An Ontology for Describing Wind Lidar Concepts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article should be published as a technical note, considering its length is somewhat short to be called a full length manuscript. If it possible, I suggest that the author expand the abstract so that readers can better understand the innovations and scientific importance of this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with the issue of unification of terminology and the creation of a glossary of terms in the field of Wind Lidar. The harmonization of technical terms in different languages is a serious problem that needs to be addressed if the technology is to be developed internationally in the future.

The manuscript has been completed and revised for which I thank the authors.

In the article (Row 103) the authors have clearly defined the objectives concerning the above-mentioned problems we may encounter.

Row 304 - 305 "In addition, each term definition is given in four languages." Which 4 languages are these?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I highly appreciate and value this initiative of providing a transparent and thorough glossary of the terms used in this domain, and also the extension to an ontology.

However, I cannot at all accept the name “Wind Lidar Ontology” for it implies a much more vast field where in particular the authors may not have the background or competence to state the terms, or where the restricted field of application (wind lidar measurement around wind turbines) might inhibit the wider formulation of such taxonomies.
Therefore, an appropriate name for this ontology should be something like “Ontology for heterodyne-detection Doppler wind lidar activities in the domain of wind turbine operation for energy harvesting”.

Despite the merit for this domain of industry-related wind turbine lidar R&D, the article is therefore of meager interest for the bigger remainder of people working with or developing wind lidar technology, be it heterodyne or direct-detection Doppler wind lidar (the latter term for instance not mentioned a single time despite a very successful recent space mission).
Therefore I think the title of and also the description within the intended publication is somewhat misleading.

 

Therefore, I have to advise:

o   The editor / journal manager should consider if this article is applicable as appearing within RS.
It is clearly not a research article. However, it contains some merit for a certain domain (industry-related wind turbine lidar R&D).

o   A major revision has primarily to include the adaptation of the title of this publication, the name of the ontology and its description within the text.

o   A more clear differentiation to other use fields (regarding application field, like meteorology, etc.) of Doppler wind lidar, heterodyne, direct-detection and others (regarding technology) is needed.

 

Author Response

see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with the issue of the unification of terminology and the Wind Lidar agreement.

Comments:

I would like to see a more detailed theoretical description of the issues related to Wind Lidar technology.

At the end of the first section, the structure of the paper is described. It would be useful to add to this section a clear scientific aim of the research and then divide it into steps.

Are your suggestions for terminology available for languages other than English? 

How is the translation into other languages addressed/arranged?

I would recommend adding direct outputs and examples of, for example, searches for specialist terms to the results section.

 

Author Response

see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on an ontology for describing wind lidar concepts. It is proposed to overview and arrange wind lidar concepts and information. There are no any remote sensing techniques presented in it. It's contribution is in lidar knowledge, not lidar technology. Therefore, it does not suit this journal.

Author Response

see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally, as a technical note, this manuscript seems to fall within the scope of Remote Sensing. However, this manuscript seems to be organized in a way that focuses too much on the data format and online accessibility.  My major concerns were listed as follows,

1.       The abstract lacks quantitative features of the wind Lidar detection. So, it may fail to attract the readers.

2.       I suggest the authors to try to highlight the essential principles, theories, and practice of wind detection using the Lidar instruments and platforms.

3.       The authors need to answer the question that how many academic groups and industrial entities achieve an industry-wide consensus on wind lidar concepts and terminology? And what academic groups and industrial entities are the major contributors to develop these well-documented concepts and terminology?

4.       Since there have been more than 200 terms and concepts for Wind Lidar Ontology, then a framework with sequential categories containing these terms and concepts should be established.

5.       Contrasting examples on the practical application of terms and concepts, including the results of well-organized and messily-organized framework with sequential categories, should be analyzed and discussed.

6.       Finally, innovations of the design and novelty of the findings must be highlighted.

 

 

Author Response

see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf