Land Characterization System Software: Implementing Land Cover Ontology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Land cover significantly influences land system changes. Based on ISO 19144-2 standards, the manuscript seeks to enhance the accuracy, coordination, and standardization of land cover classification by developing a data-driven, open framework for the Land Cover Harmonization System (LCHS). This framework aims to refine the land cover classification system and boost classification accuracy, offering a standardized and user-friendly solution. However, from the perspective of readers and researchers, certain issues need addressing.

1. the manuscript should more prominently address specific scientific challenges and improvement strategies. While it suggests systematic enhancements, the precise issues and whether these improvements are novel remain unclear. The document primarily discusses the software's design background and use cases. It would be beneficial for the authors to concentrate on how the software's design enhances land cover classification accuracy, the advanced methodologies employed, the comparative advancements over other systems, and the extent of problem resolution. Highlighting the scientific queries addressed and shifting the manuscript's focus to a problem-solving approach is advisable.

2. concerning the manuscript's structure, reorganizing it to follow the logical sequence of introduction, materials and methods, research findings, and discussion would allow readers to easily grasp the study's outcomes and its practical value.

3. the section on software architecture presented in lines 216-275 could be expanded to include more than just the client, server, and configuration details. It's recommended to enhance this by outlining the software's overall framework and providing a detailed description of each component's functionality.

The manuscript's quality of English is generally clear and appropriate. However, some transitions between sentences and ideas appear somewhat abrupt, and certain specialized terms can be improved by more additional context.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the time and effort invested in analyzing the manuscript.

Below, we have provided a point-by-point response to the concerns expressed in the paper.

Question 1. the manuscript should more prominently address specific scientific challenges and improvement strategies. While it suggests systematic enhancements, the precise issues and whether these improvements are novel remain unclear. The document primarily discusses the software's design background and use cases. It would be beneficial for the authors to concentrate on how the software's design enhances land cover classification accuracy, the advanced methodologies employed, the comparative advancements over other systems, and the extent of problem resolution. Highlighting the scientific queries addressed and shifting the manuscript's focus to a problem-solving approach is advisable.

Answer 1.

The manuscript has been thoughtfully revised. As a side effect of these changes, the introduction section better highlights novelty claims. As further detailed in the discussion section, while LCHS itself does not include any real classification algorithms aimed at addressing topics such as classification accuracy, it is the combined effect of the software design and implementation, the underlying ontology used, and the data exchange with an increasing number of tools that aims at achieving results that are better than the sum of its parts. In this schema, the software becomes how the perceived complexity of LCML is addressed, hinting at the advantages of such a choice and the required efforts involved in the long run.

Question 2

concerning the manuscript's structure, reorganizing it to follow the logical sequence of introduction, materials and methods, research findings, and discussion would allow readers to grasp the study's outcomes and its practical value easily.

Answer 2

We have rearranged the manuscript to follow the flow suggested by the reviewer. As a by-product of the new organization, also taking inspiration from comments of other reviewers, we have added new material, especially in the discussion session, hinting at a series of advantages that using LCHS and LCML provides, with some already available and some requiring additional efforts, also detailed in the conclusion and future work, to reach their full potential.

Question 3.

the section on software architecture presented in lines 216-275 could be expanded to include more than just the client, server, and configuration details. It's recommended to enhance this by outlining the software's overall framework and providing a detailed description of each component's functionality.

Answer 3

The section has been revised, but a broader rearrangement means some parts may have been moved elsewhere. The changes aim at being more readable to a wider audience by “hiding” some technicalities and also by explaining better why some choices were made, and what repercussions have. For example, React is chosen instead of other frameworks. Additional details about the graphical representation notation have been added as well.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper introduces the topic of the ontologies in defining LC taxonomies along with the development of a tool (LCHL) for supporting LCML ontology. The topic is very interesting and the tool can represent an useful support in the expression of LC classes for both in-field campaigns and mapping from remote (e.g., by using satellite data) trying to address the exigence to adopt objective and exhaustive descriptions of LC classes by providing a common methodology.

Nonetheless there some weakness in the paper, as it is, that must be reinforced.

First of all, the paper shows a two-fold problem:

1) it is not organized according to the standard scientific paper format
as introduction-methodology-results-discussion-conclusion so, please, try to re-organized the different paragraphes according to a well-structured manner to guide the reader in a clear understanding. Furthermore, the presence of too many paragraphs needs to be reduced. Paragraphs 3 and 4 should be merged into Methodology paragraph, defining the user's requirements sub-paragraph, as it is the analysis preliminarly followed before designing and development of the tool. Another sub-paragraph should be the LCHS architecture;

2) English language needs to be carefully revised with many espressions to be rediting as they seem to belong to the spoken language starting from the title: I could suggest "The land characterization system software: implementing the land cover ontology".

