@prefix dc: <
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
> .
@prefix this: <
http://purl.org/np/RAVdBeaGr9VmeCnJiNlfTPmboWHaNL4KliD6Z0l8xkCMY
> .
@prefix sub: <
http://purl.org/np/RAVdBeaGr9VmeCnJiNlfTPmboWHaNL4KliD6Z0l8xkCMY#
> .
@prefix xsd: <
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
> .
@prefix prov: <
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
> .
@prefix pav: <
http://purl.org/pav/
> .
@prefix np: <
http://www.nanopub.org/nschema#
> .
@prefix linkflows: <
https://github.com/LaraHack/linkflows_model/blob/master/Linkflows.ttl#
> .
sub:Head
{
this:
np:hasAssertion
sub:assertion
;
np:hasProvenance
sub:provenance
;
np:hasPublicationInfo
sub:pubinfo
;
a
np:Nanopublication
.
}
sub:assertion
{
sub:comment-7
a
linkflows:ActionNeededComment
,
linkflows:ContentComment
,
linkflows:NegativeComment
,
linkflows:ReviewComment
;
linkflows:hasCommentText
"In Section 5 (Corpus Analysis) the authors \"argue that the loss of information is not significant and can be neglected despite the recall costs\". Again, the term significant should be used with more accuracy or ir should be better justified by providing supporting data and proper analysis." ;
linkflows:hasImpact
"3"^^
xsd:positiveInteger
;
linkflows:refersTo
<
http://purl.org/np/RAjyLA7-iEjl-Gbtz8AnROdFEAkzLvMXmH7OHk4N5lZrU#paragraph
> .
}
sub:provenance
{
sub:assertion
prov:hadPrimarySource
<
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SW-170269
> ;
prov:wasAttributedTo
<
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2928-9496
> .
}
sub:pubinfo
{
this:
dc:created
"2019-11-26T09:05:11+01:00"^^
xsd:dateTime
;
pav:createdBy
<
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7114-6459
> .
}