A Semantic Approach for Building System Operations: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the paper is intersting.
In this paper, the authors propose a semantic approach for knowledge representation and reasoning across a wide variety of applications in building control, automation, and analytics.
In fact, They proposed semantic infrastructure that includes ontology , rules and queries layers. in this work, RDF is used to describe the ontology, and Jena is used to describe the rules and SPARQL is used to express queries against their model..
The contribution is well motivated.
The contribution is based on a real and promising application
The paper is interesting, well written and easy to read.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for providing valuable feedback that allowed us to improve the quality of the paper. A detailed response to each reviewer comment is provided below. In addition, revisions in the text are highlighted with red font color.
Comment: In this paper, the authors propose a semantic approach for knowledge representation and reasoning across a wide variety of applications in building control, automation, and analytics.
In fact, They proposed semantic infrastructure that includes ontology , rules and queries layers. in this work, RDF is used to
describe the ontology, and Jena is used to describe the rules and SPARQL is used to express queries against their model..
The contribution is well motivated.
The contribution is based on a real and promising application The paper is interesting, well written and easy to read.
Response: Thanks for your encouraging comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript suggests developing a new framework-based semantic approach for improving knowledge representation and reasoning. The topic is timely and important given the importance of ontology application in building system operation. The manuscript lacks a literature review section. It is suggested to include a literature review section that shows the gaps in knowledge. The authors need to clearly mention how they are going to address these gaps.
The theoretical lenses (HVAC systems) are not used to guide the analysis of these ontology findings to propose authors’ framework model for smart building construction and identify the gap from the HVAC systems perspective. The gap appears purely root in the ontology techniques issues.
The contribution and implication for practices of the finding have not been sufficiently demonstrated. The later sections (Section 7) read like a summary of the ontology finding.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for providing valuable feedback that allowed us to improve the quality of the paper. A detailed response to each reviewer comment is provided below. In addition, revisions in the text are highlighted with red font color.
Comment: The manuscript suggests developing a new framework-based semantic approach for improving knowledge representation and reasoning. The topic is timely and important given the importance of ontology application in building system operation. The manuscript lacks a literature review section. It is suggested to include a literature review section that shows the gaps in knowledge. The authors need to clearly mention how they are going to address these gaps.
Response: Thanks for your comments. Sections 1-3, especially Section 3 are revised to reflect the reviewer’s suggestion to emphasize on the literature review and knowledge gaps.
-------------------
Comment: The theoretical lenses (HVAC systems) are not used to guide the analysis of these ontology findings to propose authors’ framework model for smart building construction and identify the gap from the HVAC systems perspective. The gap appears purely root in the ontology techniques issues.
Response: Our goal is to demonstrate knowledge reasoning and representation to all building domains and not necessarily building HVAC systems. We aim to propose a semantic infrastructure and methods to leverage existing domain-specific ontologies for various building applications. To demonstrate the proposed semantic infrastructure and methods, we implemented specific semantic rules to describe inference mechanisms for building applications ranging from semantic representation, fault detection and diagnostics, spatial reasoning, temporal reasoning, asset management and maintenance as well as context-aware control. It is important to note that while the examples are mostly on building mechanical systems, a similar approach could be used for other building applications such as lighting and shading devices and building security to assist with sensor identification, context-aware control, and asset management and maintenance as a case in point. For example, while the sensors in Section 5.1 are air temperature sensors, a similar approach could be used for the occupancy sensors in the lighting or shading devices systems. Deployment of this study to different building systems and also a multi-domain building systems knowledge representation and reasoning would be recommended as the next step of this study.
-------------------
Comment: The contribution and implication for practices of the finding have not been sufficiently demonstrated. The later sections (Section 7) read like a summary of the ontology finding.
Response: Thanks for your comments. Additional writeups explain and insights are added to the text to provide implications for the examples. In addition, Section 7 is completely revised.
Reviewer 3 Report
The issue presented is very interesting and actual. Today, building automation is a standard in construction projects.
What I miss in the article itself in the conclusions is whether combining ontologies has a positive or negative effect. What is the scale of improvement of the obtained results. Why combining just these ontologies was chosen, whether other were also considered and whether they gave better/worse results.
It would also be useful to include a photo example of a device equipped with this type of solution.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for providing valuable feedback that allowed us to improve the quality of the paper. A detailed response to each reviewer comment is provided below. In addition, revisions in the text are highlighted with red font color.
Comment: The issue presented is very interesting and actual. Today, building automation is a standard in construction projects. What I miss in the article itself in the conclusions is whether combining ontologies has a positive or negative effect. What is the scale of improvement of the obtained results. Why combining just these ontologies was chosen, whether other were also considered and whether they gave better/worse results.
Response: Thanks for your comments. This is a good question that we incorporated additional write up in the paper. One of the key advantages behind linked data (foundation of the ontologies) is to formally integrate data from multiple sources. Therefore, integration of different domain specific ontologies will allow an easier data interoperability on a semantic level from multiple domains (i.e., occupant, building, weather, equipment) and enable the reuse of existing best practice schemas and standards.
-------------------
Comment: It would also be useful to include a photo example of a device equipped with this type of solution.
Response: Thanks for your comments. Additional texts and figures, including Figure 4 and Figure 5 are added to provide a better example of real-world installation for an air handling unit.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer found the literature review in the section 3 of the paper quite informative.
The rationale of this research study is interesting and meaning to the industry. However, the solid explanations or examples of its research gaps on building domains instead of building HVAC systems are neglect.
The results and implications of this research can be seen as theoretical. More discussions on its implications on real work practices are looked forward.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
