Sufficient Networks for Computing Support of Graph Patterns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

requests

- provide more specific instances where the approach can be used

- how does the system scale to larger networks?

- some grammatical errors were found, please correct them

- Line 275 requires references

- line 255: “if C contains instances of connected patterns only”, why only? It’s not clear

- Line 142: Instance network N, for me it’s not clear what this type of network is.

- line 136- 140: Hasse diagram need more of an introduction

- How has this work been applied to databases as discussed in the title and elsewhere? Has an experiment been run with real data? If so can you please present it? At the moment this is a very theoretical discussion which is fine, but databases are not part of the methodological discussion put forward. At the moment the title is not relevant to the contents. Please either run a computational experiment using a database to present the results or change the title and abstract to suit the paper's contents. It can stay theoretical if you include database theory in the context of the graph patterns discussed.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper the author introduces a method that simplifies the process of computing support measures for patterns in graph databases.

The paper is well-written and well-organized. The content is technically sound.

The idea of searching for smaller sub-network to compute valid support measures is trivial, however, in my opinion, it is well-studied.

The proposed method completely lacks experimental evaluation. This is an important omission.
Does the proposed method indeed accelerate the computation of support measures in reality?
If no tests are made, how can we be sure that no hidden bottlenecks prevent this method from working?

Moreover, what are the limitations of this method? Does it work the same in all cases?

The conclusions section must be informative of "what we have learned" from this research and do not simply repeat the contents of the Abstract.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

please see pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

requests were addressed

Reviewer 2 Report

The author responses to my initial comments were satisfactory. The paper is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am satisfied with this new version. In my opinion, the paper is an interesting high-quality work that should be accepted and published.