Review Comment:
This manuscript was submitted as 'full paper' and should be reviewed along the usual dimensions for research contributions which include (1) originality, (2) significance of the results, and (3) quality of writing. 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.
** ConSolid: a Federated Ecosystem for Heterogeneous Multi-Stakeholder Projects
This paper is the revised version of the submission LBDserver - a Federated Ecosystem for Heterogeneous Linked Building Data.
My main concerns in the original paper were two:
1. It is hard to discern between the software architecture and the metadata management. I think this could be improved by giving more importance to the LDP section in the state of the art (which is only one paragraph), and guiding the user how it is implemented to solve the specific problem the authors try to solve. Right now the paper looks like a usual micro services architecture, implemented it using the Linked Data Platform recommendation and the Solid ecosystem.
2. this is a more interesting problem, which I have not seen much written in the article. I think that consistency between data produced between nodes and how is managed by the platform would be a better approach.
From my point of view 1. has been solved by focusing more in the actual process of how to access and manage building's data which has been really nice. Now the paper reads fluently and the message is clear. The authors describe how they deal with URIs , datasets, aggregate data, access it, etc.
Regarding 2. the authors do not deal with it. I was hoping a response letter from the authors to clarify the points in my review, but I did not see it.
Overall the paper has improved greatly and I think it is a contribution for the special issue.
|