Review Comment:
The paper presents an interesting case study that can serve as a template for many similar instances where tangible and intangible instances of cultural heritage interact. I think the paper would vastly benefit from the introduction of the case study earlier, as most concepts could be introduced and illustrated with examples from the case study.
The paper presents modules that extend existing ontologies for the modeling of the interplay between CH objects and the interaction with those objects quite elegantly. However, cultural heritage is often used interchangeably with artworks, whereas tangible cultural heritage includes more than artworks. Would the proposed model also hold for e.g. indigenous seeds/plants and their usage in rituals/medicine/food preparation used in specific situations or occasions?
The paper claims that "... multiple solutions could be covered by existing ontologies". I would have liked to see a short sketch and a discussion of the shortcoming of the different solutions, and the motivation why exactly the presented solution was chosen.
The illustrations of the modules add majorly to the paper, I would welcome them in a larger size. Figure 17 is barely legible.
While I think the concept of the Historical Frames is very valuable, the section introducing the concepts could be shorter and more focused on the application.
The UNESCO definition of culture is given three times, but the quote is not once cited.
In general, the presentation, structure and grammar of the paper should be reworked. Several sentences are difficult to follow due to complex syntax; revising for clarity and conciseness would improve readability. "Events of a very ephemeral nature during these processions are the continuous swinging of liturgical incense holders that with their odors enhance the religious and spiritual experience of the material objects that are carried around.", "Although the class is intended to represent cultural traits of a culture..." , "At these occasions..."
Punctuation/spacing should be revised, e.g. spaces before and after punctuation (e.g. "property:motivates"), citations and hyphens. Some punctuation is missing, such as "interact with them in different ways One of the"
Hyperlinks and cross-references, e.g. for sections and figures and citations, should be provided.
e.a. -> et al.
Formatting should follow the swj/sage style guide, at least page numbers should be provided. Some typesetting is inconsistent, e.g. Table 6. domain/range bold, inch signs are used instead of quotation marks etc.
Table 1 should be reworded for clarity, e.g. ObjectInEvent is missing from the table, and instead :ObjectInRecurrentEvent is listed a subclass of ObjectInSituation not ObjectInEvent (as in text and ODP Figure). "The class :ObjectInSituation is then further specified in a subclass, namely :ObjectInEvent, to be used when the object function is present in a situation that has a more precise identity (e.g., a liturgical mass). This :ObjectInEvent subclass in its turn has two subclasses, namely :ObjectInRecurrentEvent and :ObjectInUniqueEvent."
The descriptions in the table leave some questions unanswered, e.g. Why are :ObjectInSituation and :ObjectInUniqueEvent described as situations, and :ObjectInRecurrentEvent as "Objects observed in situations"
To sum up, I see this paper as a valuable addition to the special issue, but some revisions in form, language and structure are needed.
----------------
(1) Originality
The paper is original in the sense that it models artworks and their different use cases and interpretations. The paper presents a novel use case.
(2) Significance
The paper presents a significant application and modeling effort. The significance could be demonstrated better by outlining possible other applications in the domain of tangible culutral heritage (see example above).
(3) Quality of writing
The quality of writing is mixed, with certain section being lengthy. Some sentences and phrasings are somewhat wooden or outright grammatically wrong. Typesetting and layouting needs to be improved.
(4) Data
The data seems to be sufficiently documented and complete.
| 
