Review Comment:
The paper addresses the challenges in the Quantum Cascade Laser (QCL) through the formalization of the knowledge spread across different sources such that it can be both machine processable and also human-comprehensible.
The paper is timely and I enjoyed reading. There are certain aspects that needs further improvement.
Overall, the paper needs significantly reorganization and the consistency in writing has to be improved.
Please find my comments below.
1. In the abstract instead of just saying we evaluated…, it is suggested that authors include the metrics from their evaluation/some evaluation results.
2. Writing needs to be improved, for example, authors have introduced the acronyms (e.g., QCL in introduction) without introducing it and sometimes the even after introducing the acronyms, they’ve not been used.
3. In the introduction (p2, line 10-14), why it can’t be readily instantiated, is it because of knowledge about QCL has not been formalized or it is because of the complex relationships? If it is because of the complex relationships, then author should justify how is their work different, i.e., their representation should also capture all the complex relation making it complex?
4. Overall, the introduction needs to be improved significantly as now the story is not consistent and is not conveying the important message. For example, why this work, is it just because of the complex relationships (see bullet point 3), are there no other works done in QCL and what’s missing in existing work? Additionally, the motivating scenario section can already be part of the introduction and this should also help to improve the introduction section.
5. The related work needs to be improved significantly as it currently does not include the works in the domain of QCL lasers. The authors are suggested to include the related works on QCL domain, the focus of the paper. Some of the relevant works are:
Kerre, D., Laurent, A., Maussang, K. and Owuor, D., 2023, August. A text mining pipeline for mining the quantum cascade laser properties. In European Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems (pp. 393-406). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Roh, B.M., Kumara, S.R., Simpson, T.W., Michaleris, P., Witherell, P. and Assouroko, I., 2016, August. Ontology-based laser and thermal metamodels for metal-based additive manufacturing. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (Vol. 50077, p. V01AT02A043). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
6. Section 3.1 is irrelevant and can be removed. The description can be provided without having subsection Introduction as in the case of section 4. It is also important that authors maintain the consistency across the paper, which seem to be missing currently.
7. What is Scenario ii in Section 4.1?
8. Section 4.1.1, the descriptions of use cases (UC1,..UC3) are more of the requirements so authors should update the descriptions accordingly.
9. The information provided in Section 4.1.2 should already part of the methodology section. Section 4.1.2 can therefore be removed.
10. Section 4.1.3 content can already be part of the ontology description and can be removed as there’s no need to have separate section for describing re-used ontology. Having a different prefix in the ontology should already demonstrate it.
11. The evaluation section needs improvement, both in terms of organization and presentation. For example, in section 5.2.2, author mentions “…he CQs are represented in SPARQL, the formal RDF query language and …we run several possibilities of queries capturing the various combination..”, which queries? Moreover, for the evaluation it’s suggested that authors highlight the list of properties and classes that answers particular CQs.
12. The conclusion needs to be updated accordingly to align with the introductions (i.e., contribution claims).
|
