Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors, in their paper, discuss the most robotics software development methodologies and frameworks, analyze the way robotics applications are built and, propose a new resource-oriented architecture, towards rapid development of robot-agnostic applications. The contribution of their work is a methodology and a model-based middleware that can be used to provide remote robot-agnostic interfaces. Such interfaces may support robotics application development from citizen developers, by reducing hand-coding and technical knowledge requirements. This way, non-robotics experts will be able to integrate and use robotics in a wide range of application domains, such as healthcare, home assistance, home automation; Cyber-Physical systems in general. 

Authors, in their paper, initially present the real state in robotics systems development concentrating on robotics software development and describing existing approaches and methodologies. Then they present a generalized approach that is very interesting. Robotic4All approach provides the possibility for citizen programmers to develop robotic applications using different Internet-based platforms and software. However, the role of robotics experts is catalytic for the development of a robotic application. Unfortunately, programmers that do not have the “sense of robotics” face many problems and delays during the development of a robotic application. An approach like this does not permit easily the development of robotic applications from programmers without the support of an important number of robotic experts.  The text is very carefully written. Authors present examples that permit a reader to perceive differences in their approach and they analytically describe the pros and cons of it. However, the paper can be more improved. Some comments and suggestions are the following:

_ A few errors exist in the text. Please correct.

_Figures 1 and 2 do not have a reference in the text. Please correct.

_ Robotics software applications development requires at least knowledge in two main domains at the same time, robotics and software engineering. If members of a team working towards the development of a robotic application have experience in the first or the second domain, they many times cannot perceive and then implement requirements from one or the other side. How authors based on their approach think that they can face such problems?

_ Authors also claim that their approach R4A supports rapid development. Can the authors add some examples concerning this issue?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper focuses to interesting area of robotics software development methodologies and frameworks.

The main contribution of this work is a methodology and a model-based middleware that can be used to provide remote robot interfaces. For the field of development and research in the field of robotics, it is therefore beneficial for developers and designers of robotic applications. The article can thus support other applications of robotics in common areas of our lives.

The development of robotic systems is extremely lengthy and economically demanding. Therefore, the development of suitable robotic application design methodologies means accelerating this design process and also brings economic benefits in significantly reducing the time required for robotic application development. Therefore, I consider the benefits of this article to be very important.

 

In the introduction, the situation and the current situation in this area are analyzed in detail, with references to other works in this area.

This article further discusses the standard in robotic application development, describes existing architectures and middleware. It is presented as flowcharts. The article is also useful in that it also provides an overview of the most commonly used tools in the design of robotic systems.

The authors describe the novel Robotic4All (R4A) approach and describe the main components of the R4A architecture. At the same time, examples of applications for different approaches are described using the traditional method and the R4A approach. R4A is envisioned as a well defined methodology among with a set of tools towards rapid prototyping of robot diagnostic applications. Each step of the R4A approach is described in detail and there is an extensive discussion of the various stages of the methodology.

In addition to the discussion, the article also presents other planned research for the future, which testifies to the author's deep experience in this area.

 

Comments:

There is no reference to Figures 2, 3, 7 in the text of the article. Figure 1 on page 3 then has a reference until later on page 5. Figure 5 on page 11 then has a reference until later on page 13. Figure 10 from page 17 is mentioned only on page 18. Please place the images correctly after the first reference in the text of the article, because now tp seems quite chaotic.

Use the same reference style. The article is "Fig. 6" and then "Figure 5". Please use the same style.

Reference 29 is incomplete, please add additional bibliographic data.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors discussed the most robotics software development methodologies and frameworks, analyzed the way robotics application are built and proposed a new resource-oriented architecture, towards rapid development of robot-agnostic applications. 

Some comments regarding the manuscript:

1) I think it's important to add a reference for each of these communication protocols :TTL, UART, SPI, I2C.

2) I suggest the authors review paragraphs 1 and 2 and add references regarding the technologies mentioned by you.

3) In the introduction, it is necessary to clarify the purpose of the research and what were the main findings.

4) Figure 1 is at the beginning of page 3 and figure 1 is only mentioned in the paper on page 5. I suggest authors put the figure right after the paragraph in which it is mentioned in the paper.

5) What are the limitations of the research?

6) What are the threats to validate?

In addition, the authors need to clarify the main contributions of this research.

7) I suggest that this section 5. Discussion, conclusions and future work be divided, that is, that the authors put:

5. Discussion
5.1 Limitations and Threats to validity
6. Conclusions and Future Work

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All my suggestions for improvements were incorporated by the authors. With this version I believe the manuscript is ready to be published.