Cluedo4KG: clues for Practising SW technologies

This manuscript was submitted as 'Data Description' and should be reviewed along the following dimensions: Linked Dataset Descriptions - short papers (typically up to 10 pages) containing a concise description of a Linked Dataset. The paper shall describe in concise and clear terms key characteristics of the dataset as a guide to its usage for various (possibly unforeseen) purposes. In particular, such a paper shall typically give information, amongst others, on the following aspects of the dataset: name, URL, version date and number, licensing, availability, etc.; topic coverage, source for the data, purpose and method of creation and maintenance, reported usage etc.; metrics and statistics on external and internal connectivity, use of established vocabularies (e.g., RDF, OWL, SKOS, FOAF), language expressivity, growth; examples and critical discussion of typical knowledge modeling patterns used; known shortcomings of the dataset. Papers will be evaluated along the following dimensions: (1) Quality and stability of the dataset - evidence must be provided. (2) Usefulness of the dataset, which should be shown by corresponding third-party uses - evidence must be provided. (3) Clarity and completeness of the descriptions. Papers should usually be written by people involved in the generation or maintenance of the dataset, or with the consent of these people. We strongly encourage authors of dataset description paper to provide details about the used vocabularies; ideally using the 5 star rating provided here . Please also assess the data file provided by the authors under “Long-term stable URL for resources”. In particular, assess (A) whether the data file is well organized and in particular contains a README file which makes it easy for you to assess the data, (B) whether the provided resources appear to be complete for replication of experiments, and if not, why, (C) whether the chosen repository, if it is not GitHub, Figshare or Zenodo, is appropriate for long-term repository discoverability, and (4) whether the provided data artifacts are complete. Please refer to the reviewer instructions and the FAQ for further information.

I would like to thank the authors for preparing the revision. All my comments have been well addressed. So I recommend Accept this time.

I read the new version of the paper and I think it has improved over the previous one. I think the resource is an interesting way to practice semantic web technologies and I encourage the authors to continue maintaining it and promote the resource to other courses that could use it.

I am not 100% convinced about the OWLuedo tutorial which includes concepts from RML and conversions from CSV to RDF…maybe those concepts could be part of another tutorial? In any case, as I also feel that this is an opinion, I assume the teachers have some reasons for following that approach and just point them about the possibility of creating a new tutorial about converting heterogeneous data to RDF.

Some minor comments:
- Section 3.2.1, “ObjectProperties” is marked fir a machine font as if it is a keyword but the keyword is in singular “ObjectProperty”, I would probably use a normal font and separate it in 2 words “object properties”,
- Section 3.2.1: “1 Dataproperty” should probably be “1 Datatype property”, it is also repeated in page 4 (line 1 and 12)
- Page 9, line 50, “there is only be one” is grammatically wrong in my opinion…
- Page 11, “with classes of roughly 60 M2 students”, what is an M2 student?
- Reference 5 “J. E. L. Gayo” is wrong and should be “J. E. Labra Gayo” (in Spain we use 2 last names and LaTeX gets confused a lot with that…you could probably use “Labra Gayo, Jose Emilio” in the Bibtex entry.