Review Comment:
The paper has improved from its previous version, but I still see it more as an ontological engineering work instead than as a research work. Therefore, I see the paper more suitable to be an ontology paper instead of a research paper.
The paper has been updated and its length has been significantly reduced, mainly by removing figures and one section (rules). This has caused that some comments from my previous review do not hold anymore since the text that dealt with them has been removed. Besides, a new section has been added (methodology) and other parts of the paper have been re-structured. The paper has benefited of these changes.
Regarding evaluation, the evaluations included are still of qualitative nature. The authors have included a new section about the adoption of the ontology, addressing a comment from the previous review.
Regarding one of my previous comments, in the updated paper the author now includes that indicators can be in different scales (nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio). However, the paper still states that indicators are numbers when that is not the case. For example, any value in a nominal scale won’t be a number and a good example of this are Boolean values (hasAirport = False). Instead of saying that indicators are numbers, the author should say that they are values/measurements/other.
It is strange to see references to working papers by the author that partially overlap with the content presented in this paper. I think that instead of citing those working papers, that are expected to change, the relevant parts of those papers should be included in this paper.
Correct in page 21: “have to incorporated” → “have to be incorporated”
|