From Negative Knowledge to Best Practices for Enhancing Reusability of Sketches in Procedural 3D CAD Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript title

 

From negative knowledge to best practices for enhancing reusability of sketches in procedural 3D CAD Models  

 

Authors

Carmen González-Lluch, Raquel Plumed and Pedro Company

 

 

Essentially, the paper proposes a system for organizing best practices by prioritizing the design errors with the highest probability of occurring that compromise the quality of CAD models.

After a careful and critical reading of the manuscript, I affirm that, indeed, the authors have developed a method of organizing good practices, based on the classification of design errors, which, when carefully applied, have the potential to reduce the occurrence of non-compliant models.

The manuscript is well structured, and the sections presented have the gift of highlighting a new perspective on design errors and, further, on the use of negative knowledge to set good practices in the field of design.

The graphics and tables in the manuscript are of good quality and easy to understand.

The manuscript is edited in technical language, well-articulated and easy to understand. Furthermore, the English translation is professional, accurate and comprehensive.

Finally, considering the above observations, I appreciate that the paper can be considered for publication in the journal Designs, in its current form.

Author Response

Comments 1: Essentially, the paper proposes a system for organizing best practices by prioritizing the design errors with the highest probability of occurring that compromise the quality of CAD models.

Response 1: We appreciate the brief summary made by the reviewer.

Comments 2:  After a careful and critical reading of the manuscript, I affirm that, indeed, the authors have developed a method of organizing good practices, based on the classification of design errors, which, when carefully applied, have the potential to reduce the occurrence of non-compliant models.

The manuscript is well structured, and the sections presented have the gift of highlighting a new perspective on design errors and, further, on the use of negative knowledge to set good practices in the field of design.

The graphics and tables in the manuscript are of good quality and easy to understand.

The manuscript is edited in technical language, well-articulated and easy to understand. Furthermore, the English translation is professional, accurate and comprehensive.

Finally, considering the above observations, I appreciate that the paper can be considered for publication in the journal Designs, in its current form.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for his/her positive evaluation of the work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focused on contributing to advancing the quality of 3D procedural models based on negative knowledge to best practices. This research is very interesting and provides a significant contribution to the knowledge of this field. I suggest the manuscript be accepted after the following queries are to be addressed in the revised manuscript:

(1) In scientific papers, the use of first-person pronouns is generally not appropriate. It is recommended that all first-person pronouns be replaced in the text.

(2) It is suggested that the abstract of the article be revised. The current segmented format should be changed to a single paragraph. Additionally, the abstract is too lengthy. It is recommended to simplify the sections on the research background and significance, and to highlight the innovative work and achievements of this study.

(3) It is suggested that the background section of the second part of the article be placed before the introduction section of the first part.

(4) How did the authors develop the framework that can significantly improve the reusability of CAD models by classifying best practices?

(5) The paper prosed the general hypothesis that common errors in 3D CAD models affect their reusability to varying degrees. How about the basis for the determination?

(6) How about the detailed procedure for the negative knowledge simulations? The related information should be presented.

(7) The overall framework numbering of the article is rather disordered. It is recommended to make some revisions.

(8) In the section of 4.2, many cases have been analyzed in details. The contrastive analysis and conclusion on such analysis should be drawn at the end of this section.

(9) The references listed at the end of the article are too outdated. It is recommended to add more recent literature from the past three years.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper focused on contributing to advancing the quality of 3D procedural models based on negative knowledge to best practices. This research is very interesting and provides a significant contribution to the knowledge of this field. I suggest the manuscript be accepted after the following queries are to be addressed in the revised manuscript:

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for his/her positive feedback on our work, and we confirm that we have done our best to improve the paper following his/her suggestions, as explained next.

Comments 2: (1) In scientific papers, the use of first-person pronouns is generally not appropriate. It is recommended that all first-person pronouns be replaced in the text.

Response 2: Done.

Comment 3: (2) It is suggested that the abstract of the article be revised. The current segmented format should be changed to a single paragraph. Additionally, the abstract is too lengthy. It is recommended to simplify the sections on the research background and significance, and to highlight the innovative work and achievements of this study.

Response 3: The first paragraph of the abstract has been moved to the introduction to better emphasize the innovative aspects of the work, while the remaining two paragraphs have been merged into one. However, we consider it important for the background section to remain extensive, as the problem appears to be receiving less attention than it deserves for two main reasons: some researchers mistakenly regard it as a solved issue, while others fail to recognize its complex and multidisciplinary nature. This argument has been incorporated into the text.

Comment 4: (3) It is suggested that the background section of the second part of the article be placed before the introduction section of the first part.

Response 4: We apologize for not fully understanding what the reviewer meant by “the background section of the second part.” Nonetheless, we have moved a paragraph from the introduction to the background section to consolidate the discussion of the state of the art.

Comment 5: (4) How did the authors develop the framework that can significantly improve the reusability of CAD models by classifying best practices?

Response 5: As stated in the original manuscript, the origin of this work lies in a shift of perspective from focusing on “how to do it well” to addressing “how to avoid doing it wrong.” In other words, we realized that simply identifying errors, as presented in the well-cited work of González et al. [12], is not sufficient. This led us to recognize the value of developing a framework that leverages our combined experience as CAD trainers and senior engineers to propose a practical approach for making explicit the implicit know-how that guides experts in producing high-quality models while avoiding common mistakes.

Comment 6: (5) The paper prosed the general hypothesis that common errors in 3D CAD models affect their reusability to varying degrees. How about the basis for the determination?

