Review Comment:
The paper addresses a problem that is relevant both from scientific and industrial perspective.
The proposed approach is well fitting in the scope of the SWJ journal, even though more experiments would be beneficial to show how the WiseNET system can be actually applied and give added value compared to alternative and already existing solutions. If some modules of the architecture are still under development, then the authors could at least define some scenarios and KPIs to be evaluated in the future.
Moreover, the authors should further highlight which are the actual novel contributions beyond the state of the art with respect of the various modules of the proposed approach.
Some concepts and goals are repeated along the article. It would make sense to formalize them at the beginning of the paper and then reference them.
An overall graphical representation of the architecture to show how the ontology modules are integrated is missing (cf. table 2).
Are the classes and properties in Tables 3 and 4 novel definitions of the WiseNET ontology? It is suggested to include the prefix to avoid misunderstanding. Moreover, it should be better explained why the WiseNET ontology redefines part of the content of ifcowl (e.g. properties “aggregates”, “spaceContains”). Why isn’t it enough to extract a fragment of ifcowl and use it in integration with other ontology modules? This would allow to skip a few query+update steps in the proposed methodology.
The query update examples for sect.6.2 are missing. This part is probably even more interesting and relevant than what is shown in listings 4 and 5
Further comments:
- It is not appropriate to include a link in the abstract
- A reference could be placed when WiseNET is mentioned the first time in Sect.1
- In page 3, [10] is not the most proper reference about IFC EXPRESS to OWL. In addition to [30], also the paper Pauwels et al. 2017 (“Enhancing the ifcOWL ontology with an alternative representation for geometric data”) can be considered, since it includes the final version of ifcowl approved by bSI.
- In page 3, the sentence “Currently, ontologies are represented using OWL-2 language…” is not correct since OWL-2 is not the only ontology language available.
- Page 5, [28] is not the appropriate reference to ifcowl. Consider [30] and Pauwels et al. 2017.
- Section 3.2 can be made shorted since its contribution to the paper is quite limited.
- Fig.4 is included before Fig.3
- Sect.5. Actually, ifcowl is just the ontology T-box and it does not include proper instances. It is suggested to use IFC-RDF graph (or something else) when referring to the instances. This means also that querying the ifcowl instances are not returned (cf. sect.6.1.)
- Sect.5. The use of the term “compliance check” while just looking at which classes are instantiated is a bit misleading.
- Sect.5.2. The prefix “inst” is a pure convention related to the IFC-to-RDF conversion and is not defined in the ifcowl ontology.
- Listing 3. For completeness, also the inverse properties of ifcowl:relatingObject_IfcRelDecomposes ifcowl:relatedObjects_IfcRelDecomposes should be considered in the query.
- Listing 3. The query may return bindings with ?elementType=owl:NamedIndividual, therefore it would be better to add a FILTER like in Question2 of Listing 6.
- Fig.5. It’s a bit strange that a property of the a door (key system) is entered in the Camera Setup GUI. It is indeed an extension of what is converted from the IFC file.
- Listing 5. The query can be made more compact by exploiting “,”, avoiding to unnecessarily repeat rdf:type.
- Listing 5. Why is DUL:hasLocation used instead of what can be already found in ifcowl?
- Listing 6. Question 2. A semi-colon should go after ?x instead of a dot.
- Listing 6. Question 3. No need to specify a time stamp?
The paper is well structured and the use of English language is generally good, but it must be improved. There are errors and typos throughout the paper, including grammatical and wrong lexical choices. Here are some examples:
- Page 4, column 1, line 10, “unify” in place of “unified”
- Page 4, column 1, line 14, “where” in place of “were”
- Several times the word “fusion” is used as a verb, but it is a noun (cf. page 4, 17)
- Page 4, column 1, “warrants” in place of “warranties”
- Page 5, col 1, “interoperability between” in place of “interoperability among”
- Page 8, col 2, “focus on” in place of “focus in”
- Page 9, col 1, “inserting it into the” in place of “insert it to”
- Page 9, col 2, “people are” in place of “people is”
- Page 9, col 2, “may have occurred” in place of “may occurred”
- “consist on” is wrong, either use “consist of” or “consist in”, depending on the meaning (cf. pages 10, 13, 15)
- Page 10, col 2, “contained in” in place of “contained on”
- Page 15, 17, “especially” in place of “specially”
- Page 15, “it satisfies” in place of “it satisfy”
- Page 15, to clarify “the devices utilize”, maybe it should be “devices utilized”
- Page 15, “does not need” in place of “does not needs”
- Several errors in the final paragraphs of sect.7.
|