Reviewer has chosen not to be AnonymousOverall Impression:
AcceptTechnical Quality of the paper:
Limited noveltyData availability:
All used and produced data are FAIR and openly available in established data repositoriesLength of the manuscript:
The length of this manuscript is about right
Summary of paper in a few sentences (summary of changes and improvements for
second round reviews):
The paper gives an overview of stream reasoning mainly from a semantic web perspective, but also from related areas.
Reasons to accept:
The authors have incorporated the previous reviews in a good manner. There are some minor language things to improve, but besides that it is good as is.
Reasons to reject:
No real reasons to reject.
p1: "large background knowledge", knowledge can not be large, use some other adjective
p3: "The research of that years on KR ... relevant inputs on that direction", rewrite, maybe to "The research of those years on KR ... relevant inputs in that direction."
p3: "technique able" -> "techniques able"
p3: "suggests this" -> "suggest this"
p5: Several window operators exist, maybe refer to Beck et als logical characterization of windows.
p5: "Basic graph patterns" all other places you write "basic graph patterns"
p6: "possible possible" -> "possible"
p6: "that in SPARQL" -> "which in SPARQL"
p9: "advantages much advantages" -> "much advantages"
p10: I believe our MTL-based stream reasoning approach would also fit in the section on stream level entailment.
p10: "rises" -> "raises"
p10: "to easy the" -> "to ease the"
p10: "It makes a" -> "It takes a"
p11: "integration with" -> "integration of"
p11: "we can review" -> "we review"
p11: "outline the" -> "outline"
p13: "to the graph theory" -> "to graph theory"
p13: "windows mechanisms DSMSs" remove some s's, maybe "window mechanisms in DSMSs"
p14: "investigation" -> "investigations"
p15: "be usually" -> "usually be"
p17: "such as However"
p18: "be only" -> "only be"
p19: "be usually" -> "usually be"
p19: You hypothesize an upper bound on resource usages I believe it has been proven for several different logics.
Reference  and  are the same.
Reference  and  have the same first author and should be sorted together.