Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Suggested corrections to this paper are as follows: -

1) Use of word abbreviations. It must be determined based on the real/actual word before using the word abbreviation in the next sections. Please revisit your paper

2) The selection of a university as a case study needs to be well justified

3) Sentences and grammar usage - please revisit 

4) The justification for the formation of the `access management framework'  needs to be explained perfectly 

Author Response

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes the development and validation of a semantically defined access management framework for the built environment. The framework is built upon an access management ontology and is validated through its implementation in a university campus, demonstrating its ability to provide appropriate access control and enable single sign-on. The findings of this study may offer valuable insights to achieve the potential of smart cities.

To further improve the manuscript, some problems need to be carefully solved.

1.It would be better to discuss more about the scalability of the access management framework to larger built environments or smart cities.

2.It would be better to discuss how to address the potential challenges or limitations of using ontologies to unify the diverse semantics of multiple domains.

3.This manuscript does not explicitly mention any future works. It would be better to discuss some potential future works.

The English language in this manuscript can be improved.

Author Response

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

A statement is made about access management being a new field. I would argue it has been around for a long time. What is new is the application to your smart cities framework. 

There are multiple typos in the draft to be changed. Article reads OK.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx