Reply to Referee(s)' Comments

The authors are glad that all reviewers like the idea of our work. We are grateful
for the reviewers' detailed comments, and have taken them into account when
carefully revising the paper. We hope that the reviewers now find that the
manuscript is improved, and the issues in the review are solved.

Review 1

Comment 1

Section 1: There are some minor English aspects that might be reviewed. For
instance, in the introduction "There is a massive research <b>has been done</b>
on building ontology taxonomies...”

 Reply:

The language mistakes have been corrected. Kindly find the highlighted parts in
red color in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2

Section 1: The research questions that are presented need improvement. They have
to be enriched with more content… an example could be instead of “Is it possible
to…, I would suggest something like “what would be a suitable approach to enrich
an ontology…”

 Reply:

Thanks for the advices. We have rewritten this section to clarify and improve the
research questions.

Comment 3

Section 2: I would separate the paragraph of Definition 1 from the rest of the
paragraph…

 Reply:
Thanks for your suggestion. We separated the paragraph of Definition 1 from the
rest of the paragraph.

Comment 4

Definition 5 appears from where? There isn’t any mention to ontology matching in
previous paragraphs…

 Reply:

We mentioned in the Introduction “the multilingual and cross-lingual ontology

enrichment is accomplished by using cross-lingual ontology matching”.

Comment 5

Section 3: Aren´t there more recent ontology learning tools that the ones presented
in Table 1? From 2000-2002 until now there is a time window of 18-16 years…
This section starts with “A recent review of the literature on ontology learning…”

 Reply:

Thanks for the advices. We have updated the list by sorting the tools in an
ascending order and four more recent tools have been added. Now, we cover the
period 2000-2017.

Comment 6

Section 4: I would place Figure 1 before sub-section 4.1

 Reply:

Thanks for your recommendation; Figure 1 has been placed before sub-section 4.1.

Comment 7

Section 4: Sub-section 4.1

When describing the first phase (Language identification and separation), instead
of “… might contain text written in two different natural languages…” I would
write as ““… might contain text written in two <b>or more</b> different natural
languages…”
  Reply:

We have rewritten the mentioned sentence as your suggestion in the revised

manuscript.

Comment 8

Section 4: Sub-section 4.4.2

The reference (Fipa, 2002) should be corrected to (FIPA, 2002). In the references
section, this reference should be updated accordingly… Fipa, A is not an author…

 Reply:

The reference (Fipa, 2002) has been corrected in this section and also updated in
references section.

Comment 9

Section 4: Sub-section 4.4.2

Algorithm 1 could be placed before sub-section 4.4.2.

 Reply:

Thanks for this suggestion; Algorithm 1 has been placed before sub-section 4.4.2.

Comment 10

Section 4: Sub-section 4.4.2

In line 4 of Algorithm 1 I believe that there is a typo… instead of LA = FindLA

(T[][], L) shouldn’t it be LA = FindLA(<b>LT[][]</b>, L).

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 11

Section 5
Table 2 the <i>tokenization </i>phase is not considered, any reason for that? The
<i>domain identification</i> phase is not very well explained… Do you assume it
from the beginning in this particular case? Or does it follow the presented
classification approach of sub-section 4.2, and if so how did you come up with the
Information Technology domain?

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 12

Section 6

There is not any mention about the implementation of the proposed Agents… Was
it implemented using the JADE framework?

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 13

Section 7

I miss expressed in the conclusion what were the main difficulties to implement the
proposed approach.

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Review 2

Comment 1

Reorganize the paper.

 Reply:

Paper has been reorganized, find revised manuscript, for instance:

1- Figure 1 has been placed before sub-section 4.1.

2- Algorithm 1 has been placed before sub-section 4.4.2.
3- …

Comment 2

Please improve the English language rigidly (also avoid using informal words and
sentences) and correct some language mistakes.

 Reply:

The language mistakes have been corrected. Kindly find the highlighted parts in
red color in the revised manuscript. In addition to, some parts of the manuscript
have been re-write in order to avoid using informal words and sentences.

Comment 3

Please specific how to split the sentence for multiple language scenarios as shown
in Section 4.1 (2).

Moreover, please give demonstrate why/how to remove words that having high
frequencies of occurrence, how to define text that no contribution to the subject as
shown in 4.1(4).

In the following part, the authors do use those techniques, but very few content has
been given in this paper.

Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 4
Since one word cannot find the exactly same meaning word in other languages,
more reasonable solution maybe numerous words to select. (see Table 2. Onto
enrichment (2), (4)).

 Reply:

Thanks for your helpful suggestion. In the initial version of the proposed approach,
we have solved the problem by selecting the meaning related to the domain of the
sentence which is determined by domain identification in Section 4.2. For
example, the word “Java” might have two meanings (coffee or programming
language) therefore, if the domain of the sentence is Information technology, then
the second meaning is selected, but if the domain is Food, then the first meaning is
selected.

Comment 5

The algorithm proposed in this paper needs improved significantly.

 Reply:

We have improved the proposed algorithms.

Comment 6

Please add more details regarding performance evaluation of the proposed

technique.

 Reply:

In the initial prototype of the proposed approach we are focusing on evaluating the
ontology enrichment process rather than evaluating the performance of the system.
However, we are planning to evaluate the performance of the system in our future
work.

Comment 7

The contribution in this paper is minor, I suggest the authors to make more efforts
in mathematical models.

 Reply:
We have improved the whole paper by:

1. Improve the proposed algorithms.

2. (add improve of other reviews)

Review 3

Comment 1

Revise the abstract with more technical contribution details.

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 2

Explain the IT domain ontology structure developed for the experimental purpose.

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 3

Evaluate the system with more complex sentences, use real-world service
description documents for any software.

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 4

Provide the details about ontology enrichment happened during the case study.

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 5

English language usage to be improved, look for grammatical errors.

  Reply:

The language mistakes have been corrected. Kindly find the highlighted parts in
red color in the revised manuscript.

Review 4

Comment 1

I suggest to the authors, to introduce an overall structure of agents registration and

communication at the beginning of paragraph 4.4.

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 2

The contribution of the paper is interesting in the semantic web research area, since
that it is difficult to develop ontologies (also of different domains) from
multilingual text and put them in communication for enrichment. (follow-up
comment: Please highlight the contribution with clearer presentation)

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 3

Results demonstrate that CLOE is on average better than other state-of-art systems
for lexical precision, lexical recall and F-measure; exceptions are in ad-hoc cases.
(follow-up comment: Please give justification in more details)

 Reply:

Reply by Said- Shimaa

Comment 4

State-of-art is very clear. In the paper, there are frequent references to the other
state-of-art approaches, which are widely used in the proposed system. (follow-up
comment: authors should add highlights to point out the
advancement/improvement and/or similarity (if any) of the state-of-art approaches)

 Reply:

The proposed approach has several advantages over the State-of-art: 1) a well-
formed ontology could be used to enrich another one, written in a different natural
language, using already-learned concepts and the semantic relations between them,
2) several ontologies could be enriched at the same time using multilingual text
(Simultaneous Ontology Enrichment), and 3) ontologies from different domains
could also be enriched at the same time.

What additionally distinguishes our work from the related work

mentioned above is that our analysis is based on a comprehensive list of metrics,

considering quality in terms of event-related metadata in six CS communities

and the dataset is published as a unified knowledge graph of all events .

Comment 5

Improve the English.

 Reply:

Thanks for your helpful suggestion. The language mistakes have been corrected.
Kindly find the highlighted parts in red color in the revised manuscript.