Matches in ESWC 2020 for { ?s ?p This paper presents a new approach to property recommendation of entities in Wikidata by using a tree-based data structure to store support of frequent property sets. The proposed approach is evaluated against the current property recommendation used for Wikidata and performs better on several metrics. Strengths 1) The paper presents a novel approach to property recommendation in knowledge-bases such as Wikidata. 2) The SchemaTree recommendation algorithm outperforms compared to the PropertySuggester. 3) The paper is well-written with minor grammar issues. Weaknesses 1) Although novel, the significance of the proposed approach looks limited given the incremental improvement (4%-6%) in results against the baseline. 2) It is unclear why the proposed approach was not compared with Balaraman et al. and Dessi & Atzori. 3) The presentation style of the paper can be improved by using consistent terminology (property, attribute, or predicate). ** After rebuttal: I thank the authors for their responses to reviewers' concerns. After going through other reviews and authors' responses I still think that the approach is novel; however, I will keep my score as it is due limitations of evaluation and significance of research contribution.". }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Paper.150_Review.1 hasContent "This paper presents a new approach to property recommendation of entities in Wikidata by using a tree-based data structure to store support of frequent property sets. The proposed approach is evaluated against the current property recommendation used for Wikidata and performs better on several metrics. Strengths 1) The paper presents a novel approach to property recommendation in knowledge-bases such as Wikidata. 2) The SchemaTree recommendation algorithm outperforms compared to the PropertySuggester. 3) The paper is well-written with minor grammar issues. Weaknesses 1) Although novel, the significance of the proposed approach looks limited given the incremental improvement (4%-6%) in results against the baseline. 2) It is unclear why the proposed approach was not compared with Balaraman et al. and Dessi & Atzori. 3) The presentation style of the paper can be improved by using consistent terminology (property, attribute, or predicate). ** After rebuttal: I thank the authors for their responses to reviewers' concerns. After going through other reviews and authors' responses I still think that the approach is novel; however, I will keep my score as it is due limitations of evaluation and significance of research contribution."".