@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-5 a linkflows:ActionNeededComment, linkflows:ContentComment, linkflows:NegativeComment,
linkflows:ReviewComment;
linkflows:hasCommentText "*I also do not completely understand the \"anatomy\" (weird term) of the crowdsourcing task: The description in Section 7.2.1 and Figure 3 suggest that the sentence to be annotated is presented to the workers together with the frame label. How can this be determined in advance? I suspect that this is done by assuming a fixed mapping between lexical units and a frame, which obviously neglects potential lexical ambiguity at the level of lexical units. This aspect needs clarification, and it should be quantified to what extent such ambiguities really occur and pose a problem to the system.";
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 .
}