Review Comment:
The paper describes a method for expressing and answering natural language queries about rehabilitation robots. The method consists of a controlled natural query language (RehabRobo-Query), a translation of queries expressed in RehabRobo-Query into SPARQL queries making use of the terms of an ontology for rehabilitation robotics (REHABROBO-ONTO), and the use of a DL reasoner (Pellet) for answering the SPARQL queries. The paper also presents a query interface, which facilitates the formation of the natural language queries, and two experiments evaluating the translation algorithms and the language itself.
Compared to the original submission, the revised paper describes in more detail the domain of rehabilitation robotics. It also presents an analysis and and an experimental evaluation of the translation algorithms, and a user evaluation of the language using domain experts. Finally, it includes a more comprehensive presentation and comparison with related work.
Although the quality of the paper has been improved, the paper is in my opinion not yet ready for publication. Specifically:
- The paper still lacks realistic examples from the domain of rehabilitation robotics. You present several examples of queries but you only briefly present one use case where one of these queries could be useful (robots for patients with rotator cuff lesions). It would be useful to give some more similar examples or a use-case scenario, which would better motivate the need for the proposed query language. Or a better explanation of the cases where the types of queries that you present in 3.1 would be useful.
- You need to give more details about the evaluations you performed:
* How did you choose the set of queries you used for evaluating the performance of the translation algorithms? Which criteria did you use for their selection?
* What instructions did you give the participants of the user-based experiments? Were they asked to freely formulate their own queries or did you ask them to write queries with which they could retrieve certain information from the knowledge base?
* The format of the questions you present in Table 1 (e.g. “rate the usefulness,…”) does not match the format of the answers described in 7.2 (“strongly agree”, “strongly disagree”, etc.).
- With the survey questions that you used in the user-based evaluation, you were only able to evaluate the usefulness of the query language. It’s not clear though whether the participants found the language and the interface intuitive and usable, which is equally (if not more) important. Were the participants able to form the queries they wanted to make? did their queries return the expected results? did they give any feedback on how the language/interface can be improved?
- Although the aim of the paper is not to present the ontology itself, it would be useful to give some more information about it, such as: some examples of subclasses of the main classes that you present, some examples of instances of the main classes (e.g. of Assessment) which would better clarify their use, the features of OWL that you used.
- There are still some language errors/typos throughout the paper that need to be fixed. Below are some examples - but there are probably more, so you need to proof-read the paper again or ask a native English speaker to proof read it for you:
* Section 1, line 2: remove the duplicate “of”
* Section 1, par.3: “Robot-assisted rehabilitation devices can be applied to patients” -> clarify what you mean by “Robot-assisted rehabilitation devices”; and how can these be applied to patients? another verb would be more appropriate here, e.g. “can be used to support patients”
* Section 1, par.4: “it become a challenge” -> “it has become a challenge”
* Section 1, par.5: “these critical information” -> “this critical information”
* Section 1, par.6: “is likely be critical” -> “is likely a critical”
* Section 7.1, par.1: “as listed” -> “listed”
* Section 7.1, par.2: “after high population” -> “after increasing the size of”
* Section 7.2, par.2: “Each of participant have been given” -> “each participant has been given”
* Section 7.2, par.3: “the factor of occupation” -> “occupation as a factor”
* Section 8, par.4: “a more variety” -> “a greater variety”
* Section 8. par.5: “on the top of Sesame” -> “on top of Sesame”
* Section 8, par.7: “other varieties of queries” -> “other types of queries”
* Section 9. par.2: “right rehabilitation robots” -> “appropriate rehabilitation robots”
* Section 9, par.2: “aids exchange … and thus to improve” -> “aids the exchange … and therefore improves”
- You also need to check your references. For example, refs [1] and [2] are missing the author names and in ref [12] the names of the authors are not clear.
Overall, the paper has some original contributions the most important of which is the evaluation of the proposed query language, but it still has some (mostly presentation) flaws. After a major revision addressing the points above, the paper could be considered for publication.
|