This paper presents the YAGO 4 knowledge base and the methodology to create it. They merge the schema.org taxonomy with Bioschemas then map classes of schema.org to Wikidata classes in order to import Wikidata triples. Due to the well-defined schema, they are able to enforce certain types of constraints so that Web Ontology Language based reasoning is feasible.
- schema.org ontology appears to be too abstract for a practical KB. Some frequently used classes like computers or phones are missing.
- YAGO 4 does not cover some commonly used concepts like “rain”. Is that due to their filtering processes?
- 5: Transformative: This paper is likely to change our field. It should be considered for a best paper award.
- 4.5: Exciting: It changed my thinking on this topic. I would fight for it to be accepted.
- 4: Strong: I learned a lot from it. I would like to see it accepted.
- 3.5: Leaning positive: It can be accepted more or less in its current form. However, the work it describes is not particularly exciting and/or inspiring, so it will not be a big loss if people don’t see it in this conference.
- 3: Ambivalent: It has merits (e.g., it reports state-of-the-art results, the idea is nice), but there are key weaknesses (e.g., I didn’t learn much from it, evaluation is not convincing, it describes incremental work). I believe it can significantly benefit from another round of revision, but I won’t object to accepting it if my co-reviewers are willing to champion it.
- 2.5: Leaning negative: I am leaning towards rejection, but I can be persuaded if my co-reviewers think otherwise.
- 2: Mediocre: I would rather not see it in the conference.
- 1.5: Weak: I am pretty confident that it should be rejected.
- 1: Poor: I would fight to have it rejected.