The topic is very interesting.  

However, there is a need for an intensive review for the paper format considering the following comments
1. Apply ASCAAD approved paper format in all sections of the paper.
2. Use the letter "O" and not the zero "0"
3. Use of small and capital letters consistently and where appropriate
4. Use of normal and bold letters consistently and where appropriate
5. Use of italic and underlined letters consistently and where appropriate
6. The numbering system used throughout the paper is misleading
7. Use of the same sentence structure in your paragraphs (e.g. Part 1 – 1,2,3,4, etc)

In the traditional methods sections: The author defined what they are without mentioning the advantages and disadvantages of using each type.

Some paragraphs in item 3.7 needed to re-written. The idea that was intended to be communicated through this item is a little bit fragmented.

The paper is missing very critical info about the model:
• How the programmed matrix can be used in education?
• How to structure the model data files so they can be viewed by different people in different ways.
• What are the user needs and interest in using such tool and how the model can address them? (e.g. building materials, construction systems, art, culture, etc)
• No effort is shown in the paper to compare the author experience in documenting historical heritages digitally to other similar efforts in other countries.
• The second step of "data analysis" should include a very critical point which is "defining the users needs and interest" which will dramatically affect the third step.  
 