Review Comment:
This is a resubmission of an earlier paper that I also reviewed. I have read through it side-by-side with the earlier submission, and the revisions do not appear to be especially substantial. For instance, an earlier reviewer (not me) wrote:
"I find the paper is a bit fragmented in that it presents PanLex as a project to counter language attrition, and provides some points regarding language preservation and PanLex as a tool to support pan-lingual translation, but after the introduction the rest of the paper describes PanLex's structure and its conversion to RDF."
I find this to be a very valid point, and I don't see much of anything in this revision to address it. Indeed, I'd recommend simply removing the paper's discussion on the topic of countering language attrition. It may be a goal of PanLex as a project, but does not seem very relevant here.
This example is indicative of the fact that various comments of the earlier reviewers do not appear to have been addressed, or at least not clearly. Some lack of response is to be expected, but there seems to be more here than I would normally like to see. I did, however, note that the online tools to access the data seem to be improved compared to my last attempt to access them and efforts have been made to begin to address a key weakness of the present work, the lack of re-use of existing vocabularies. So, that should be taken into account as a positive sign.
Still, however, I do not find the paper publishable at present since it is still not clear to me what one can do with this resource, especially since there is so little use of existing vocabularies and models that would help guide a user in this regard. At the same time, fortunately, it does not seem to me that it would be hard to address this. For instance, the paper says that, "For example, the TeraDict translation service could now be easily realized using simple SPARQL queries." If that's the case, including example SPARQL queries would go a long way to showing people how to use the database for their own work. As it stands, from the dataset description, I don't see how one could build a translation service, for instance, given the variety of "approvers" involved in the project. The "apple" example discussed in the paper indicates some of the difficulties.
In sum, my recommendation is that, if some of the introductory material were removed and more concrete discussion of how the dataset could be used could be given, then I think this paper would be publishable. I would also like to see issues surrounding re-use of vocabularies addressed better, and it would be nice if section 6 did not merely list other work but actually discussed how PanLex could relate to it in more detail, but these potential revisions are, in my view, less essential. Without some revision, however, I believe this paper does not quite manage to be a "dataset description", but, rather, is primarily a "discussion of data conversion". Of course, the latter topic is a good one, but not what this submission is supposed to be, as far as I understand it.
|