Graph Stream Compression Scheme Based on Pattern Dictionary Using Provenance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for your attentive indications and good comments. We tried to do our best to reflect your comments. Please refer to the attached file and revised manuscript about the detailed revisions.

Many thanks.

Jaesoo Yoo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well done. The advantage  of investigation is that proposed method is working in real time with real huge graphs. There are many experiments are presented.  The investigation has significant practical value. The disadvantage is that the plots are presented results unclearly.

There are such notice

1. the figure 1 is trivial and can be omitted.

2.it is unclear what it is parameter   𝛾 = 1, see line 323.

3. Table 2 is completely unclear and need more detail description.

What means the column Ours with all values 100?

4. In table 4 in column Average processing time should be added the dimension

5. Figure 8 shows the advantages of proposed algorithm poorly. It would be better to choose the other kind of plot for comparison.

6. Figure 9 needs more details description.

After small review the article can be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for your attentive indications and good comments. We tried to do our best to reflect your comments. Please refer to the attached file and revised manuscript about the detailed revisions.

Many thanks.

Jaesoo Yoo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper adresses a valid and up-to-date problem of research and practice (that is, the storage and transmission of large volumes of graph stream data, reflecting the changes of various type made to the graphs).

The description of relevant work is incomplete. There are only two graph compression methods described with adequate detail (StarZip and GraphZip). Few others are only mentioned. Some of the published graph compression methods (e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025519308308 , https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-27653-3_22 , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025524001233 ) are completely ignored. I suggest extending the list of reported graph compression methods with new sources and deepening the description of methods which are most related to the one presented in the paper. There are also 3 self-references which are questionable, especially that the contributions of these papers are not actually reported with sufficient detail. I suggest reducing the number of self-references unless each of these papers brings something new and important (then, please elaborate on that).

Moreover, the reference [11] is incomplete (I guess an URL is missing; besides, is it really necessary considering there is reference [22] included as well?).

 

The algorithm of the new method is presented with accurate detail, but not its implementation and test reports:

1) there is no information at all on how the method was implemented (what language, what libraries) (Table 1 lists some software with version numbers but there is no specification what these are used for - the tested implementation of the method or merely the testing scripts)

2) there is no information at all whether the implementation is open source (and accessible at where) or its source code is available from the authors upon request (if not - why?)

3) the main text is missing any mention of the appendix in which the sources of the test files are given; also it would be good to add some explanation regarding why these particular sets were chosen for the tests other than there are frequently used (like: are they versatile? of different sizes?)

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for your attentive indications and good comments. We tried to do our best to reflect your comments. Please refer to the attached file and revised manuscript about the detailed revisions.

Many thanks.

 

Jaesoo Yoo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the corrections.

All my remarks were more or less addressed.

One thing particularly missing is at least rudimentary information about source code unavailability in the paper (I got it in the answer to reviews, but the reader will not be able to read it). It is not a must, but please consider adding it at the editing stage.

Nonetheless, the paper is acceptable in the current form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your good comments. 

Please refer to the attached file about the response to your comments.

I hope you can accept our paper as it is.

Many thanks.

Jaesoo Yoo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf