Review Comment:
One of my concerns is the relation of this article w.r.t. the author's previous works [1][2]. It seems that many contributing parts of this work are published in [1][2]. The authors have to clarify the differences of this work w.r.t. [1][2]. The article includes only one sentence to describe these differences.
A second major drawback of this work is the lack of a well-defined ontology development process. There a large number of well-know methods for developing ontologies, e.g., [3 – also check related work][4][5]. The authors need to describe the relations/adaptations w.r.t. to existing works. At least, the adopted process needs to be described clearly, by defining/describing the process’ steps.
Furthermore, the structure and the presentation of the article need considerable improvements (details are presented below).
Finally, since the major subject of this work is the definition of an ontology, I was expecting a more detailed and formal presentation of the ontology. For example, a part ontology hierarchy and class-properties graph. To note that, details regarding the ontology are available online at https://folk.ntnu.no/melissay/ontology/aaenote/index-en.html. However, details from there have to be included in the article.
As I previously mentioned, the presentation and the structure of the article need major improvements. In what follows, I list some of the issues.
The authors need to describe the scenario/setting and several basic concepts. A section similar to “II. Background” section [2] needs to be included. Furthermore, the challenges of this work have to described at the introduction section. Instead in the article, the challenges are mentioned at Section 3 “This lack of documentation makes it challenging to perform retrospective and real-time systematic…”.
Section 2. The second paragraph (“In the 2010 i2b2/VA workshop on NLP challenge…”) has to be removed from this section. This paragraph is not somehow related to this section.
Section 3.1 describes related works; you need to move to into Section 2.
There is major problem with the figure placement, the figures appear 2-3 pages after, e.g., Figure 2 (2 pages after), Figure 3 (3 pages after), Figure 4 (3.5 pages after), etc.
Section 5.1. the second paragraph “As shown in Fig. 1(b), documents were annotated by 8 annotators..” is not related to this section.
[1] M.Y. Yan, L.H. Høvik, L.T. Gustad and Ø. Nytrø, Understanding and Reasoning About Early Signs of Sepsis: From Annotation Guideline to Ontology, in: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021, pp. 1906–1911.
[2] M.Y. Yan, L.H. HøVik, A. Pedersen, L.T. Gustad and Ø. Nytrø, Preliminary Processing and Analysis of an Adverse Event Dataset for Detecting Sepsis-Related Events, in: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021, pp. 1605–1610.
[3] York Sure, Steffen Staab, Rudi Studer: On-To-Knowledge Methodology (OTKM). Handbook on Ontologies 2004: 117-132
[4] Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Mariano Fernández-López: The NeOn Methodology for Ontology Engineering. Ontology Engineering in a Networked World 2012: 9-34
[5] Helena Sofia Pinto, Steffen Staab, Christoph Tempich: DILIGENT: Towards a fine-grained methodology for Distributed, Loosely-controlled and evolving Engineering of oNTologies. ECAI 2004: 393-397
|