Dear authors,

we received the following remarks from a reviewer. Plese check and resubmit
your paper.

Best regards

Franz-Josef Behr

Several of the remarks from the previous review were sufficiently addressed
in the improved version of the paper. However a few parts of the paper could
still be improved. Thus, I would recommend a weak acceptance for the
Academic Track at FOSS4G but not a publication within Transactions in GIS.

The main issues in the present version of the paper are:

The challenges stated in the introduction (page 2) are relevant (e.g.
heterogeneous data formats, different data structures, heterogeneity of
attributes). However, while these challenges are well addressed on a
software development level, conceptual research challenges are not
sufficiently elaborated.

In section 3.1 the statement “[…] we tested different approaches in
order to find the most effective solution.” However, no details about this
process are provided. What were the different approaches and how were they
evaluated. Which factual evidence leads the authors to the conclusion that
there system is the “most effective solution”.

The paper still lacks information why certain software packages were chosen
for building this system. This knowledge would be extremely valuable for the
reader.
_____________________
FOSS4G 2013 Academic Track
http://2013.foss4g.org/ojs
Questions & remarks to the Academic Track Chairs:
drs Barend Köbben - b.j.kobben@utwente.nl
Prof. Dr. Franz-Josef Behr - franz-josef.behr@hft-stuttgart.de