Building a Design-Rationale-Centric Knowledge Network to Realize the Internalization of Explicit Knowledge
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
You can find the report in attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes a DR-centered DKSN meta-model to help designers extract, organize and summarize the target content in the literature and form a visual structure map to provide designers with design ideas. The method of knowledge fusion is considered comprehensively, both the overall sentence and the local words are fine and all aspects are analyzed rigorously .
There are still issues to be described clearly:
1. the second paragraph of the introductory section of Section 1 (lines 50-54), "On the other hand, knowledge is often treated by designers as their own asset and are unwilling to actively share it." The section mentions that designers often consider knowledge as their own asset, so how to deal with issues related to intellectual property and privacy in the process of DR acquisition?
2. Section 4.3 introduces the fusion of sentences and words respectively, in practice, are these two fusion operations completely independent or do they participate in a common process? For example, the fusion of words is performed first, and then the result obtained is fused with sentences. Which would be the better result of the two methods of processing?
3. In Section 4.3, if a trade-off operation is performed on the original text during the fusion of words, what priority should be followed? Should the broad or narrow words be retained? What priority should be given to the trade-off of similar semantic sentences? Should simple sentences be kept for the designer to understand the content faster, or should complex sentences be kept for the designer to get more detailed information?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
I think the paper is very interesting and written very well. The experimental design makes it robust. Only if you could have used another technique on the same documents, the visual comparison could have been easy.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. Refine English expression.
2. The dynamic attributes of knowledge network need to be further described in detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
