3D Interpreted Model: A Novel Product Definition Model by Integrating and Fusing a 3D Annotated Model and Design Knowledge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear,

please find the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper focuses on mdb models, however, the objective of the work in unclear.

Please better clarify the objective of the work both in abstract and introduction.

Please explicitly mention and discuss the limit of the work and the expected impact (for research and industry as well as society) in the discussion section.

Reformulate conclusions according to the actual objectives, the mentioned limits and impact.

 

Rows 51-53: please clarify. It is not true that in practice the modeling activity starts with a complex 2D modeling. Current CAD systems use 3D modeling that starts from 2D drafts for each modeling features. What reported by the authors seems different. It seems that the first step is to realize 2D technical drawings, and then 3D modeling, actually the contrary of what happens in reality.

Rows 53 - 71: use a numbered list format

rows 395-406: there are many uppercase words not contained in Figure 8. This part should be better explained. Maybe a bigger picture where the interested part are indicated by numbered flags, and then a numbered list containing the required descriptions.

Row 410 (and in general throughout the whole paper): please consider that many reader could be not so expert in the field. It is necessary to introduce and explain details like this.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

the author considered my comments and provided some modifications and integrations.

However, the objectives are quite weak. Why we need a further model? Which are the lacks and the flaws of the current tools/approaches?

The limits of the work are not sufficiently expressed. I suggest a specific subsection "limits and future developments" where the authors discuss  which are the limits (about the research approach, about the developed tool, about their knowledge, etc.) and how they intend to overcome them in the future

Additionally, also the expected impacts appear quite weak, because mostly based on "promotion" of something. A real impact means that your research provides a substantial contribution which lead to sensible improvements or changes in industry, research and society. A promotion cannot be considered something like that.

These parts are mandatory for a research paper.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed the requests

best regards