@prefix dc: .
@prefix this: .
@prefix sub: .
@prefix xsd: .
@prefix prov: .
@prefix pav: .
@prefix np: .
@prefix linkflows: .
sub:Head {
this: np:hasAssertion sub:assertion;
np:hasProvenance sub:provenance;
np:hasPublicationInfo sub:pubinfo;
a np:Nanopublication .
}
sub:assertion {
sub:comment-13 a linkflows:ActionNeededComment, linkflows:ContentComment, linkflows:NegativeComment,
linkflows:ReviewComment;
linkflows:hasCommentText "The representation of generated statements should be better clarified. In fact, in Section 2 they authors provide an example that does not reflect the semantics provided by the example in Section 9 (page 10). Namely, in the first example the authors state that, from the sentence \"In Euro 1992, Germany reached the final, but lost 0-2 to Denmark\", the pipeline generates: * a new statement \"Germany defeat Denmark\" where defeat is the frame * a set of facts about the new property by using FEs. Instead, in the second example, for the same sentence, the pipeline generates * a new statement \":Germany defeat :Defeat01\" * a set of facts about the object :Defeat01 The semantics of the first example leds to extensional issues when adding new facts to a property/frame. This issues seem to be resolved by the second example. However, the statement is completely different as no explicit binary relation is generated between Germany and Denmark. Rather, a more coherent (with respect to first example) and correct formalisation could be the following: :Germany :defeat_01 :Denmark . :defeat_01 rdfs:subPropertyOf :defeat . :defeat_01 :winner :Denmark ; :loser :Germany ; :competition :Euro_1992 ; :score \"0-2\" .";
linkflows:hasImpact "3"^^xsd:positiveInteger;
linkflows:refersTo .
}
sub:provenance {
sub:assertion prov:hadPrimarySource ;
prov:wasAttributedTo .
}
sub:pubinfo {
this: dc:created "2019-11-26T09:05:11+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime;
pav:createdBy .
}