Review Comment:
I read attentively the other reviews and the exhaustive responses by the authors.
Overall I consider the paper has been greatly improved, and addresses the main comments by the reviewers.
The two new subsections 2.3 (Research gaps) and subsection 4.3 (Alignment) are on the right track.
However I consider they should be extended as follows:
Subsection 2.3 (Research gaps) lists features that different approaches have, or do not have, using long lists of citations to papers for each features. It would be a lot more more concise and readable to provide a simple table with the existing work as lines, the features as columns, and a simple tick in a cell to assert that an existing work implements an approach. Nuances can be provided with footnotes in the figure for example.
Subsection 4.3 (Alignment)
The alignment choices in the online alignment documents are fine with me. One minor comment:
https://w3id.org/ofo/AlignmentOFO-SSN-SOSA
should import
http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/
and not
https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-vocab-ssn-20171019
However, the section is way too short. These alignments and the rationale are definitely of interest to the readers, and should be included as tables in the paper.
Note: I totally agree ssn:hasProperty would better be modeled as functional, to enforce that properties should be specific to features of interests. However former users of SSN defined generic properties such as :Temperature, :Humidity. Therefore, such an axiom would be too strong an ontological commitment, and make such legacy usage of SSN incompatible with the new version. See footnote 10, p.9 in the paper "The Modular SSN Ontology: A Joint W3C and OGC Standard Specifying the Semantics of Sensors, Observations, Sampling, and Actuation" published in this journal.
|