Matches in ESWC 2020 for { <https://metadata.2020.eswc-conferences.org/rdf/submissions/Paper.180_Review.0> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 10 of
10
with 100 items per page.
- Paper.180_Review.0 type ReviewVersion.
- Paper.180_Review.0 issued "2001-02-03T09:41:00.000Z".
- Paper.180_Review.0 creator Paper.180_Review.0_Reviewer.
- Paper.180_Review.0 hasRating ReviewRating.1.
- Paper.180_Review.0 hasReviewerConfidence ReviewerConfidence.4.
- Paper.180_Review.0 reviews Paper.180.
- Paper.180_Review.0 issuedAt easychair.org.
- Paper.180_Review.0 issuedFor Conference.
- Paper.180_Review.0 releasedBy Conference.
- Paper.180_Review.0 hasContent "This paper presents two resources: (1) Astrea-KG, a knowledge graph representing mappings between OWL constraints and their equivalent SHACL constraints; and (2) Astrea, a tool for automatically generating SHACL shapes from ontologies using Astrea-KG. As usual, this resource submmission is reviewed according to the following dimensions: potential impact, reusability, design and technical quality, as well as availability. Overall I think the submission is borderline due to a number of weaknesses in the reusability and technical quality. === Potential Impact === The resource certainly plugs a gap in the state of the art and should be of interest to the Semantic Web community. Given the fact that there is an increase of interest to SHACL to complement OWL as a schema-level modeling language for the linked data, I believe the submitted resources can accelerate the adoption of Semantic Web technologies. Comparison with existing work with similar scope has also been made. For the latter, however, I find that the comparison with the work from Knublauch (reference #11) should have been elaborated more. What do the authors mean by the use of patterns was not considered? === Reusability === There is not yet evidence of usage beyond the resource creators. Documentation are scatterred, hence making it a bit difficult to obtain. The API documentation returns a JSON string that is virtually not readable by human. There is a potential for extensibility though this is not discussed clearly by the authors. What I find missing is the documentation about the mapping implementation that is published together with the mapping. Yes, there is a HTML page for the vocabulary terms, but the explanation about mapping implementation is a bit lacking: one needs to read through the paper (common users may miss this) to understand that the query in the mapping implementation should be applied to the source pattern in order to obtain the target pattern. === Design & Technical quality The methodology followed during the creation of the resources seems sound to me. No obvious re-use was done though. Schema diagrams are provided in the paper. The one in the resource website can only be accessed if we go to https://w3id.org/def/astrea, which is not explicitly mentioned in the paper. but not in the resource's website. There are a few points at which improvements could be made. - There is non-uniformity in the use of namespace in the KG. Some URIs are in w3id.org namespace, while some other are in http://astrea.helio.linkeddata.es/ namespace, hence does not satisfy the linked data principles. What's the reason for this non-uniformity? - The URIs in http://astrea.helio.linkeddata.es/ are not resolvable. - The property isMappedBy should have been named isMappedTo - The authors claimed that the OWL constructs and the corresponding SHACL shapes are equivalent, but there is no explanation why this holds. Given that there are 157 mappings proposed, how do we know if the mappings are indeed correct? Note that OWL 2 uses open world assumption, while SHACL essentially employs closed world assumption. Equivalence between them is thus not necessarily straightforward. === Availability === The URI http://astrea.linkeddata.es is accessible though for some reason, I sometimes got "site is unreachable" as response. The URI http://astrea.helio.linkeddata.es/ (which appears in the KG) is not accessible (I received a response of "the site is unreachable". The DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3571009 resolves to a Zenodo record giving me the KG. The KG does use RDF Turtle syntax, which is an open standard. Open license information is mentioned in the paper, but not in any of the resource addresses. API and download are provided, but it is unclear if the KG is registered in any of the community registries. The software is available in Github. Sustainability plan is unclear beyond the claim that continous updates will be performed. ******* AFTER REBUTTAL ******** I thank the reviewer for the response. My concerns are addressed by the response and the promised improvement in the paper. I update my score accordingly."".