Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, ontology is used to organize the 15 design information related to the optimization of exit locations. 

The analysis and model development part is really good, however, the findings drawn from the analysis are extremely low.

The objectives are not clear and the work seems to be an informed essay. 

The manuscript is currently deemed unacceptable due to its significant shortcomings. The authors are advised to thoroughly revise their work by highlighting the major research findings. It may require another round of revisions before it meets the necessary standards. Unfortunately, the manuscript has been deemed unacceptable due to significant shortcomings.

The authors are advised to revise their work thoroughly and highlight the major research findings. It may require additional rounds of revisions before meeting the necessary standards.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the article concerning ‘Design Optimization of Building Exit Locations based on BIM and Ontology ‘with much interest. The article is interesting, and clearly written, with some minor points of attention.

Please write abbreviations like ‘BIM’ , ‘SWRL rules’ etc. the first time in full.

Specific comments

Line 35. I presume the Building Design Fire Code GB50016-2014 is only active in China and not elsewhere in the world, so please add this to the sentence.

Line 76. Can you give a definition of the construct ‘ontology’?

Line 79. Please write the first time in full what you mean with ‘BIM’.

Line 80. Please write the first time in full what you mean with ‘SWRL rules’.

The simulation experiments seem to be set up in a profound way. The links in line 387 and 388 can be opened, and give sufficient information.

I miss ideas for future research, which can be derived from the limitations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a good piece of work.
The author presented their theses very well and the limitations of the study are explained, as well.

I have some comments:
1. The Title should not contain abbreviation.
2. The BIM should be defined as "building information model".
3. SWRL should be defined as "Semantic Web Rule Language"
4. In Figure 1, Data Extraction block; correct "Date extraction" to Data extraction.
5. In Figure 1, Optimization block; why the safety exit is a one dimensional, i.e., Z? it should be a vector.

There are some grammar issues that should be considered by the authors. For example, in Abstract; ". Since ontology has semantic description capability and reasonability".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Reviewer Comments:

After reading your manuscript, I am interested in your innovative research on the optimization of exit locations based on BIM and Ontology. This paper mainly optimizes the exit locations to shorten the evacuation time considering the distribution of evacuees and the number of used spaces. Applying Ontology and BIM to the optimization of exit locations simplifies the fragmented information management process. After several evacuation simulations, this paper proposes a design optimization method for exit locations. However, I have some suggestions as follows:

（1）What is the specific process of applying Ontology to optimize evacuation exits？What are the advantages of using this method？

（2）The optimization strategy in this paper mainly focuses on the layout of rooms arranged on one side of the corridor, but what about the various types of rooms under the influence of other factors?

（3）To make the experiment more precise, it is suggested that the number of evacuees in simulations should be further refined and realistic.

（4）It is recommended to correct errors in formatting and other details in the article.

The language of the article could be further refined and embellished.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the earlier comments, it was asked to improve the results and discussion part of the manuscript. But the authors did not care for that, because they thought three reviewers have given minor revisions, then why respond thoughtfully to this reviewer, anyway, the article will be accepted.

The real scenario is different. The article has well explained the methods and tools adopted. However, there are no overall outcomes of the research.

What the authors want to recommend from the findings is null in the manuscript.

A thorough analysis of results is required to make the research impactful.

Still, now I am not satisfied with the revision. If the authors will revise the paper in detail giving more importance to results and findings, then I will accept it else, my recommendation will be the revision. Good luck.

Extensive editing of the English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf