Standards for Data Space Building Blocks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

First , congratulations for the paper. Despite not being an expert in the topic, the paper presents a timely and relevant discussion on data spaces, particularly in European initiatives like the Green Deal Data Space and Agriculture Data Space, making it highly pertinent given the growing importance of data sharing and interoperability. It offers a comprehensive and well-structured methods. The focus on standards and interoperability, especially the adherence to FAIR principles and the European Interoperability Framework, is worthy and aligns well with broader European objectives. Additionally, the paper contributes to the field by proposing criteria for evaluating standards and refining the conceptualization of data spaces, which is essential for advancing the management and sharing of environmental data.

However, to fully meet the expectations of a remote sensing journal, it should expand its focus to include more specific applications within the field of remote sensing, consider a broader international perspective, and go deeper into the practical challenges and emerging technologies relevant to data spaces. I recommend to improve these parts:

Improvement 1:

Please spread the scope beyond Europe and incorporate discussions on how data spaces and interoperability standards are being developed or could be applied outside of Europe to increase the paper's relevance to a broader audience and provide comparative insights that could be valuable to both European and international stakeholders.

Improvement 2:

Although the paper discusses data spaces in general, it does not sufficiently define how these data spaces specifically affect or are applied within remote sensing. Given the journal’s focus on remote sensing, more concrete examples or case studies involving remote sensing data would strengthen the paper's relevance to this audience.

You could provide more specific examples of how remote sensing data is managed within these data spaces. Case studies or practical applications involving satellite imagery, LiDAR data, or other remote sensing modalities would make the paper more interesting to readers.

Improvement 3:

The paper acknowledges the complexity of implementing data spaces but does not go deeper into the practical challenges or barriers that organizations might face. A more detailed analysis of these challenges, possibly including organizational, technical, and financial aspects, would provide a more balanced view.

A more detailed discussion of the practical challenges in implementing data spaces would be beneficial. This could include challenges related to data privacy, security, and the integration of heterogeneous data sources, which are highly relevant nowadays to the field of remote sensing.

Improvement 4:

The paper touches on artificial intelligence and machine learning, it could more thoroughly explore how these technologies could enhance data space functionality, particularly in the context of remote sensing. This would align with the journal’s focus on novel methods and approaches.

Enhance more the emerging technologies. Expand the discussion on the role of AI, machine learning, and other emerging technologies in enhancing data space capabilities. This could involve exploring how these technologies can improve data processing, integration, and analysis when remote sensing data.

Improvement 5:  

The tables are sometimes messy and were the rows ends complicated. Please include more visual aids, such as diagrams or flowcharts, to illustrate the proposed methodologies, the mapping of standards, and the architecture of data spaces.

Improvement 6:

I find the future directions should be more clarified.You could strengthen the conclusion by providing more specific recommendations for future research and development in the area of data spaces, especially in the context of remote sensing.

 

By addressing these parts, the paper could significantly enhance its impact and relevance to the journal's audience. Again, congratulations for the paper.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: First, congratulations for the paper. Despite not being an expert in the topic, the paper presents a timely and relevant discussion on data spaces, particularly in European initiatives like the Green Deal Data Space and Agriculture Data Space, making it highly pertinent given the growing importance of data sharing and interoperability. It offers a comprehensive and well-structured methods. The focus on standards and interoperability, especially the adherence to FAIR principles and the European Interoperability Framework, is worthy and aligns well with broader European objectives. Additionally, the paper contributes to the field by proposing criteria for evaluating standards and refining the conceptualization of data spaces, which is essential for advancing the management and sharing of environmental data.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment, it is well appreciated.

 

Comment 2: However, to fully meet the expectations of a remote sensing journal, it should expand its focus to include more specific applications within the field of remote sensing, consider a broader international perspective, and go deeper into the practical challenges and emerging technologies relevant to data spaces.

Response 2: Thank you for your advise, we improved these aspects in the paper, in general, and by addressing the specific comments below.

 

Comment 3: Improvement 1: Please spread the scope beyond Europe and incorporate discussions on how data spaces and interoperability standards are being developed or could be applied outside of Europe to increase the paper's relevance to a broader audience and provide comparative insights that could be valuable to both European and international stakeholders.

