Review Comment:
This manuscript was submitted as 'Tools and Systems Report' and should be reviewed along the following dimensions: (1) Quality, importance, and impact of the described tool or system (convincing evidence must be provided). (2) Clarity, illustration, and readability of the describing paper, which shall convey to the reader both the capabilities and the limitations of the tool.
This second version of the article has some valuable improvements, which targeted some of the previous review's comments:
- A (rather long) related work section was introduced;
- A bit less technical details;
- a larger section on OWL support;
- fresh statistical data;
However, although the text is better, it still looks a bit as a description based on the tool refactoring development. Users are most interested in knowing the tool capabilities, instead of which packages were replaced in the new version. With this in mind, here goes some points were the text needs refurbishing:
- I see no usefulness on subsections 3.1, which has a long discussion why a package was replaced by another one, and 3.4.
- Many expressions should be removed, like: "based on YASGUI [34]", "but a reformatting ex-porter for the Zthes27 format is provided as well" (this reviewer could not understand this), "The information of VoID and LIME is being computed through a profiler bundled with the LIME 28 https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/145996
API [40].", "Currently an instance for JIRA16 is available." (not only in this point, readers who don't know what is JIRA go off the rails).
Some suggestions, for readability:
- Since the related work section brings a comparison between each competitor environment, like Protege, WebProtege, and others, maybe it is better that each comparison consists in a subsection (Protege, WebProtege,TopBraid, TemaTres and a subsection for the others).
- A new subsection should summarize the comparison, bringing a table comparing features x framework environments, and then pros and limitations of VB3 will be clearer.
|