Data Portal @ linkeddatafragments.org

Matches in ESWC 2020 for { ?s ?p ?o. }

• Paper.111_Review.0_Reviewer type RoleDuringEvent.
• Paper.111_Review.0_Reviewer label "Vadim Ermolayev, Reviewer for Paper 111".
• Paper.111_Review.0_Reviewer withRole ReviewerRole.
• Paper.111_Review.0_Reviewer withRole NonAnonymousReviewerRole.
• Paper.111_Review.0_Reviewer isHeldBy Vadim_Ermolayev.
• Paper.111_Review.0 type ReviewVersion.
• Paper.111_Review.0 issued "2001-01-27T17:37:00.000Z".
• Paper.111_Review.0 creator Paper.111_Review.0_Reviewer.
• Paper.111_Review.0 hasRating ReviewRating.1.
• Paper.111_Review.0 hasReviewerConfidence ReviewerConfidence.4.
• Paper.111_Review.0 reviews Paper.111.
• Paper.111_Review.0 issuedAt easychair.org.
• Paper.111_Review.0 issuedFor Conference.
• Paper.111_Review.0 releasedBy Conference.
• Paper.111_Review.0 hasContent "I acknowledge the rebuttal answers by the authors, though I am not fully happy about those. I am still not fully convinced about the relevance of this paper for thee track. I also think that evaluation results are not fully convincing and mature. These considerations preserve my initial score of weak accept. ------------------- This paper presents the results of an evaluation of the CoModIDE tool for graphical modular ontology engineering in an experiment with 21 subjects carrying out some typical (simple) modeling tasks. Having noted that, I believe that the paper does not fully fit into the scope of Ontology and Reasoning track of ESWC. Overall, the paper is well written and structured. The methodology used in the presented research is mature and well presented. the data collected in the exaluation exersize is presented and discussed in fully sufficient detail. I cannot however say that all the results, as interpreted and presented in the discussion, including some generalizations are well supported and convincing. My major concerns are: - Chosen evaluation measures and the size of the subjects pool: The paper states that the tools were compared based on the task completion time (with the threshold of 20 min) and the correctness of the subjects' outputs. while reading Section 5.2, I wondered why completion time has at all been selected as a measure. It was not a quick chess tournament, I believed. A reasonably convincing argument needs to be given in support of this experiment design choice. Also, why 20 minutes point has been chosen as a threshold? I got the answer to my completion time question only two pages later - in Fig. 5. Still, it has not been made clear, why a 20 minute time slot to completion. As for Completeness, I feared that this approach is too simplistic and coarse, as presented. Furthermore, I felt that there was a high risk that the results would have been under-representative having quite a small pool of subjects (21 people). Generalization: In the conclusion to Section 6.2, the authors state that they "... believe that our results are generalizable, due to the strength of the statistical signicance". I think that this statement is pre-mature. A larger-scale experiment, e.g. via croud-sourcing, is needed before you may state any generalization of a statistical sort. In my opinion, the pool of subjects is too small to be considered statistically representative. Some comments to free text responses and future work: Graph layout: This is so common for all diagram editors, that you might have taken it for granted before asking. The reason for the use of the force-directed graph layout in VOWL is, most probably, the way to build better layouts. This is not perfect - as you described in thee related work section. However, having nothing for improving the layout is not good. Future work: The presentation in Section 7.1 is the future work on the tool, but not on its evaluation. However, the paper focuses on the evaluation. So,iss this (evaluation) line of research fully accomplished? There are several imperfections in the text and figures in terms if readability, reference numbering, and English. Examples: - References need to have consecutive numbering in the order of their citation appearance in the text. Hence, [17] cannot be the first citation. This is one of the indicataor of a quick reshuffling of a previously written manuscript, btw. - P.2: "we have formulated for the following hypotheses" - remove "for" - P.4: "... provides an a graphical overview of an ontology's structure ..." - to be: a graphical overview of an ontology structure - P.4: "We also invite the reader to download and install CoModIDE themselves ..." - I would remove "themselves" - Fig. 1: text in the figure is not readable - Acronyms: acronyms have to be given in full at the place of their first appearance. Please check OPLa in p.5. Does OPLa stand for an Office of the Principal Legal Advisor? - P.7: "...the time taken to complete each tasks" - each task - P.8: "... we provided a 10 minute tutorial ..." - I would rather call it a briefing. You do not teach, but put people into the context of the activity and instruct. - P.9: "... quick and dirty ..." - please avoid emotionals and colloquials - Fig. 5: Please make H1 and H2 in one tense. To conclude, I believe that the paper presents ongoing research and better fits into a relevant workshop as a work-in-progress report."".