Furthermore:

a) What is the novelty of the paper needs to be highlighted in the Introduction also compared to the state of the art against which you are proposing an innovative tool and supported with evidences in an appropriate discussion section. Are there any other similar tools, if yes how do they approach the topic? Indeed References are rather few and need to be enriched;

b) Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 should be moved to the description of the architecture;

c) Different parts of paragraphs 5 and 6 should become the Discussion paragraph in which the strenghts of the tool must be highlighted.

c) Examples of the application of the tool for characterizing different LC classes description must be provided in comparison with other mostly used taxonomies (e.g., for an olive groove what will be its description by LCHL, Corine etc). You could provide examples of applications for users on the ground or devoted to observe LC by remote sensing data; performance and implications of the approach for considering applications at different working scale (i.d., at field scale rather than at single tree scale). These considerations should be addressed in the Results paragraph.

c) Did you validate the tool's outcomes in some way; did you receive any feedbacks from user's from different domains?

Considering the need to address all these different issues the paper needs major revisions before its publication.

English language needs to be carefully revised with many espressions to be rediting as they belong to the spoken language.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. We hope to have addressed the concerns properly. Some suggestions, like the comparison with CORINE, have been considered and addressed. Indeed, almost all the discussion aims at better framing the role of LCHS and LCML, and how the (additional) efforts required to have classes coded in LCML can have profound consequences, now or in the foreseeable future.

Below, we have provided a point-by-point response to the concerns expressed in the paper.

Question 1

it is not organized according to the standard scientific paper format
as introduction-methodology-results-discussion-conclusion so, please, try to re-organized the different paragraphes according to a well-structured manner to guide the reader in a clear understanding. Furthermore, the presence of too many paragraphs needs to be reduced. Paragraphs 3 and 4 should be merged into Methodology paragraph, defining the user's requirements sub-paragraph, as it is the analysis preliminarly followed before designing and development of the tool. Another sub-paragraph should be the LCHS architecture;

Answer 1

The manuscript has been thoughtfully revised. As a side effect of these changes, the introduction section better highlights novelty claims. As further detailed in the discussion section, while LCHS itself does not include any real classification algorithms aimed at addressing topics such as classification accuracy, it is the combined effect of the software design and implementation, the underlying ontology used, and the data exchange with an increasing number of tools that aims at achieving results that are better than the sum of its parts. In this schema, the software becomes the way in which the perceived complexity of LCML is addressed, hinting at the advantages of such a choice and the required efforts involved, in the long run.

Question 2

English language needs to be carefully revised with many espressions to be rediting as they seem to belong to the spoken language starting from the title: I could suggest "The land characterization system software: implementing the land cover ontology".

Answer 2

Title has been updated. The rest of the manuscript has been checked.

Question 3

What is the novelty of the paper needs to be highlighted in the Introduction also compared to the state of the art against which you are proposing an innovative tool and supported with evidences in an appropriate discussion section. Are there any other similar tools, if yes how do they approach the topic? Indeed References are rather few and need to be enriched;

Answer 3

We express appreciation for this comment. We acknowledge they were not clearly stated enough. However, from our understanding, expressing them without considering the underlying ISO standard and possible alternatives, such as CLC (a de facto standard), is hugely challenging. We have enhanced the manuscript with a revised introduction, focusing on these novelties better.

Question 4

Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 should be moved to the description of the architecture;

Answer 4

This has been done as part of a broader restructuring. Additional figures and tables have been added to make some parts more readable.

Question 5

Different parts of paragraphs 5 and 6 should become the Discussion paragraph in which the strenghts of the tool must be highlighted.

Answer 5

A discussion section has been added. Most of the contents are related to Question 6, but additional “food for thought” is present as well. We hope this goes in the hinted direction.

Question 6

Examples of the application of the tool for characterizing different LC classes description must be provided in comparison with other mostly used taxonomies (e.g., for an olive groove what will be its description by LCHL, Corine etc). You could provide examples of applications for users on the ground or devoted to observe LC by remote sensing data; performance and implications of the approach for considering applications at different working scale (i.d., at field scale rather than at single tree scale). These considerations should be addressed in the Results paragraph.

Answer 6

We are very grateful for this suggestion. In the introduction and methodology sections, we tried to clarify that LCML is not a direct competitor of CLC, instead is a way to harmonise different taxonomies and enhance interoperability. In our experience, with the right effort, it is able to provide a “better picture” of the LC class being described.

We used this to propose a “tutorial” on the way CLC classes can be converted in LCML. The process certainly requires some effort, but there are benefits to this. 

We hope this will be of help in better understanding LCML and LCHS.

Question 7

Did you validate the tool's outcomes in some way; did you receive any feedbacks from user's from different domains?

