|Review Comment: |
This paper is the report for the system which enables users to get explanation of OWL entailment. The system, the OWL Explanation Workbench, is well distributed with ProtГ©gГ© 5.
As a вЂњreports for tools and systemsвЂќ category paper, it is basically well written. But there need more descriptions to clarify the scientific value of the paper as follows;
- The algorithms for computing justifications: Although the algorithms themselves are not the part of the paper, it is needed to explain what kind of algorithms are provided as a reference implementation (left, pp.5). In section 3, the authors introduced the history and variety of computing justification. So the readers may wonder how computing justification is realized in the system. Even the algorithm can be вЂњplug-inвЂќ, the reference implementation is important since it is expected that most of users use the system without customization. The authors can refer other articles for the details of the algorithm but should introduce the basic feature and pros/cons.
- The limitation of the system: As a running system, there may be some limits to work the system properly depending on hardware, data size and so on. Probably it is not easy to describe them definitely since it works along with reasoners like FaCT++. But there need more explanations how the system is enough to apply practical ontologies at least, for example, showing use cases with statistical figures.
- Usage: As the usage, the authors report only the number of ProtГ©gГ© users. It is not so desirable. The reviewer understands that it is not easy to show how it is used since it is not a stand-alone system. But still it would be better to have information on usage of the system like use cases at least.