Enhancing Intangible Cultural Heritage through Ontology: the BISTÌRIS Model for Sardinian Traditional Costumes

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for their carefull consideration of my remarks. I feel that overall most of the critical points have been adequately addressed including through significant extensions of the original work. While I address specific points below, I believe that this now results in a significantly improved paper that could be happily accepted for publication in the special issue.

- Regarding the limited evaluation and lessons learned from the qualitative evalution: the authors present an extended discussion on underrepresented classes in S4.2. They also present a relevant and significant user study in S4.4 which I feel is a valuable addition to the paper and significantly forwards the argument for impact in the community.

- Regarding the identification of the scientific contribution to the field of SW. Although I still feel that this might be the weakest point of the paper for me, I do appreciate the additional clarification of the authors that there are indeed lessons learned for situations where the "interplay of material, structural, and socio-symbolic dimensions" are at play. Also the addition of subsection 5.1 and the evaluation further support the contribution.

- Section 5.1 is definitely a good way of addressing my concern about reusability. I feel this point is also well addressed in the updated version.

- The decision for the upper level split based on gender is well-argued.
- Also the point about the ontological commitment is well-explained now and I think makes more sense to me now.

- The (partial) alignment to CIDOC and AAT is well-appreciated

All in all, I think the paper is much improved and I would recommend to accept the paper in its current form.

This manuscript was submitted as 'full paper' and should be reviewed along the usual dimensions for research contributions which include (1) originality, (2) significance of the results, and (3) quality of writing. Please also assess the data file provided by the authors under “Long-term stable URL for resources”. In particular, assess (A) whether the data file is well organized and in particular contains a README file which makes it easy for you to assess the data, (B) whether the provided resources appear to be complete for replication of experiments, and if not, why, (C) whether the chosen repository, if it is not GitHub, Figshare or Zenodo, is appropriate for long-term repository discoverability, and (4) whether the provided data artifacts are complete. Please refer to the reviewer instructions and the FAQ for further information.

This is the second round of reviewing I do for this paper. In general, I think the paper has improved significantly from its previous version, especially in terms of evaluation and usage (e.g. by adding sections 4.4 and 5.1).

It terms of originality (1), not much has changed and I stick with my previous remark: While this is a very specific and thus original use case, I think it is of interest to the readers of this special issue, because it is a typical example of a KG problem where developers try hard to reuse existing standards as much as possible, but also need to go beyond what the standards cover, in order to meet the requirements of the use case

In terms of significance (2), I still think the method used to construct the Competency Questions could have been elaborated more, but the new evaluation and cross-domain usage sections have significantly improved this part of the paper.

In terms of writing quality (3), I thought the previous version was fine and has been even improved in this version. I have not rechecked the available data resources in depth. Looking at the git log, many updates have been made and the RDF seems to have improved significantly in the 2.0 release.

I have carefully evaluated the revised version of the manuscript and the authors’ detailed responses to the reviewer(s) comments. The authors have adequately addressed all the points raised in the initial review (both major and minor comments). The authors’ revisions have improved the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript. The additional text incorporated into the manuscript have strengthened the methodological approach of the work presented. I therefore recommend acceptance of the manuscript in its current form and for publication in the journal.