Response 4: Some Text on how the results are relevant beyond Europe were added to the text, especially in the methodology and discussion sections. Moreover, a paragraph explaining how the paper starts from the European data spaces approach to solve global data exchange ecosystems challenges is added to the text.

Comment 5: Improvement 2: Although the paper discusses data spaces in general, it does not sufficiently define how these data spaces specifically affect or are applied within remote sensing. Given the journal’s focus on remote sensing, more concrete examples or case studies involving remote sensing data would strengthen the paper's relevance to this audience. You could provide more specific examples of how remote sensing data is managed within these data spaces. Case studies or practical applications involving satellite imagery, LiDAR data, or other remote sensing modalities would make the paper more interesting to readers.

Response 5:  Some more references to remote sensing are added through the text. In addition, a section reporting a remote sensing-related case studies has been added (Section 4.3).

 

Comment 6: Improvement 3: The paper acknowledges the complexity of implementing data spaces but does not go deeper into the practical challenges or barriers that organizations might face. A more detailed analysis of these challenges, possibly including organizational, technical, and financial aspects, would provide a more balanced view. A more detailed discussion of the practical challenges in implementing data spaces would be beneficial. This could include challenges related to data privacy, security, and the integration of heterogeneous data sources, which are highly relevant nowadays to the field of remote sensing.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion, it is certainly a key point for data spaces. A deep work would be necessary to provide detailed and comprehensive picture of the challenges and barriers at all levels, but some paragraphs were added in the discussion to mention the main practical challenges towards the data spaces implementation, which may also be considered as a reference for possible follow up of the work.

 

Comment 7: Improvement 4: The paper touches on artificial intelligence and machine learning, it could more thoroughly explore how these technologies could enhance data space functionality, particularly in the context of remote sensing. This would align with the journal’s focus on novel methods and approaches. Enhance more the emerging technologies. Expand the discussion on the role of AI, machine learning, and other emerging technologies in enhancing data space capabilities. This could involve exploring how these technologies can improve data processing, integration, and analysis when remote sensing data.

Response 7: Thank you for the suggestion. In the Discussion section, some paragraphs elaborating on such technologies and reciprocal implications with data spaces are added.

 

Comment 8: Improvement 5:  The tables are sometimes messy and were the rows ends complicated. Please include more visual aids, such as diagrams or flowcharts, to illustrate the proposed methodologies, the mapping of standards, and the architecture of data spaces.

Response 8: Some images were reconsidered and improved (e.g., Figure 2, 3, 6, 8). We understand it is complex in some cases to read through the long tables. However, it is hard to provide different visualisations being sufficiently meaningful, especially because this work is intended as an initial milestone, to be further developed likely in collaboration with the other relevant organisations and networks. Some synthesis images and diagrams were initiated, for example, to depict the current offer across the data space building blocks. However, a thorough assessment of the considered standards according to the proposed metrics, for example, would be necessary, rather than comparing the bare number of standards available, which would be the objective for a medium-term collaboration activity. This comment is added and mentioned as part of the future work recommendations in conclusions.

Comment 9: Improvement 6: I find the future directions should be more clarified. You could strengthen the conclusion by providing more specific recommendations for future research and development in the area of data spaces, especially in the context of remote sensing.

Response 9: Some text was added to the conclusion to extend the future work perspectives.

 

Comment 10: By addressing these parts, the paper could significantly enhance its impact and relevance to the journal's audience. Again, congratulations for the paper.

Response 10: Thank you so much for the comment, we addressed your suggestions to make it suitable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the authors’ work on developing the concept of data space. Principles and organisations for data interoperability and management were reviewed, as well as the main initiatives for data space. The initial baseline for data space building blocks was identified and established, including technical building blocks and governance and business building blocks. Existing standards were mapped to these data space building blocks, which can guide users and data space developers in the choice of suitable standards. Overall, this paper tries to facilitate data interoperability in the geospatial industry, and the logic is clear. Several aspects should be improved.

1. Paper structure.

1) The abstract should be improved to cover context, problem, solution, result, and potential impact.

2) The current structure of the paper is not balanced. This paper with 25 pages includes three sections, the first section has 10 pages for introduction, the second section has 1.5 pages for methodology, and the last section has 13.5 pages for the result, which also includes 1 page for discussion and conclusion. The structure should be adjusted to be more balanced. Discussion and conclusion should be independent sections. An improved structure will make this paper better organised and easier to follow.

