Thai Tattoo Wisdom’s Representation of Knowledge by Ontology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The definition and description of subject of the ontology are not sufficient to understand the topic, follow the development of the ontology, or evaluate the validity of the ontology. They are describing an animal I've never heard of, so to speak, in technical language with an imperfect command of English. This hinders a true evaluation of what appears to be a good procedural technique.

What is a tattoo? Can it have knowledge, as the first sentence of abstract states?  "The Sak Yan ontology (SYO) models a tattoo’s knowledge in designing cultural heritage  preservation planning."  This opening is particularly confusing as the article does not mention preservation planning anywhere else.

A tattoo's relationship to Yantras are also unclear.  Tattoos are both the main focus of the ontology ("We have chosen Sak Yan topic (Thai Tattoo) of Yantras  domain to construct the ontology modeling of future system.") and a class, as are yantras.

The mechanics of evaluating the ontology seem valid. Had I a clue of what knowledge the authors are trying to map, I would be in a better position to critique their methods.

I would welcome a rewrite and resubmit.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your recommendations and kindly consider our manuscript. We revise our manuscript and review the literature more to describe your comments. For details, please see the manuscript resubmitted version and the attached files.

Best Regards,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article presents the development of an ontological model dedicated to Cultural Heritage data about Thai Tattoo. While the premise of the research could seem interesting as somehow stated in the introduction (decolonizing knowledge in data models), the article mostly shows the methodology applied for the verification and validation process in the creation of this specific ontological model. From the reading of the article, the significance of this research lies in the development of an ontology that aims at decolonizing knowledge about Thai tattoos in CH datasets. But it is not what the article tries to demonstrate. Instead, the article focuses on verification iterations and methodology of creating an ontological model from a technical point of view. This demonstration falls short in proving the actual benefit of using the proposed methodology. There is no comparative analysis about different models developed by different methodologies to assess the usefulness of the proposed verification workflow.

The article introduction lacks to demonstrate the gap of other ontologies to document adequately CH data about Thai Tattoos. This could be shown in a state-of-the-art or literature review. This part is very necessary as it gives the rationale for the verification criteria used for the proposed ontological model.

An overall editing with an English native speaker is needed to make the experience of the reader smoother. There are problems of syntax and English.

Despite some work to do, the research and the article have merit and I would encourage the authors to revise and resubmit. For the revisions, it is mandatory to strengthen the argument by showing what makes this research innovative in the field of ontological modeling and/or in cultural heritage.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your recommendations and kindly consider our manuscript. We revise our manuscript and review the literature more to describe your comments. For details, please see the manuscript resubmitted version and the attached files.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This authors should further justify their choice of the Thai Tattoo topic as a case-test for their tool.

General statements and introductory remark about the past attempts and current benefits of such an approach to cultural content within heritage preservation policies are lacking.

The cultural significance of the Sak Yan needs to be stressed in more details in order to attract readership.

At this stage this paper remains very programmatic and metada anaysis oriented which as such is not a major problem but constitutes a real problem for its readability.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your recommendations and kindly consider our manuscript. We revise our manuscript and review the literature more to describe your comments. For details, please see the manuscript resubmitted version and the attached files.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

All comments are addressed.

Best,