Response 6: The basis for the determination of this hypothesis was our experience trying to output quality models by following the principles described by Company et al. [8].

Comment 7: (6) How about the detailed procedure for the negative knowledge simulations? The related information should be presented.

Response 7: As explained in the original manuscript “Upon request, interested readers can access a technical report containing all details of the design and analysis of the cases we have studied.” The technical report, which was attached to the original submission, briefly explains the guiding principles we followed to define negative knowledge simulations. Bullet point 1 after Table 2 also summarizes insight of the criteria to select simulations.

Comment 8: (7) The overall framework numbering of the article is rather disordered. It is recommended to make some revisions.

Response 8: We are not entirely certain where the numbering issues occur. It is possible that the manuscript appears differently after processing than in the original Word file. Nevertheless, as part of our overall revision, we have carefully reviewed the text to verify the correct order and numbering.

Comment 9: (8) In the section of 4.2, many cases have been analyzed in details. The contrastive analysis and conclusion on such analysis should be drawn at the end of this section.

Response 9: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. As correctly noted, Section 4.2 is quite extensive, primarily because it presents a complete example of the analysis procedure. As stated in the original manuscript, “The first case was broken down into five subcases to demonstrate the characteristics of the expert-based case selection and analysis method.” To improve clarity and provide a concise overview, we have added a new subsection (4.2.6) summarizing the main conclusions derived from Case 1.

Comment 10: (9) The references listed at the end of the article are too outdated. It is recommended to add more recent literature from the past three years.

Response 10: Some older references (ten years or more) were intentionally included to better contextualize the origins of the topic under study. Admittedly, there are relatively few recent references, as this subject has received far less attention than we believe it deserves. It is true that many existing studies build upon the well-cited work of González et al. [12]; however, they tend to focus on identifying “what” flaws exist rather than examining their impact on model quality.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review comments

The topic of this paper has certain theoretical and application value. However, the article still has some shortcomings that need to be further improved:

Comment 1

The paper interchangeably uses terms such as "profile," "sketch," and "contour" in multiple places. Although they are defined in the text, their alternating use in the narrative can cause comprehension obstacles.

Comment 2

The discussion of C0/C1/C2 continuity confuses parametric continuity with geometric continuity. In CAD, tangent constraints actually guarantee G1 (geometric) continuity, while curvature continuity requires G2 constraints. The paper fails to clearly distinguish this key technical concept.

Comment 3

The paper contains multiple citation errors of "Error! Reference source not found.," and there are misalignments between figure captions and content (e.g., Figure 14 is captioned as "Figure 15"), reflecting poor editorial quality.

Comment 4

The paper initially uses "extrinsic/intrinsic constraints" but later switches to "external/internal constraints," failing to maintain terminological consistency throughout.

Comment 5

The layout of text and images within figures needs adjustment to ensure neat text placement and consistent image sizes, in order to comply with academic publishing standards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper interchangeably uses terms such as "profile," "sketch," and "contour" in multiple places. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The topic of this paper has certain theoretical and application value. However, the article still has some shortcomings that need to be further improved:

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for his/her positive evaluation of our work.

Comment 2: The paper interchangeably uses terms such as "profile," "sketch," and "contour" in multiple places. Although they are defined in the text, their alternating use in the narrative can cause comprehension obstacles.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have made an effort to harmonize the terminology throughout the manuscript. Specifically, the term “sketch” is used to refer to any parametric drawing created within a procedural 3D CAD application, while “profile” denotes a specific type of sketch that defines a perimeter or contour used to perform a sweep and generate a feature. Contour or perimeter have been mainly used as synonyms to define the concept of "profile".

Comment 3: The discussion of C0/C1/C2 continuity confuses parametric continuity with geometric continuity. In CAD, tangent constraints actually guarantee G1 (geometric) continuity, while curvature continuity requires G2 constraints. The paper fails to clearly distinguish this key technical concept.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In our effort to simplify explanations that were not central to the main contribution of the work, we inadvertently produced an inaccurate summary. We have now rewritten that section to ensure it remains concise while accurately reflecting the content.

Comment 4: The paper contains multiple citation errors of "Error! Reference source not found.," and there are misalignments between figure captions and content (e.g., Figure 14 is captioned as "Figure 15"), reflecting poor editorial quality.

Response 4: We apologize for the inconvenience, but at this stage of editing we only have access to the original Word document. We will be monitoring for and correcting these errors before releasing the publishable version.

Comment 5: The paper initially uses "extrinsic/intrinsic constraints" but later switches to "external/internal constraints," failing to maintain terminological consistency throughout.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have made an effort to harmonize the terminology throughout the manuscript.

Our intention is to use internal/external to refer to how they are used, distinguishing between constraints that the user can easily edit vs. those that are mainly managed by the application. It is different from the extrinsic/intrinsic classification that distinguishes between constraints that link a part of the sketch to a datum or to another line.

Comment 6: The layout of text and images within figures needs adjustment to ensure neat text placement and consistent image sizes, in order to comply with academic publishing standards.

Response 6: As mentioned earlier, we apologize for the inconvenience. At this stage of the editing process, we only have access to the original Word document. We will carefully monitor and correct these errors before the final publication.

 

Comment 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper interchangeably uses terms such as "profile," "sketch," and "contour" in multiple places. 

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have made an effort to harmonize the terminology throughout the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted for publication since all the comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The revisions have been made as requested, and it is recommended for acceptance.