Space Syntax with Logic Programming: An Application to a Modern Estate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting, and the author has described his methodology in detail. The calculation of each measure is explained clearly. However, some problems should be solved before publication.

1.      The comparison of results between Prolog programme and DepthmapX 0.8.0 should be shown. If it is possible, a robustness test should be conducted to confirm that this algorithm is reliable.

2.      Where are the outliners in Figure 7? Two outliners are easy to find in Figure 8. But it is not easy to determine the “two” outliners in Figure 7. How about the case in Rua Brasil with a RR value of 0.131?

3.      For Figure 8, I suggest that the regression should be conducted again after excluding the two outliers. Additionally, the author should explain the concept of “L-shaped problem”.

4.      The author should explain the terms such as distinct/2 and graph/3 when they first appear.

The Quality of English Language is good. 

Author Response

Many thanks for your review that motivated the following changes in the article: 

• The abstract was rewritten and now it is more focused on article’s findings, insights and implications to the modern city;
• Section 4. Findings now includes a second table with the syntactic measures computed with Depthmap (table 2) side by side with Prolog computations (table 1); only small differences were found, and they are limited to controllability;
• The former figures 7 and 8 (now, 9 and 10) are better explained with reference to the high relative ringiness of Rua Brasil and to the concept of the “L-shaped problem”; the correlation coefficient of figure 8 (10) without the two outliers is impossible to compute because the percentage of buildings with retail/services is zero for the remaining axes; 
• Prolog predicates like aggregate_all, dif, distinct, or graph are better explained in section 3.3. Syntactic measures.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the manuscript provides an overview of a new approach to performing syntactic analyses of urban settlements and buildings using space syntax and Prolog. Here are some concerns need to be considered:

1. The Abstract briefly mentions that the complementary approaches using Prolog were useful in understanding the ideal of the Modern city with respect to the Portela estate. However, it does not provide any specific findings, insights, or implications resulting from the study. Consider briefly discussing the results obtained or the conclusions drawn from the analysis, highlighting any interesting or significant findings.

2. The Introduction could benefit from explicitly stating the main contribution or novelty of the proposed approach. What makes this new approach unique or different from existing methods? Emphasize the specific aspect that sets it apart from previous work.

3. In the section of 3. Case study, the author briefly mentions the Portela estate as a case study, but it would be helpful to provide more background information about the estate and its significance. Explain why the Portela estate is considered paradigmatic or representative of modern housing complexes.

4. While the author mentions using Prolog to generate syntactic schemes and perform settlement analysis, it lacks details about the specific techniques or algorithms employed. Provide a flowchart and a brief overview of the steps involved in the syntactic analysis using Prolog.

5. Consider reorganizing the section of 4. Elementary generators and 5. Concentric grammarsto to improve the logical flow and coherence of the information presented. The current structure jumps between different aspects without a clear progression.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Many thanks for your review that motivated the following changes in the article: 

• The abstract was rewritten and now it is more focused on article’s findings, insights and implications to the modern city;
• The introduction (section 1.) now stresses the novelty and innovation of using logic programming to perform syntactic analyses, and why this approach is so different from existing methods;
• The case study of Portela (section 2.) was developed in terms of background information and its paradigmatic nature was justified, using new references like (Pereira and Corte-Real, 2022);
• The article was reorganised with new sections concerned with Methods (3.) and Findings (4.);
• The previous material from 4. Elementary generators and 5. Concentric grammars were divided between these two sections in order to avoid jumps between different aspects without a clear progression;
• Section 3.2. Grammars is now illustrated with a schematic plan of the Bororo village (figure 3);
• A flowchart of Prolog predicates for space syntax (figure 5) was introduced in section 3.3. Syntactic measures;
• The new section 3.4. Workflow explains how can Prolog be used to perform a syntactic analysis of another settlement or building, with a brief overview of the practical steps involved.

Reviewer 3 Report

I read with great interest the paper titled "Space Syntax with Logic Programming: an application to a modern estate". The topic of study is interesting and fits the scope of the journal. To my opinion the innovation should be clearly stated within the introduction. Additionally, in the discussion section provide the drawbacks and future works to improve the concept.

Some specific comments:

1. Line 180 ：Figure 2 is ambiguous.

2. Methods should be separated from results, and methods should be included in section 2. The results should be included in section 3.

3. Lines 134-139 and 174-180 format is there a problem? Such expressions appear several times in the whole paper.

4. The format of the reference is correct?

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Many thanks for your review that motivated the following changes in the article: 

• The introduction (section 1.) now stresses the novelty and innovation of using logic programming to perform syntactic analyses, and why this approach is so different from existing methods;
• The article was reorganised with new sections concerned with Methods (3.) and Findings (4.);
• The previous material from 4. Elementary generators and 5. Concentric grammars were divided between these two sections in order to avoid jumps between different aspects without a clear progression;
• The conclusion section (6.) now provides the major drawbacks of space syntax with Prolog and the future developments foresee for this research topic;
• Long citations are now formatted with the LaTeX environment \begin{quote} ... \end{quote} instead of \begin{quotation} ... \end{quotation}, but I’m not completely sure if this format is appropriate for the journal (please confirm).

Reviewer 4 Report

applying space syntax on urban analysis is not a new topic, and using prolog for descriptive logic among analysis is also over 20 years. However, a clear logic session is required for understanding more in how authors can use prolog besides connectivity. Authors are advised to illustrate a complete session for prolog in terms of computability and how they are applied on urban context. additionally, analysis and argument should be elaborated forther interns of problem statement.

the writing is smooth and easy to read.

Author Response

Many thanks for your review that motivated the following changes in the article: 

• The abstract was rewritten and now it is more focused on article’s findings, insights and implications to the modern city;
• The introduction (section 1.) now stresses the novelty and innovation of using logic programming to perform syntactic analyses, and why this approach is so different from existing methods;
• The article was reorganised with new sections concerned with Methods (3.) and Findings (4.);
• The previous material from 4. Elementary generators and 5. Concentric grammars were divided between these two sections in order to avoid jumps between different aspects without a clear progression;
• A flowchart of Prolog predicates for space syntax (figure 5) was introduced in section 3.3. Syntactic measures;
• The new section 3.4. Workflow explains how can Prolog be used to perform a syntactic analysis of another settlement or building, with a brief overview of the practical steps involved;
• The conclusion section (6.) now provides the major drawbacks of space syntax with Prolog and the future developments foresee for this research topic.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your thorough revision of the manuscript and for your dedication to making the suggested changes. I have no further comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

no further comments