Review Comment:
The revised submission addressed many of my and the other reviewers' comments. Specifically:
- The content added in Section 2 clarifies the rationale of the proposed methodology and explains why certain methodological choices were made, e.g. regarding the identification of a tractable subset of temporal relations and the evaluation of the ontology.
- In Section 6, two more unary and two binary predicate symbols and three axioms were added to represent the participation of an entity in an event and the place that the event occurred.
- Section 8 was substantially extended with a new section that describes a tool built on top of the proposed ontology, demonstrating the usefulness. In the same section, more details about the Mingei project were added demonstrating better how the ontology was used in the project.
However, the paper is in my opinion still not ready for publication. The most important limitation is the lack of any examples showing how a narrative and other related concepts are modelled using elements of the proposed ontology. What I would expect to see is at least: an example (textual description) of a narrative, and a graph-based representation of the same narrative using elements of the proposed ontology. It would also be useful to present the code of (some of) the SPARQL queries that implement the functionalities of NBVT described at the end of Section 8.1. More generally, this section (8.1) could focus more on how the proposed ontology supported the implementation of NBVT (using examples!) rather than the description of its architecture and features, which are anyway presented in detail in a previous publication (6).
The presentation of NBVT also raises some additional questions. You claim that the tool provides support in identifying the role of a person in an event and defining the type of an event. How are these two features (role of a person in an event, type of an event) modelled in the ontology? I couldn't identify any relevant concepts in the section presenting the ontology.
Regarding the pragmatic evaluation of the ontology, I understand that it may not be possible to evaluate its accuracy or correctness when the relevant concepts (e.g. the notion of narrative) are vague. I also agree that a way to evaluate the ontology is to test it against the requirements of real applications. In this respect, it would be useful if you explicitly described the data modelling requirements of the two applications (the NBVT tool and the Mingei project) and explained the extent to which the ontology met those requirements. You state in Section 2, that you have received positive feedback in both settings. Can you give more details about it?
Some minor comments:
- If I understand well, Partic(c) is meant to represent a person, an object, a concept or any entity that may participate in an event. The description of the predicate ("participant of the event") is rather inaccurate and misleading as it implies a binary predicate with the event as one of its two arguments.
- Figures 1 and 2: I think it would be better if the two figures are merged into one.
- The paper is in general well-written but needs to be carefully proof-read again for typos and minor language errors.
Overall, although the ideas presented in this paper are original and potentially significant, I believe that the paper still requires some small but significant amendments before it is published.
|