Answer 7

The software has gone through a quality assurance and quality control process. To the best of the authors' knowledge, FAO did not proceed with a follow-up questionnaire; therefore, there is a need for a more rigorous discussion on this, but unfortunately, it cannot be addressed here and now. However, some internal feedback has pointed out that integrations with other tools, such as LCMLUtils and the similarity assessment, initially devised to work with LCCS3, are essential, and they need to be updated for the new version of the standard and better interfacing with LCHS. Conclusion and future work have been revised to highlight this better as well. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper introduces the application, named Land Characterization System (LCHS), supporting matching of different land cover classification system. It is based on ISO standard 1919144-2 Land Cover Meta Language (LCML). I find the topic of the article interesting and important from both a scientific and practical point of view, especially when SDI is concerned.

However, before publication the minor improvement is needed.

(1)   The introduction lacks examples describing the problems of using land cover data with different classification systems and legends. In my opinion such examples would help to understand the nature of the problem.

(2)   The issue of scale or data sources is also not addressed, and it is worth mentioning whether they have any relevance to land cover data matching.

(3)   The Conclusions and Future Work section does not contain any conclusions, but cites some opinions that should be included in the discussion, which is missing.

(4)   The literature cited is very modest, contains only 13 items, although publications on the subject are plentiful.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the feedback provided. Regrettably, we were unable to meet them promptly due to being preoccupied with ongoing revisions and time constraints.

Nonetheless, changes should address most of the questions. In particular, the changes made can help provide a clear picture of topics related to Q1 and Q3. The manuscript has also been considerably refactored. The introduction states better the novelties. The results have been revised for clarity. A new part appears in the discussion, with a practical example of a CORINE land cover class converted in LCML using the LCHS tool.

There are some hints answering to Q2. LCML can generally be used with remote sensing or field data. Given its expressive power, the authors think it is more suited to describe data at a higher resolution than other solutions but can be used in many situations.

More detailed information can be found in the references, which have been expanded, hopefully going in the direction pointed out in Q4.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made significant revisions to the manuscript, adding a wealth of valuable information and making beneficial efforts. The revised manuscript now more detailedly presents the software implementation framework of the Land Characterization System (LCHS) they proposed, with a clearer explanation of the software's design objectives and component relationships. Through the manuscript and software development progress, the authors have demonstrated their grand determination to simplify and standardize the generation of land cover class.

However, from an academic writing perspective, the manuscript lacks a clear logical structure and the necessary elements such as subtitles to guide the reader. I suggest that the authors carefully comb through the software's features and display the technical process in the Methodology section. In the Results section, results should be reorganized based on the software's features to showcase the key transformative content. Additionally, I recommend that the authors meticulously handle figures and their captions, providing clear problem directions.

The manuscript has minor issues with colloquialism that need to be addressed.

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the recognition of the efforts to improve the manuscript. It would have been in vain had our efforts been misdirected. We sincerely thank the reviewer for providing constructive feedback that has enabled us to refine the manuscript. Nearly all of the additional insights have contributed to shaping the new revision, with the exception addressed in A1.

Q1

[…] However, from an academic writing perspective, the manuscript lacks a clear logical structure and the necessary elements such as subtitles to guide the reader. I suggest that the authors carefully comb through the software's features and display the technical process in the Methodology section. In the Results section, results should be reorganized based on the software's features to showcase the key transformative content. 

A1

The manuscript has undergone revisions to address remaining typos. Additionally, small changes and tweaks have been implemented to enhance readability, such as using synonyms to vary terminology that appeared frequently in a short span. Given the length of the methodology sections and the presence of a brief summary of its topics at the end of the introduction directly preceding it, the authors opted not to use subtitles or other modifications within the methodology section. Conversely, the authors acknowledged the necessity of introducing subtitles in the longer results section.

Q2

Additionally, I recommend that the authors meticulously handle figures and their captions, providing clear problem directions.

A2

Captions have been revised. Short captions have been expanded for providing more contextual information.

Q3

The manuscript has minor issues with colloquialism that need to be addressed.

A3

Thank you for bringing up the issue regarding colloquialism in the manuscript. We have made efforts to address this concern, focusing on minimizing the use of colloquial language. While we acknowledge that some aspects may still require attention, we have taken steps to improve the overall tone and formality of the text. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

the paper has been significantly improved: all the concerns correctly addressed according to the suggestions. Please, add the caption for Figure 6 which is missing, thereafter the paper is ready for its publication by myside.

Author Response

Q1

Dear authors,

the paper has been significantly improved: all the concerns correctly addressed according to the suggestions. Please, add the caption for Figure 6 which is missing, thereafter the paper is ready for its publication by myside.

A1

The authors greatly appreciate the recognition of the efforts to improve the manuscript. We sincerely thank the reviewer for providing constructive feedback that has enabled us to elevate it. 

Captions have been revised and special care has been taken in enhancing Figure 6 subtext.