Dissemination Strategies for Cultural Heritage: The Case of the Tomb of Zechariah in Jerusalem, Israel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The real aim of the paper seems to be a reflection, through a case study, on the topic of Interpretation and Presentation of Built Heritage (please cite the related ICOMOS charter). The Introduction is correct (it deals with digital dimension of musums, computer based visualization transparecy, serious games) but the case study is not developed enough. According to the characteristics of the case study, the 3D nurbs model is too simplified.

Moreover it's not clear what's the aim of the correlation with previous paintings.

Perhaps, should be interesting to test of the Unity digital application of serious game (only mentioned?) by users. Also a participatory line could be interesting in relation to the new advanced approaches diffused by musum institutions.

The cited issue of digital transparency is not developed.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for the comments that provide me suggestion for a reflection about the paper and the the possibility to improve it.

Point 1: The real aim of the paper seems to be a reflection, through a case study, on the topic of Interpretation and Presentation of Built Heritage (please cite the related ICOMOS charter). The Introduction is correct (it deals with digital dimension of musums, computer based visualization transparecy, serious games) but the case study is not developed enough. According to the characteristics of the case study, the 3D nurbs model is too simplified.

Response 1: I proceeded to cite ICOMOS Charter. The paper is a reflection about the visualization tools useful for the valorization and dissemination on Cultural Heritage but the case study is still under development and is not possible provide materials in addition to the one presented.

Point 2: Moreover it's not clear what's the aim of the correlation with previous paintings.

Response 2: The previous paintings give us the suggestions to build the 3d model and it's appearance.

Point 3: Perhaps, should be interesting to test of the Unity digital application of serious game (only mentioned?) by users. Also a participatory line could be interesting in relation to the new advanced approaches diffused by musum institutions.

Response 3: As I said, the case study is still under development

Point 4: The cited issue of digital transparency is not developed.

Response 4: I am not clear what this comment refers to. Cited where?

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction (state of the art):

1) there are no references (citations to references) relating to the various digital applications mentioned (AR, VR, virtual museum and serious game). There is a large literature (numerous researches) in the application of the field of Cultural Heritage that can be considered. Therefore at least one citation of previous experiences for each type of digital application (AR, VR, virtual museums) should be included. In particular, since the article seems to emphasize the use of serious games even more it is necessary to implement with relative citations: even in this sector there are many experiences, among which, just to list some of the many, we suggest the following readings:

Kontogianni G., Koutsaftis C., Skamantzari M., Chrysanthopoulou C., Georgopoulos A., 2017. Utilising 3D Realistic Models in Serious Games for Cultural Heritage. International Journal of Computational Methods in Heritage Science, Vol. 1 Issue 2, July 2017, pp. 21-46.

Gamal Abdelmonem M., 2017. Virtual Heritage: Global Perspectives for Creative Modes of Heritage Visualisation. VHC2017 - Final Research Report, pp. 1-60.

Kontogianni G. & Georgopoulos A., 2015. Exploiting Textured 3D Models for Developing Serious Games. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences (ISPRS), Volume XL-5/W7, pp. 249-255.

Kontogianni G., 2015. The Contribution of 3D Models to Serious Games Applications, Master of Science Thesis, pp. 1-94.

Leclet-Groux D., Caron G., Mouaddib E. & Anghour A., 2013. A Serious Game for 3D cultural heritage. Digital Heritage International Congress, Digital Heritage 2013, Marseille France, 28 October-2 November , pp. 409-412.

Besuievsky G. & Patow G., 2013. Procedural modeling historical buildings for serious games. Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), vol. 4, N°9 (2013), pp. 160-166.

Bontchev B., 2015. Serious Games for and as Cultural Heritage. Proc. of Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage (DIPP´2015), Vol. 5, pp. 43-58.

Doulamis A., Liarokapis F., Petridis P. & Miaoulis G., 2012. Serious Games for Cultural Applications. Intelligent Computer Graphics 2011, Springer, pp. 97-115.

