AppSimV: A Cyber–Physical Simulation and Verification Platform for Software Applications of Intelligent Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is well written.  As authors claimed, this is the first study to establish the overall architecture of a cyber-physical simulation platform for intelligent building Apps. A cyber-physical entity interaction multitask parallel simulation scheme is developed. This platform can be used to realize the dynamic management and scheduling of component-based simulation models, define App simulation tasks related to visual monitoring and other functions in the simulation process to support the parallel execution of multiple simulation models and tasks, and provide an integrated support platform for the testing and verification of intelligent building Apps. Based on this platform, experimental tests and applications of a typical engineering App are explored to verify the availability and reliability of the semi-physical simulation platform.

I would suggest that revision be done as follows:

1)      To make technical descriptions more concise,

2)      To elaborate on the necessity and potential of incorporating the concept of digital twins, and

3)      To revise the paper as authors see fit.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The main content of research presented in the paper is a cyber-physical simulation and verification platform which enables the testing and verifying of Apps in a mimic real scene.

The topic is not unique, but it is worthy of researching.

The main proposal is a cyber-physical entity interaction multitask parallel simulation scheme, based on the overall architecture, using methods such as multitime sequence scheduling and simulation priority control, including a building object virtualization package and a simulation verification software.

The deduced conclusions based on the research methods show that AppSimV is sound and reliable.

The conclusions are tenable. The progress has been made compared with the current research results consists of being the first study to establish the overall architecture of a cyber-physical simulation platform for intelligent building Apps.

The abstract is informative. It reflects the body of the paper.

The introduction provides sufficient background information for readers in the immediate field to understand the problem.

Overall, the text is well arranged and the logic is clear. However, in my opinion, a Discussion section is missing at the end of the article before the Conclusions section. It might make sense for the authors to rethink the structure and title of section 5 "Evaluation". In the text of the article there are some small formatting errors, some punctuation and spelling errors. The readability could be improved. The related concepts are introduced clearly.

The techniques and approaches applied in the study are not new. The novelty lies in its application to a specific situation.

The theoretical analysis is sufficient for the purposes of the article.

All figures are clear enough to summarize the results for presentation to the readers. All figures are well referred to in the text.

The reference section is informative. However, not all references are accurate. Authors must correct the formatting of references in the text and in the References section to make it more homogeneous and in accordance with the journal's rules.

In the text of the article there are some small formatting errors, some punctuation and spelling errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Great work. Manuscript is decent and well-written. It was pleasant to read. 

p.1.10 "the applications" = applications.

p.1.14 Two commas. Please delete one. 

p.1.32 Two spaces? In addition, you also need to insert a space between your references 3-6. 

p.1.33/34 I would make it a statement such as "One might question..." rather than the construction you have now. It reads as a questions, but it is not really a question. 

p.2.46 Properly end a sentence. 

p.2.64 A systematic test + evaluation experiment? Can you consider this a pilot test? This pertains to the two things you want to include. 

Reference 6 It is common to list all authors in the reference list. 

Reference 10 Did you insert a double space? 

References It is common to place a capital letter after a colon.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx