Social Parking: Applying the Citizens as Sensors Paradigm to Parking Guidance and Information
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall I think there is some good content in here. However, I think the paper needs to be structured more clearly for readers to follow. The use of language needs to be much tighter, as many uses of informal tone make arguments seem less convincing. For example, phrases such as "To verify the goodness of our prediction algorithm" are confusing to read. The class diagrams may not need to be included, or could be presented in a more clear and engaging way. While you have some results they need to be stated more clearly as results. I think that results may be overly positive and there is limited discussion on critical limitations. There is a combination of different small studies here but I think some work needs to be done in articulating them together more convincingly.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1’s Comments
Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comments.
A revision of the paper has been produced in accordance with all the comments given by the reviewers.
A point-by-point response to every comment follows:
Point 1: The paper presents an interesting application regarding the forecast of energy demand, based on decomposition mode. Overall I think there is some good content in here. However, I think the paper needs to be structured more clearly for readers to follow.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have re-read the paper carefully and tried to explain Social Parking functioning in a more organized way. Some paragraphs have been added to Section 4 (Design and implementation), together with an explanatory figure. The ontology section has been included as a new section after the Prediction algorithm section. The ontology section has also been reduced.
Point 2: The use of language needs to be much tighter, as many uses of informal tone make arguments seem less convincing. For example, phrases such as "To verify the goodness of our prediction algorithm" are confusing to read.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the paper to avoid informal expressions when possible.
Point 3: The class diagrams may not need to be included, or could be presented in a more clear and engaging way.
Response 3: We agree with your opinion that Section 4.3 is quite difficult to read, so we have summarized the explanations about the ontology and erased most of the class diagrams. This section was also moved to a single section.
Point 4: While you have some results they need to be stated more clearly as results. I think that results may be overly positive and there is limited discussion on critical limitations.
Response 4: We highly appreciate this comment. We have extended the conclusions section with the aim of explaining and interpreting our results.
Reviewer 2 Report
line 234 : no evidence why security is improved
lines 383-384 : no explanation of how the variables are calculated
line 459 : no explanation of how weights are calculated
validation :
it is not clear how the model developed on the data referring to the city of Zaragoza have been then applied to Malaga there are no experimental results referring to Malaga, therefore the statement in lines 540-541 is very weak
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2’s Comments
Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comments.
A revision of the paper has been produced in accordance with all the comments given by the reviewers.
A point-by-point response to every comment follows:
Point 1: line 234 : no evidence why security is improved.
Response 1: This is a good consideration that is not detailed in the paper. However, it is also included in the implementation. The security is guaranteed thanks to the use of SSL connections. In order to clarify this aspect, we had added this information.
Point 2: lines 383-384 : no explanation of how the variables are calculated.
Response 2: According to the reviewer’s comment, a higher detailed explanation is provided.
Point 3: line 459 : no explanation of how weights are calculated.
Response 3: As in the previous answer, we have included a brief explanation about which are the ranges of values that the weights may have and how they are evaluated. An example of weather conditions is provided.
Point 4: validation:
it is not clear how the model developed on the data referring to the city of Zaragoza have been then applied to Malaga there are no experimental results referring to Malaga, therefore the statement in lines 540-541 is very weak.
Response 4: We agree with this reflection. In order to clarify this aspect, we have provided a new section and a new figure, that depicts the conceptual structure of the validation procedure for parking slots forecast.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
the authors have properly tackled the comments
Author Response
Thanks so much!