2) For the same purpose it is considered correct to mention at least the references to web pages (url website) dedicated to the projects mentioned in figure 1.

Paragraph 2:

1) correct the expression "SFM survey" (line of text 94) as it is not disciplinarily correct. The term SFM does not refer either to a survey methodology or technique but rather to a family of software applications through which image data deriving from photographic surveys are processed. It is therefore a software application aimed at rendering (and not to the acquisition) that are part of the so-called “monoscopic multi-image digital photogrammetry systems”. For that reason, it is necessary to correct the terminology and more appropriately, to specify the methodological approach adopted in the survey with regard to the choices made for the acquisition of the shots (specify the mode of the photographic shoots identified as more appropriate - parallel shooting, convergent shooting, shooting with extended field - in relation to the conformation, the location and the context of the architecture studied. This would be appropriate in relation to what is shown in Figure 2;

2) as regards to the lines of text from 107 to 110: the image does not do justice to what has been explained, that is not to demonstrate the modeling of details: capitals, columns and half-columns (which is the most interesting part to be documented). It is suggested to modify the image in this direction;

3) furthermore, it is not shown (with image) what is the final 3D NURBS model resulting from the integration (critical interpretation) between the mesh model obtained through SFM processing and from the documentary data (NURBS model).

Paragraph 3:

1) the first two start of paragraphs (lines of text from 118 to 124) still concern the reconstruction phase and not the fruitive phase. Therefore, it is considered more appropriate to move them in paragraph 2. It is clear that this also concerns Figure 5.

2) this section of the paper is the weakest because the text is not supported by any image related to the second phase of the studies (realization of the interaction/game in Unit3d). Specifically, we refer to the lines of text from 125 to 130. Without the contribution of such images, the reader is not made aware of the proposed experimentation referring to the serios game (what is the scenario, what are the usable contents for which it is declared that the model is the "container" of information, which is the structure of the game, or the modality of interaction: only an immersive navigation with hotspots to which content is attached, or according to interactions typical of serious games? What is the menu of options or possible levels? According to which plot and narrative structure?). These images are also important to make sense of the first part of the paper title. Therefore, it is advisable to add at least one composite image displaying, for example some screenshots: the model imported into Unity3d, the scenario proposed to the user, the interaction modes or games studied, etc.

English:

1) check the verbs in some parts of the text. E.g.: line of text 100 is more appropriate "were processed" (not developed); line of text 103 is more appropriate "was"; others.

2) check some expression forms that are not properly correct. E.g. line of text 121, "The suggestions suggested", modify either the subject or the verb

More generally, it is advisable to reread the whole text.

Lastly: pay attention to the figure numbering in the captions (Fig. 3 mistakenly named Figure 2: Fig. 5 mistakenly named Figure 3).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Introduction (state of the art):

1) there are no references (citations to references) relating to the various digital applications mentioned (AR, VR, virtual museum and serious game). There is a large literature (numerous researches) in the application of the field of Cultural Heritage that can be considered. Therefore at least one citation of previous experiences for each type of digital application (AR, VR, virtual museums) should be included. In particular, since the article seems to emphasize the use of serious games even more it is necessary to implement with relative citations: even in this sector there are many experiences, among which, just to list some of the many, we suggest the following readings:

Kontogianni G., Koutsaftis C., Skamantzari M., Chrysanthopoulou C., Georgopoulos A., 2017. Utilising 3D Realistic Models in Serious Games for Cultural Heritage. International Journal of Computational Methods in Heritage Science, Vol. 1 Issue 2, July 2017, pp. 21-46.

Gamal Abdelmonem M., 2017. Virtual Heritage: Global Perspectives for Creative Modes of Heritage Visualisation. VHC2017 - Final Research Report, pp. 1-60.

Kontogianni G. & Georgopoulos A., 2015. Exploiting Textured 3D Models for Developing Serious Games. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences (ISPRS), Volume XL-5/W7, pp. 249-255.