2. Method.

1) A panel of experts was involved in the assessment of the developed framework, so an introduction to the panel should be included (e.g., number, member, title, and experience), as well as their feedback on the framework as a validation of the output framework.

3. Writing and formatting.

There are several typos and formatting issues noticed. Line 131: typo – ‘is defined as as’, Line 134 – ICT – acronym, Line 218: ‘and use, The field’, Line 225: ‘model[?]’, Line 346: typo – ‘n0’, Line 537: ‘in thi study’

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is good, except for typing and formatting issues.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, they were addressed as described in detail below.

1. Paper structure.

Comment 1: 1) The abstract should be improved to cover context, problem, solution, result, and potential impact.

Response 1: Thank you, The abstract was improved according to the suggestions.

 

Comment 2: 2) The current structure of the paper is not balanced. This paper with 25 pages includes three sections, the first section has 10 pages for introduction, the second section has 1.5 pages for methodology, and the last section has 13.5 pages for the result, which also includes 1 page for discussion and conclusion. The structure should be adjusted to be more balanced.

Response 2:  The introduction was split by adding a ‘background’ section. The description of current status and ongoing initiatives still occupies a large part of the paper, but it cannot be eliminated or shortened further, since it brings some necessary background knowledge that facilitates understanding of the rest of the paper. Some parts of the methodology were extended, including by moving text which was previously in the results section. The sections are still not equal, but the text is now more balanced, thank you for your suggestion.

Comment 3: Discussion and conclusion should be independent sections. An improved structure will make this paper better organised and easier to follow.

Response 3: That was a typo, thank you for noticing it, it is now fixed in the paper.

 

2. Method.

Comment 4: 1) A panel of experts was involved in the assessment of the developed framework, so an introduction to the panel should be included (e.g., number, member, title, and experience), as well as their feedback on the framework as a validation of the output framework.

Response 4: A table reporting more details on the panel of experts is added, as well as a sentence mentioning the kind of feedback they gave. However this is impossible to report effectively and punctually, because the evolved model was developed across different iterations and discussion phases: “As a substantial part of the refinement of the building blocks happened across several iterations, taking its final shape during the discussion phases, it is not efficient to share the detailed feedback by each expert over each step. Instead, the final results are shared, on which they could find an agreement. The future implementations will provide final validation, or offer additional opportunity for refinements.”

3. Writing and formatting.

Comments 5: 

• There are several typos and formatting issues noticed. Line 131: typo – ‘is defined as as’, 
• Line 134 – ICT – acronym,
• Line 218: ‘and use, The field’, 
• Line 225: ‘model[?]’, 
• Line 346: typo – ‘n0’, 
• Line 537: ‘in thi study’

Response 5: Thank you, all points were checked and fixed, and the whole text proofread again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the attached file.

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper is about the technical aspects of data spaces related to geospatial data and aims to provide guiding principles on building them. First, we can read a comprehensive overview of the current standards and services. It is presented as a part of the Introduction, which results in an unusually long Introduction. I can imagine the intention and motivation of the authors, still I would recommend to consider to insert a new section and split the information.

Response 1: Thank you for the comment, a background section was added to separate it. It is still quite long, because, to understand this kind of paper, it is important to give a synthetic but comprehensive overview of the current state of play and offer, but it was summarised and unnecessary parts were removed.

 

Comment 2: Minor critical notes: The applied methodology is specified mostly clearly. I miss a longer caption for Figure 2 to provide more information about the collaboration of the two threads and the role of the colors.

Response 2: The caption for Figure 2 was integrated as suggested. The second thread has been removed, since in the text it’s now combined with the previous ones, and defined as a possible motivator for future work.

 

Comment 3: I miss that the paper does not reference the websites of the two HORIZON projects (USAGE and AD4GD) although they play important role in the research.

Response 3: These were added in the text. Thank you for highlighting this omission.

 

Comment 4: I am interested in more details about the hackathon in Turin organized in February 2024. How was the reconsideration of the building blocks implemented? Did you use any special methodology?

Response 4: Thank you, more details on the hackathon in Turin were added to the text.

 

Comment 5: The style of manuscript is fair, although its editing could be improved. See the following list for some examples: 

Response 5: Thanks for pointing out these issues, we fixed them in the text. Please see the more detailed responses to some of them below.

