A GEMMA-GRAFCET Generator for the Automation Software of Smart Manufacturing Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes an online tool that allows users to specify the operational modes of Smart Manufacturing Services. The tool then automatically generates PLC code from this representation that is compliant with the GG-Methodology.

The paper is interesting and well written. The proposed tool can surely benefit the automation community.

Some questions that should be addressed by the authors for the final version:

• The paper contains many abbreviations; a glossary would help the reader keep track of them.
• If the GG-Methodology was introduced only this year, I would not call it a standard approach (see line 8).
• The section from line 185 to 192 is hard to understand, please rewrite.
• It is not clear why PLC code is generated even in the presence of errors if the user approves (see, e.g., Section 4.1). Please elaborate.
• A screenshot of the model built in Experior would benefit Section 6.
• To complete your work on the tool, it would be very beneficial to carry out a user study. This could be added to the Future Work section.
• Please check for English spelling and grammar errors.
• "widespread of" -> "adoption of"

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for reviewing the manuscript, and raising constructive questions, which led to the improvement of the paper. The following responses have been prepared to address the reviewer’s comments in a point-by-point fashion. In addition, please find the updated version of the manuscript attached to this submission. We have tried to address all the points and believe that the revised version can meet the publication requirements. All amendments made have been highlighted in blue color in the revised paper.

• The paper contains many abbreviations; a glossary would help the reader keep track of them.

A list of abbreviations has been added

• If the GG-Methodology was introduced only this year, I would not call it a standard approach (see line 8).

Standard approach has been changed to approach

• The section from line 185 to 192 is hard to understand, please rewrite.

This section has been changed and now the content should be easer to understand

• It is not clear why PLC code is generated even in the presence of errors if the user approves (see, e.g., Section 4.1). Please elaborate.

The following explanation has been added:

Nevertheless, in case of user approval PLC code must be generated also in presence of errors, since the control practitioner may prefer to fix errors on the PLC code than the GG-Generator.

• A screenshot of the model built in Experior would benefit Section 6.

A screeshot of the Experior model has been added.

• To complete your work on the tool, it would be very beneficial to carry out a user study. This could be added to the Future Work section.

The following bullet has been added as future work:

Usability test: the presented GG-Generator should be tested with control practitioners to evaluate its usability.

• Please check for English spelling and grammar errors.

The article has been completely reviewed and improved with respect to the English

• "widespread of" -> "adoption of"

We implemented the suggested change

Reviewer 2 Report

This work presents a GEMMA-GRAFCET generator that was developed by the authors to enable the development of PLC code that fits with an existing methodology (GEMMA-GRAFCET methodology). The authors describe, in detail, the requirements, design, implementation, and an example of their developed tool. This tool and case study can be useful for manufacturers who have to analyze, develop, and write the PLC code for industrial applications.

Overall, this paper is well written and contains a useful tool with an example case study. I find it fitting to be published in this journal.

Author Response

Thanks. The article has been completely reviewed and improved with respect to the English