[PRE REVIEW]: Atramhasis: An online SKOS editor

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@koenedaele<!--end-author-handle-- (Koen Van Daele) Repository: https://github.com/OnroerendErfgoed/atramhasis Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_paper Version: 1.2.0 Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @gaurav, @SvenLieber Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f7013d5847c4ed748cf5dd42a761a830"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f7013d5847c4ed748cf5dd42a761a830/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f7013d5847c4ed748cf5dd42a761a830/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/f7013d5847c4ed748cf5dd42a761a830)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @koenedaele. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@koenedaele if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=1.08 s (204.5 files/s, 109198.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          75           1450            933          64456
CSS                              5           2916           5158          21684
JavaScript                      36            561            303           5277
Sass                            16            942           2462           1456
Jinja Template                  22            160             10           1344
JSON                             6              0              0           1153
reStructuredText                14            896           1516           1145
YAML                             4             35              4           1074
HTML                            23             37              3            779
XML                              3              0              0            600
INI                              6             88              1            327
PO File                          3            130             94            327
DOS Batch                        1             29              1            212
make                             1             28              6            143
Markdown                         2             20              0            128
TeX                              1              6              0             50
Mako                             1              7              0             15
Ruby                             1              6             12              9
Bourne Shell                     1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           221           7311          10503         100180
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 769

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.5194/isprs-annals-IV-2-W2-151-2017 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6984378 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- doi:10.1016/j.websem.2016.03.003 is INVALID (failed connection)

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[danielskatz]

👋 @koenedaele - I'm the track editor for this submission to JOSS. Given the generality of JOSS, it would be useful for you to explain/define SKOS and RDF in the paper. I would also suggest a change in the title from "webbased" (which I don't think is English) to "web-based". A couple of other minor comments are to change "Github" to "GitHub" in the acknowledgements, and for the last references, to remove the "doi:" part of the DOI.

[danielskatz]

Please feel free to make changes to your .bib and/or .md files, then use the commands @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

Additionally, I'm going to be the editor for this submission. I would appreciate it f could suggest some potential reviewers by mentioning them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). This list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

[koenedaele]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.5194/isprs-annals-IV-2-W2-151-2017 is OK
- 10.1016/j.websem.2016.03.003 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6984378 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[koenedaele]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[koenedaele]

Thank you @danielskatz . I've fixed the minor issues, I'll have a look at explaining SKOS and RDF.

For reviewers from my own network of contacts I would suggest Pieter Colpaert (pietercolpaert), Miel Vander Sande (mielvds) or Brecht Van de Vyvere (brechtvdv) although I haven't contacted any of them directly about this.

From the list of reviewers you've provided I would suggest akritiko or gaurav.

[danielskatz]

👋 @pietercolpaert - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[danielskatz]

👋 @akritiko - Would you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[pietercolpaert]

wave @pietercolpaert - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

I believe I have a conflict of interest. My research team is often being funded by Flemish government agencies and I often use Koen Van Daele’s work on Atramhasis as a good practice. While I would enjoy reviewing the paper, I think the paper could benefit from a more impartial reviewer.

[danielskatz]

@pietercolpaert - from the point of view of JOSS, what you describe (being a user of the software) isn't a conflict but would be a plus, particularly given that the goal of JOSS reviews is to collaboratively improve the software and paper to the point where it can be published. Our COI policy is here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html#joss-conflict-of-interest-policy Given this, would you be interested in reviewing the submission?

[pietercolpaert]

Yes, I read it and saw a conflict in the fact that my team is also being funded by Flemish governmental agencies. As potential alternatives, I’d suggest:

• Seth van Hooland
• Giorgia Lodi
• Oscar Corcho
• Maria Poveda
• Pascal Hitzler
• David Chaves
• Anastasia Dimou
• Sven Lieber

[koenedaele]

@editorialbot check references

[koenedaele]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.5194/isprs-annals-IV-2-W2-151-2017 is OK
- 10.1016/j.websem.2016.03.003 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.6984378 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[koenedaele]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[koenedaele]

@danielskatz I've added some more information on SKOS and RDF and an extra reference to the RDF primer and a publication with more information on the use of controlled vocabularies for cultural heritage. Given the focus of JOSS on software and the limited number of words allowed I've tried to keep it brief. Do let me know if you want me to expand on this section.

[danielskatz]

Thanks @koenedaele - this looks good to me for now

[danielskatz]

@pietercolpaert - Being funded by the same agency is not a conflict. If, however, you don't want to or can't review for another reason, that's fine.

[koenedaele]

@danielskatz I've had a look at @pietercolpaert 's list. Some do not seem to have a GH account or have no knowledge of Python as far as I can see. I think Sven Lieber (SvenLieber) might be a good candidate since he knows Linked Data, Cultural Heritage and has some Python repos. David Chaves (I think this is dachafra) seems to have knowledge of Linked Data and some Python experience.

[danielskatz]

👋 @SvenLieber - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[danielskatz]

👋 @gaurav - Are you available to review this JOSS submission?

[gaurav]

I can review this submission! I'm going to be pretty busy over the next few days, but I should be able to get you a review early next week if that would be okay?

[danielskatz]

@gaurav - thanks - I need to find at least one more reviewer as well, then I will start the review issue, and you can review the submission, though I will add you to the system now

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @gaurav as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@gaurav added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

👋 @dachafra - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[SvenLieber]

@danielskatz yes I would be available to review this submission for JOSS in the following 1-2 weeks.

[danielskatz]

Thanks very much @SvenLieber - I'll add you, and then will start the review, which will create a new issue where the review will take place, and I'll add some instructions there.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @SvenLieber as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@SvenLieber added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5040.