An Advanced Open Land Use Database as a Resource to Address Destination Earth Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The description and methodology used in the database implementation is very detailed. The multi-temporal view and multiscale data processing possibilities are very interesting.

Author Response

"The description and methodology used in the database implementation is very detailed. The multi-temporal view and multiscale data processing possibilities are very interesting."

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

 This is a very interesting, well-written manuscript and focuses on a topic of sure interest for the readership of the Land Journal. It is generally well structured. However, it has some unclear issues. Please see the following list of general and specific comments:

 

- In the introduction explain better the research gaps for your research.

 

- What are the innovative contributions of your manuscript to science? (This needs to be clearer in your manuscript).

 

- The methodology needs more explanations regarding alternative approaches.

 

- The discussion should compare the results achieved in this study with the results achieved by other similar studies.

 

- Limitations of this study should be explored and indicate what could be done to minimize those limitations.

 

- Minor grammar and punctuation errors can be found throughout the text and need to be corrected. As they do not impede a good understanding of the text, they will not be listed below but are left for editors.

 

Specific comments:

Line 109- Golas – change to goals

Author Response

 This is a very interesting, well-written manuscript and focuses on a topic of sure interest for the readership of the Land Journal. It is generally well structured. However, it has some unclear issues. Please see the following list of general and specific comments:

Thank you for your comments.

 - In the introduction explain better the research gaps for your research.

We have added part of related works and pointed out main differences between OLU and related models (lines 129-149).

 - What are the innovative contributions of your manuscript to science? (This needs to be clearer in your manuscript).

We have added part of materials and methods section and pointed out main innovative parts (lines 270-274) and the innovative contributions are discussed in section 4 (lines 417-441).

 - The methodology needs more explanations regarding alternative approaches.

We have added part of materials and methods section (lines 187-190).

 - The discussion should compare the results achieved in this study with the results achieved by other similar studies.

Discussion section was significantly extended (lines 417-492).

 - Limitations of this study should be explored and indicate what could be done to minimize those limitations.

Discussion section was significantly extended (lines 417-492).

 - Minor grammar and punctuation errors can be found throughout the text and need to be corrected. As they do not impede a good understanding of the text, they will not be listed below but are left for editors.

 Specific comments:

Line 109- Golas – change to goals

Thank you for your comment – a typo corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I appreciate a lot your paper because I think that your proposal can be usefully replicated by others as well and the work you have done is very interesting. However, maybe because of the topic, very technical, the speech seems to me not very fluid, therefore I would recommend to revise the English a bit and simplifying a few sentences. I also suggest changing the introduction part, I would go straight to the goals and then describe the various databases that I am going to use and for what I use them. I mean that, to catch the attention of readers, after the introduction you can put the goals of the paper and use some general sentences of paragraph 1.1 as to create a situation like question/answer or problem/solution type and then you should move the most technical part of paragraph 1.1 to Annex.

Please find below some specific suggestions that I hope will help:

·       Line 18: please specify the acronym of UML

·       Line 35: before [2] in my opinion you should add the author's name; but I think it is valid in all the cases, as for example in line 98, line 105 and line 107.

·       Line 97: maybe it is “datasets” and not “data sets”

·       Line 109: in the title of paragraph 1.2 I think it should be “goals” and not “golas”

·       Line 132: I think it is better to write “sources” instead of “resources”

·       Line 143 Plan4business

·       lines 146 and 147: please specify the acronyms

·       lines 153 and 278: please replace “see figure” with “figure”

·       I believe that all the titles of the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 2 must be in italics and not in bold, to make them uniform with the rest of the paper

·       Line 250: the sentence should be: available "at" medium scale

·       Line 282: in the title of Figure 2. does it go 2.0.0 or just 2.0?

·       Line 285 “Implementation” is repeated at the end of the sentence and at the beginning of the next one, I think it could be replaced with a pronoun (“That” for example). The same happen in line 362-363 with “the presented OLU model”, the second could be replaced with “this model”

·       Line 301: the meaning of LPIS should be explained here and not after

·       Lines 368-370: the sentences could be simplified into one

·       In general, please check the numbers for footnotes because they all appear twice in the text and please try to avoid to use too many self-citations.

Author Response

Dear Authors,

I appreciate a lot your paper because I think that your proposal can be usefully replicated by others as well and the work you have done is very interesting. However, maybe because of the topic, very technical, the speech seems to me not very fluid, therefore I would recommend to revise the English a bit and simplifying a few sentences. I also suggest changing the introduction part, I would go straight to the goals and then describe the various databases that I am going to use and for what I use them. I mean that, to catch the attention of readers, after the introduction you can put the goals of the paper and use some general sentences of paragraph 1.1 as to create a situation like question/answer or problem/solution type and then you should move the most technical part of paragraph 1.1 to Annex.

