The paper "Cultural Significance Assessment of Archaeological Sites for Heritage Management in the Digital Age: From Text of Spatial Networks of Meanings" by Yael Alef and Yuval Shafriri discusses the changes involved in moving from a significance focussed assessment of isolated sites, to a more holistic assessment of values of sites, considering their contextual interrelations following a set of sociocultural parameters. The authors point to their stated problem of a lack of guiding priciples of spatial and semantic tools in order to understand the building blocks of site values and how to implement those with contemporary technology in ARM inventories. Throughout the paper the focus lies on highlighing the increased information, which can be gathered by analyzing sites not only in isolation but as a regional set and via using graph data-models that allow for seeing interrelations based on a predefined conceptual framework.

The increased understanding of the sites using a graph data-model are presented in the findings and the authors underscore their impact within their discussion, focussing on the positive effects for the general understanding of these sites and the increased relevance of mere artifact assemblages in relation to better known sites. While the authors are successful in examining strictly archaeological and historical data concerning the sites involved, their goal to examine the sites importance within “society’s goals of cherishing and preserving historical values” is underrepresented in the text. A re-evaluation of archaeological sites as semantic data and with a perspective on "values" does not only involve scientific parameters or values strictly defined by research paradigms, but a value based approach needs to assess the breadth of semantic annotation, therfore also requiring the inquiry into the ambiguity of the interpretative value of these sites and its potential effects on the use and re-use of the same data. Although the authors underscore that it is “essential to align technology use with ethical principles,” “reflect[ing] our evolving culture” when presenting their conclusions, the material actually under scrutiny in the paper does not sufficiently assess this kind of principles.

While the paper does indeed heighten the readers understand of how semantic annotation and the use of graph databases can have for archaeolological knowledges, the situatedness of the contained information could still benefit from a broadened focus on those values that allow for a better understanding of the ethical and/or political parameters. It can be asumed that these parameters are known or at least knowable for the project, considering the information generally produced during the process of attempting to include a site within the UNESCO World Heritage list, as it has been the case for at least a subset of the mentioned sites.

Besides these general questions, some minor issues were identified during the review of the paper, which might impact the readability of the text:

On page 3 a subitem 1.3.1 is inserted for "The research case study," directly followed by item 2. It would help the overall logic of the text, if item 1.3.1 would be modified to 1.4 or left as an unnumbered item.

On page 3 the research scope is presented in item 2.1, yet the geographical area of research is merely indicated as Galilee, without further informing the reader on the broader geographical context. It would help the understanding of the text especially for readers unfamiliar with that area, to indicate at least the nation-state for further reference (Israel? Lebanon?).

On page 8 there is an amusing typo in the title of item 4.3, stating the "Meating" of challenges as opposed to the "Meeting" of those.

The bibliographical reference for the article by Mason (2002) indicates a doi, which unfortunately points to a different article.

Title:

Abstract:

Introduction:

Method:

Conclusions:

References:

Specific comments:

• Everywhere where ‘inventories’ are mentioned, it should be clearer, inventories of what: heritage sites, monuments, archaeological sites, etc.
• Since the paper will be published outside the conservation/heritage protection domain, all CRM-related terminology needs to be explained or referenced.
• P. 2: “Information-needs for ARM (In4ARM):” – is it a standard abbreviation? If not, please explain the source or state that it’s introduced here for the first time.
• P. 2: “3) Decision-related information such as level of designation or recommendations.” – please explain the ‘level of designation’.
• Table 1: ‘Semantic’ – suggest changing to ‘Semantic technologies’.
• P. 3: “The findings and discussion of this paper are based on the significance In4ARM category analytical framework.” – the definition is unclear; previously, In4ARM was introduced as an assessment model.
• P. 3: ‘The synagogues became central…’ – please explain.
• P. 3: ‘… but no structural remains were located.’ – do you mean that there are no in situ/standing structures in place or that there are artefacts but no architectural fragments?
• P. 4: ‘… the field was initially classified into representative samples.’ – 1. In ‘field’ – do you mean the ‘assemblage’? 2. One can classify into classes and make a sample via sampling but not create a sample via classifying.
• P. 4: ‘Cultural Assessment: First we formulated cultural assessment records for eight key sites using established methodologies.’ – please explain or refer to these methodologies.
• P.4: ‘Then we used content analysis method…’ -  reference is needed either to the formal content analysis method or to software, or it should be made clear that you manually analysed the content of the records, but don’t mean the formal method. The same is valid for ‘coding’ in the following sentence.
• Table 2: 1. Please formulate what is a ‘resource’; 2. The meaning of symbol <> may not be obvious to a reader;
•  Table 2: ‘… Mentioned in the writings of Josephus as a settlement that marks the border of the "Jewish Galilee", and correspondingly also the division into Provincia in the Byzantine period’ – 1. add ref. to J. Flavius, 2. ‘provincia’ is a Roman term, if you are talking about Byzantine adm. unit it’s ‘eparchia’ or ‘province’.
• Table 2: ‘The Beit Midrash is part of Merot…’ – please explain what is Beit Midrash.
• Table 2: everywhere where the term ‘ruin’ is used: since you are talking about the cultural and other significance of the place when it was intact and functioning, the terms ‘monument’, ‘site’, ‘building’, etc., would be more appropriate.
• P. 3 and Table 4: “Types of resource context components:” – in the previous paragraph, ‘context’ is an entity, while here, it’s presented as a composite of several entities or a concept. I suggest using another term for the ‘components’, for example, a ‘domain’.
•  Table 3: 1. Strictly speaking, it’s not a table; 2. If this text is a citation from the original record, the sentence under “*” is not part of the table but belongs to the label. If it’s not a citation, then several cultural and historical terms must be explained because they are not universal.
• P. 4: ‘Arches platform’ – needs a reference to the software/website.
• P. 5: ‘Vadi Hamam’ – ‘Wadi Hamam’.
• -Fig. 1: What is ‘regional typology’?
• P. 8: GraphDB – reference is needed.
• P. 8, footnote 2: Ariadne is not an ‘archaeological oriented platform’. It’s a research infrastructure. GraphDB is used by Ariadne Knowledge Base – please provide a reference/link.