Increasing Access to Cultural Heritage Objects from Multiple Museums through Semantically-Aware Maps

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the title, authors mention « semantically », but this part is not treated here.

This work is useful and interesting, but its interest will gain a lot when the semantic contributions are added

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

See our answer in the attached document.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a very high-quality, valuable, but still purely descriptive technical report. As a purely empirical study it contains interesting observations and descriptions of how to electronically present cultural heritage.

My most fundamental reservation is that it is not a scientific article but a technical report on the collective online catalog CER.ES. The scientific article should be based on a relevant theoretical background. In this case, the authors should describe the contribution of their work to the dissemination of knowledge in the theory of cultural diplomacy of heritage (see eg Goda, N., Ciefova M. 2019. Cultural Diplomacy of Selected Countries in a Comparative Perspective, Folia Geographica 2019, 61/2, pp. 172-189). I consider as a fundamental problem that the authors, despite declaring a focus on "semantically-aware maps" in the introduction to the study, do not pay attention to the concept of semiotics. This is desirable in scientific studies with a similar focus (especially in GIS). For a brief overview, see Matlovicova, K., Tirpakova E., Mocak P., 2019. City Brand Image: Semiotic Perspective Case Study of Prague. Folia Geographica, Volume 61, no. 1, 120–142.)

Given the recommendations that the authors formulate in the conclusion, it would be appropriate to outline at least a brief overview of existing approaches to cultural heritage management, for which the results of the work ultimately serve (see introductory review in eg Markiewicz-Patkowska J., Pytel S., Oleśniewicz P., Widawski K. 2019. Modern Senior Tourism in the Context of Young People Tourist Activity in Poland. Folia Geographica, Volume 61, No. 1, 68–86) 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

See our answer in the attached document.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, the manuscript is informative, having some inadequacies.  I shall highlight them and the authors might improve the quality and readability of this research paper accordingly.  

1. The techniques and/or models presented and mentioned in the manuscript require sufficient GIS details (including calibration, sensitivity analysis and validation) to allow other researchers to develop and test the applications later on.  More simulations and comparisons that show the advantages and the drawbacks of the proposed schema are needed.  The proposed study needs deeper elaboration.  

2. The authors should clearly explain the intuitions behind their ideas, models and datasets.  Additionally, Please include and detail all the algorithms (mathematical expressions), of the related GIS techniques and/or model/s mentioned in the manuscript.  

3. Please include all the GIS Software codes that have been implemented in this particular research work in the appendix section for independent simulation, testing, validation and integration.  

4. If possible, it will be good if the authors could add a graphical representation summarizing their results which compares controls, simulation results, all the parameters and variables related to GIS.   

5. The introduction section does not provide a succinct theoretical basis for the study.  I would like to ask the authors to expand and highlight the advantages of their approaches that bring benefits in the solved issues.  

6. The methods are not correctly described and sufficiently informative to allow the replication of the research.  The cross-cutting explanation of the methodology should be described by a schematic and conceptual flowchart.  The GIS methodology should be described clarifying the definition of the variables and their modelling.  

7. The English in several parts of the text is not good enough and does not allow the understanding of the authors' sentences.  Please have the manuscript proofread by competent authorities.  Please make it coherent dealing with each section at a time, deleting all the repetitions and linking one paragraph to the next having focus, scale, novelty, importance, clarity and rigour.  I suggest using Journal's assistance with proof reading services.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

See our answer in the attached document.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a well writter paper on cultural heritage data organization and dissemination in the web. However I don't see any semantics in the map e.g.

this map does not have any more semantic information or functionality than any usual map. I can see the semantic character in the Knowledge Graph but not in the map.  

A number of remarks concern the viualization methods and the SeMap GUI:

Lines 367 - 370: The use of hue e.g. green, yellow, orange cannot be used to portay quantitative values only qualitive differences (http://www.personal.psu.edu/cab38/ColorSch/ASApaper.html). It is advisable to used circles as symbols with sizes proportional to the nymber of clustered objects, a well known cartographic method known as proportional symbols (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_symbol_map). 

Figure 5: Use of negative numbers in the temporal scale is really a problem. Please replace with positive numbers and add a AD and BC label. Since the space is rather narrow, you can add the label underneath or use two different hues for the two eras. Additionally the selected century does not always appears correctly in the drop. 

Line 433-434: The 3D gallery may be a solution but it is implemented outside of the map. this is inconistent with the other cases of smaller clusters and the spatial continuity is lost as the user is moved away from the map. Clicking on the picture to access information about the object does not work.

A number of georeference errors may exist as in the case of the National Archeological Museum in Athens (Museo Arqueológico Nacional Atenas Grecia) which is misplaced. Additionally due to the international extend of the cultural objects presented, menus in English should be an option

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

See our answer in the attached document.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I accept this paper in present form and recommend it for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, I am okay with the changes made. Thanks. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The article has been reviewed as suggested. It can now be published.