Modeling and Querying Fuzzy SOLAP-Based Framework
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review report for the paper “Modeling and Querying Fuzzy SOLAP-Based Framework”.
Significance :
. The scientific content of this paper is correct.
. The results could be better presented. This would emphasize the quality of the presented work.
. The technical quality of this paper is correct.
. The conclusion is correctly justified and but it should be better supported by the results.
. The limits of the results obtained in this paper are not mentioned. This point should be investigated.
Quality of presentation:
. The abstract is clear and presents correctly the subject addressed in this paper.
. Introduction - What are your contributions?
. Why do we need fuzzy online spatial analytical processing framework?
. Better highlight novelty in the study.
. Better define motivations for the research.
. The data and analyses should be better presented. Add more discussion on the results. Add comparisons with existing approaches.
. Literature review is missing. Based on LR you should define gap you are trying to cover.
. Generally, validation and comparisons of the results is well prepared. But, more discussion in on the results of the case study are needed. The improvement must be discussed.
. The conclusion section seems to rush to the end. The authors will have to demonstrate the impact and insights of the research. The authors need to clearly provide several solid future research directions. Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. Add limitations of the model.
Scientific soundness :
. The subject addressed in this paper is relevant.
Interest to the readers :
. In my opinion, method of this paper seem to be interesting for the readership of the journal.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. This allowed us to improve it much, and we now think that our paper is better than the previous version.
Significance :
Point 1: The scientific content of this paper is correct.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment.
Point 2: The results could be better presented. This would emphasize the quality of the presented work.
Response 2: Thank you for this comment. We have explained the results in detail by revising the Introduction section and adding a Discussion section to the manuscript to better highlight the quality of the work presented.
Point 3: The technical quality of this paper is correct.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment.
Point 4: The conclusion is correctly justified and but it should be better supported by the results.
Response 4: Thanks for this remark and suggestion. We revised the Conclusion section as suggested. (Line 733)
Point 5: The limits of the results obtained in this paper are not mentioned. This point should be investigated.
Response 5: Thank you for this comment. We added a Discussion section and mentioned the limits of the study. (Line 670)
Quality of presentation:
Point 6: The abstract is clear and presents correctly the subject addressed in this paper.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment.
Point 7: Introduction - What are your contributions?
Response 7: Thank you for this comment. We revised the Introduction section to describe the contributions of the study better and more clearly.
Point 8: Why do we need fuzzy online spatial analytical processing framework?
Response 8: Thank you for this comment. We revised the Introduction section by including a paragraph to explain the need for an online fuzzy spatial analytical processing framework. (Line 74)
Point 9: Better highlight novelty in the study.
Response 9: Thank you for this comment. We revised the contributions paragraph in the Introduction section and explain the novelty of the study more clearly. (Line 108) We also compared the proposed study with the existing studies in the literature to show the novelty of the study. (Line 694)
Point 10: Better define motivations for the research.
Response 10: Thank you for this comment. We rewrote the motivation paragraph in the Introduction section to explain the aim of the study in more detail. (Line 74)
Point 11: The data and analyses should be better presented. Add more discussion on the results. Add comparisons with existing approaches.
Response 11: Thank you for this comment and suggestions. We added a Discussion section and compared the study with the existing proposals. (Line 694)
Point 12: Literature review is missing. Based on LR you should define gap you are trying to cover.
Response 12: Thank you for this comment. We wrote a new paragraph in the Related Works section and added some recent previous studies related to our proposal. (Line 191)
Point 13: Generally, validation and comparisons of the results is well prepared. But, more discussion in on the results of the case study are needed. The improvement must be discussed.
Response 13: Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We added a Discussion section and discussed the result of the case study. (Line 670)
Point 14: The conclusion section seems to rush to the end. The authors will have to demonstrate the impact and insights of the research. The authors need to clearly provide several solid future research directions. Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. Add limitations of the model.
Response 14: Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We wrote a Discussion section and revised the Conclusions section to represent the impact and insights of the study. (Line 670,733) Also, we revised the contributions paragraph in the Introduction section (Line 74,108). Limits of the research and provided future works suggestions are given in these sections.
Scientific soundness :
Point 15: The subject addressed in this paper is relevant.
Response 15: Thank you for this comment.
Interest to the readers :
Point 16: In my opinion, method of this paper seem to be interesting for the readership of the journal.
Response 16: Thank you for your kind words for our study. We certainly hope that our revised version of the paper will satisfy all the points and comments made by the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The current paper proposes to describe a generic fuzzy querying approach to process complex and flexible queries using the FSOLAP framework. The theory is validated using simulations.
Comments to authors:
- Please add more details regarding paper’s novelty, it is not very clear what are the novelties of this paper.
- Please add more details of how the theory from the first sections is applied in the results section.
- The authors can add the steps of implementing the algorithms. The theoretical part can be better detailed. The steps will be in the benefit of the readers, maybe they’ll help the readers to implement the proposed algorithm.
- the authors discuss about optimal design. Please define the objective function.
- The state of the art it is very poor regarding representative papers, maybe the author could add the following publications:
o Hybrid Data-Driven Fuzzy Active Disturbance Rejection Control for Tower Crane Systems, European Journal of Control, vol. 58, pp. 373-387-11, 2021.
o Event-Triggered Adaptive Fuzzy Control for Stochastic Nonlinear Systems with Unmeasured States and Unknown Backlash-Like Hysteresis, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, doi 10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.2973950, pp. 1–19, 2020.
- Please add more details regarding the obtained results.
