Matches in ESWC 2020 for { <https://metadata.2020.eswc-conferences.org/rdf/submissions/Paper.110_Review.1> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 10 of
10
with 100 items per page.
- Paper.110_Review.1 type ReviewVersion.
- Paper.110_Review.1 issued "2001-01-28T13:05:00.000Z".
- Paper.110_Review.1 creator Paper.110_Review.1_Reviewer.
- Paper.110_Review.1 hasRating ReviewRating.2.
- Paper.110_Review.1 hasReviewerConfidence ReviewerConfidence.5.
- Paper.110_Review.1 reviews Paper.110.
- Paper.110_Review.1 issuedAt easychair.org.
- Paper.110_Review.1 issuedFor Conference.
- Paper.110_Review.1 releasedBy Conference.
- Paper.110_Review.1 hasContent "The paper presents version 4 of the widely-used YAGO knowledge base and motivates the design choices behind the knowledge base. In contrast to previous releases, YAGO 4 combines data from Wikidata with using schema.org as upper ontology. As previous YAGO releases, YAGO 4 focuses on data quality and logical consistency for the prize of coverage. By cleansing and increasing the logical consistency of Wikidata, YAGO 4 clearly adds value and I’m sure that the knowledge base will again be widely used. YAGO 4 is clearly a suitable resource for being presented in the ESWC resource track. The text of the paper still has the following weaknesses which should be resolved for the final version: 1. You say on page 4 that you delete 26% of the Wikidata facts using your constraints. Please explain in more detail what types of facts you delete, e.g. split the 116M deleted triples by constraint type which deleted them. 2. You mention on page 4 that you validate literals using regular expressions, but do not state for which percentage of your datatype properties you have such regexes. 3. In Section 2.2 you mention the misfit between schema.org classes and Wikidata classes and explain that you delete 12M instances dues to this misfit (7.5 meta-entities). Please name the top classes to which the remaining 4.5 million entities belong, so that the reader gets an idea which classes are not covered in YAGO 4. 4. In Section 2.3 you mention that you manually map 116 relations between Yago and Wikidata. In Section 4.1 you say that you have 116 properties. How many of these properties are relations? How many are datatype properties? How many of the datatype properties do you validate (see comment above)? Please also split the facts in Table 1 into relations and datatype properties. 5. You are not the first effort to cleanse Wikidata and represent its content using a more consistent ontology. You mention the related work only very superficially on page 3 and only vaguely mention that your design choices lead to different strengths and limitations. Knowing more about the differences between the resulting knowledge bases is crucial for people to decide which resource to use in their projects. Thus, please add a proper related work section to your paper and discuss the differences between your KB and the related work in more detail. Please also add statistics about DBpediaWikidata and Wikidata itself to Tables 1 so that the reader can see the impact of the different design choices. ================================================================================== Regarding the rebuttal, I am also satisfied with the authors' clarifications and their plans to address many of our comments in the final version of the paper. I believe that YAGO 4 is a really useful resource which I expect to be as widely used as its predecessors. Given this as well as the author's willingness to improve the text of the paper, I raise my rating from weak accept to accept."".