RonPub

Loading...

RonPub Banner

RonPub -- Research Online Publishing

RonPub (Research online Publishing) is an academic publisher of online, open access, peer-reviewed journals.  RonPub aims to provide a platform for researchers, developers, educators, and technical managers to share and exchange their research results worldwide.

RonPub Is Open Access:

RonPub publishes all of its journals under the open access model, defined under BudapestBerlin, and Bethesda open access declarations:

  • All articles published by RonPub is fully open access and online available to readers free of charge.  
  • All open access articles are distributed under  Creative Commons Attribution License,  which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction free of charge in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited. 
  • Authors retain all copyright to their work.
  • Authors may also publish the publisher's version of their paper on any repository or website. 

RonPub Is Cost-Effective:

To be able to provide open access journals, RonPub defray publishing cost by charging a one-time publication fee for each accepted article. One of RonPub objectives is providing a fast and high-quality but lower-cost publishing service. In order to ensure that the fee is never a barrier to publication, RonPub offers a fee waiver for authors who do not have funds to cover publication fees. We also offer a partial fee waiver for editors and reviewers of RonPub as as reward for their work. See the respective Journal webpage for the concrete publication fee.

PnPub Publication Criteria

What we are most concerned about is the quality, not quantity, of publications. We only publish high-quality scholarly papers. Publication Criteria describes the criteria that should be met for a contribution to be acceptable for publication in RonPub journals.

RonPub Publication Ethics Statement:

In order to ensure the publishing quality and the reputation of the publisher, it is important that all parties involved in the act of publishing adhere to the standards of the publishing ethical behaviour. To verify the originality of submissions, we use Plagiarism Detection Tools, like Anti-Plagiarism, PaperRater, Viper, to check the content of manuscripts submitted to our journals against existing publications.

RonPub follows the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and deals with the cases of misconduct according to the COPE Flowcharts

Long-Term Preservation in the German National Library

Our publications are archived and permanently-preserved in the German National Library. The publications, which are archived in the German National Library, are not only long-term preserved but also accessible in the future, because the German National Library ensures that digital data saved in the old formats can be viewed and used on current computer systems in the same way they were on the original systems which are long obsolete.

Where is RonPub?

RonPub is a registered corporation in Lübeck, Germany. Lübeck is a beautiful coastal city, owing wonderful sea resorts and sandy beaches as well as good restaurants. It is located in northern Germany and is 60 kilometer away from Hamburg.

OJSW Cover
Open Journal of Semantic Web (OJSW)
OJSW, an open access and peer-reviewed online journal, publishes original and creative research results on the Semantic Web. OJSW distributes its articles under the open access model. All articles of OJSW are fully open access and online available to readers free of charge. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Accepted manuscripts are published online immediately.
Publisher: RonPub UG (haftungsbeschränkt), Lübeck, Germany
Contact: OJSW Editorial Office
ISSN: 2199-336X
Call for Papers: txtUTF-8 txtASCII pdf
OJSW Cover
Open Journal of Semantic Web (OJSW)
OJSW, an open access and peer-reviewed online journal, publishes original and creative research results on the Semantic Web. OJSW distributes its articles under the open access model. All articles of OJSW are fully open access and online available to readers free of charge. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Accepted manuscripts are published online immediately.
Publisher: RonPub UG (haftungsbeschränkt), Lübeck, Germany
Contact: OJSW Editorial Office
ISSN: 2199-336X
Call for Papers: txtUTF-8 txtASCII pdf

Aims & Scope

The current World Wide Web enables an easy, instant access to a vast amount of online information.  However, the content in the Web is typically for human consumption, and is not tailored to be machine-processed. 

The Semantic Web, which is intended to establish a machine-understandable web, thereby offers a promising and potential solution to mining and analyzing web content. The Semantic Web is currently changing from an emergent trend to a technology used in complex real-world applications.  

 OJSW publishes regular research papers, short communications, reviews and visionary papers in all aspects of web technologies. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. 

  • Regular research papers: being full original findings with adequate experimental research. They make substantial theoretical and empirical contributions to the research field.  Research papers should be written as concise as possible.
  • Short communications: reporting novel research ideas. The work represented should be technically sound and significantly advancing the state of the art. Short communications also include exploratory studies and methodological articles.
  • Research reviews: being insightful and accessible overview of a certain field of research. They conceptualize research issues, synthesize existing findings and advance the understanding of the field. They may also suggest new research issues and directions.
  • Visionary papers:  identify new research issues and future research directions, and describe new research visions in the field. The new visions will potentially have great impact for the future society and daily life. 

We are interested in scientific articles on all aspects of semantic web, including but are not limited to the following topics:

  • Semantic Data Management and Optimization
    • Big Data
    • Graph Databases
    • Federations
    • Spatial Data
  • Rule-based Languages like RIF and SWRL
  • Microformats (e.g. RDFa)
  • Ontology-based Approaches for
    • Modelling
    • Mapping
    • Evolution
    • Real-world ontologies
  • Reasoning Approaches
    • Real-World Applications
    • Efficient Algorithms
  • Linked Data
    • Integration of Heterogeneous Linked Data
    • Real-World Applications
    • Statistics and Visualizations
    • Quality
    • Ranking Techniques
    • Provenance
    • Mining and Consuming Linked Data
  • Semantic Web stream processing
    • Dynamic Data
    • Temporal Semantics
  • Performance and Evaluation of Semantic Web Technologies
    • Benchmarking for Semantic Web Technologies
  • Semantic Web Services
  • Semantic Web Applications in specific domains, e.g.,
    • Life Science,
    • eGovernment,
    • eEnvironment,
    • eHealth

Author Guidelines

Publication Criteria

Publication Criteria provides important information for authors to prepare their manuscripts with a high possibility of being accepted.

Open & Transparent Reviews

RonPub’s OJSW provides two review processes: open & transparent as well as traditional. OJSW authors and reviewers can choose the review process that they prefer.

  1. Open & Transparent Review:
    1. Submitted manuscripts are posted on the journal's website and are publicly available
      Names of authors can be blind: This depends on the authors' wishes.
    2. Manuscripts will be evaluated by the reviewers selected by members of the editorial board.
    3. Manuscripts are also open for evaluation and comments from public.
      See our Open Review page for manuscripts currently under open review.
    4. Comments that do not follow established good scholarly practice will be removed.
    5. Evaluation from the selected reviewers and public participants will be posted on the journal’s website after the first-round review is finished.
      The names of reviewers and of public participants will not be given upon their wishes.
    6. The responses from the authors are posted on the journal’s website.
    7. Editors make a decision on acceptance or rejection based on the review results.
    8. Authors of rejected manuscripts may request to remove their articles and reviews from the journal’s website.
  2. Traditional Review:
    1. Manuscripts will be evaluated by the reviewers selected by members of the editorial board
    2. Editors make a decision on acceptance or rejection based on the review results.
    3. The decision and anonymous reviews of manuscripts will be sent to authors.

Manuscript Preparation

Please prepare your manuscripts using the manuscript template of the journal. It is available for download as word doc docx and latex version zip. The template describes the format and structure of manuscripts and other necessary information for preparing manuscripts. Manuscripts should be written in English. There is no restriction on the length of manuscripts.

Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts following the information on the submit pageAuthors first submit their manuscripts in PDF format. Once a manuscript is accepted, the author then submits the revised manuscript as a PDF file and a word file or latex folder (with all the material necessary to generate the PDF file). The work described in the submitted manuscript must be previously unpublished; it is not under consideration for publication anywhere else. 

Authors are welcome to suggest qualified reviewers for their papers, but this is not mandatory. If the author wants to do so, please provide the name, affiliations and e-mail addresses for all suggested reviewers.

Manuscript Status

After submission of manuscripts, authors will receive an email to confirm receipt of manuscripts. Subsequent enquiries concerning paper progress should be sent to the email address of the journal.

Review Procedure

OJSW is committed to enforcing a rigorous peer-review process. All manuscripts submitted for publication in OJSW are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed. When a manuscript is submitted, the editor-in-chief assigns it to an appropriate editor who will be in charge of the review process of the manuscript. The editor first suggests potential reviewers and then organizes the peer-reviewing herself/himself or entrusts it to the editor office. For each manuscript, typically three review reports will be collected. The editor and the editor-in-chief evaluate the manuscript itself and the review reports and make an accept/revision/reject decision. Authors will be informed with the decision and reviewing results within 6-8 weeks on average after the manuscript submission. In the case of revision, authors are required to perform an adequate revision to address the concerns from evaluation reports. A second round of peer-review will be performed if necessary.

Accepted manuscripts are published online immediately.

Copyrights

Authors publishing with RonPub open journals retain the copyright to their work. 

All articles published by RonPub is fully open access and online available to readers free of charge.  RonPub publishes all open access articles under the Creative Commons Attribution License,  which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction freely, provided that the original work is properly cited.

Digital Archiving Policy

Our publications have been archived and permanently-preserved in the German National Library. The publications, which are archived in the German National Library, are not only long-term preserved but also accessible in the future, because the German National Library ensures that digital data saved in the old formats can be viewed and used on current computer systems in the same way they were on the original systems which are long obsolete. Further measures will be taken if necessary. Furthermore, we also encourage our authors to self-archive their articles published on the website of RonPub.

Publication Ethics Statement

In order to ensure the publishing quality and the reputation of the journal, it is important that all parties involved in the act of publishing adhere to the standards of the publishing ethical behaviour. To verify the originality of submissions, we use Plagiarism Detection Tools, like Anti-Plagiarism, PaperRater, Viper, to check the content of manuscripts submitted to our journals against existing publications.

Our journal follows the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and deals with the cases of misconduct according to the COPE Flowcharts

Manuscripts under Open & Transparent Review

The following manuscripts are currently under open review. Reviewers and public participants please first read "Open & Transparent Review" at our Author Guidelines page.