- Add the both the advantages and the disadvantages of the proposed method. In the proposed manuscript only the advantages are presented.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. This allowed us to improve it much, and we now think that our paper is better than the previous version.
Point 1: Please add more details regarding paper’s novelty, it is not very clear what are the novelties of this paper.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We revised the contributions paragraph in the Introduction section. (Line 108)
Point 2: Please add more details of how the theory from the first sections is applied in the results section.
Response 2: Thank you for this comment. We added a paragraph about the theory of the study in the Introduction section. (Line 74) And, we discussed the results under the theory considered in the newly written Discussion section. (Line 670)
Point 3: The authors can add the steps of implementing the algorithms. The theoretical part can be better detailed. The steps will be in the benefit of the readers, maybe they’ll help the readers to implement the proposed algorithm.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We represented the algorithms used in the study in Implementation section. (Line 268, 278, 289, 305, 313)
Point 4: the authors discuss about optimal design. Please define the objective function.
Response 4: Thank you for this comment. We represented the objective function of the clustering algorithms. (Line 272, 278)
Point 5: The state of the art it is very poor regarding representative papers, maybe the author could add the following publications:
o Hybrid Data-Driven Fuzzy Active Disturbance Rejection Control for Tower Crane Systems, European Journal of Control, vol. 58, pp. 373-387-11, 2021.
o Event-Triggered Adaptive Fuzzy Control for Stochastic Nonlinear Systems with Unmeasured States and Unknown Backlash-Like Hysteresis, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, doi 10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.2973950, pp. 1–19, 2020.
Response 5: Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We cited the suggested studies. (Line 83) Also, we wrote new paragraphs to show the state of the art. (Line 268, 278, 289, 305, 313, 360)
Point 6: Please add more details regarding the obtained results.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment. We explained the results in detail by adding a Discussion section to the study. (Line 670)
Point 7: Add the both the advantages and the disadvantages of the proposed method. In the proposed manuscript only the advantages are presented.
Response 7: Thank you for this comment. We added a Discussion section and mentioned the limits of the study. (Line 721) Moreover, we compared the study with the existing related studies in the literature. We also represented both the advantages and the disadvantages of the proposed research. (Line 694)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- In recent years, the amount of data acquired by automated systems has been growing so much that advanced data processing methods are needed. One of the approaches, presented in the article, is the use of artificial intelligence methods. The authors have attempted to present a method for automatic processing of data sequences using fuzzy logic on the example of meteorological data collection.
- General remarks
- Too many abbreviations make it difficult to follow the content of the article. Each abbreviation should be expanded the first time it appears. Not all readers need to know all abbreviations. Especially in the title, abstract and conclusions.
- Please use the language of a scientific research report without personal references like “we”, “us”, “our” and similar . There are many in whole article.
- There is lack of “Discussion” chapter. Please add it.
- However the article is well written should be carefully edited. Some remarks included below.
- Specific remarks
- There should always be a space before the parenthesis eg. line 34 “techniques[2]”, line 44, 77 and others.
- Line 44 – rather [4-6], line 61 [8-10], line 77 [12,13] and similar corrections later.
- Table 1 numbers of Latitude and Longitude are understandable. What is the vertical reference to altitude?
- The final conclusions are too general and only generally summarize the research presented in the article. I suggest expanding the conclusions with more detailed findings.
- Only initials are used in the chapter outlining the authors' contributions. This chapter currently occupies 6 lines.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. This allowed us to improve it much, and we now think that our paper is better than the previous version.
General remarks
Point 1: Too many abbreviations make it difficult to follow the content of the article. Each abbreviation should be expanded the first time it appears. Not all readers need to know all abbreviations. Especially in the title, abstract and conclusions.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We expanded each abbreviation when we first used it. (Line 192, 222, 224)
Point 2: Please use the language of a scientific research report without personal references like “we”, “us”, “our” and similar . There are many in whole article.
Response 2: Thank you for this comment. We revised the paragraphs which contain “we”, “us”, “our” repeatedly. (Line 113, 264, 340, 355, 758)
Point 3: There is lack of “Discussion” chapter. Please add it.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment. We added a Discussion section and discussed the result of the study. (Line 670)
Point 4: However the article is well written should be carefully edited. Some remarks included below.
Response 4: Thank you for your kind words for our study.
Specific remarks
Point 5: There should always be a space before the parenthesis eg. line 34 “techniques[2]”, line 44, 77 and others.
Response 5: Thank you for this remark. We edited these type of mistakes.
Point 6: Line 44 – rather [4-6], line 61 [8-10], line 77 [12,13] and similar corrections later.
Response 6: Thank you for this remark. We edited these type of mistakes.
Point 7: Table 1 numbers of Latitude and Longitude are understandable. What is the vertical reference to altitude?
Response 7: Thank you for this remark. We added the latitude, longitude, and altitude units in Table 1. (Line 423)
Point 8: The final conclusions are too general and only generally summarize the research presented in the article. I suggest expanding the conclusions with more detailed findings.
Response 8: Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We revised the Conclusions section to represent the impact and insights of the study. Also, we rewrote the contributions and limits of the research and provided future works suggestions in these sections. (Line 733)
Point 9: Only initials are used in the chapter outlining the authors' contributions. This chapter currently occupies 6 lines.
Response 9: Thank you for this comment. We rewrote the contributions paragraph in the Introduction section and explain the novelty of the study. (Line 108) We also wrote summary of the contributions in the Conclusion section. (Line 733)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been seriously improved since last revision. The authors answered to all my concerns. From my point of view the paper can be accepted to be published in IGJI Journal.
