Review Comment:
The paper presents an application for cybersecurity among citizens in the IoT domain, which relies on monitoring IoT devices in the vicinity of mobile devices hosting the application. An ontology is presented that models aspects relating to device characteristics and knowledge extracted from assessing and grouping the scanned devices. The application is quite interesting, but the justification for using Semantic Web technologies is not clear, as the application appears to be a closed system.
Paper overall is well-written, but the data (i.e. ontology) needs to be reviewed still.
Ontology:
Ontology annotations for the concepts are quite minimal, which makes it harder to follow. To resolve this, please provide comments to the entities and properties to describe what they are about.
Datatype property classification is in better shape. Although the naming scheme is quite long. There is no need to repeat the same naming inside the name for the sub-property. For example:
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/cybereva#hasLevel1EcCouncilAttack
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/cybereva#hasLevel1EcCouncilAttackP...
No need for this long concatenation using "hasLevel1EcCouncilAttack" for the sub-property, unless there is a justification.
The ontology still does not reuse any vocabulary from other ontologies, which indicates there is not much effort towards interoperability. Since this focused in the realm of IoT, it would make sense to extend the "ScannedDevice" class from the ssn:System class in the SSN ontology, as an example. (https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#ssn-system), or even "Sensor" if scanned devices are only sensors. The Device concept in the ontology appears to be quite generic and can be applied to non-IoT devices.
The related project has a good website, and it is a shame that there is no online ontology document made available, especially when it is in the stage of being submitted for a journal publication.
| 
