Paper 2 (Research track)

Business Domain Integration

Author(s): Sebastián Samaruga

Full text: submitted version

Abstract: Enable seamless integration of different datasources and services from different deployments and platforms to interoperate. A system A, for example, in the domain of CRM (Customer Relationship Management) and, a system B, in the domain of HMS (Healthcare Management System) would be able to be plugged into a ‘bus’. Then, actions (CRUD, service invocations) in one system should have ‘meaning’ for the other (potentially many) systems.

Keywords: Semantic; Web; RDF

Decision: reject

Review 1 (by Kuldeep Singh)

(RELEVANCE TO ESWC) The idea is nice, which proposes the seamless integration of different sources of data using semantics. Addressing interoperability using ontologies have been a key topic in the semantic web community.
(NOVELTY OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) From the paper, it is not at all clear what, and how the proposed idea will work. Many sections of the paper are very ambiguous.
(CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) The paper itself is incomplete.
(EVALUATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART) There is no evaluation proposed. Further, not a single example of CRM data (e.g. Siebel, Oracle Fusion, SAP, Salesforce etc) is given and how this can be made interoperable with other data sources.
(DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH) Metamodels, algorithm, and functional alignment is discussed in the paper, but very roughly. Further, no two properties are in sync i.e. while reading the paper, it is unclear why particular alignments have been used.
(REPRODUCIBILITY AND GENERALITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY) There is no experiments/evaluation mentioned in the paper. Therefore, I could not comment on reproducibility of results.
(OVERALL SCORE) The paper is written to address the seamless integration of different data sources and services from different deployments and platforms. This paper is in the benchmark and evaluation track. However, paper suffers from many issues:
The paper is poorly written. As expected from the authors as per ESWC guidelines, the paper needs to be submitted in Springer LNCS template, which is not followed. Further, paper lacks a seamless structure. The paper starts with explaining meta-model, but limit itself to explain why meta-models are necessary for integrating, next section list down concepts of ontology alignment, but just in points, with no explanation. No evaluation, no related work, no benchmarking, no references have been provided.
Rest other sections are poorly written to with no synergy to previous sections. The author mentions two 4th section, and it makes very confusing to follow the paper. This work is more like an incomplete technical report, not a research article. It would be great if author explains the idea clearly in next version of this paper. Also, please follow a seamless structure of a generic research article.
Questions to Authors: 1. I am still not sure why a seamless structure of the paper has been followed.  Is there any specific reason to submit a paper in a non-LCNS template?
2.  There is no example of CRM technologies and their format of data. In the best of my understanding,  for example, Siebel CRM has completely different data type than Oracle Fusion, same is true for Salesforce. Author hasn't mentioned clearly why the proposed idea is useful.


Review 2 (by Diego Collarana)

(RELEVANCE TO ESWC) Does not provide the required evaluation or benchmark for the track
(NOVELTY OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) There is some work on the proposed problem, I have suggested some references to the author
(CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) There is no formal description nor discussion of the Correctness and Completeness of the Proposed Solution
(EVALUATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART) There are no references
(DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH) The proposed approach is hard to understand, it is not presented in a clear way
(REPRODUCIBILITY AND GENERALITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY) There is no an experimental evaluation
(OVERALL SCORE) The paper talks about a semantic alternative to integrate different enterprise information systems such as a CRM and an HSM using an enterprise service bus architecture.
Although the problem is relevant, the text is hard to read and understand, neither the problem nor the solution is well presented. Based on the content of the document the work seems to be a draft or work-in-progress, not a final result that can be published in the conference proceedings.
Additionally, the paper does not follow the submissions guidelines, neither the LNSC format nor the number of papers is followed.
The paper shows neither an in-depth experimental study nor a benchmark of significant scale, that is the main objective of the Benchmarking and Empirical Evaluation track.
References are missing in the work, I would suggest the author check the following references:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-49390-8_53 
Semantic Integration via Enterprise Service Bus in Virtual Organization Breeding Environments
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7880044/ 
Semantic enterprise service bus for cultural heritage
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6406219/ 
Semantic Mediation Bus: An Ontology-based Runtime Infrastructure for Service Interoperability
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-64468-4_2 
QAestro - Semantic-Based Composition of Question Answering Pipelines


Review 3 (by Pankesh Patel)

(RELEVANCE TO ESWC) I am not sure that this submission is qualified as a research paper.
(NOVELTY OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) I am not sure that this submission is qualified as a research paper.
(CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) I am not sure that this submission is qualified as a research paper.
(EVALUATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART) I am not sure that this submission is qualified as a research paper.
(DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH) I am not sure that this submission is qualified as a research paper.
(REPRODUCIBILITY AND GENERALITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY) I am not sure that this submission is qualified as a research paper.
(OVERALL SCORE) I am not sure that this submission is qualified as a research paper.


Review 4 (by Olga Streibel)

(RELEVANCE TO ESWC) I might be relevant, unfortunately the way how it is written makes it impossible to understand.
(NOVELTY OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) It is a loosely set of sentences, no proposed solution.
(CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) Not applicable.
(EVALUATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART) No state of the art.
(DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH) This is a document with loosely sentences, bullet points. A very early draft of something.
(REPRODUCIBILITY AND GENERALITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY) Not applicable.
(OVERALL SCORE) Strong reject. The paper makes an impression of a spam.


Metareview by Emanuele Dellavalle

The paper is not adequate to the venue.


Share on

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *