Review Comment:
The manuscript describes a quite comprehensive approach for modeling the political Brazilian arena using Semantic Web tools and techniques.
It presents concepts and a methodology to describe agents, roles they may play along the time, connections between them (e.g. family links or through organizations), a model for attaching provenance to statements, and an approach for modeling trust that users may place in certain statement(s), based on who made them, in what context etc.
The manuscript is based on previous small publications by the authors, duly referenced. It makes sense to see them together in a single place.
The manuscript also discusses several aspects concerning the concrete platform that serves to build this environment (Section 4). I found these very interesting for the practical impact of the work. It is one (good) thing to set up a vocabulary etc. It is another to work with actual stakeholders (journalists), real data, spend time gathering and integrating all this, and ask oneself the questions needed in order for people to really use the platform, feed with with data, improve it etc. By nature, database researchers have a "take" of (angle to look at) the data which specialists from the "real world" may have a hard time grasping and adopting.
However, I am not sure of the significance and actual application of the effort; I have looked up "Se liga na politica Brasil" and I found few references, including a Facebook page with posts from 2016. It is hard for me to tell now, after reading the paper, if the authors have actually users, if the effort is still going or if it has been stopped.
Here are requests that I would like to make of a revision.
1. As is common practice, please add to the beginning of each section a short text explaining what will be presented in that section, referring to each subsection of the respective section, to briefly explain how they fit together. I had a hard time following the structure of Section 2; its beginning was too vague and not connected to the subsections.
Section 4 also has a pretty vague header, Section 5 does not have one at all etc.
Please do the same for sub-sections (they should start with a short text explaining what each sub-subsection handles, and how they all relate/what is the meaning of having them together).
2. Please put Related Work as a standalone section. Please also refer there more extensively to the related works, references to which you interspersed in the Trust section. In particular, the comparison with the "microstatement" model and more information about the trust works you mentioned would be welcome here.
It appears the "Believe it or not" paper of Suciu et al.
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1687629
is also a pertinent part of the related work.
Also, the "all or nothign" model you adopt for belief (trust) may be too extreme. I agree that "I believe this with probability 0.7" is not suitable, but I am not convinced that one necessarily believes everything a given source says. It would be good if the authors can ellaborate and give more flexibility in this aspect.
3. Please fix the error on page 3 ("Error! Reference source not found")
4. Please clarify the interest of 2.3 "Using SHACL". I didn't understand "In order to characterize the particular composition patterns intended to be instantiated in the knowledge graph, the same information... is expressed using... the Shapes Constrain" (I guess "Constraint"?) "Language" etc.
Why do we see SHACL here, how does it matter?
5. Please state how far the application of this methodology has advanced. Provide elements such as:
- how many actors are currently described in the SNLP warehouse (or database)
- how many people have been contributing this information
- since when (how much effort has it taken)
- who is using it or has used it
- what is the typical interaction of a user with the platform (how are the added, vetted, who has access to what parts of the data etc. ...) What is the actual lifecycle of this platform, how does it function?
- if there are or were obstacles/hurdles toward adopting it or using it, which are they? In an era where we need to automate fact-checking as much as possible, the authors' experience can be very valuable
6. Are there connections of this work with computational fact-checking? Please develop.
7. It would be good to sharpen the discussion of SKOS vs. OWL in Section 2.1.2. As it is, it has rather made be doubt of the various choices.
|