Smart Heritage Practice and Its Characteristics Based on Architectural Heritage Conservation—A Case Study of the Management Platform of the Shanghai Federation of Literary and Art Circles China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

REPORT WITH ANSWERS TO KEY CONTRIBUTION QUESTIONS

1. What does the research address the question? What is the method of the proposed contribution?

The proposed topic is of great interest and topicality. The contribution is structured.

The key question that the article raises is the conservation of architectural heritage, characteristics, and considerations for the development of smart heritage as a way of bringing together technologies and skills with intangible urban features.

The development of the HBIM library is seen as a complement to BIM software platforms within a broader context of smart heritage. The storage of cultural and historical documents, as well as monitored and simulated data for preservation, is a gap in the capability of BIM, as recognized by Pocobelli, D.P., et al. in their literature review of how BIM is applied to the science of built heritage.

Therefore, the authors propose the design of user interfaces for users, architectural historians, etc., through the development of a digital platform for conservation and management in accordance with national and local regulations and guidelines on urban digital transformation.

With the aim to store digital documentation and recordings of the historic building, and integrate the resources to facilitate conservation for all users, as well as, heritage-related staff and civil servants, the project aims to develop a digital platform for conservation and management in accordance with national and local regulations and guidelines on urban digital transformation.

With the aim of storing documentation and digital recordings of the historic building, integrating the resources, and facilitating conservation for all users, as well as for heritage staff and government officials through different applications.

The case study is proposed as a methodology. The generation of a virtual twin facilitates the implementation so that it acts as an intelligent detection infrastructure, in the different ones that affect the building, as well as future applications with the participation of simulation and prediction technologies.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field?

The topic chosen by the authors is original and relevant to the field in which it is raised. It does so after a review of the scientific literature and after having located a specific gap in this field. As well as the proposal of methodological tools to carry out the issue is appropriate for the sector in which the application is proposed, the historical heritage of publicly owned real estate.

On the one hand, the authors draw on the experiences in data analysis of the Chinese-Yuan Ming Yuan National Archaeological Park and Site Service. On the other hand, the study by Qiu, J., J. Li, and H. Sun, [6] shows the culmination of intelligence for heritage, ranging from digital presentation to heritage management and services for various end users.

Therefore, the authors consider the storage of cultural and historical documents, as well as monitored and simulated data for preservation, as an undeveloped gap in BIM capability.

3. What does it bring to the subject area compared to other publications?

It brings a new vision in the field of Mixed Reality from a reasoned systematic; 1/ Adopt varied approaches to develop AR, VR and MR infrastructure; 2/ Balance performance and mobility; 3/ Streamline mock-ups with lighting. To meet the specific needs of the project, find a balance between third-party and customized models. For lighting, using advanced software such as Omniverse can substantially reduce the workload and maintain high quality.

 4. What specific improvements should authors consider?

It is considered necessary to describe in more detail the building chosen as a case study with a historical reference and the current state, as well as the contextualization of the site. The program of needs, the main uses, the surfaces, the heights, and its location in the building complex. It is required to talk about the style and typology, of the site.

The review of the scientific literature needs a final summary in which the hypotheses detected and which of these are going to be used in the study, the working methodologies used by the main groups and how they are supported in order to define the proposal of the method applied by the authors in the contribution.

A description of the platform, the process and strategy followed in the design, whether it was implemented following a BEP, how the BIM implementation requirements were defined, and how the roles and profiles of the agents involved were defined. Describe in detail how the requirements relating to national and local policies for the protection of historic buildings have been incorporated. Describe at greater length how it is used by the various stakeholders throughout the operation of the property.

That is to say, to incorporate a more detailed exposition of the management that is carried out: 1/ On the uses and activities in relation to the number of stakeholders involved in the platform; 2/ Comfort, through the management of facilities, etc., safety and fire risk, contingencies, seismic and climatic actions; 3/ Tourist and cultural management, if any; 4/ As well as, management related to the immediate surroundings of the building, the gardens, outdoor facilities, access control... and environment, etc.

At the same time, it would be of great interest, due to the novelty of the contribution, to expose if and to what extent it has been possible to introduce supporting technologies, such as ICT, IoT and BIM.

It would also be of great interest to refer to other similar existing platforms for partial or comprehensive implementation of management in this type of building.

It is considered necessary to revise the methodology section (Materials and methods for the conservation of architectural heritage) because of the study carried out on the sources consulted, the review of scientific literature and experience.

In relation to the objectives, it is necessary to concentrate on the precise focus, the what, what for and the how. In the same way, distinguish clearly by highlighting one or two main objectives and specific objectives that correspond to the development process that will be followed until the result is achieved.

The contingencies of the process and how they were overcome will be described, as well as the process to validate the first results until the correct functioning of the application is achieved.

