Review Comment:
The major weakness of this paper remains readability. The style of the paper is still fragmentary and difficult to follow. A large amount of english revision is still required.
page 1 "macroscope questions" should be changed with a more appropriate english phrase in the entire paper, I could not find other occurrences of this despite searching.
page 3 column 2 micro-sale --> micro-scale
page 5 column 1 "described from a bibliographical take" should be changed with a better english phrase
page 5 columns 1 and 2 my previous observation about the citation of the LAWD ontology has apparently not been taken into consideration. I think the quoted concept of reading is quite different from the ones under investigation and I find the quoted definition, unrelated to the context, not really useful. I would suggest to either motivate why would this be related if at all, or simply leave this out.
page 5, columns 1 and 2 look at the citation of the the LED ontologies, they are the same on the two columns. I think this is enough of a repetition, in parallel places on the page, so also quite visible.
page 6 column 1 something is missing or needs to be changed in the sentence "Computational expressiveness, in terms of e.g. which specific description logic family the ontology belongs to"
page 7 column 2 aims collecting
page 9 column 2 "as well the scope of their data model" something is missing
Fig 4 is not readable and of bad quality
page 10 column 2, perhaps a valid synonim for source can be found for the sentence "annotations of sources and sources (Research Data) about reading"
page 14 column 2, "The Reading Experience Ontology is mostly
aimed to support the encoding of annotations of a
wide variety of sources and produced through
different approaches" something in this sentence is missing or perhaps "and" is superfluous, in which case the name to which produced refers would become ambiguous.
Fig 12. :r1 in the picture, :read1 in the caption.
page 18 column 2 perhaps a reference could be provided for the statement "The characterisation of the effects of reading on the
reader’s mind is one of the major aims of the current
research on reading."
Fig 13, is not coherent with its caption, which uses different entities names.
Fig 15 r2 was better than r2. --> r1 ?
page 20 column 1 "and the research questions of
expressed in the use cases" perhaps should be without "of" ?
|