Knowledge System Supporting ITS Deployment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with the study on „Knowledge System Supporting ITS Deployment”. The presented topic is of high professional and practical interest what brings a significant added value to the potential target group of readers. The overall writing style reflects a logical clear concept. Hopefully, my remarks, observations, and possible suggestions might bring the authors benefits for the enhancement of the paper to be published properly. Accordingly, I am stating my comments below.
Title
The title reflects the objective and content of the paper, the length is adequate, so no remarks related to this aspect can be pointed out.
Abstract
The abstract provides a structured summary including contextual background, and result, conclusion, and implications of key findings, etc.
Introduction
This part of the paper is properly designed in a correct explanatory way. The most relevant part is the introduction section that gives a perfect context for the justification of the research. This section is very well based and combined with the literature review part.
This section includes many relevant references and the authors provide solid theoretical foundations for the analysis using appropriate references.
Applied Methodology, Results
The methodology is suitable for the research objectives. The presentation of the material is logical and technically correct. The tables presented here are justified for an adequate statement of results.
Discussion and Conclusions
These sections are well based. The interpretations and conclusions are sound and justified by the results.
Author Response
Thank you for considering our paper for publication in this journal, we appreciate your read it yourself to have a better idea about its merit. Thank for a positive review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for this work. This paper proposes a model for extract creation based on the combination of syntactical and semantic approaches, involving a domain expert. I would like to have some comments, and hope that they can help improve this paper.
The proposed methodology seems sound; however, I am not convinced with the reasons of why standard documents being extracted, and the possibility of misinterpretation (or misrepresentation) of the technical contexts. Related to this comment, reference [17] is not a case applied to standard documents.
On page 3, line 108, authors discuss the goal of ITS standardization. I disagree with the view that the goal of ITS standardization is to cover the lack of interoperability between ITS solutions. Please clarify and revise as needed.
On page 2, the first paragraph under section 1.1 may be moved to introduction section. Introduction section suddenly mentions CEN/TC 278, but no explanations are provided. I think that moving this paragraph into the introduction will help readers understand various technical committees involved with ITS standardization in Europe (and globally).
On page 2 line 69, the sentence ends with “based on several key documents”. I assume that “several key documents” are followed by next few paragraphs. I suggest lines 66-76 to be combined as one paragraph.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors: Thank you for revising the manuscript and your responses to the comments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors:
Thank you for your efforts to raise the question regarding the consolidation and integration of various ITS standards. While I understand that authors employed a hybrid analysis (semantic + syntactic), the quantitative details are not clearly presented in the paper. Additionally, the extract shows 70% accuracy of information, compared to the original format. I am questionable if 70% of accurate information can be useful enough for standard documents, which are supposed to be very detailed and quantitative as well as location specific.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with the study on „Knowledge System Supporting ITS Deployment”. The presented topic is of high professional and practical interest what brings a significant added value to the potential target group of readers. The overall writing style reflects a logical clear concept. Hopefully, my remarks, observations, and possible suggestions might bring the authors benefits for the enhancement of the paper to be published properly. Accordingly, I am stating my comments below.
Title
The title reflects the objective and content of the paper, the length is adequate, so no remarks related to this aspect can be pointed out.
Abstract
The abstract provides a structured summary including contextual background, and result, conclusion, and implications of key findings, etc.
Introduction
This part of the paper is properly designed in a correct explanatory way. The most relevant part is the introduction section that gives a perfect context for the justification of the research. This section is very well based and combined with the literature review part.
This section does not include many relevant references and the authors provide solid theoretical foundations for the analysis using appropriate references. I would encourage the authors to provide more recent references (from the last 5 years). You need to develop this part. The manuscript could be even more sufficiently supported by evidence or proper references to work done elsewhere. I think 11 references are not enough to justify this topic. Please add min 20 references.
Applied Methodology, Results
I don't see what the methodology is and what the meaning of the article is.
Discussion
The discussion section is missing. The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the introduction; the discussion should always explain how your study has moved the reader's understanding of the research problem forward from where you left them at the end of the introduction.
Conclusions
The conclusion section should be separated from the discussions and go more beyond the interpretation and summary of the results. The conclusion section should highlight more clearly how the results compare with the recent literature review.
Please edit every figure further because are not visible.