The abstract is suggested to be revised incorporating new additions.

Reorder and rename the sections such as 2. Materials and methods for the conservation of architectural heritage. 2.1. Object of study. This section should correspond to the subject matter, heritage conservation, digital technologies and skills and intangible urban features. These aspects are named, but it would be necessary to go into descriptive aspects in more detail.

In relation to Table nº 1, the following needs to be developed more precisely: Detailing the profile of the people interviewed; specialization, position held or held, years of experience, and detail with the content of questions that have been asked in the interviews... and, any other relevant issue related to how the information obtained has been analyses as it has been treated and applied for the design of the platform.

It is recommended to dedicate a specific section for discussion, and another for conclusions and future lines of research and work. In each of these, a comparative analysis of the results will be made with reference to other similar contributions, highlighting the differences and complementarity of the contributions. In this way, the novelties made in the contribution will be more evident.

It is proposed that the authors include in the conclusions section an outline of the model or method that has been reached in the design of the platform. The purpose is to show the applicability of other case studies with different characteristics, typologies, ages, and locations.

Fig. 9. It is recommended that the stages be defined in more detail. The diagram is very terse and does not clarify what is proposed.

Figure 10. Evolution of smart heritage. It would be advisable to provide more descriptive detail for each of the stages by means of dropdowns.

In the final part, it states that it offers a paradigm for intelligent heritage development, etc. What does the article's contribution look like? What seems to be made in the article is an advance of a model or method to extrapolate to other cases of similar characteristics.

What additional controls should be considered? It is suggested that a group of experts and agents involved in the different cases be interviewed about the applicability and efficiency of the platform.

It is recommended that the entire text be revised to deepen the description and justification of the results, to avoid repeating phrases and even paragraphs and sentences, as well as general aspects. The contribution should be focused, concrete and applied.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

The conclusions are not sound considering the axioms and demonstrations presented and do not answer the main question posed.

The conclusions presented should be reviewed in their entirety. A comparative analysis should be made with other similar contributions in such a way that the novelty of the new contribution is highlighted. Therefore, it is considered necessary to rethink this section.

And do they answer the main question posed?  The question is to know and define how the way from the implementation of digital methods and tools and the creation of a platform under intelligent discourse in conservation, operates and facilitates the management of architectural heritage, as well as supports the development and application of intelligent heritage discourse in historic buildings with relevant national and local policies, (this is the real novelty) and provide a paradigm for further conservation cases for the future. In such a way as to provide for improved effectiveness in solving conservation problems.

The problem is located not only through the review of the current scientific literature but also through the experience in the case study. On the one hand, a lot of original information was missing, such as the initial engineering drawings of the historical building of the Shanghai Federation of Literary and Arts Circles (SFLAC). On the other hand, problems are found in identifying risks in the historic building complex, as well as in communication between conservation staff, heritage experts and managers of government heritage departments.

It is stated that the question posed is NOT clearly answered.

6. Are the references appropriate?

On the one hand, the references cover general aspects, it is suggested to revise them to synthesise the presentation, and on the other hand, presentations with statements and reasoning with little or no references are detected. If these references were incorporated, the value of what is expressed would be reinforced.

Specific references to platforms and research on proposals should be included and, based on a comparative study of the contributions of each one of them, the gap should be detected to support the objectives of the proposal.

7. Include any additional comments on tables and figures.

More detailed references are recommended. The text of the contribution is written according to a general, generic approach, i.e., with little or little concreteness. To answer the specific need: How can the management of heritage buildings be improved by means of an integrative platform that monitors information in an intelligent way?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached response letter and the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached letter and the corresponding revisions in the literature review section (i.e. section 2.1) in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the paper is well-written and provides an interesting discussion about 'smart heritage' in the context of China. The chosen topic is novel and relatively under researched. All sections are logically organised and they demonstrate good subject-specific knowledge. Despite the merits of the paper and its relatively high degree of novelty, I would recommend the following for the author(s) considerations:

1. Introduction - the paper begins straight with what it looks like a conceptual foundation. I would have liked to have seen a concise introduction that provides the main aim and objectives of the paper and justifies the context (Why China? Why Shanghai)

2. Methodology - in general, I am quite supportive for the chosen qualitative approach. However, we need to know the whole picture. Firstly, why was it chosen? Why not mixed methods, etc.? Secondly, we need more more details about interviews - where were they conducted, what was the duration, how were the respondents selected? What is their 'relevance to the case study'? What were the limitations of the chosen approach? Data analysis - overall, there is a good analysis but there was a missed opportunity to use specific quotes from the interviews.

3. Conclusion - the paper's topic is potentially relevant for many stakeholders. Therefore, you should have provided a bit more practical implications.

No major issues here

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached letter and the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted changes in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I want to congratulate you on the effort made to improve the contribution.

Sincerely.