Review Comment:
In this paper, the authors present an approach that focuses on annotating intermediate workflow data, tackling findability and reusability of data of genomic workflow data. The rationale behind this work is that intermediate data produced within a workflow can be shared and reused by other researchers to test further hypotheses, instead of wasting computational time in reproducing such data.
The paper is very well structured, as it starts from the problem, describes the approach and discusses its results. However, to me it seems that the paper currently lacks a list of requirements for running the FRESH approach:
• Availability of a workflows
• Semantic tool catalogues
and so on. This list would help the reader to understand what is needed to run your approach. I like the fact that you considered how we can export this approach and use it in other domains.
Regarding the results of you approach, FRESH returns both human and machine-readable summaries, respectively with text and diagrams, and nano-publications. Have you thought of evaluating your approach? Perhaps running a user study to assess the comprehensiveness of the text and diagrams? This evaluation could definitely help you in understanding how easy is for researchers to find and reuse such intermediate data.
How feasible is for you to create a gold standard against which compare the nanopublications returned by the algorithm? This would help estimate the goodness of your approach.
I believe that the related work should be section 3, after the motivation and the problem statement section, and before the description of the approach. The related work section gives more context and explains why we need such approach.
Overall, looking at the review criteria, I can that it has:
• High originality
• Fair significance of the results
• High quality of writing
Minor:
• Page 6, second column, row 24: I believe it should be figure 4 (instead of 1)
• Page 6, second column, row 34: “which highlights”
• Page 6, second column, row 35: “The diagrams show”
• There are duplicate footnotes, e.g. 2 and 6, 5 and 13. Footnote 14 should contain a link that does not work.
|