critique

Thanks a lot Jordon for helping reviews. Response in-line and I am sorry for many typos and silly errors Hi Prithu,

Impressive work! Here is my feedback:

General

• Some proofreading would be good, but in general the grammar issues don't impact readability.

Ontology and Aggregation

• You state that two concepts are depicted in the figure, yet there are many more than that; it may confuse some readers.
• You state "dish has an influence for restaurant, following the opposite direction in the ontology connecting them", but the arrow goes from dish to restaurant; wouldn't that be the same direction?

Fixed the whole business with a better figure. Hope that would help Proposed framework

• Regarding the annotation of overall review sentiment - is that annotation performed by humans? You have a human graphic on the model but say you use a sentiment analyzer, so I'm not sure where the automated part ends and the human-annotated part begins.

Ya there are two parts. First to identify sentiment at each sentence, this is automated by analyser. However for experiment we need ground truth on aggregated sentiment. This is where human intervention needed. I added a section explaining it. Hope that would clarify Aspect Sentiment Annotation

• Who is Bing Liu?

Cited now :-). He is not as popular as me, I forgot that ;-) Results

• Using bold font for the "winning" values would make the results tables easier to read.

Ya. Will do the painful but useful type-setting :D