 Open Review 

OnGIS: Semantic query broker for heterogeneous geospatial data sources

Marek Smíd, Petr Kremen

Full-Text: pdf | Show/Hide Abstract

Abstract: Querying geospatial data from multiple heterogeneous sources backed by different management technologies poses an interesting problem both in the data integration and the subsequent result interpretation. This paper proposes broker techniques for answering a user's complex spatial query: find relevant data sources (from a catalogue of many) capable of answering the query, eventually split the query and find relevant sources for the query parts, when no single source suffices. For the purpose, we describe each source with a set of prototypical queries that are algorithmically arranged into a lattice, which makes searching efficient. The proposed algorithms leverage GeoSPARQL query containment enhanced with OWL 2 QL semantics. A prototype is implemented in a system called OnGIS.

Reviews Round 1

Show/Hide Anonymous Reviewer 1

Anonymous Reviewer 1: 

Numerical scores should be given from 1 to 10: Poor [1] ….. Middle [5] ….. Excellent [10]
				
1. NOVELTY:             [5]
Please see the additional comments.

2. PRACTICAL IMPACT:    [5]
Please see the additional comments.

3. TECHNICAL SOUNDNESS: [6]
Please see the additional comments.

4. APPROPRIATENESS AND ADEQUACY 
Literature review:      [7]
Background discussion:  [8]
Issue Analysis:         [3]

Please see the additional comments.

5. PRESENTATION
Overall organization:   [6]
English:               	[6] 
Readability:            [6] 

Please see the additional comments.

6. Additional Comments

This paper presents an approach and its implementation (called OnGIS) that supports semantic queries from heterogeneous data sources. The proposed system first builds semantically equivalent queries using a lattice structure and then searches the input query in the lattice to return semantically equivalent queries. There are two resulting cases from the search and return process. In the first case, the system can find the semantically equivalent queries (to the input query) in the lattice, which means the equivalent queries (associate with a set of data sources) are capable of answering the input query. The other case is that the semantically equivalent queries cannot be found. In this case, the approach splits the input query into sub-queries and search the lattice with the sub-queries. In the experiment, the paper provides an example to demonstrate how OnGIS split an input query into sub-queries to obtain answers from two data sources.

In general, the approach sounds valid, but if I understand correctly, it does not use much spatial properties in the query splitting and containment checking process that based on the papers [7] and [8]. (even the example in section 6 is nothing geospatial.) The paper should clarify this point. Also, the paper should provide a complexity analysis of the algorithms in section 5 to help understand the scalability of the approach (e.g., in terms of the number of data sources). Finally, the experiment (which has only one example) does not provide an evaluation to validate OnGIS as a geospatial query broker. The paper mentions a number of geospatial queries that OnGIS supports (e.g., distance), but none of them is demonstrated in the experiment.

More detailed comments:
1. The reader could use some explanation of the meaning of prototypical queries.
2. section 4.2: Since the main idea and proof of this section is based on the papers [7] and [8], the paper should explain the new idea here for geospatial queries.
3. section 4.2, last paragraph: it would be helpful to give a brief idea about algorithm used to reduce the number of combinations
4. section 5.2 ÒÉswitches to the splitting mode.Ó: Does this mean the system will switch to algorithm 4?
5. section 5.2 ÒBy the symbol |q|ÉÓ: There is no symbol |q| in the algorithms. 
6. section 5.2 paragraphs 7 and 8: The two paragraphs contradict. Does algorithm 5 split to the maximum number of subqueries or a limited number to fulfill the alignment?
7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION 

(a) Overall Quality:    [6]
			
What are the strong points of the paper?
Please see the additional comments.

What are the weak points of the paper?
Please see the additional comments. In general, there is no complexity analysis of the proposed algorithms (unknown scalability). The experiment only provide one example and does not use a geospatial query. 

(b) Recommendation
[] Accept
[] Minor revision 
[x] Major revision 
[] Reject

(c) If the paper is accepted, it should be published as
[x] a full research paper
[] a short communication
[] a review paper
[] a visionary paper

Show/Hide Anonymous Reviewer 2

Anonymous Reviewer 2: 

Numerical scores should be given from 1 to 10: Poor [1] ….. Middle [5] ….. Excellent [10]

1. NOVELTY:             [6]
There are contributions on the work of querying multiple data sources by means of sets of prototypical queries and splitting of queries.
The novelty of this work lies on use of GeoSPARQL queries enhanced with OWL 2QL. 

2. PRACTICAL IMPACT:    [8]
Geospatial data is very important for a number of applications, and there are a large number of heterogeneous geospatial data sources.
Efficient approaches for querying such data are no doubt desired and have a high practical impact.

3. TECHNICAL SOUNDNESS: [7]
Authors suggest several formulae for the containment of GeoSPARQL queries, and provide sketchy proofs.
Algorithms for constructing the lattice of prototypical queries and for matching queries in the lattice are given, and implemented and tested.

4. APPROPRIATENESS AND ADEQUACY
Literature review:      [6]
Background discussion:  [7]
Issue Analysis:         [6]

The authors miss to include and discuss important references about SPARQL containment and federation approaches.
Although these existing literature does not focus on spatial data, they should be also included. For example,
* Melisachew Wudage Chekol: "On the Containment of SPARQL Queries under Entailment Regimes", AAAI 2016: 936-942 2016.
* Reinhard Pichler, Sebastian Skritek: "Containment and equivalence of well-designed SPARQL". PODS 2014: 39-50, 2014
* Melisachew Wudage Chekol, Jérôme Euzenat, Pierre Genevès, Nabil Layaïda:
"Evaluating and Benchmarking SPARQL Query Containment Solvers". International Semantic Web Conference (2) 2013: 408-423, 2013
* Melisachew Wudage Chekol, Jérôme Euzenat, Pierre Genevès, Nabil Layaïda:
"SPARQL Query Containment Under SHI Axioms", AAAI 2012
* Melisachew Wudage Chekol, Jérôme Euzenat, Pierre Genevès, Nabil Layaïda:
"SPARQL Query Containment under RDFS Entailment Regime", IJCAR 2012: 134-148, 2013
* Please also check the paper (http://www.ronpub.com/publications/OJSW_2015v2i1n04_Groppe.pdf) for recent work on federation approaches. 
This paper contains also in Section 2.3 a lot of other references to state-of-the-art federation approaches.

5. PRESENTATION
Overall organization:   [8]
English:                [6]
Readability:            [7]

This work is generally well presented and easy to understand, but there are some grammatical errors, and this paper should be carefully proofread.

In Section "6 Example", authors use an example to explain their approaches: how to construct the lattice of prototypical queries and how to search a user's query in the lattice.
When I read the section "7 Conclusion and Future Work", if I understood correctly, Section 6 describes not only an example, which explains the suggested approaches, but also a text example, which is successfully tested by the implementation.
The implementation and test of the approaches are very important contributions, which should be highlighted. Unfortunately, authors did not mention them in Section 6.
The heading title of Section 6, Example, should  be also improved.

6. OTHER ASPECTS
    Please provide additional comments to the author(s) for improving and revising the manuscript.

* "prototypical queries": Please define this term before you use it the first time.

* Query containment is also not defined where it appears the first time.

* English issues, including English errors and unclear expressions, for example,
- "Some parts of it ...  has been ..."
- "...they propose interesting..." => "...they propose an interesting..."
- "Prototypical queries fully capture relevant capabilities of a data source, both in terms of data and operations it provides.":
What is "it"?
- "It also contains axioms that ..." => "It also contains axioms like ..."???

* Section 3.1: Discuss shortly alternatives to GeoSPARQL like stSPARQL. Why you have chosen GeoSPARQL instead of the alternatives

* Section 3.1: There are a lot enumerations (e.g. when describing the "families"). Please explain shortly each property (maybe use a table for this purpose.)

* Section 3.2: Please shortly discuss the other OWL 2 Profiles and why OWL2QL is chosen (maybe you can add this already to Section 3).

* Section 4.2 and Section 4.3: Mathematical definitions typically use "if", but you use "when", e.g. in the definitions of COM(OP/DP...), r_e..., x~_r y
The definition of COM(OP...) should be in the style
COM(OP...) = A(i_y) union B(i)
          {...} if i_x in I_{V2}
A(i_y) ={
          {} otherwise

B(i) analogous,
COM(DP...) analogous.


* End of Section 4.2: Please explain why you do not discuss the simple algorithm to reduce the number of combinations.

* The font size in Figure 3 is too small. The font sizes in figures should be comparable to the font sizes in the normal text.

* Page 8, in the end of the left column: "Therefore, the completed ABox for geo:asWKT (¡CZ+SK¿ in q2) will not be extended with ¡CZ¿ from...".
My Acrobat Reader displays strange symbols in ¡CZ+SK¿ and ¡CZ¿. Maybe a font is not correctly embedded in the generated PDF. If this is the case please use another font or check how to embed fonts in latex...

* A lot of algorithms contain broken lines (one line in the algorithm going over two lines in the paper), e.g. algorithms 2, 4, 5 and 6. Please correct these broken lines by e.g. spanning the algorithms over two columns.

* Missing references: Any mentioned techniques/approaches/standards/work ... should be given references
(Some references may be given before, but they should be given again), for example,
- "In comparison with our previous work, and the work of others, ...":
Please provide refs for "our previous work" and "the work of others"
- "For example the Catalogue Service (CSW), a standard by OGC,"
- ESRI ArcGIS services, DBPedia, LinkedGeoData, SuQL, WFS, OIL, SHIQ, ...
- References should be given when a term is used first time (e.g., Linked Data).


