Review Comment:
This manuscript was submitted as 'Survey Article' and should be reviewed along the following dimensions: (1) Suitability as introductory text, targeted at researchers, PhD students, or practitioners, to get started on the covered topic. (2) How comprehensive and how balanced is the presentation and coverage. (3) Readability and clarity of the presentation. (4) Importance of the covered material to the broader Semantic Web community.
The paper is suitable as introductory text, targeted at researchers, PhD students, or practitioners, to get started on the covered topic. But some points still need to be tackled (see below). In general, the presentation and coverage are comprehensive and well balanced, with some points to improve:
a.section 2: basic concepts to structure historical place and spatial data. The basic concepts should be more emphasized
b.Conclusion: last sentence says: “…we have developed a catalog of design practices…”.
The design practices should be more highlighted. I think the Reviewer 1 main request is not yet completely tackled.
c.Bibliographical references: there is no publishing year?
d.Typo problem at the beginning of section 4.2
The presentation is readable and clear, with 2 exceptions:
e. Fig. 4 is unreadable
f. Need of an UML schema in section 4.2
The covered material could be of interest for the broader Semantic Web community. Indeed, the paper depicts the problem encountered to deal with uncertain, incomplete, fuzzy and contradictory information. Solving the described difficulties could help to enrich the semantic aspect of data in Semantic Web in general.
Specific questions or requests to Author:
1)Introduction, part 3: the clarification given to reviewer 1, relative to technical level, and using 3 dimensions to distinguish places from other ones introduces a new confusion: It is difficult to understand the difference between the “meaning” and the construction of the same meaning by “human experience”
2)Introduction part 5: “For historians of the pre-modern eras, it is less important where the places describes in historical sources are geographically located”. And later, in part 6: “19th, 20th and 21th centuries – epochs which seem better suited for cartographic depiction of the world”. These sentences should be explained and rested on solid arguments or suppressed.
3)In section 3 and 4: work could be enriched maybe by reading : Niccolucci, F., & Hermon, S. 2016. Representing gazetteers and period thesauri in four-dimensional space–time. International Journal on Digital Libraries 17(1): p.63–69.
4)Section 4 part 2 : CIDOC implemented is also available on CIDOC-CRM website (http://new.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm) where entities and properties have the original URI
5)Section 5.3: last sentence: “… a new model has yet to be developed…” my question: from scratch? or as an extension of existing model. In this case witch one?
6)Section 5.4: Why not considering OWL-Time?
|