Adapted Rules for UML Modelling of Geospatial Information for Model-Driven Implementation as OWL Ontologies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The interest in this paper is mostly about how can UML models can be enhanced to support derivations of OWL ontologies. The authors make a sound analysis of the use of UML in ISO/TC 211 for modeling concepts and the conversion to OWL. However, the mapping between UML and OWL seems to address mostly the very first part of ISO 19150-2 that maps concept for the derivation of ISO/TC 211 UML models to OWL as opposed to the second part that adresses the deivation of application schemas in UML to OWL where more flexibility has been introduced especially for global attributes/properties. Most of the examples in this paper are about application schemas where ISO 19150-2 second part is of relevance.
However, this paper presents a number of good practices that may be considered for the development of UML model in general and that could be introduced more specifically in UML modeling for geographic information standardization to enhanced OWL ontology derivation.
I suggest to revisit the paper in order to consider also the ISO 19150-2 second part on the derivation of application schemas in UML to OWL before.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments! We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and included findings from the second part of ISO 19150-2 in the state-of-the-art study in section 2.2. Please find details in the track changes version.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript focuses on the adapted rules in geospatial UML modelling as OWL Ontologies. I believe that this manuscript is an extended version of a conference paper published in The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-4, 2018 ISPRS TC IV Mid-term Symposium “3D Spatial Information Science – The Engine of Change”, 1–5 October 2018, Delft, The Netherland. The paper title is “Improvements in Automated Derivation of Owl Ontologies from Geospatial UML Models”. The Extended UML Profile, and OWL implementation in the manuscript will benefited other researchers in studying the ontologies. However, my concern is related to the beginning sections (Section 1, 2 and others), there are high similarity with the published paper in 2018. Even though mostly related towards the explaining the terms used such as Classes, Data Types and etc., somehow the similarity percentage is more than 30% for the whole manuscript. Suggestions might be that authors could reduce the similarity percentage before being accepted for publishing.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments! We have revised the manuscript according to your comments, in particular, the state-of-the-art study in section 2.2. The text focuses on the new findings identified from additional studies after the conference.
This revised manuscript reported the novel research work built upon the conference paper, not only the extended paper. For example, the state-of-the-art study was extended with additional sources and more detailed analysis, while the results and discussion section follows up research suggestions from the conference paper. Please find details in the track changes version.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The interest in this paper is mostly about how can UML models can be enhanced to support derivations of OWL ontologies. The authors make a sound analysis of the use of UML in ISO/TC 211 for modeling concepts and the conversion to OWL. In this version, the mapping between UML and OWL addresses adequately all sections of ISO 19150-2 to map concept for the derivation of ISO/TC 211 UML models to OWL as opposed to the second first version.
As indicated before, this paper presents a number of good practices that may be considered for the development of UML model in general and that could be introduced more specifically in UML modeling for geographic information standardization to enhanced OWL ontology derivation.
Thanks to there authors for the additional considerations they gave to ISO 19150-2.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed the points highlighted in the previous review process.