7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

(a) Overall Quality:    [7]

What are the strong points of the paper?
+ Containment of GeoSPARQL queries
+ Query lattice construction and query matching in lattice
+ Algorithms and implementation

What are the weak points of the paper?
- Experimental Evaluation:
Authors state: "...with succesfull tests on a few nonlarge samples..." Can you quantify the number of successful tests? Can you provide any further statistics, which strengthen your (experimental) evaluation? Can you provide an experimental evaluation in terms of processing times? How long does your prototype take for your tested queries? Is there a speedup compared to not using OnGIS? (I ask you these questions such that you sell your OnGIS approach better to the readers...)


(b) Recommendation
[] Accept
[x] Minor revision
[] Major revision
[] Reject

(c) If the paper is accepted, it should be published as
[x] a full research paper
[] a short communication
[] a review paper
[] a visionary paper

Show/Hide Anonymous Reviewer 3

Anonymous Reviewer 3: 

Numerical scores should be given from 1 to 10:	Poor [1] ... Middle [5] ... Excellent [10]
	
1. NOVELTY:             [5]
This paper proposes broker techniques for answering a user’s complex spatial query: find relevant data sources (from a catalogue of many) capable of answering the query, eventually split the query and find relevant sources for the query parts, when no single source suffices. 
The similar idea with this work has been presented in other papers. The authors could check the similar works and compared with them, which can improve the quality of the presented work.

2. PRACTICAL IMPACT:    [7]
The proposed algorithms were implemented in a proto-type, with tests on a few nonlarge samples. It needs to be improved for a larger scale.

3. TECHNICAL SOUNDNESS: [7]
The paper is easy to read and understand, is well redacted and offers reader the information necessary to understand it. It establishes a great goal: to create a framework proposal for efficient querying multiple heterogeneous geospatial sources: one part is describing them by sets of prototypical queries the sources can answer, another part is the method how to find which sources to use for answering a user’s query.
There were a few typos and grammar errors.

The paper gives an example in section 6, but it lacks comparison with other similar works, which is important for certifying the value of the work.

4. APPROPRIATENESS AND ADEQUACY 
Literature review:      [6]
Background discussion:  [6]
Issue Analysis:         [6]

The background discussion is not sufficient. The literature review and issue analysis should focus much on query answering, but not on the geospatial data linking and integration.

5. PRESENTATION
Overall organization:   [7]
English:                [7] 
Readability:            [7] 

The paper is well organized and is easy to read and understand, but there were a few typos and grammar errors. I suggest letting a native speaker revise the paper. 

6. OTHER ASPECTS
Please provide additional comments to the author(s) for improving and revising the manuscript.

I think it is good for authors to add comparisons with other similar works.
In addition, it would be better if authors could give the detailed descriptions about the experiments, such as how large dataset can be used in the current OnGIS.

7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION 

(a) Overall Quality:    [7]
What are the strong points of the paper?
This paper finds relevant data sources (from a catalogue of many) capable of answering the query, and splits the query and finds relevant sources for the query parts. In addition, it provides a prototype OnGIS to show the given approach.
 
What are the weak points of the paper?
It lacks experimental analysis and comparisons with other similar works.

(b) Recommendation
[] Accept
[] Minor revision 
[V] Major revision 
[] Reject

(c) If the paper is accepted, it should be published as
[V] a full research paper
[] a short communication
[] a review paper
[] a visionary paper

Authors' Response to Reviews Round 1

Show/Hide Authors' Response to Reviews Round 1

Authors' Response to Reviews Round 1: 

Dear OJSW reviewers,

below are the changes made to our paper 'OnGIS: Semantic query broker for heterogeneous geospatial data sources' upon your reviews.
The changes are in the order how they appear in the text:
• Explained prototypical queries in the 3rd paragraph of Sec. 1.
• Linked Data reference moved earlier to Sec. 1, also citing W3C standards.
• References to OGC CSW, ArcGIS services, DBpedia, LinkedGeoData, SuQL, WFS, OIL,
referring for all description logics constructs to description logics handbook – in Sec. 2.
• Relating to the works of Chekol, Pichler, and Groppe mentioned in reviews at the end of Sec. 2.
• Comparing GeoSPARQL and stSPARQL at the very end of Sec. 2.
• Added 2nd paragraph to Sec. 3 to briefly describe other OWL 2 profiles, and stating in the 1st two paragraphs what is the advantage of QL (possible to use it for querying from respective source, e.g. relational databases).
• Sec. 3.1 (GeoSPARQL) uses more bullet points for item enumerations; topological relations families are in a new Table 1 (with a brief meaning of each property).
• A change not invoked by a review: Figure 2 (topology relations) in Sec. 4.1 has been fixed (there have been some discrepancies in DE9-IM definitions of topological relations in GeoSPARQL standard and GeoSPARQL ontology, and some my mistakes).
• What has been added over Horrocks query containment articles [17,18] has been added to the 3rd paragraph of Sec. 4.2.
• Com(*) definition equations in Sec. 4.2 have been restructured to the proposed way.
• Replaced “when” with “if” in equations in Sec. 4.2 and 4.3.
• A complexity analysis of the query containment method has been analyzed in Sec. 4.2 in the paragraph overflowing from the end of page 7 to the beginning of page 8 and in Sec. 4.3 at the bottom of the left column in page 9.
• A brief description how the variable mapping algorithm works is in the last paragraph of Sec. 4.2.
• Fixed less-than and greater-than signs in CZ and SK area symbols in the last paragraph of Sec. 4.3 (it was a LaTeX encoding issue, not a font problem).
• Fig. 3 has been changed a little to make the fonts larges.
• A complexity analysis of constructing and searching a lattice is in the last paragraph of Sec. 5.1 and the 3rd paragraph of Sec 5.2.
• Splitting mode references the algorithm in 1st paragraph of Sec. 5.2
• The |q| definition moved where appropriate (it is used in Algorithm 6).
• Algorithms 2, 4, 5, and 6 span two columns now.
• The next to last paragraph in Sec. 5.2 – reworded how the limiting of splitting works, not to confuse a reader (that is a maximum number of split queries, satisfying certain condition).
• The Sec. 6 has been renamed from Example to Examples of Testing, and we are being specific there that the examples actually work.
• To Sec. 6.2, another larger example with spatial restrictions has been added. Also some statistics have been added to both examples.
• A comparison to another system performing query containment (Pellet) is added as Sec. 6.3.
• Syntax and grammar has been checked by hand and by grammarly.com.

Best regards,
Marek Smid
Submit Open Review

OJSW Publication Fees

All articles published by RonPub are fully open access and online available to readers free of charge. To be able to provide open access journals, RonPub defrays the costs (induced by processing and editing of manuscripts, provision and maintenance of infrastructure, and routine operation and management of journals) by charging an one-time publication fee for each accepted article. In order to ensure that the fee is never a barrier to publication, RonPub offers a fee waiver for authors from low-income countries. Authors who do not have funds to cover publication fees should submit an application during the submission process. Applications of waiver will be examined on a case by case basis. The scientific committee members of RonPub are entitled a partial waiver of the standard publication fees as reward for their work. 

  • Standard publication fee: 338 Euro (excluding tax).
  • Authors from the low-income countries: 71% waiver of the standard publication fee. (Note: The list is subject to change based on the data of the World Bank Group.):
    Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo (Democratic Republic), Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea (Democratic People’s Republic), Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao (People’s Democratic Republic), Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, São Tomé and Principe, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Togo, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Yemen (Republic), Zambia, Zimbabwe
  • Scientific committee members: 25% waiver of the standard publication fee.
  • Guest editors and reviewers: 25% waiver of the standard publication fee for one year.

Payments are subject to tax. A German VAT (value-added tax) at 19% will be charged if applicable. US and Canadian customers need to provide their sales tax number and their certificate of incorporation to be exempt from the VAT charge; European Union customers (not German customers) need to provide their VAT to be exempt from the VAT charge. Customers from Germany and other countries will be charged with the VAT charge. Individuals are not eligible for tax exempt status.

Editors and reviewers have no access to payment information. The inability to pay will not influence the decision to publish a paper; decisions to publish are only based on the quality of work and the editorial criteria.

OJSW Indexing

In order for our publications getting widely abstracted, indexed and cited, the following methods are employed:

  • Various meta tags are embedded in each publication webpage, including Google Scholar Tags, Dublic Core, EPrints, BE Press and Prism. This enables crawlers of e.g. Google Scholar to discover and index our publications.
  • Different metadata export formats are provided for each article, including BibTex, XML, RSS and RDF. This makes readers to cite our papers easily.
  • An OAI-PMH interface is implemented, which facilitates our article metadata harvesting by indexing services and databases.

The paper Getting Indexed by Bibliographic Databases in the Area of Computer Science provides a comprehensive survey on indexing formats, techniques and databases. We will also continue our efforts on dissemination and indexing of our publications.

OJSW has been indexed by the following libraries and bibliographic databases:

Submission to Open Journal of Semantic Web (OJSW)

Please submit your manuscript by carefully filling in the information in the following web form. If there technical problems, you may also submit your manuscript by sending the information and the manuscript to .

Submission to Regular or Special Issue

Please specify if the paper is submitted to a regular issue or one of the special issues:

Type of Paper

Please specify the type of your paper here. Please check Aims & Scope if you are not sure of which type your paper is.





Traditional or Open & Transparent Review

Besides traditional reviews, OJSW offers the possibility of an open & transparent review process. Please specify your type of review here. Please check Author Guidelines for further information about the types of reviews.



If you wish that the reviewers are not aware of your name, please submit a blinded manuscript leaving out identifiable information like authors' names and affiliations.

Title

Please specify the title of your paper here:

Abstract

Please copy & paste the abstract of your paper here:

Authors

Please provide necessary information about the authors of your submission here. Please mark the contact authors, which will be contacted for the main correspondence.

Author 1:


Name:
EMail:
Affiliation:
Webpage (optional):

Author 2:


Name:
EMail:
Affiliation:
Webpage (optional):

Author 3:


Name:
EMail:
Affiliation:
Webpage (optional):

Add Author

Conflicts of Interest

Please specify any conflicts of interests here. Conflicts of interest occur e.g. if the author and the editor are colleagues, work or worked closely together, or are relatives.

