Dear authors,

thank you for preparing a revision of this interesting manuscript.

A somewhat unusual initiative to search out reviewers personally for further feedback. Unfortunately this feedback is not transparent to readers of WES and us editors - which is the reason that such contact is normally highly discouraged. But it seems this can be justified in this case.

Note that I will assume this to mean that the reviewers support publication of your revised manuscript.

I have additionally reviewed the revised manuscript myself, and ask you to try to still address/answer the following minor comments:

1. It is a bit surprising, given the importance of the topic and the huge size of computer science, to see so few references in your paper. Is there not more existing work in wind energy on this topic? And what about the state of the art of knowledge and relationship representation using graphs in other discplines - are there not more works that are relevant here?

2. page 13: For readers that are not familiar with the concept, what is an "ontology"? Explain (possibly in a footnote).

3. Section 2.3 on use cases: seems a bit weak - essentially one main use case (pathway discovery) and a few other ideas. More ideas would be appreciated. For example, what about clustering?

4. page 25: Could content harmonization be done automatically / algorithmically?

5. Sect. 3.3.3: Defining disciplines: again, how much of this can/has been automated?

6. Conclusion & Vision: You suggest that the effort for maintaining such a database should be distributed across a community of users. There is an old and famous problem in collaborative writing (e.g. Hypertext and Wikipedia) that applies here as well then: how to keep track of the contributions of individual authors and how to judge their quality? How to guarantee a minimum quality, without centralized quality control? Some comments on this would be welcome here.

7. Is there any relationship between your approach and the mathematical theory of Formal Concept Analysis (in the sense of Ganter & Wille, 1999)? Please comment.

Dear authors,

thank you for addressing all comments in the final version of your manuscript.

Best regards,
michael

congratulation, the paper is now accepted
Joachim Peinke