Matches in ESWC 2020 for { ?s ?p The paper describes the Thing Description Ontology, an RDF axiomatization of the W3C's Thing Description information model, and its alignment with the Semantic Sensor Network Ontology. It also reports on an evaluation performed on the model, based on a set of (partial) implementations of it by 8 distinct organizations. After reading the paper I am confused as to what exactly is its goal. If it is to describe the development of the TD Ontology and how effective it is in facilitating semantic interoperability, then it should be a resource paper rather than an in-use one. If it is to report on the experiences and lessons learned during its implementation by the 8 organizations, then it does a mediocre job as it presents only the model creators' side and not the implementers' one. The important question to answer in an in-use evaluation is how the users assess the effectiveness and usability of the ontology or system at hand, not the creators. I like that the authors evaluate the quality of the semantic tagging in section 5.1 as this evaluation reveals several applicability issues. I am missing though the implementer's perspective! In general, I find the paper interesting but incomplete and imbalanced, at least for the in-use track. I would like less details on the characteristics of the TD ontology and its alignment to SSN, and more on the experiences of applying and using it, from both sides. ************** I have read the authors' response and while I feel that the paper is not completely satisfactory for the in-use track, I won't mind accepting it. Thus, I am changing my recommendation to "weak accept".". }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Paper.43_Review.1 hasContent "The paper describes the Thing Description Ontology, an RDF axiomatization of the W3C's Thing Description information model, and its alignment with the Semantic Sensor Network Ontology. It also reports on an evaluation performed on the model, based on a set of (partial) implementations of it by 8 distinct organizations. After reading the paper I am confused as to what exactly is its goal. If it is to describe the development of the TD Ontology and how effective it is in facilitating semantic interoperability, then it should be a resource paper rather than an in-use one. If it is to report on the experiences and lessons learned during its implementation by the 8 organizations, then it does a mediocre job as it presents only the model creators' side and not the implementers' one. The important question to answer in an in-use evaluation is how the users assess the effectiveness and usability of the ontology or system at hand, not the creators. I like that the authors evaluate the quality of the semantic tagging in section 5.1 as this evaluation reveals several applicability issues. I am missing though the implementer's perspective! In general, I find the paper interesting but incomplete and imbalanced, at least for the in-use track. I would like less details on the characteristics of the TD ontology and its alignment to SSN, and more on the experiences of applying and using it, from both sides. ************** I have read the authors' response and while I feel that the paper is not completely satisfactory for the in-use track, I won't mind accepting it. Thus, I am changing my recommendation to "weak accept"."".