Suggestion of Editors (Optional)

You can suggest editors (with scientific background of the topics addressed in your submission) for handling your submission. The Editor-in-Chief may consider your suggestion, but may also choose another editor.

Suggestion of Reviewers (Optional)

You can suggest reviewers (with scientific background of the topics addressed in your submission) for handling your submission. The editor of your submission may consider your suggestion, but may also choose other or additional reviewers in order to guarantee an independent review process.

Reviewer 1:

Name:
EMail:
Affiliation:
Webpage (optional):

Reviewer 2:

Name:
EMail:
Affiliation:
Webpage (optional):

Reviewer 3:

Name:
EMail:
Affiliation:
Webpage (optional):

Add Reviewer

Paper upload

Please choose your manuscript file for uploading. It should be a pdf file. Please take care that your manuscript is formatted according to the templates provided by RonPub, which are available at our Author Guidelines page. Manuscripts not formatted according to our RonPub templates will be rejected without review!

If you wish that the reviewer are not aware of your name, please submit a blinded manuscript leaving out identifiable information like authors' names and affiliations.

Choose PDF file...

Chosen PDF file: none

Captcha

Please fill in the characters of the image into the text field under the image.

Captcha

Submission

For Authors

Manuscript Preparation

Authors should first read the author guidelines of the corresponding journal. Manuscripts must be prepared using the manuscript template of the respective journal. It is available as word and latex version for download at the Author Guidelines of the corresponding journal page. The template describes the format and structure of manuscripts and other necessary information for preparing manuscripts. Manuscripts should be written in English. There is no restriction on the length of manuscripts.

Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts via the submit page of the corresponding journal. Authors first submit their manuscripts in PDF format. Once a manuscript is accepted, the author then submits the revised manuscript as PDF file and word file or latex folder (with all the material necessary to generate the PDF file). The work described in the submitted manuscript must be previously unpublished; it is not under consideration for publication anywhere else. 

Authors are welcome to suggest qualified reviewers for their papers, but this is not mandatory. If the author wants to do so, please provide the name, affiliations and e-mail addresses for all suggested reviewers.

Manuscript Status

After submission of manuscripts, authors will receive an email to confirm receipt of manuscripts within a few days. Subsequent enquiries concerning paper progress should be made to the corresponding editorial office (see individual journal webpage for concrete contact information).

Review Procedure

RonPub is committed to enforcing a rigorous peer-review process. All manuscripts submitted for publication in RonPub journals are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed. When a manuscript is submitted to a RonPub journal, the editor-in-chief of the journal assigns it to an appropriate editor who will be in charge of the review process of the manuscript. The editor first suggests potential reviewers and then organizes the peer-reviewing herself/himself or entrusts it to the editor office. For each manuscript, typically three review reports will be collected. The editor and the editor-in-chief evaluate the manuscript itself and the review reports and make an accept/revision/reject decision. Authors will be informed with the decision and reviewing results within 6-8 weeks on average after the manuscript submission. In the case of revision, authors are required to perform an adequate revision to address the concerns from evaluation reports. A new round of peer-review will be performed if necessary.

Accepted manuscripts are published online immediately.

Copyrights

Authors publishing with RonPub open journals retain the copyright to their work. 

All articles published by RonPub is fully open access and online available to readers free of charge.  RonPub publishes all open access articles under the Creative Commons Attribution License,  which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction freely, provided that the original work is properly cited.

Digital Archiving Policy

Our publications have been archived and permanently-preserved in the German National Library. The publications, which are archived in the German National Library, are not only long-term preserved but also accessible in the future, because the German National Library ensures that digital data saved in the old formats can be viewed and used on current computer systems in the same way they were on the original systems which are long obsolete. Further measures will be taken if necessary. Furthermore, we also encourage our authors to self-archive their articles published on the website of RonPub.

For Editors

About RonPub

RonPub is academic publisher of online, open access, peer-reviewed journals. All articles published by RonPub is fully open access and online available to readers free of charge.

RonPub is located in Lübeck, Germany. Lübeck is a beautiful harbour city, 60 kilometer away from Hamburg.

Editor-in-Chief Responsibilities

The Editor-in-Chief of each journal is mainly responsible for the scientific quality of the journal and for assisting in the management of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief suggests topics for the journal, invites distinguished scientists to join the editorial board, oversees the editorial process, and makes the final decision whether a paper can be published after peer-review and revisions.

As a reward for the work of a Editor-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief will obtain a 25% discount of the standard publication fee for her/his papers (the Editor-in-Chief is one of authors) published in any of RonPub journals.

Editors’ Responsibilities

Editors assist the Editor-in-Chief in the scientific quality and in decision about topics of the journal. Editors are also encouraged to help to promote the journal among their peers and at conferences. An editor invites at least three reviewers to review a manuscript, but may also review him-/herself the manuscript. After carefully evaluating the review reports and the manuscript itself, the editor makes a commendation about the status of the manuscript. The editor's evaluation as well as the review reports are then sent to EiC, who make the final decision whether a paper can be published after peer-review and revisions. 

