Data Portal @ linkeddatafragments.org

Matches in ESWC 2020 for { ?s ?p Update: Dear authors, thank you very much for answering all my open questions a more than sufficient way. I agree with all of your points. I also think you have sufficiently answered the points raised by the other reviewers. This paper presents CoModIDE, a Protégé-based GUI for designing ontologies in a modular way, using ontology design patterns (ODPs). Section 2 presents high-level requirements and the features of the GUI. Section 3 points out limitations of related visual modelling interfaces and provides an introduction to ODPs. Section 4 presents in detail the method of the study that constitutes the main contribution of this paper: a user evaluation that leads to the findings that CoModIDE can be used more effectively and more effectively than Protégé and leads to a higher user satisfaction. The tasks that users are requested to accomplish are made up but realistic. In Section 5, a comprehensive set of conclusions is drawn by a detailed statistical analysis of the study observations. Section 6 discusses the findings more broadly, also including the qualitative observations. In particular, the paper leaves no doubt that CoModIDE answers the research questions positively. Furthermore, the software is available for download and testing and comes with good documentation, and the research data are also available. Minor issues (see https://www.dropbox.com/s/60pvq18me25ca4s/eswc2020_paper_111.pdf?dl=0 for details): * Related graphical notations and editors for ontologies are covered in "Related Work", but Section 2.1 suggests that they do not exist. OK, they are not standardized, but still widely used. Also, VOWL indeed has a force-directed structure, but at least one can pin nodes. * If by "subsumption hierarchy" you mean rdfs:subClassOf, why is this an "advanced construct"? * When a pattern is applied in an ontology, what does it mean that "the IRIs of its constructs are updated with the target ontology namespace"? To my understanding patterns hardly contain concrete IRIs, but rather placeholders to be instantiated with concrete IRIs. * The statement "This work observes that restrictions are easier to understand in a notation where they are displayed coupled to the types they apply to, rather than the relations they range over" makes me wonder to what extent this finding (about EER and UML) is applicable to OWL property restrictions. It would be nice if you could discuss this. * Why do you ask CV3 "I am familiar with Manchester Syntax"? If you asked this question because Protégé uses Manchester Syntax on its UI, then maybe many people were actually familiar with Protégé's UI syntax, but not aware that its name is "Manchester Syntax"? * The expected solution for Task B realizes explicit typing by a "hasType" property, whereas this choice is debatable and the same could also have been realized by introducing subclasses of Apparatus. Please justify your choice, e.g., by pointing to some ODP literature. * The in-depth statistical analysis is a strength of this paper, but not all readers are fully familiar with this background. Please explain for non-statisticians what you mean by "our limited sample size is not amenable to partitioning". * The conclusion says that "the answers to our a posteriori survey questions on this matter proved inconclusive" – where exactly can this be seen?". }

• Paper.111_Review.2 hasContent "Update: Dear authors, thank you very much for answering all my open questions a more than sufficient way. I agree with all of your points. I also think you have sufficiently answered the points raised by the other reviewers. This paper presents CoModIDE, a Protégé-based GUI for designing ontologies in a modular way, using ontology design patterns (ODPs). Section 2 presents high-level requirements and the features of the GUI. Section 3 points out limitations of related visual modelling interfaces and provides an introduction to ODPs. Section 4 presents in detail the method of the study that constitutes the main contribution of this paper: a user evaluation that leads to the findings that CoModIDE can be used more effectively and more effectively than Protégé and leads to a higher user satisfaction. The tasks that users are requested to accomplish are made up but realistic. In Section 5, a comprehensive set of conclusions is drawn by a detailed statistical analysis of the study observations. Section 6 discusses the findings more broadly, also including the qualitative observations. In particular, the paper leaves no doubt that CoModIDE answers the research questions positively. Furthermore, the software is available for download and testing and comes with good documentation, and the research data are also available. Minor issues (see https://www.dropbox.com/s/60pvq18me25ca4s/eswc2020_paper_111.pdf?dl=0 for details): * Related graphical notations and editors for ontologies are covered in "Related Work", but Section 2.1 suggests that they do not exist. OK, they are not standardized, but still widely used. Also, VOWL indeed has a force-directed structure, but at least one can pin nodes. * If by "subsumption hierarchy" you mean rdfs:subClassOf, why is this an "advanced construct"? * When a pattern is applied in an ontology, what does it mean that "the IRIs of its constructs are updated with the target ontology namespace"? To my understanding patterns hardly contain concrete IRIs, but rather placeholders to be instantiated with concrete IRIs. * The statement "This work observes that restrictions are easier to understand in a notation where they are displayed coupled to the types they apply to, rather than the relations they range over" makes me wonder to what extent this finding (about EER and UML) is applicable to OWL property restrictions. It would be nice if you could discuss this. * Why do you ask CV3 "I am familiar with Manchester Syntax"? If you asked this question because Protégé uses Manchester Syntax on its UI, then maybe many people were actually familiar with Protégé's UI syntax, but not aware that its name is "Manchester Syntax"? * The expected solution for Task B realizes explicit typing by a "hasType" property, whereas this choice is debatable and the same could also have been realized by introducing subclasses of Apparatus. Please justify your choice, e.g., by pointing to some ODP literature. * The in-depth statistical analysis is a strength of this paper, but not all readers are fully familiar with this background. Please explain for non-statisticians what you mean by "our limited sample size is not amenable to partitioning". * The conclusion says that "the answers to our a posteriori survey questions on this matter proved inconclusive" – where exactly can this be seen?"".