• Paper.111_Review.1_Reviewer type RoleDuringEvent.
• Paper.111_Review.1_Reviewer label "Anonymous Reviewer for Paper 111".
• Paper.111_Review.1_Reviewer withRole ReviewerRole.
• Paper.111_Review.1_Reviewer withRole AnonymousReviewerRole.
• Paper.111_Review.1 type ReviewVersion.
• Paper.111_Review.1 issued "2001-01-15T21:17:00.000Z".
• Paper.111_Review.1 creator Paper.111_Review.1_Reviewer.
• Paper.111_Review.1 hasRating ReviewRating.2.
• Paper.111_Review.1 hasReviewerConfidence ReviewerConfidence.4.
• Paper.111_Review.1 reviews Paper.111.
• Paper.111_Review.1 issuedAt easychair.org.
• Paper.111_Review.1 issuedFor Conference.
• Paper.111_Review.1 releasedBy Conference.
• Paper.111_Review.1 hasContent "The paper presents and evaluates a Protégé plug-in called CoModIDE, developed by the authors, for visual and graphical ontology engineering. First, the authors present the plug-in and the modular ontology design process, as well as related work, especially ontology design patterns. In the main part of the paper, the authors describe a user-based evaluation of the developed tool. CoModIDE was already presented in a previous publication. This new submission expands on the description of the tool and provides a user-study based evaluation, which is, overall, sound and well described. The evaluation shows that the participants prefer the new plug-in over standard Protégé. Overall, this is a highly relevant and interesting submission that I definitely recommend to be presented at ESWC 2020. The submission is written in a very clear and descriptive way but there are a few typo and unusual constructions. If at all possible and feasible, it would be good to have the paper checked by a native speaker."".
• Christoph_Lange type Person.
• Christoph_Lange name "Christoph Lange".
• Christoph_Lange label "Christoph Lange".
• Christoph_Lange holdsRole Paper.111_Review.2_Reviewer.
• Christoph_Lange holdsRole Author.168.11.
• Christoph_Lange holdsRole Author.197.3.
• Christoph_Lange mbox mailto:math.semantic.web@gmail.com.
• Paper.111_Review.2_Reviewer type RoleDuringEvent.
• Paper.111_Review.2_Reviewer label "Christoph Lange, Reviewer for Paper 111".
• Paper.111_Review.2_Reviewer withRole ReviewerRole.
• Paper.111_Review.2_Reviewer withRole NonAnonymousReviewerRole.
• Paper.111_Review.2_Reviewer isHeldBy Christoph_Lange.
• Author.168.11 type RoleDuringEvent.
• Author.168.11 label "Christoph Lange, 11th Author for Paper 168".
• Author.168.11 withRole PublishingRole.
• Author.168.11 isHeldBy Christoph_Lange.
• Author.197.3 type RoleDuringEvent.
• Author.197.3 label "Christoph Lange, 3rd Author for Paper 197".
• Author.197.3 withRole PublishingRole.
• Author.197.3 isHeldBy Christoph_Lange.
• Paper.111_Review.2 type ReviewVersion.
• Paper.111_Review.2 issued "2001-01-26T06:15:00.000Z".
• Paper.111_Review.2 creator Paper.111_Review.2_Reviewer.
• Paper.111_Review.2 hasRating ReviewRating.2.
• Paper.111_Review.2 hasReviewerConfidence ReviewerConfidence.4.
• Paper.111_Review.2 reviews Paper.111.
• Paper.111_Review.2 issuedAt easychair.org.
• Paper.111_Review.2 issuedFor Conference.
• Paper.111_Review.2 releasedBy Conference.
• 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?"".
• Paper.112 type SubmissionsPaper.
• Paper.112 label "Knowledge extraction and annotation of research documents based on WordNet and Wikipedia".
• Paper.112 title "Knowledge extraction and annotation of research documents based on WordNet and Wikipedia".
• Paper.112 issued "2001-12-04T09:35:00.000Z".
• Paper.112 authorList b0_g290.
• Paper.112 submission Paper.112.
• Paper.112 track Track.Knowledge%20Graphs.
• Paper.112 preprint 121230112.pdf.
• b0_g290 first Author.112.1.
• b0_g290 rest nil.
• Author.112.1 type RoleDuringEvent.
• Author.112.1 label "Phyo, 1st Author for Paper 112".
• Author.112.1 withRole PublishingRole.
• Author.112.1 isHeldBy Phyo.
• Phyo type Person.
• Phyo name "Phyo".
• Phyo label "Phyo".
• Phyo holdsRole Author.112.1.
• Paper.113 type SubmissionsPaper.
• Paper.113 label "Holistic Knowledge Integration with CoMerger: A divide-and-conquer approach".
• Paper.113 title "Holistic Knowledge Integration with CoMerger: A divide-and-conquer approach".
• Paper.113 issued "2001-12-04T09:42:00.000Z".
• Paper.113 authorList b0_g291.
• Paper.113 submission Paper.113.
• Paper.113 track Track.Ontologies%20and%20Reasoning.
• b0_g291 first Author.113.1.
• b0_g291 rest b0_g292.
• Author.113.1 type RoleDuringEvent.
• Author.113.1 label "Samira Babalou, 1st Author for Paper 113".
• Author.113.1 withRole PublishingRole.
• Author.113.1 isHeldBy Samira_Babalou.
• b0_g292 first Author.113.2.
• b0_g292 rest nil.
• Author.113.2 type RoleDuringEvent.
• Author.113.2 label "Birgitta König-Ries, 2nd Author for Paper 113".
• Author.113.2 withRole PublishingRole.
• Author.113.2 isHeldBy Birgitta_König-Ries.
• Samira_Babalou type Person.
• Samira_Babalou name "Samira Babalou".
• Samira_Babalou label "Samira Babalou".
• Samira_Babalou holdsRole Author.113.1.

• first
• previous
• next