The Ontological Multiplicity of Digital Heritage Objects: 3D Modelling in the Cherish Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is interesting and well-structured, neverthless some revisions are necessary:

-the specification of the reference page is not recommended

-please rephrase the long quoted sentences (es. page 4 lines 132-134)

-Figure 2: the authors have to add the captions of every image ( the second and the third seem the same) and they have to be explained also in the text above them. Moreovere, the reference in the text should not be in italic (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

-page 6 line 250: the adjective "cosmetic" is not appropriate in this context, use rather 'aesthetic' or simply "post-processing elaborations"

- note 4: can you replace it with a reference?

- in general, reduce the use of italic and quotes.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the feedback. I have addressed your suggestions in the following ways:

—I realised that I had left the specifications from the original manuscript template in reference page of the document. These have now been deleted.

— I have also done a thorough review of the document and revised specific long quoted passages in my own words. Often breaking them down into shorter sentences.

—I have addressed your concerns regarding figures 2/3 by adding more context in the captioning linking the relevance of the images to the discussion in the main text.

—I've substituted "post-processing elaborations" for "cosmetic", as suggested.

—I have opted to leave footnote 4 as is because it was not derived from a reference, but directly from my fieldwork with the Cherish Project.

—And finally, I also dramatically reduced the use of italics and quotation marks in the main body of the text.

Thank you for taking the time to read this work and for your valuable suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

In addition to the use of 3D in the 'climate change' empiricism, the article deals with the theoretical issues of 3D.

The Cherish project is described: description of the database, description of the processing, epistemological issues.

At the end of the article, it is suggested to include a conclusion chapter in which the results of the empirical research and the epistemological discussion are summarized by the authors.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to read this work and for your valuable suggestions.

As per your recommendation I have now added a summary of the article's empirical findings and theoretical framing to the beginning of the conclusion. Doing so not only provides a helpful recap for the reader, but also provides some helpful framing for the remainder of the conclusion as originally written. I attempted to keep it as tidy and concise as possible as I wanted to be mindful of word length.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper gives a strong and well argumented insight on the epistemology of digital objects. The description of the Cherish projects gives a solid example.

The text is overall clear and coherent. Articulated senstences would benefit from the use of commas.

Footnote 3 maybe could be discussed within the text.

Figure 2:  here a series and a contact sheet are mentioned. In the figure, I see 3 images, no. 1 very distant from 2 and 3, which were probably shot seconds one after the other.  I understand your point about the existing or missing relations among the images /data from the text. Still, the Figure 2 (with its caption) is not self explanatory, in my opinion.     

Line 440-442 How do their positions diverge? A brief discussion would improve the paper, since you cite them.

Line 461 produce/produced

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to read this work and for your valuable suggestions. I have now made the following adjustments to the original draft:

—I moved the discussion in footnote 3 into the body of the main text.

—I've followed your advice regarding the 2nd and 3rd figures by first removing the 3rd (and nearly identical) image from the contact sheet in figure two and by also providing more context for the figures and their correspondence to key parts of the main text.

—I included a brief discussion about the different ontologies espoused by Harman, Ingold, and Latour by making simple and concise reference to the respective differences between object oriented ontology, circulating reference, and enmeshment.

—Finally, I also addressed the typo around produce/produced.