Create a gist now

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

What would you like to do?
My review of ISWC 2016 Resources track submission 48

Review: ISWC 2016 Resources Submission 48

Creative Commons License
This review is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Overall evaluation: 2: Accept

Reviewer's confidence: 4: High

Resource type: software, protocol

Were resource specific criteria used in the review?: Yes

Were you able to access the resource? The program committee considers the resource as well as the paper in its review process. Therefore, authors must ensure unfettered access to the resource during the review process, ideally by the resource being cited at a permanent location specific for the resource.

4: Yes I could fully access the resource



This paper shows how the LDP specs can be implemented using CoAP instead of HTTP, which can be useful for embedded devices (e.g. microcontrollers, temperature sensors) in the Internet of Things. The resource is a Java software framework for CoAP, implementing generic LDP resource management over CoAP, tested on an Android smartphone and a Raspberry Pi and against LDP compliance tests via a CoAP-HTTP proxy.

Reasons to accept

  • Well-written paper.
  • Reusable framework, source code builds out of the box with Maven
  • Great documentation and examples
  • Excellent reproducibility (except for graphs), source code archived w/DOI at Zenodo, experiments explained with detailed hardware specs
  • Reuse existing software, e.g. Sesame, JSONLD-Java, Marmotta, Californium

Reasons to reject

  • The reason for CoAP over HTTP on small devices is not sufficiently justified or benchmarked (however this is slightly out of scope)
  • The paper highlights cost of Java GC on small devices, but does not expand further on LDP/CoAP in languages like C or Go and any challenges
  • The mapping of LDP-CoAP is only provided as a table and examples (in paper and website), rather than as a detailed specification. This can be further work.
  • Has the patches to Californium has not been submitted upstream?
  • The example figures don't show well the CoAP messages (mainly HTTP)

EDIT: The authors reply they are planning to submit Californium patches, as well as further work on other devices.

EDIT: The authors agree to modify the examples.


Does the resource break new ground? Does the resource plug an important gap? Does the resource provide additional value with respect to similar earlier efforts? Is the resource of interest to the Semantic Web community? Is the resource of interest to society in general? Will the resource have an impact, especially in supporting the adoption of Semantic Web technologies?

2: Moderate

LDP has received a lot of traction, and this technology highlights how IoT can use LDP technologies without buying into a full HTTP stack, but still existing existing standards.

It is however not detailed (out of scope for a resource paper) how LDP can benefit IoT.


Is there evidence of usage by a wider community beyond the resource creators or their project? Alternatively, what is the resource’s potential of being (re)used, for example, based on the activity volume on discussion forums, mailing list, issue tracker, support portal, etc? Is the resource easy to (re)use? For example, does it have good quality documentation? Are there tutorials availability? etc Is the resource general enough to be applied in a wider set of scenarios, not just for the originally designed use? Is there potential for extensibility to meet future requirements (e.g., upper level ontologies, plugins in protege)?

2: Moderate

No evidence of usage beyond creators, this seems mainly a one-off experiment. The technology has also not been tested on IoT networks of more than 3 devices, and there is only a single release (which roughly coincides with the paper submission).

EDIT: Authors inform that the project is very recent following a long study, and has not yet had a chance to gain any uptake.

The software provided is however of sufficient quality that any Java developer can start using it, and being open source on GitHub it is easy to contribute.

Design and Technical Quality

Does the design of the resource follow resource specific best practices? Did the authors perform an appropriate re-use or extension of suitable high-quality resources? For example, in the case of ontologies authors might extend upper ontologies and/or reuse ontology design patterns. Is the resource suitable to solve the task at hand? Does the resource provide an appropriate description (both human and machine readable), thus encouraging the adoption of FAIR principles? Is there a schema diagram? For datasets, is the description available in terms of VoID/DCAT/DublinCore?

3: Good

Standard Apache Maven project, builds out of the box. Easy to navigate source code.

No JavaDoc API documentation, but there's tutorial on

The protocol LDP-CoAP builds on existing standards CoAP and LDP. As the paper proposes a new profile of CoAP and LDP it would be good if this was formalized stronger more as a specification/profile (not just by example).


Mandatory: Is the resource published at a persistent URI (PURL, DOI, w3id)? Mandatory: Is there a citation associated with the resource? Mandatory: Does the resource provide a licence specification? (See, for more information) Is the resource publicly available? For example as API, Linked Open Data, Download, Open Code Repository. Is the resource publicly findable? Is it registered in (community) registries (e.g. Linked Open Vocabularies, BioPortal, or DataHub)? Is it registered in generic repositories such as FigShare, Zenodo or GitHub? Is there a sustainability plan specified for the resource? Is there a plan for the maintenance of the resource?

3: Good

The software release has DOI and archived on Zenodo and GitHub.

Open source License is declared and OSI compliant (Apache2, ECL).

No sustainability plan beyond GitHub presence; the GitHub should add a "Contribute" section to encourage pull requests and issue tracking.

Further stabilizing and publishing to Maven Central is recommended.

EDIT: The authors agreed to modify README/Javadoc for contribution, and to publish to Maven Central.

Quality of paper presentation

3: Reasonable: Understandable to a large extent, but parts of the paper need more work

Easy to read and follow, well structured.

The only thing that was confusing was the Example figures - LaTeX formatting broke Example 1, and also the example seem to mainly show the HTTP traffic, rather than showing (even in abstract) the corresponding CoAP traffic.

This is much better shown on the author's web site -- perhaps hiding the HTTP examples (which are already well known) and only showing the (new) CoAP side works better?

EDIT: The authors agree to update the paper examples from the website.

Contrary to the Resource Track guidelines, the software resource is NOT listed as one of the citations, just a footnote, even though it even has a DOI

EDIT: The authors agree to modify to follow Resource Track guidelines.

Several sections of this paper are similar to parts of the author's ANT2016 paper (published after the ISCW paper was submitted) - yet no citation on the type "Submitted to Procedia Computer Science" is included. As the published paper describes the mapping cleaner, perhaps the authors could revise the submitted ISCW paper to cite the ANT and remove duplicated sections.

EDIT: The authors have agreed to cite the ANT paper and remove duplication.

Additional comments

Hi, I am Stian Soiland-Reyes and believe in open reviews.

This review is also available at the secret URL

I would appreciate if you could contact if you agree on me publishing this review.

This review is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

EDIT: The authors agreed to my open review and even provided a preprint. Now public at:

Confidential remarks for the program committee

The authors have just also published the very similar paper at ANT 2016:

which seems to be a violation of ISWC policy:

ISWC 2016 will not accept research papers that, at the time of submission, are under review for or have already been published in or accepted for publication in a journal, another conference, or another ISWC track. The conference organizers may share information on submissions with other venues to ensure that this rule is not violated.

However the difference is that the submitted paper to ISCW describes it from a resource/software side, while the ANT paper describes just the mapping. I think it would be clean if there was cross-citation and some duplication as removed.

EDIT: The authors have agreed to cite the ANT paper and remove duplication.



(Authors responded with agreement to proposed changes and several improvements.

Response to authors

Reviewer #1 (Stian Soiland-Reyes):

Thank you for your response. I am satisfied with your suggested modifications.

Reviewer #2:


Reviewer #3:


Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment