressed coarse features of ontologies (taxonomy or not, representation language, editing tool, design from scratch or reused ontologies, automatic or not), while nothing is said about the actual types of entities and relations addressed, the semantic expressivity used, how much data in the application, if the design included competency questions, foundational principles, or lexical methods, etc.
The paper also includes many language inaccuracies.
I invite the authors to deepen their work, and revise English, in order to make the article viable to the standards of the SWJ.
|