Perdurant Ontology Using Conceptual Dependency Theory

* Review Introduction
The authors of this research illustrates the usability of the Conceptual Dependency Theory as a solution in order to formulate an ontology around Perdurant Entities.

* Abstract
- The authors express "there is no standard tool to represent and develop perdurant. ...[They] examine a new representation of perdurant based on the Conceptual Dependency Theory"
- Is the paper to support the lack of standardized tools? What is the conclusion of your examination?

* 1. Introduction
- The introductory:
- reads more like a history paper rather than introducing and identifying the purpose of the paper
- Lacks focus of the provided research
- Explicitness of Contributions are missing

* 2. Endurant and Perdurant Entities
- Weak definition of both entity kinds as there only exists a sentence or two for each
- A weak example is given prior to R. Colomb's formal definition; would rather preferred no example and more information on defining Endurant and Perdurant
- It is stated that BWW refers to Endurant Entities as objects/Things twice.
- is the emphasis on "tiny" relative to identifying an entity as perdurant?
- The following is an incomplete thought: "while perdurants extended in time."

## 3. Perdurant Representation
- Restates information from section #2.
- The reviewer suggests the authors to merge sections #2 and #3 into a "Background" section
- The reviewer suggests the goal of the paper introduced in section #3 to be moved to the Introduction (section #1).
- With respect to Event and Stative, what is the meaning of definite and indefinite?

* 4. Related Work
- Who is Dietz and what is their theory?
- "Hence, they represented endurant using OWL classes, but OWL doesn't support developing ontology of perdurant, and so UML."
- "so UML" what? The sentence/paragraph finishes with an incomplete thought that the reader is supposed to infer.

* 5. Conceptual Dependency (CD) Theory
- The section only introduces CD Theory from the two provided axioms and their intentions of using CD Theory, which have already been discussed prior multiple times.
- The appendex is an excellent resource; however, the theory's usage drives the entire point of the publication. It would benefit the authors to take more time and consideration of delving into Conceptual Dependency Theory and why it was the chosen theory over other methodologies, if applicable.
- It is one thing to write the definition of CD Theory; however, this section still lacks meaningful information for usages of the theory.

* 6. Perurant Ontology using CD Theory
- Typo in section header: "Perurant"
- How do the authors define "good results"? Are there metrics that could be included?
- If the problem proposed is that Google cannot answer "good results" on specific hotels in a city, why is this not a query implemented with CD Theory?

** Table remarks:
- Tables 1-4
- Q1 and 3: The queries request for a measurable result; however, the results have little to no quantifiable meaning.
- Q2: The queries recommends a stroller would be a hassle inside The Haraam, but why?
- Tables 5-8
- What is the meaning behind "Boxes HEALTH"? Why is a "safety box" classified with a conditional state?

* 7. Discussion
- Why does the CD Theory succeed or fail? How did you measure that these were not possible to represent?
- How do you define "normal actions" vs things that are not "normal"? What makes verbs "non-continuous"?
- Final sentence in section are leftover artefacts from the previous paragraph

* 8. Conclusion
- "presents a novel work to represent perdurant ontology or ontology of actions"
- The paper presents a proof of concept with no methodology or quantifiable results
- Are the query responses simply just to act as a chat bot to "advise" with action?

* Review Conclusion
The reviewer recommends further proofing of the document to correct many of the grammatical errors and artefacts that remain from previous proofing attempts. The author is not only to consider the above bullet points for major revisions, but also suggested to concretely use "perdurant" as its current usages as a noun and adjective interchangably without the notion of how it is to be represented provides a layer of confusion for readers. The research requires more explicit explanation on the methodology in order to convince the reader that the research they present is applicable. The idea itself appears novel, as self-described by the author; however, it is hardly demonstrated in the query results themselves how the CD Theory interacts with the Ontology's query. While a real-life example is an effective demonstration of results, it is difficult to piece together it's usage without concrete results; such as, using mathematical evaluation metrics. There is potential if the methodology and concrete results are addressed.

# Perdurant Ontology Using Conceptual Dependency Theory

**Authors:** Reference Mohamed, A. M., Colomb, R. M., Ahmed, A. H., & Ahmed, R. E.

## Abstract
* The perdurant ontology and the conceptual dependency theory are briefly introduced in the abstract, but the study's methodology and findings are not fully described.
* It also fails to explain why the examples given are unclear.

## Introduction
* The relevance of the Internet, information systems, and how ontologies might improve the discovery process are all well-explained in the introduction. It does not, however, state a specific research question or the study's methodology. The mention of the number of internet users has no direct bearing on the paper's subject. Ontology is defined, however it may use more background information and context. Overall, even while the introduction gives some background information, it doesn't go into great length regarding the research being done.

## Endurant and Perdurant entities
* The introduction gives background information on the value of ontologies for enhancing the discovery process, but it makes no mention of the study's methodology or a specific research objective. The section on the amount of internet users seems unnecessary, and further context for the notion of ontology could be helpful.

## Perdurant Representation
* The key points are restated.
* This section gives a broad overview of endurant and perdurant entities, however the examples and justifications provided are insufficient. The section might need more in-depth examples and characteristics that distinguish between endurant and perdurant entities.

## Related Work
* In this section, the distinction between events and statives is covered, along with a comparison of perdurant ontologies from different frameworks. It emphasizes the need for a new representation and highlights the lack of standardized approaches to persistent ontologies representation.The purpose of the study is to provide a new representation of perdurant ontology to better understand the semantics of interactions between various participants.

## Conceptual Dependency (CD) Theory
* The two fundamental axioms of the Conceptual Dependency theory are explained in this section, along with how it gives actions or occurrences a meaning representation. On the other hand, it makes no clear mention of how the theory is used to ontologies.

## Perurant Ontology using CD Theory
* When it comes to the concept of "good results," the authors don't give one in the abstract of the work; instead, they outline the issue they are attempting to address—improving the caliber of search results for particular hotels in a city.
* Why the authors did not use a query based on CD Theory to resolve the issue is not made explicit.

## Discussions
* The final statement in the paragraph appears to be an artifact from the one before it and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

## Conslusion
* The theory was only able to represent primitive actions and not more complex actions.
* It would have been advantageous to have more definitive results.

The manuscript discusses perdurants and a mechanism to represent them using conceptual dependency (CD) theory. The authors define a few CD theory states for the trip advisor use case. These states are used to represent a few actions related to the use case.

My comments.

1) Since perdurants are events that occur in time, why cannot some of the existing ontologies or ontology design patterns related to events be used to model perdurants?
2) In Section 4 (Related Work), it is mentioned that OWL is not suitable for representing perdurants. Why is this the case?
3) What is the next step after representing perdurants using CD? Will this lead to an ontology?
4) The importance of using CD theory here is not clear. What are the advantages of using it?
5) The title says that a perdurant ontology has been created. But that is not the case. The perdurant ontology has not been discussed at all. The title is misleading.
6) There is no (empirical/subjective or otherwise) evaluation of the discussed approach.
7) The manuscript has to be thoroughly proofread to fix the grammatical issues.

In summary, this manuscript leads to more questions than answers and is not in a publishable state.