The communication with Editorial Board members is done primarily by E-mail, and the Editors are expected to respond within a few working days on any question sent by the Editorial Office so that manuscripts can be processed in a timely fashion. If an editor does not respond or cannot process the work in time, and under some special situations, the editorial office may forward the requests to the Publishers or Editor-in-Chief, who will take the decision directly.

As a reward for the work of editors, an editor will obtain a 25% discount of the standard publication fee for her/his papers (the editor is one of authors) published in any of RonPub journals.

Guest Editors’ Responsibilities

Guest Editors are responsible of the scientific quality of their special issues. Guest Editors will be in charge of inviting papers, of supervising the refereeing process (each paper should be reviewed at least by three reviewers), and of making decisions on the acceptance of manuscripts submitted to their special issue. As regular issues, all accepted papers by (guest) editors will be sent to the EiC of the journal, who will check the quality of the papers, and make the final decsion whether a paper can be published.

Our editorial office will have the right directly asking authors to revise their paper if there are quality issues, e.g. weak quality of writing, and missing information. Authors are required to revise their paper several times if necessary. A paper accepted by it's quest editor may be rejected by the EiC of the journal due to a low quality. However, this occurs only when authors do not really take efforts to revise their paper. A high-quality publication needs the common efforts from the journal, reviewers, editors, editor-in-chief and authors.

The Guest Editors are also expected to write an editorial paper for the special issue. As a reward for work, all guest editors and reviewers working on a special issue will obtain a 25% discount of the standard publication fee for any of their papers published in any of RonPub journals for one year.

Reviewers’ Responsiblity

A reviewer is mainly responsible for reviewing of manuscripts, writing reviewing report and suggesting acception or deny of manuscripts. Reviews are encouraged to provide input about the quality and management of the journal, and help promote the journal among their peers and at conferences.  

Upon the quality of reviewing work, a reviewer will have the potential to be promoted to a full editorial board member. 

As a reward for the reviewing work, a reviewer will obtain a 25% discount of the standard publication fee for her/his papers (the review is one of authors) published in any of RonPub journals.

Launching New Journals

RonPub always welcomes suggestions for new open access journals in any research area. We are also open for publishing collaborations with research societies. Please send your proposals for new journals or for publishing collaboration to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Publication Criteria

This part provides important information for both the scientific committees and authors.

Ethic Requirement:

For scientific committees: Each editor and reviewer should conduct the evaluation of manuscripts objectively and fairly.
For authors: Authors should present their work honestly without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or inappropriate data manipulation.

Pre-Check:

In order to filter fabricated submissions, the editorial office will check the authenticity of the authors and their affiliations before a peer-review begins. It is important that the authors communicate with us using the email addresses of their affiliations and provide us the URL addresses of their affiliations. To verify the originality of submissions, we use various plagiarism detection tools to check the content of manuscripts submitted to our journal against existing publications. The overall quality of paper will be also checked including format, figures, tables, integrity and adequacy. Authors may be required to improve the quality of their paper before sending it out for review. If a paper is obviously of low quality, the paper will be directly rejected.

Acceptance Criteria:

The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts are the quality of work. This will concretely be reflected in the following aspects:

  • Novelty and Practical Impact
  • Technical Soundness
  • Appropriateness and Adequacy of 
    • Literature Review
    • Background Discussion
    • Analysis of Issues
  • Presentation, including 
    • Overall Organization 
    • English 
    • Readability

For a contribution to be acceptable for publication, these points should be at least in middle level.

Guidelines for Rejection:

  • If the work described in the manuscript has been published, or is under consideration for publication anywhere else, it will not be evaluated.
  • If the work is a plagiarism, or contains data falsification or fabrication, it will be rejected.
  • Manuscripts, which have seriously technical flaws, will not be accepted.

Call for Journals

Research Online Publishing (RonPub, www.ronpub.com) is a publisher of online, open access and peer-reviewed scientific journals.  For more information about RonPub please visit this link.

RonPub always welcomes suggestions for new journals in any research area. Please send your proposals for journals along with your Curriculum Vitae to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

We are also open for publishing collaborations with research societies. Please send your publishing collaboration also to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Be an Editor / Be a Reviewer

RonPub always welcomes qualified academicians and practitioners to join as editors and reviewers. Being an editor/a reviewer is a matter of prestige and personnel achievement. Upon the quality of reviewing work, a reviewer will have the potential to be promoted to a full editorial board member.

If you would like to participate as a scientific committee member of any of RonPub journals, please send an email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with your curriculum vitae. We will revert back as soon as possible. For more information about editors/reviewers, please visit this link.

Contact RonPub

Location

RonPub UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Hiddenseering 30
23560 Lübeck
Germany

Comments and Questions

For general inquiries, please e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

For specific questions on a certain journal, please visit the corresponding journal page to see the email address.