Towards a Multimodal Representation: Claudia Octavia’s Bequeathal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I generally find the article interresting and well suited in special issue scope. The process of reconstruction of 3D model of the villa from ancient blueprints is presented in an interresting way with most stress placed to receiving as much historical sound data as possible. That is well thought as the BIM reconstruction process itself is quite common and the interresting part is how the missing data has been gathered from historical sources and confirmed to be plausible.
This said i see one issue that needs to be resolved: In the line 267 you refer to the Tab.1 when desribing the assesment of floors height. Unfortunatelly the table is missing and there is no clue if it is to be found in any cited sources - thus the height assesment process remains unexplained.
The other comment is: I found several parts of text written in a too elaborate way. Should the sentences be more straightforward, it would allow for better and quicker understanding of the author's thought. It could be handy if trying to address the international audience of scientists.
Figure 4 has the wrong numbering as the figure 1.
In the line 267 you refer to the Tab.1 which doesn't exist.
Author Response
We want to thank the reviewers for the punctual suggestions and for the corrections. We have reformulated some sentences and changed place of some paragraph in order to make the paper more organised.
Reviewer 1:
I generally find the article interresting and well suited in special issue scope. The process of reconstruction of 3D model of the villa from ancient blueprints is presented in an interresting way with most stress placed to receiving as much historical sound data as possible. That is well thought as the BIM reconstruction process itself is quite common and the interresting part is how the missing data has been gathered from historical sources and confirmed to be plausible.
Thank you
This said i see one issue that needs to be resolved: In the line 267 you refer to the Tab.1 when desribing the assesment of floors height. Unfortunatelly the table is missing and there is no clue if it is to be found in any cited sources - thus the height assesment process remains unexplained.
We have added the table
The other comment is: I found several parts of text written in a too elaborate way. Should the sentences be more straightforward, it would allow for better and quicker understanding of the author's thought. It could be handy if trying to address the international audience of scientists.
We have tried to simplify the sentences.
Figure 4 has the wrong numbering as the figure 1.
Corrected
In the line 267 you refer to the Tab.1 which doesn't exist.
We added the table
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting article dealing a VR/MR based approach for the interpretation and reconstruction of architectural contexts...towards a multimodal representation (!?).
With this latter regard the authors should explain what do they mean for multimodal which is in the title but then disappears in the article. Probably "towards a multimodal representation" can be dealt with in the concluding paragraph which, however, is missing.
All that aside, I find the paper a little difficult to follow especially in the first part.
The authors should start from the motivation of the work, explain how it fits into a state of the art. Then in "Material Methods" the should describe the materials (the slab and other data source) and the methodological approach
More in detail,
I suggest to reformulate the introduction that lacks a clear explanation of the motivation for the article
Paragraphs 1.1-1.5 should be included in the methodology (in Materials and Methods)
In Materials and Methods the authors should also include the object of study that can be briefly described in the introduction.
Moreover, I find that some of the considerations expressed in Results should be included in the Discussion which should be the core of the work
Finally, a paragraph dedicated to the Conclusions must be added, with any future prospects of the research (The multimodal representation?)
MINOR revisions
Line 25: Change “can be overcame” with “can be overcome”
Line 36: what do you mean for complicated information? Isn't the term complex preferable?
Line 46 Add a reference to Common Data Environment. Change “CDE (Common Data Environment)” with Common Data Environment (CDE)
Line 50: delete Common Data Environment
Lines 54-59: the two sentences seem to express the same concept. I would suggest simplifying by formulating a single sentence
Line 70: delete “the acronym” : It is not the acronym H-BIM that was born to “address the problems”, explained in Lines 63-68 but the H-BIM ….which is the acronym of Historical or Heritage Building Information Modelling. (please add a reference )
Lines 110-11: “This paper presents the processing from a 3D reality-based acquisition of the slab in 110 order to have an orthophoto on which taking accurate measures for the following steps” Which slab? Probably something should already be said in the introduction of the slab?
Author Response
We want to thank the reviewers for the punctual suggestions and for the corrections. We have reformulated some sentences and changed place of some paragraph in order to make the paper more organised.
Reviewer 2:
It is an interesting article dealing a VR/MR based approach for the interpretation and reconstruction of architectural contexts...towards a multimodal representation (!?).
With this latter regard the authors should explain what do they mean for multimodal which is in the title but then disappears in the article. Probably "towards a multimodal representation" can be dealt with in the concluding paragraph which, however, is missing.
We added information about this matter in the discussion and the conclusions
All that aside, I find the paper a little difficult to follow especially in the first part.
The authors should start from the motivation of the work, explain how it fits into a state of the art. Then in "Material Methods" they should describe the materials (the slab and other data source) and the methodological approach
We have reorganised the paper accordingly, changed the position in the paper of some parts of the text, changed a little the images that were hardly readable. We also added a new part in the Introduction to explain better the motivation of the work.
More in detail,
I suggest to reformulate the introduction that lacks a clear explanation of the motivation for the article
Paragraphs 1.1-1.5 should be included in the methodology (in Materials and Methods)
This was an error, these paragraphs are in reality a bullet list, we have corrected it
In Materials and Methods the authors should also include the object of study that can be briefly described in the introduction.
Done
Moreover, I find that some of the considerations expressed in Results should be included in the Discussion which should be the core of the work
Finally, a paragraph dedicated to the Conclusions must be added, with any future prospects of the research (The multimodal representation?)
We have fixed these problems and added a Conclusions paragraph
MINOR revisions
Line 25: Change “can be overcame” with “can be overcome”
Done
Line 36: what do you mean for complicated information? Isn't the term complex preferable?
Changed
Line 46 Add a reference to Common Data Environment. Change “CDE (Common Data Environment)” with Common Data Environment (CDE)
Line 50: delete Common Data Environment
Done
Lines 54-59: the two sentences seem to express the same concept. I would suggest simplifying by formulating a single sentence
Fixed the problem
Line 70: delete “the acronym”: It is not the acronym H-BIM that was born to “address the problems”, explained in Lines 63-68 but the H-BIM … which is the acronym of Historical or Heritage Building Information Modelling. (Please add a reference)
Fixed
Lines 110-11: “This paper presents the processing from a 3D reality-based acquisition of the slab in 110 order to have an orthophoto on which taking accurate measures for the following steps” Which slab? Probably something should already be said in the introduction of the slab?
Fixed
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