Thank you for your comments. Sections of the introduction were changed in their order and section of related works was extended with comments to the main differences between described OLU and other models.

Please find below some specific suggestions that I hope will help:

•       Line 18: please specify the acronym of UML

Updated.

•       Line 35: before [2] in my opinion you should add the author's name; but I think it is valid in all the cases, as for example in line 98, line 105 and line 107.

Keep the same as staying consistent with other sections.

•       Line 97: maybe it is “datasets” and not “data sets”

Updated.

•       Line 109: in the title of paragraph 1.2 I think it should be “goals” and not “golas”

Updated.

•       Line 132: I think it is better to write “sources” instead of “resources”

Updated.

•       Line 143 Plan4business

Updated.

•       lines 146 and 147: please specify the acronyms

Full names and acronyms of projects are in Footnotes.

•       lines 153 and 278: please replace “see figure” with “figure”

Updated.

•       I believe that all the titles of the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 2 must be in italics and not in bold, to make them uniform with the rest of the paper

Updated.

•       Line 250: the sentence should be: available "at" medium scale

Updated.

•       Line 282: in the title of Figure 2. does it go 2.0.0 or just 2.0?

Explained in the text, the model is stable in version 2.0 and the current release of SQL scripts is 2.0.0.

•       Line 285 “Implementation” is repeated at the end of the sentence and at the beginning of the next one, I think it could be replaced with a pronoun (“That” for example). The same happen in line 362-363 with “the presented OLU model”, the second could be replaced with “this model”

Updated.

•       Line 301: the meaning of LPIS should be explained here and not after

Updated.

•       Lines 368-370: the sentences could be simplified into one

Updated.

•       In general, please check the numbers for footnotes because they all appear twice in the text and please try to avoid to use too many self-citations.

Updated. Formatting issue of used styles.

Reviewer 4 Report

- "Golas of the paper" should become "Goals of the paper". Check for such slight mistakes

- the goals (l.123-133) sounds more technical-industrial (a work for software industry) than scientific-theoretical. Present theoretical and practical added value of the paper.

- you talk a lot about climate change. This issue is related to many political interests and drivers. I suggest to keep some reservations by saying e.g. "...climate change to the extent that it really occurs.."

- the method section looks like a conceptual presentation/ research design rather than a description of method producing empirical results

- the results section looks like a presentation of software industry products rather than epirical fidnings appropriate for further theorizing. Apart from that, an academic reader would expect quantitative models proposed in results section.

- the conclusions section is also atheoretical and looks like an industrial-technical report

The paper seems now to be based on a good technical concepts but it is quite atheoretical (it may talk about socio-economic and environmental issues, but it does so only superficially). I suggest to re-sumbmit after drastic restructuring and after having formulated a clear theoretical framework either focusing on software development or on a certain insightful application of geo-informartics on socio-economic and environmental issues.  

Author Response

- "Golas of the paper" should become "Goals of the paper". Check for such slight mistakes

Thank you for your comment – a typo corrected.

- the goals (l.123-133) sounds more technical-industrial (a work for software industry) than scientific-theoretical. Present theoretical and practical added value of the paper.

The goals section was extended by lines 85-91.

- you talk a lot about climate change. This issue is related to many political interests and drivers. I suggest to keep some reservations by saying e.g. "...climate change to the extent that it really occurs.."

Minimized usage of “climate change” keyword to specific cases.

- the method section looks like a conceptual presentation/ research design rather than a description of method producing empirical results

Yes, the main goal of the paper was to present the OLU data model and its evolution by incorporating of specific requirements to improve the concept by practical use cases.

- the results section looks like a presentation of software industry products rather than epirical fidnings appropriate for further theorizing. Apart from that, an academic reader would expect quantitative models proposed in results section.

Result section presents the practical results of the design and implementation of the data model, empirical results are in form of examples of visualization of spatio-temporal views by selected thematic content.

- the conclusions section is also atheoretical and looks like an industrial-technical report

The paper seems now to be based on a good technical concepts but it is quite atheoretical (it may talk about socio-economic and environmental issues, but it does so only superficially). I suggest to re-sumbmit after drastic restructuring and after having formulated a clear theoretical framework either focusing on software development or on a certain insightful application of geo-informartics on socio-economic and environmental issues

We added overview of related works and comparison to related data models and designed OLU data model. The Discussion section was significantly extended to compare results with other approaches. The paper was designed to meet the idea of the special issue focused on the data modelling for Digital Twins. OLU database is presented as a potential data model suitable for such purposes and that is the reason why mainly the technical description is presented than the theoretical background of the modelling. We extended the Related works section to present other data models and we tried to compare different models with new properties of the new OLU model. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors for the changes made to the manuscript. It has improved a lot. In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

ready to publish