ERSDMM: A Standard Digitalization Modeling Method for Emergency Response Based on Knowledge Graph

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. There needs to be an explicit research objective(s) stated, preferably as a separate section. This helps readers find out what the research is trying to address.

2. The research status quo is insufficient, the unique characteristics and shortcomings of the existing methods for summarizing the direction of the subject are not summarized, and the difference between the authors’ work and the existing methods are not reflected.

3. Highlights of this manuscript should be further refined (i.e., what is unique about your research). It is only a general description and does not reflect the details of highlights.

4.Please review the standard digitalization modeling method for emergency response articles on similar topics to get some insights on manuscript structure, presentation, and level of research.

5.This article explains vaguely the Structured Standard Module in Figure 1.Content Decomposition, Process Decomposition, and Business Decomposition are not described below.

6. Figure 6 is not clearly marked. For example, what does the light green unit mean? And the author uses BIO sequence annotation, and there is no legend annotation in the figure.

7. Section 3.4.1 is not written into the general framework of Figure 1, and the knowledge match and other contents in Figure 7 of this section are not explained in the text.

8. Figure 8 Step 2: Match the scene knowledge with the decomposed standard knowledge. The authors didn't explain how to match in detail. In this part, four steps are used to achieve this, and the contents of matching strategy and knowledge relevance in the second and third steps are less explained.

9. In Figure 9, the rectangle box with yellow line and white background has no legend, and the yellow line box above is not connected with any entity.

10. This paper constructs the structured and unstructured ontology models of ERS, and finally proposes a reorganization model for emergency scenario response. These models are not evaluated, so the quality are unknown.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

well revised.