Cross-Departmental Collaboration Approach for Earthquake Emergency Response Based on Synchronous Intersection between Traditional and Logical Petri Nets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the subject is interesting, the quality of the article in the reviewer’s opinion is not satisfactory for publication.
Although the article is well structured, is very difficult to read and follow the description.
Sections 1,2 and 3 have to be improved.
Some detailed comments:
The authors affirm that “Calculating the reachable marking of the logical Petri nets requires a lot of other knowledge, e.g. LPN conjunct vector, logical transition vector sets, the logical incidence matrix, the logical function matrix, reachable marking functions, and so on, which can be found in the related literature [11] and will not be discussed in this paper.” Moreover, the authors say: “This paper uses some symbols ⊗, ⊕, . T . and the reachable marking functions ?′=?+(??⊕??)⊗?. Please refer to [11] for the use of these symbols and functions. “
These declarations could be acceptable if the ref. [11] (11. Pang, S.; Jiang, C. Workflow Performance Analysis Based on Invariant Decomposition Algorithm. Chinese Journal of Computers 2010, 33, 908-918) would be written in English and not in Chinese. So, as far as that reference is written in Chinese, for the reviewer who does not understand Chinese, very difficult to continue to read and review this article.
In addition, some acronyms are missing the definition in the text, like BPMN and WFD. WFD should be WFN.
Regarding the usage of references, please review them, and avoid using references from articles only written in Chinese. When you use “author name et al" you should use the name of the first author. Please verify Qi et al [23-24]. Moreover, in the case of Liu et al [26-31], references 29 and 31 have no author with the name Liu, and in reference 30 it seems that the author Liu is not the same Liu as in references 26, 27, and 28.
Authors use the expression traditional Petri net. Even though we can find some articles using this expression, the reviewer’s opinion should be avoided. Instead of “traditional”, it should refer to the specific low-level Petri net class, for example, the Place-Transition, or at least have a reference to the Petri net class that authors call “traditional”.
Moreover, definition 1 (traditional Petri net) sounds like a definition for workflow net.
Definition 2 (logical Petri net) is slightly different from what we can find in reference 23.
Moreover, all the text and representation related to firing rules have to be revised. For example: (1) “For ??∈?, if ∀??∈??, ?(??)≥1, ti is enabled at M, then ti can be fired, it can be denoted by M[ti>;”
If p represents places and t represents transition, p cannot be an element of t.
Here obviously missing the representation (the symbol) of the pre-set of the transition.
As far as in the rest of the text is missing representations of pre-set and posset of transitions, which makes the text hard to read.
In the incidence matrix of a Petri net, columns are associated with transitions, and rows are associated with places. In the article, columns and rows of the incidence matrix are swapped.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper deals with the post earthquake process management to minimize the effects on the population. The authors uses two terms: traditional PN and logical PN. The traditional PN is well known, however logical PN is not well known and its properties must briefly explained. Additionally, the authors explain in such a way that traditional and logical PN are the same, however the reader is not sure about it. If they are the same, the text must use only one unique term. The paper has a lot of definitions related to logical PN and they complicate the reading. If the authors consider this part relevant, they should include as an annex to the paper. Other parts, on the other hand, are not well explained. For example, see Figure 6, why institute experts, reservoir experts, construction experts, etc must be part of the model? Are the authors following a standard? What are the constraints for the problem? For example, in a earthquake disaster all the constructions experts may be dead, and in this case what is the solution? The constraints are not well explained. Also, the paper does not show any results. Can the model be simulated? What are the results? As we can have different situations, all the situations were adequately solved? Several questions might arise. I recommend the authors perform a major revision of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer is pleased and accepts the given explanation.
However, the legibility of the preset and posset symbol has to be increased, for example, by using the "bullet" symbol (•t).
Moreover, there are missing spaces before some bracelets ([). Please review the text carefully and correct them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors properly answered the issues, and I recommend the publication in the present form.
Author Response
We feel very honored to have your guidance and thank you again for your suggestions. Your rigorous academic attitude has benefited me a lot. Thank you for your guidance to make the paper more perfect.
