PlanetData
Deliverable review form
Part I - Comments List
Deliverable
name
Conceptual model and best practices for
high-quality metadata publishing
Month deliverable due
Deliverable number
M36
(M39)
Lead participant
Responsible person
Other participants
UMA
Max Schmachtenberg
Reviewer
Sent for review
(date)
Elena Simperl
13.12.2013
-
Sent back to authors
(date)
19.12.2013
SCIENTIFIC
Comment
1
2
3
4
1
D2.4
Section 2: the rationales for the design of the crawl should be
explained in more detail. The line of reasoning for the usage of
datasets descriptions is not fully consistent. On the one side the
authors argue that their current crawl is too large and thus asking
publishers would be too time consuming. On the other hand they have
doubts about the veracity of the information provided by a dataset
owner or publisher. Also, what I was missing was a more thorough
discussion of the implications of designing the crawl the way it was
done. How representative is the result?
Section 2.1: The authors seem to believe that their concept of data set
is more or less universally accepted. Please add a reference to support
this statement. The fact that the three corpuses mentioned in this
section use a slightly different notion of a data set, making
comparisons as those depicted in Table 1 not trivial supports my
impression.
Section 2.3: it is not clear how the accuracy of the automatic classifier
has been evaluated, as the results seem to suggest that a considerable
share of the data sets remained unclassified or have been misclassified.
Did the authors evaluate all results manually?
Section 3 (a minor comment, might be my misreading of the previous
sections): The section states that the analysis of best practices
(C)ompulsory
(H)ighly
advisable
(O)ptional 1
H
C
C
H
Do the authors have to address the comment in order to make the deliverable final (Compulsory)? Is it advisable but
not compulsory to address the comment to make the deliverable final (Advisable)? Is it a minor comment that is
optional to be addressed by the authors for the final version (Optional)?
PlanetData
5
6
7
conformance refers to the LOD cloud, but it is not clear to me as a
reviewer what this cloud now contains. Is it the 961 data sets you
classified by domain?
I was wondering whether considering only VoID as a dataset
vocabulary is too restrictive. Could the authors elaborate on possible
alternatives used in repositories such as CKAN?
In a future version of this analysis it might be interesting to combine
the results of data and vocabulary interlinking and to see whether some
types of entities tend to be more interlinked than others when the
corresponding classes are interlinked or the other way around. This
could also inform ontology matching and data interlinking strategies.
My biggest concern about the deliverable refers to the implications of
the quantitative analysis. The conclusions merely scratch the surface
there and I’d appreciate a more in-depth discussion of each criterion
that was analysed in Section 3. Also, it would be nice to be able to see
a table showing which criteria have been subjected in previous surveys
and what the difference is with respect to the findings.
Deliverable D2.4
H
O
H
8
9
ADMINISTRATIVE (e.g., layout problems such as empty pages, track
changes/comments visible, broken links, missing sections, incomplete TOC,
spelling/grammar mistakes)
Comment
(C)ompulsory
(H)ighly
advisable
(O)ptional 2
1
Cover page, abstract and executive summary missing or incomplete
C
2
Atypical use of capitalization in nouns, sometimes inconsistently used C
throughout the document. Examples: Design Issues, Project,
Vocabulary
3
Inconsistent capitalization of section headers, see, for example,
C
Section 2 vs the rest of the document. Please also check captions of
figures and tables.
4
The name of the project is spelled as ‘PlanetData’ (one word) and not
C
‘Planet Data’ (two words)
5
There is a missing reference on page 32
C
2
Do the authors have to address the comment in order to make the deliverable final (Compulsory)? Is it
advisable but not compulsory to address the comment to make the deliverable final (Advisable)? Is it a minor
comment that is optional to be addressed by the authors for the final version (Optional)?
Page 2 o
Deliverable D<xxx>
INSEMTIVES
Part II – Summary
overall marking
Comments
VG (very good) / G (good) / S (generally satisfactory /
P (poor) S
The deliverable presents a brief summary of Complex
event processing concepts and comments on possible
future issues in this domain. It also introduces a use
case aggregating events in the context of a smart city.
In general the main contribution seems to be the
application of CEP technologies to this type of use
cases, although this has already been seen in the
literature (e.g. IoT and sensor related projects).
The authors mention some interesting open issues
including mixing CEP and mining in a coherent way,
for example. However this is not explored in the use
case presented. It might be useful to indicate clearly in
the beginning the contributions made. In the case of
the rules and queries used in the use cases, it might be
useful to see the rules (or queries in Esper or
StreamInsight) and illustrate with more detail the steps
followed. This can actually be useful for potential
readers of this document.
After
addressing
the
Quality
Assessor’s
comments,
report
back to him/her re-using this review form.
© INSEMTIVES consortium 2009 - 2012
Page 3 of (3)