DogOnt as a viable seed for semantic modeling of AEC/FM

This manuscript was submitted as 'Ontology Description' and should be reviewed along the following dimensions: (1) Quality and relevance of the described ontology (convincing evidence must be provided). (2) Illustration, clarity and readability of the describing paper, which shall convey to the reader the key aspects of the described ontology.
Overall Comments
This paper is much improved over the original submission. It now clearly shows the important contribution that DogONT has made and continues to make in the FM/AEC domain. It is interesting to learn its central role in the development of SAREF. All comments have been addressed satisfactorily for this reviewer.

The paper nicely places DogONT in relation to other relevant ontologies, and also gives a nice review of the different types of approaches for modelling both electrical and thermal energy for managing smart buildings and environments. It provides a well explained device model, and gives methods and possible extensions for linking with environment models.

The walk through is clear, and I believe a valuable contribution again to the community, as it provides a clear methodology for applying DogONT for a particular use case (single metering plug).

The paper also explores mappings between Building Environment and City/District, which I believe makes another nice contribution.

Minor comments

I wonder maybe if it would be good to provide a separation between the introduction and the description of DogONT, for example at the top of column 2 on page 2? Or perhaps move it to section 3, and just briefly mention it in the intro? The introduction otherwise is very long.

With respect to SSN, would be good to mention more recent developments, like SOSA.

An OWL version of CityGML does exist - http://vgibox.eu/repository/index.php/CityGML_in_OWL

Minor typos

Abstract –
"make difficult" -> "make it difficult"
Introduction section
"aiming at addressing" -> "aims to address"
"This allows to" -> suggested change: "This supports"
Ontology-based AEC/FM modeling
Electrical sub-domain section
"Among the others" -> suggested change: "Among these"
"energy consumption modeling and representation" -> "energy consumption, modeling and representation"

Environment modelling section
“builing, storey room” -> typo
“Let assume” -> Lets assume
“let consider” -> lets

I have carefully read the authors rebuttal and the updated version of their paper. They have satisfactorily processed the remarks of the reviewers, clarifying the relation of DogOnt to SAREF and updating the paper with the latest specifications of SAREF and its extensions to the energy and building domains (however, see below how to correctly refer to the corresponding ETSI specifications). I confirm my already positive evaluation and recommend the paper for publication.

Please, correct references [15, 21, 22] as follows:

Reference [15]:
1) TS 103 264 is an ETSI Technical Specification, not a Technical Report, and it was released in March 2017, not in November 2017. Please replace “ TS 103 264 SmartM2M, Smart Appliances, Reference Ontology and oneM2M Mapping. Technical report, ETSI, November 2017” with “TS 103 264 SmartM2M; Smart Appliances; Reference Ontology and oneM2M Mapping. Technical Specification, ETSI, March 2017”
2) the link to TS 103 264 is not working (it currently points at http://www.etsi.org/deliver/, please make sure that it points out to the correct location, i.e., http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103200_103299/103264/02.01.01_60/ts_...)

Reference [21]:
1) TS 103 410-1 is an ETSI Technical Specification, not a Technical Report. Please replace “SAREF for Energy (SAREF4ENER): TS 103 410-1 SmartM2M; Smart Appliances Extension to SAREF; Part 1: Energy Domain. Technical report, ETSI, 2017.” with “SAREF for Energy (SAREF4ENER): TS 103 410-1 SmartM2M; Smart Appliances Extension to SAREF; Part 1: Energy Domain. Technical Specification, ETSI, 2017”
2) the link to TS 103 410-1 is not working (it currently points at http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/, please make sure that it points out to the correct location, i.e., http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103400_103499/10341001/01.01.01_60/t...)

Reference [22]:
1) TS 103 410-3 is an ETSI Technical Specification, not a Technical Report. Please replace “SAREF for Building (SAREF4BLDG): TS 103 410-3 SmartM2M; Smart Appliances Extension to SAREF; Part 3: Building Domain. Technical report, ETSI, 2017.” with “SAREF for Building (SAREF4BLDG): TS 103 410-3 SmartM2M; Smart Appliances Extension to SAREF; Part 3: Building Domain. Technical Specification, ETSI, 2017”
2) the link to TS 103 410-3 is wrong and also not working (it currently points at http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/, please make sure that it points out to the correct location, i.e., http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103400_103499/10341003/01.01.01_60/t...)

This manuscript was submitted as 'Ontology Description' and should be reviewed along the following dimensions: (1) Quality and relevance of the described ontology (convincing evidence must be provided). (2) Illustration, clarity and readability of the describing paper, which shall convey to the reader the key aspects of the described ontology.

This is my secon review for this paper. Comparing to its first version the authors made improvements: the purposes of the ontology application has been described, the expressivity of the DL
used for the ontology specification has been stated.

Still the weakness of the paper is the evaluation. However, as long as the authors declare the task of ontology application "integration and reconciliation of different specifications " , the section 4 is de facto an evaluation, though the evaluative intension could be more clear at this place.

The paper is written very clear. It s good understandable. Examples are illustrative. Graphics supplement and illustrate the text. I suggest "accept".

One minor suggestion: on the page 10 the enumeration point 6. I would rather write "objects" instead of "instances".