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.
(1) The paper presents a survey on semantic models that are relevant to the Conservation and Restoration (CnR) Cultural Heritage subdomain. The authors address 3 research questions related to (i) the coverage of the domain by existing models, (ii) the reuse of existing models, (iii) the support to reuse and research through the services built upon the selected models.
IMO, the authors should address some issues in order to make this survey publishable.
(2) The authors selected 10 works, from 2011 up to today, that propose semantic models in the CnR domain and have also been used in SW systems/services.
- I find this last criterion of selection not totally convincing. I understand that the focus of the authors is also on services that support e.g. CnR professionals in their activities but, even so, I would have included also possible relevant ontologies that have not been used in any CnR-related service, but are still available online and reusable, thus worth to be mentioned and described to the reader. In this way, for example more general ontologies on the CH domain, which model some concepts related to e.g. cultural object conservation interventions too, have been excluded. I would at least devote a separated paragraph to these ontologies.
- For selecting relevant works, the authors have used Semantic Scholar, Springer Link, Science Direct and AATA Online. I wonder if they also used ontology repositories such as LOV, and, if not, I would like to know why.
- Links to ontologies, their namespaces when reporting some classes/properties, and links to online services, are notably absent. The reader should not been made to find URIs theirselves, even more so if papers are not openly available. I believe that in the context of a survey about ontologies and online services, links are as important as the references. As an example, as for the ontology described in 3.1, I had to find the cited paper online, only to discover that the link in that paper (http://www.20thcpaint.org/oppra-owl/) can't be reached anymore. Another example: the section related to COSCHKR here (I found this link by googling) https://i3mainz.pages.gitlab.rlp.net/forschung/cosch/coschstillgelegt/# seems not accessible.
Thus, an important question to the authors: did they check if the ontologies they selected based on the literature are still available online? I do not think that ontologies no more available are worth to be mentioned here (or, at least, this should be clarified or addressed in a separate section).
- Related to the previous comment, the authors do not discuss if the reviewed ontologies respect the FAIR principles: I believe that this is a relevant issue to consider, as the reader should be able at least to find and reuse the presented models.
- Each model is clearly described, wrt the project in the context of which it has been developed, the main concepts/areas modelled (including concepts reused from external ontologies), the related service/system.
- I find very interesting that the authors identify the main "thematic clusters" of the ontologies, but I would like them to explain following which criteria they "split" an ontology in these clusters (e.g. as for the level of granularity), unless they have not been presented by the authors of the ontologies as it is my understanding is the case at least of MDO ontology (3.2).
- The Discussion could be deeper. The authors could elaborate more on the motivations behind the results. It would be interesting to know "to what extent", with what granularity, each model addresses the cited aspects (Fig. 1). Moreover, the limits of the ontologies are not discussed in the respective paragraphs. In the Discussion, the authors say how many models address the main areas of the domain, while in each individual paragraph they say what is possible to model with each ontology, but they do not talk about clear limits related to e.g. how some concepts are modelled/important concepts that are not modelled.
(3) The paper is well written and very clear. The structure of the paper makes it easily readable, the sections describing the 10 models follow the same structure, which is a bit repetitive but has the advantage of making the models easily comparable and the paper "reader-friendly".
(4) The paper addresses an interesting topic, presenting ontologies, thesaurus and online services related to a specific subfield of cultural heritage, thus potentially supporting who needs to reuse models or do research in this domain.
-- In the following, more specific comments, questions and recommendations to the authors. --
- Provide a clear definition of what tangible, movable and immovable CH are.
- The issues at page 2 ("However, up to now [...] in diverse ways") are issues of CH in general, I would say that.
- (sec 2) explain what do you exactly mean by "first attempts".
- (sec 3.1) "According to [...] context of the 20thCPaint Project": this paragraph is a list with nested lists and is not easily readable.
- (sec 3.1) "This combination aims to be a representation that is both understandable for conservators and consistent for the Material Science and/or Chemistry community" --> do you mean that they are redundant by modelling the same info in 2 different ways? If so, this is interesting.
- (sec 3.1) "The system allows [...] the uploading of the experimental data to the knowledge base" --> who can upload the data? Is uploaded data validated?
- (sec 3.2) "after being validated" --> by whom? Wrt what?
- first paragraph of sec 3.4: I would split it and put "(Development of an integrated information environment for assessment and documentation of conservation interventions to cultural works/objects with nondestructive testing techniques)" out of parentheses
- (sec 3.5) "Argumentation": is this a kind of interpretation process?
- (sec 3.5) it is not clear to me what do you mean by "can be described using the DescriptionConcept class (e.g., Architectural-Component shapeByUsing BuildingTechnique, BuildingTechnique hasMaterial Material)"
- (sec 3.6) is the PARCOURS system an aggregator?
- (sec 4.1) why Administration and Material&Technology are not discussed?
- (sec 4.3) "semantic search and data integration are the most popular among the services provided, while visualization follows" --> why visualization follows, if it has the same value as data integration (6/10)?
- (sec 4.3) I would discuss also "semantic annotation" since it is implemented in 5 projects (only one less than data integration and visualization)
-- minor comments --
I would use either italic or quotes, not both of them (see e.g. footnote 12)
Page 2: "CnR data can be found in various forms structured (e.g." --> forms, structured (e.g.
Page 2: (e.g., 59, 79) --> (e.g., [59, 79])
Footnote 2: As [78] mention the term fresco --> As [78] mentions, the term fresco
Page 4: "(implemented in OWLIM (currentGraphDB) --> I would not use nested parentheses
Title of section 3.4 DOC-CULUTURE --> DOC-CULTURE
Footnote 22: the link is broken
|