Towards Integrating Heterogeneous Data: A Spatial DBMS Solution from a CRC-LCL Project in Australia^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting paper on fusing the different data sources together and especially utilizing BIM models for spatial data management.

Suggested editing

It is not clear what data you actually utilized. Especially GIS data used remains unclear. There are some links provided to the data sources which direct to the page requiring username and password. It is not helpful for the readers.

You present the IBM model but do not discuss any issues nor benefits on using it. It would be important to discuss those. 

In the conclusion part it would be useful to discuss how your IBM model could be utilized in practice. Are the changes needed in the standards?

Few suggestions for further improvements

-Utilization of PIM term is not necessary clear to all readers. I had to look the term precinct up in order to understand what you mean. You also utilize the traditional scale approach which is valid for the existing systems but not necessary so for the future. As you are suggesting how to connect BIM-GIS worlds why scale should be of interest? A better approach could be a use of level of details. 

You show how to manage the transformation from BIM-PIM. There you assume the models are correct but this is not the case in most cases. Therefore there is a need to manage quality and also check the valdity of the models. This can also be done with rules based approaches. This should be then shown in your Figure 2. 

Small corrections

line 622 the secon option -> add d

 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. We have revised the paper according to the reviewers’ comments. Below is a summary of our revisions. The revisions are highlighted in red in paper body.

Comment 1: It is not clear what data you actually utilized. Especially GIS data used remains unclear. There are some links provided to the data sources which direct to the page requiring username and password. It is not helpful for the readers.

Response 1: We have significantly modified our description of the data used. The revisions are mostly in Section 5, Line 519-524; Most of the GIS data is mainly 2D and therefore we apply various reconstruct procedures to create 3D objects from it.  In-house scripts for Rhinoceros (with Grasshopper) process the entire reconstruction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 2: You present the IBM model but do not discuss any issues nor benefits on using it. It would be important to discuss those. 

Response 2: We have extended our discussion of our IBM model in the revised Section 6, Line 622-629; for example, CityGML and IFC are not fully demonstrated and IBM should be made minor modifications for different real applications/scenarios.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment3: In the conclusion part it would be useful to discuss how your IBM model could be utilized in practice. Are the changes needed in the standards?

Response 3: We have explained the significance and impact of our IBM model in Section 6. Except database access and query use-cases in our conference paper [Li et al., 2019] via customized datasets, in the future, we will deal with suitable multiple data sources with multiple levels of details, and then create PIM under the specific application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 4: Utilization of PIM term is not necessary clear to all readers. I had to look the term precinct up in order to understand what you mean. You also utilize the traditional scale approach which is valid for the existing systems but not necessary so for the future. As you are suggesting how to connect BIM-GIS worlds why scale should be of interest? A better approach could be a use of level of details.

Response 4: We have significantly explained the differences between scale and level of detail in the integrated work in the revised Section 2.1, Line 101-103; for example, the scale we talk about in PIM is more about the scope of the modelling, while, the level of detail indicates less or more detail of the same object regarding both their geometry and thematic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 5: You show how to manage the transformation from BIM-PIM. There you assume the models are correct but this is not the case in most cases. Therefore there is a need to manage quality and also check the valdity of the models. This can also be done with rules based approaches. This should be then shown in your Figure 2. 

Response 5: We have added discussion of the quality and validity of our models in the revised Section 2; for example, in Figure 2, we append quality management and validity checking procedure in it. This topic concerning how to analyze quality management and validity checking under multiple application scenarios is also interesting in our future work (See the revised Section 6, Line 628-629).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 6: line 622 the secon option -> add d

Response 6: Thanks. We have fixed that typo.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference:

[1] Li, W., Zlatanova, S., Yan, J.J., Diakite, A. and Aleksandrov, M., 2019. A GEO-DATABASE SOLUTION FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OF BUILDING MODEL WITH MULTI-SOURCE DATA FUSION. The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42, pp.55-63.

Reviewer 2 Report

The writing style in this paper needs help; The authors, for example, define GIS and spatial database basics, but for some reason, no explanation of what is Semantic GIS is given, at least in the beginning part of the paper. Semantic GIS could be explained earlier on in the article in addition to GIS basics and spatial database basis. At this time, the work can come across as disconnected/baffle-gab and needs proof-reading by and editor. Some grammar and writing style needs editing in the final submission. Try the Grammarly app or something along those lines or have a proof-reader sharpen up the writing.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for giving our constructive comments concerning our article. We have revised the paper according to the reviewers’ comments. Below is a summary of our revision and significant revisions mark with red text.  

Comment 1: The writing style in this paper needs help; The authors, for example, define GIS and spatial database basics, but for some reason, no explanation of what is Semantic GIS is given, at least in the beginning part of the paper. Semantic GIS could be explained earlier on in the article in addition to GIS basics and spatial database basis. At this time, the work can come across as disconnected/baffle-gab and needs proof-reading by and editor.

Response 1: We have significantly explained semantic GIS in the revised Section 1, Line 29-32; for example, semantic GIS model aim is to provide designers with modelling constructs and rules that are well suited for representing the user’s perception of data in the application world, abstracting from implementation concerns. As different data models are increasingly employed, requiring multi-dimensional and multiple ways in which data are viewed and understood.

Semantic ontologies have been designed to give a clearer understanding of spatial bounds and the context of geospatial data [Cai, 2007]. Semantic GIS needs to manage space outside of only physical bounds in a more abstract format. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 2: Some grammar and writing style needs editing in the final submission. Try the Grammarly app or something along those lines or have a proof-reader sharpen up the writing.

Response 2: We have carefully clean out writing typos in the revised manuscript.

 

Reference:

[1] Cai, G., 2007. Contextualization of geospatial database semantics for human–GIS interaction. Geoinformatica, 11(2), pp.217-237.