Review Comment:
Overall evaluation
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 3 strong accept
== 2 accept
== 1 weak accept
== 0 borderline paper
== -1 weak reject
== -2 reject
== -3 strong reject
0
Reviewer's confidence
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 (expert)
== 4 (high)
== 3 (medium)
== 2 (low)
== 1 (none)
4
Interest to the Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management Community
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 very poor
4
Novelty
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 very poor
4
Technical quality
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 very poor
3
Evaluation
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 not present
3
Clarity and presentation
Select your choice from the options below and write its number below.
== 5 excellent
== 4 good
== 3 fair
== 2 poor
== 1 very poor
2
Review
The approach presented in the paper is interesting. However the following
comments should be taken into account.
- Introduction: The text is too focus on a summary of the approach presented.
Authors should provide more about the gap and the needs not covered in the
field.
- Section 2:
It is not clear the meaning of 'ontology corpus'; are they the candidate
ontologies?
It would be very useful to provide name/title to the phases both in the text
and in the figure. As it is now is quite confusing.
The meaning of hub score and authority score should be introduced the first
time they appear.
Figure 1 should be explained: meaning of circles, rectangles, numbers, and so
on.
Authors should explain in a better way the meaning of 'user query', as it is
now it is not clear enough. Examples could help.
- Section 3:
It is not clear enough how many central concepts can have an ontology? Could
be possible all the concepts are central?
Figure 2 should be explain the first time it is mentioned.
It is not clear enough why this part has been divided into model and execution. This part should be rewritten, possibly included a schema that shows graphically the main idea.
Authors should provide more details about the benchmark ontology collection; it is not enough with the reference provided (details about such collection should be included in the paper).
- Section 4:
Authors should clarify whether this phase must include the filtering tasks; as it is now it is not clear enough.
- Section 5:
Examples of the queries should be included.
In general, examples should be included along the explanation of the approach to benefit the reading and understanding. In addition, the explanation should be improved (this could imply a new structure for the paper).
|