Augmented Reality- and Geographic Information System-Based Inspection of Brick Details in Heritage Warehouses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have read your text carefully. The submitted manuscript presents and discusses a vibrant topic: using Augmented Reality to restore diverse structural objects. I find it very interesting; however, before I accept your paper, I would like to ask you for some clarification.
Firstly, please be aware that the methodology used and presented here is not brand new. There are many similar applications worldwide presented in different scientific and popular journals. Regarding that, please expose your findings clearly and explain the paper's novelty convincingly.
Figure 1 is, unfortunately, hard to read. I recommend you avoid pasting city plans with street names and diverse facilities because, on a reduced scale, the picture is completely unreadable. I suggest you remove that figure and consider presenting your research area differently (more general map?).
Using AR and VR, GIS, or photogrammetry in documenting Cultural Heritage is already an old idea. However, it is still worth publishing, provided that you present the novelty expressed by the findings you will discuss. Otherwise, it is rather a technical report - interesting for a wider audience but not necessary for scientists. Please think about it and rephrase your text respectively.
Line 108: you write obvious ideas - please extend the passage by giving examples of successful data fusion, image recognition methods, and so on.
Figure 2: too much text in the picture. It is hard to read. Please think of giving certain numbers and explaining them further in the text. It will definitely look better.
Generally, you write about using ready technologies and data visualization. Although it is interesting, it's far too little for a scientific paper. It should also contain some validation methodology, verification of your assumptions, and recommendations. Otherwise, it is an ordinary marketing brochure. Please consider adding some verification methodologies (maybe comparing diverse objects using that approach and quantifying it or using some statistical inferences?).
Figure 12 is hard to read. Please increase the resolution (sharpness).
Finally, please structure your text so that it contains an introduction, materials and methods, verification of your method, discussion, and conclusions.
Should you improve your text respectively, please resubmit it for another review cycle. Good luck!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is acceptable but due to some expressions and punctuation, I recommend undergoing a thorough proofreading.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for this significant reviewing effort.
Your suggestions are highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper describes the integration of AR and GIS for the study of brick Warehouse from a historical and architectural point of view, from a detail level.
The technical part is described well enough without going into detail about the individual tools used. This choice is agreeable since the tools are commercial and well known and are not the core of the project.
However, the overall purpose is not very clear. Several times in the article, it is said that the comparison is meant to capture the differences. I apologize, but it is unclear to me what differences. What differences are they? Differences between different buildings? Differences between the same building in different periods (I don't think so unless they have just been restored and I haven't read that).
In short, I suggest explaining much better, not the technical aspect, but the objective and how the 3D models, inserted in the GIS and downloadable on the cell via QRcode, are useful for the general purpose. Please explain also the need of a 2nd reconstruction
More in detail:
Line 55: add the years for those who are not familiar with Taiwan Dynasty. Accordin to this, the years of the map could be inserted as an important information also in the text and not only in caption of figure 1
Figure 2, 3 ,4 and 5 and relative text. I recommend breaking down the text a little better because coordinated reading of text and image is not easy. Separate the theoretical process, for example, from the practical and studied details. For example the step 7 refer to image 4d-I, and image 5d.
Referring to the step 7 of the process, here it is my biggest difficulty. Why is it necessary to scale, to move and to rotate the model in context (real environment)? In images 4 e-g, it seems you are positioning and scaling a pillar in a position where there is nothing….which is the meaning? In image 5, it seems you are georeferencing a exterior portal along a interior wall
In results, line 159, you add for the first time the concept of 2nd reconstruction, why do you need this? Why didn’t you add it in the process (figure 2)?
Chapter 3.2 and figure 8 . Maybe a deepen description is necessary to describe the architectural features. Taking about differences, for example, you write about “wood pavement and washed floor finish”: in figure 8 there are these elements but I cannot understand the link to AR model fitting to real world. Does figure 8b represent the fitting of what? Of the Ar model to what element of real world?. I apologize for these remarks, I am not grasping the point of the application, but surely, with a detailed explanation, even on just one element, everything will be clearer
Chapter 3.4. I cannot understand the necessity of the 2nd reconstruction, neither from the images. And you write about 3D print but there is no example or image of it
Chapter 4.2 Can you explain the concept of “video conference”? there is no mention of this in the method, and usually when talking about video conference, at least two persons are involved….who are they?
“We found design was made to the abrupt interface existed between the building enclosure 228 and peripheral ground earth”
How should I read this sentence accordin to the image 11? Not in technical terms (about application), but concerning the architectural elements. The two parts are belonging to the same typological element “restored” in different ways? Does this have any referenct to the background? Is seems not.
Chapter4.4 According to my previous doubts, also this sentence is not clear “3D photogrammetry and 3D print contributed to a useful instrumentation to generate and verify the documented 60 architecture details”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for this significant reviewing effort.
Your suggestions are highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you very much for your improved manuscript and your answers to my comments. I accept them and think that your new text definitely looks more transparent. Hence, as I don't have other questions, I recommend your text for further processing. Congratulations!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is generally correct and transparent. However, I recommend thorough proofreading before publishing the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter corrections done by the authors, the article is ready to be published. Just remember to
-fix the replacement on page 9 line 241, caption
-check the quality of figure 11
-check the images of the apendix. Some of them have a black frame, others do not