Kontogianni G., 2015. The Contribution of 3D Models to Serious Games Applications, Master of Science Thesis, pp. 1-94.

Leclet-Groux D., Caron G., Mouaddib E. & Anghour A., 2013. A Serious Game for 3D cultural heritage. Digital Heritage International Congress, Digital Heritage 2013, Marseille France, 28 October-2 November , pp. 409-412.

Besuievsky G. & Patow G., 2013. Procedural modeling historical buildings for serious games. Virtual Archaeology Review (VAR), vol. 4, N°9 (2013), pp. 160-166.

Bontchev B., 2015. Serious Games for and as Cultural Heritage. Proc. of Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and Scientific Heritage (DIPP´2015), Vol. 5, pp. 43-58.

Doulamis A., Liarokapis F., Petridis P. & Miaoulis G., 2012. Serious Games for Cultural Applications. Intelligent Computer Graphics 2011, Springer, pp. 97-115.

2) For the same purpose it is considered correct to mention at least the references to web pages (url website) dedicated to the projects mentioned in figure 1.

Response 1: I proceeded to cite other reference to improve the quality of the bibliography, and I added the references to web pages in figure 1.

Point 2:

Paragraph 2:

1) correct the expression "SFM survey" (line of text 94) as it is not disciplinarily correct. The term SFM does not refer either to a survey methodology or technique but rather to a family of software applications through which image data deriving from photographic surveys are processed. It is therefore a software application aimed at rendering (and not to the acquisition) that are part of the so-called “monoscopic multi-image digital photogrammetry systems”. For that reason, it is necessary to correct the terminology and more appropriately, to specify the methodological approach adopted in the survey with regard to the choices made for the acquisition of the shots (specify the mode of the photographic shoots identified as more appropriate - parallel shooting, convergent shooting, shooting with extended field - in relation to the conformation, the location and the context of the architecture studied. This would be appropriate in relation to what is shown in Figure 2;

2) as regards to the lines of text from 107 to 110: the image does not do justice to what has been explained, that is not to demonstrate the modeling of details: capitals, columns and half-columns (which is the most interesting part to be documented). It is suggested to modify the image in this direction;

3) furthermore, it is not shown (with image) what is the final 3D NURBS model resulting from the integration (critical interpretation) between the mesh model obtained through SFM processing and from the documentary data (NURBS model).

Response 2: 1) I corrected the expression 'SFM survey'. I think that there was a mistake with the translation and the way that in italian we use the term 'rilievo' (survey) and consequently the expression SfM Survey.

2)3) The paper wants to be a reflection about the visualization tools useful for the valorization and dissemination on Cultural Heritage and this is just an example and a case study, still under development.

Point 3:

Paragraph 3:

1) the first two start of paragraphs (lines of text from 118 to 124) still concern the reconstruction phase and not the fruitive phase. Therefore, it is considered more appropriate to move them in paragraph 2. It is clear that this also concerns Figure 5.

2) this section of the paper is the weakest because the text is not supported by any image related to the second phase of the studies (realization of the interaction/game in Unit3d). Specifically, we refer to the lines of text from 125 to 130. Without the contribution of such images, the reader is not made aware of the proposed experimentation referring to the serios game (what is the scenario, what are the usable contents for which it is declared that the model is the "container" of information, which is the structure of the game, or the modality of interaction: only an immersive navigation with hotspots to which content is attached, or according to interactions typical of serious games? What is the menu of options or possible levels? According to which plot and narrative structure?). These images are also important to make sense of the first part of the paper title. Therefore, it is advisable to add at least one composite image displaying, for example some screenshots: the model imported into Unity3d, the scenario proposed to the user, the interaction modes or games studied, etc.

Response 3:  1) I followed this suggestion.

2) The case study is still under development and, at this moment, is not possible provide materials in addition to the one presented. I provided to add some lines to explain this at the beginning of the 3. Paragraph.

I provide also to a review for the English.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

According to the answers of the author to my previous review, I think the paper could not be improved. Anyway it can be published.