Ontology-Based Process Modelling-with Examples of Physical Topologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigates modeling issues in the context of engineering processes and proposes an ontology to support modeling.

While being an expert in modeling information and software systems, I am not an expert in engineering processes such as the ones considered in this paper.

However, I can provide some comments that maybe could help improving the paper.

• I found this paper difficult to read and its contribution unclear.
• It could be due to my lack of deep knowledge of the field of chemical engineering, but I found that the problem was not clearly posed, the alternative ways to solve it not exposed, the references to existing works insufficiently presented and discussed. In other words, the principles of a design science paper are not properly followed.
• The paper is written in an imperative mode providing little consideration on the WHY things should be done in the way it proposes.
• The paper lacks focus.
• The 10 first pages (half of the paper) are very general considerations, which are only indirectly related to the core issue of the paper.
• Vice versa, the ontology that is supposed to be part of the core contribution of the paper is shortly introduced in less than 3 pages.
• The three provided examples do not highlight convincingly the contribution of the paper proposal.
• The conclusions do not fairly reflect what the paper provides and future work in not introduced.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

7: Token is used in abstract, but the meaning is not defined. 

9: Leaf nodes?

51: "It is well known that these simulators do not guarantee the closure of the conserved quantities". I suggest finding a reference for this

53: Extra t

74-75: "Consequently, any numerical method closed to the accuracy defined, and thus closure of those fundamental quantities can be guaranteed." I don't understand this sentence

229: Last sentence hard to read

231: When modelling a dynamic...?

289/290: It looks like a duplicate reference to Figure 2. The first one should be removed

292: has a couple of...?

294 (last one): "Taking energy formulation:" Word missing (the?).

323: ...sample ontology in Figure 4

Figure 6 figure text reads the same as Figure 5. Add a more descriptive figure text

365: ...must be first be... one be to many

379: Løvfall or Loevfall, should be consistent with [15]

Page 14. The bullet points seems misplaced. My interpretation is that the first three are assumptions to go from the sketch (fig 7) to the first model (fig 8), the second set is the set of assumptions to further go to the simplified model (fig 9). But then I don't see the assumptions for fig 10. Line 422 ends with : but nothing comes after.

442: This does not make sense: "cause the iron to oxidise the iron"

461: Some grammatical error. We have used the.. maybe?

Section 7.4 I feel this does not add much to the paper, consider removing

491/492: I don't understand the sentence starting with The node behaviour 

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Given , the response of the author and his/her explanations concerning the specific domain considered in this paper, I can support the proposal made in this paper.