Review Comment:
I reviewed a previous version of this manuscript, for which I recommended a major revision based on the need for a clearer motivation, scope and limitations of this effort, as well as on the structure and flow of the paper at that time. In this new version the authors have addressed all my highlighted concerns:
- The motivation, scope and limitations are clearly defined
- The interplay between the different sections is elaborated and illustrated with a workflow diagram that facilitates reading. There are numerous references to this workflow and interlinks between the sections, resulting in a cohesive document.
- More context is provided in the introductory paragraphs of each section, and the project in which this effort is carried out is clearly introduced. The relation of each section/topic with respect to the overall topic of the survey is now explicit.
- The authors have improved the categorization of tools and approaches.
- The tables in the appendix summarize the main approaches, tools and resources surveyed according to the proposed classification.
Taking into account these modifications, I maintain the reasons upon which I based the recommendation for acceptance in terms of the criteria for surveys:
- The topic of the paper, at the intersection of humanities and the Semantic Web, is interesting and relevant for the advancement in a line of research which poses numerous challenges.
- The quality of writing is good and the survey is well balanced, with a broad coverage encompassing theoretical standpoints and approaches, tools, repositories and datasets.
- The granularity and length are also appropriate for the text to serve as an introductory text.
Minor comments for improvement:
- The authors have provided details on the methodology for the survey, indicating the different stages in the generation and keywords used in literature search. There is no explicit reference to a filtering process after those keyword-based search results, was there any filtering step? If so, which criteria were applied?
- In table 3, the included resources diverge in their nature, so the current list groups together LLOD Cloud, Lila Etymological Lexicon, LingHub, and Diachronic semantic lexicon of Dutch, etc. for example. I suggest including a mark here to distinguish which resources are particularly relevant for diachronic analysis, in contrast to general LLOD resources (e.g. Lila Etymological Lexicon vs. LLOD cloud and LingHub).
- The authors of [12], referenced on p. 5, mention Lemon (Lexicon Model For Ontologies), and in their diagrams (in Github) they seem to be using OntoLex-Lemon, not its ancestor. Throughout this survey "OntoLex-Lemon" is the term used to refer to the 2016 Specification as the outcome of the W3C Ontology-Lexica Community Group, so for that bib. reference I would recommend to replace the mention of "Lemon" with "OntoLex-Lemon" for consistency in the whole document.
*Typos*:
l.19, .p. 19, right column, "A combined resource like this, allows..." → remove comma
p. 20, l. 1, right column → remove "(linguistic)", already covered by the first L in LLOD
Appendix tables, Table 4. → word embeddings (add pl. "s")
| 