Comment 5a: Lines 464, 475, 488, 497: Usually, American spelling is used in papers: standardization, organization, analyzed, etc.

Response 5a: spellings have been changed to the American style except in direct quotes or titles of published documents that use the European spelling.

Comment 5b: The reference numbering in the paper is strange.. 2, 3, 1, 4, 5, 6, 22. They should be basically in ascending order!

Response 5b: Reference ordering has been corrected. Some references are cited repeatedly which leads to a few numbers still appearing to be out of order, later in the text.

 

Comment 5c: Check the capitalization of the expression ‘data spaces’- See for example line 742 and 730 or 877 and 880

Response 5c: The term ‘data space’ has now been used throughout except where it is capitalised as part of an organisation name or in a publication.

 

Comment 5d: Table A4, A6, A10 contain strikethrough words

Response 5d: The strikethrough format is intended to restrict the scope of the definitions either to ‘data’ or to ‘metadata’. This contrasts with the use of ‘(Meta)data’ which is written in this way in order to show that BOTH metadata and data are under consideration.

 

Comment 5e: Check the content of Table A18, A20

Response 5e: The Tables were all revised and integrated.

 

Comment 6: After a minor revision, I recommend it for publishing.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestions, we applied them to make the manuscript worth for publication.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your detailed responses and the efforts made to improve the manuscript. Here is my follow-up assessment of your revisions.

First, thank you for acknowledging the strengths I pointed out. I appreciate your proactive approach in addressing the general comments.

As for adding content discussing how the findings are relevant beyond Europe, this is a positive step. Expanding the method and discussion to show the global implications of European frameworks strengthens the paper’s international relevance. The newly added content provides enough comparative insights and practical relevance for global stakeholders.

Including remote sensing-related case studies (Section 4.3) is an important improvement. Providing examples like satellite imagery and LiDAR data application will resonate more with the journal’s audience.

Your addition of paragraphs addressing the practical challenges of implementing data spaces is a great move, though I recognize that a full analysis would require a more extensive investigation. I appreciate your focus on the main challenges for now.

The elaboration on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and emerging technologies in the discussion is essential for aligning the paper with cutting-edge advancements in the field.

Your improvements to the visuals and the attempt to add synthesis diagrams are appreciated, the experts in the editorial probably tune the tables.

I appreciate your thoughtful revisions and the effort put into addressing each comment.

Author Response

Comments: The reviewer acknowledges and appreciates the revisions made according to the comments previously received.

Response: Thank you for helping us improve the manuscript and reviewing again our revision effort. The paper got a higher quality and value thanks to your suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for providing the revised manuscript. I have reviewed the paper, most of my concerns have been properly addressed. The following aspects can be further improved.

1. Use a paragraph to explicitly state the problems faced and the purpose of this paper in the introduction section. This would help a lot, considering the length of this paper.

2. Formatting.

1) Line 249, 256: reference is missing.

2) Line 790-802: when listing your points, use ‘1) … 2)…’ rather than ‘1…2…’ that has been used by the headings.

3) The ‘Appendix’ section should come after the reference list.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is acceptable but can be further improved.

Author Response

Comment 1: Thanks for providing the revised manuscript. I have reviewed the paper, most of my concerns have been properly addressed.

Response1 : Thank you, glad to hear that it fulfilled your expectations.

Comment 2: The following aspects can be further improved. Use a paragraph to explicitly state the problems faced and the purpose of this paper in the introduction section. This would help a lot, considering the length of this paper.

Response 2: Thank you for your advice. Although the text itself is not changed, since those aspects were already in the final part of the introduction, a new subsection is now added to highlight it (line 90 - 1.1. The current gap and the purpose of this paper)

Comment 3: 2. Formatting. 1) Line 249, 256: reference is missing.

Response 3: Thanks for pointing this out, the missing references were now added

Comment 4: 2) Line 790-802: when listing your points, use ‘1) … 2)…’ rather than ‘1…2…’ that has been used by the headings. 3) The ‘Appendix’ section should come after the reference list.

Response 4: Although we appreciate your points, the formatting choices in 2) and 3) are dependant on the remote sensing paper template, so it was not our choice.

Comment 5: The quality of English is acceptable but can be further improved.

Response 5: We made an additional proofread of the paper.