The Design and Implementation of Geospatial Information Verification Middle Platform for Natural Resources Government Affairs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I do not notice in the article this part from the abstract "Finally, the application method in the construction land approval business are introduced. Practical applications proved that the spatial information verification platform is highly scalable, maintainable, with reuseable business components and data services for a variety of government affairs application systems."

In the end, the article states: Currently, the spatial information verification middle platform has been applied in more than governmental approval items, and it runs stably and effectively.

the authors should clearly present the results of these stably runs. 

The authors should compare microservices with other technologies appropriate for the business needs they described.

More detailed conclusions are needed.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents the design and implementation of geospatial information verification middle platform for natural resources government affairs. The Authors introduced the architecture of spatial information verification platform and the application method in the construction land approval business. The experiments were carried out; according to the Authors, practical applications proved that the spatial information verification platform is highly scalable, maintainable, with reusable business components and data services for a variety of government affairs application systems. The topic is interesting and the paper is well corresponding to the journal aim and scope.

The paper is well structured. The Authors provided the theoretical background and findings in the Introduction section. Based on the above, they formulated the purpose of the work.

In my opinion, the implementation part of the article was done correctly.

However, there are shortcomings in this paper. The section Conclusions does not contain the limitations of the presented platform as well as the future works are missing. These parts should be completed.

The results section 5.3 is also not very extensive – please consider adding a more extensive discussion.

Overall, the article was prepared carefully. Making the changes mentioned above should improve the readability of the article.

Minor typos:

Figure 1 – the lines are on the text, please correct this figure.

In addition, the drawing is referenced in section 2.3 and the drawing is in section 3.1. So it has to be?

The list of references is quite short.

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for submitting your manuscript on The Design and Implementation of Geospatial Information Verification Middle Platform for Natural Resources Government Affairs. This study designed and developed an middle platform for geographic information verification, which was intended to solve the problems of duplicate development, low scalability, and inconsistent verification rules in the original GIS. It mainly utilizes the microservice architecture and takes into account the special application scenarios in geographic information management. However, the article may not be structured well. In addition, there is no more detailed demonstration of the results of the system after development, which is very regrettable. Therefore, I have made some suggestions and questions that I hope will be useful to the authors.

1. For the Introduction, more background is given on the "One Map" and the basics of system architecture (i.e., the first and second paragraphs). But this is not enough to form a scientific gap. Here it is more important to explain the current state of the existing system and then underline the importance of using microservices. In other words, the technologies used in the existing systems need to be described and then the shortcomings of these older technologies should be illustrated. Therefore, the first paragraph of the Introduction can be streamlined and complement the shortcomings of the technology used in the already existing systems.

2. Please give the definition of “spatial information verification” as it may not be understood by the reader. 

3. Lines 50-52: “… by modelling various verification services in a unified manner.” This is a rather vague expression, and it is not clear what exactly is meant by the various verification services. 

4. Line 58: What is “ESB service bus” ? Lack of full name and explanation. 

5. What do the several connecting lines in Figure 1 represent? If it is just some kind of schematic, a macroscopic explanation is needed in the article. Figure 1 is in the incorrect location and should be placed below the paragraph that corresponds to it, not in section 3.1.

6. Lines 162-173: This section is not about the methodology, but rather about the background of the study and the problems that exist in that background, so it is recommended that it be integrated into the Introduction. 

7. Line 175 “…the requirements of dozens of government affairs” This is a pretty nebulous expression, and as a reader and reviewer, I still don't know exactly what the business is from the beginning of this article until now.

8. It seems that performance is not talked about in Section 3.2. In my knowledge performance will mostly be linked to evaluation metrics such as computational efficiency and accuracy of results. And Section 3.2 focuses on the low-coupling benefits of microservices, which have nothing to do with performance.

9. Line 298: “...modle 2” ?

10. For the Section 5 Practical applications, the implementation and application of the system after development are mainly presented. However, unfortunately there are no specific statistics, actual geographic information processing cases, or system-related screenshots. It is necessary to make a large content supplement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comment：Many non-English characters in Figure 7 make it unreadable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx