@prefix dc: <
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
> .
@prefix this: <
http://purl.org/np/RAW21xRuGq4YeRbpbEyzFTIixtH99KmS4VWFZohpuKUA0
> .
@prefix sub: <
http://purl.org/np/RAW21xRuGq4YeRbpbEyzFTIixtH99KmS4VWFZohpuKUA0#
> .
@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-6
a
linkflows:ActionNeededComment
,
linkflows:ContentComment
,
linkflows:NegativeComment
,
linkflows:ReviewComment
;
linkflows:hasCommentText
"In section 2) Linked Data Quality Issues, you focus on three RDF-tripel level quality issues only out of a larger set of Linked Data Quality issues referred to by your previous work in that area. Unfortunately, you do not explain why the 3 categories of quality issues you focus on are representative either for LDQ issues in general and crowdsourcing in particular. What about the other quality issues concerning their importance, representativeness, suitability for crowdsourcing etc? A more detailed discussion would be helpful." ;
linkflows:hasImpact
"3"^^
xsd:positiveInteger
;
linkflows:refersTo
<
http://purl.org/np/RAOr4y-5bLztNKTVISox-ODVKJm1jT_xqo3h7Ojndkpi0#section
> .
}
sub:provenance
{
sub:assertion
prov:hadPrimarySource
<
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/sw-160239
> ;
prov:wasAttributedTo
<
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7069-9804
> .
}
sub:pubinfo
{
this:
dc:created
"2019-11-26T09:05:11+01:00"^^
xsd:dateTime
;
pav:createdBy
<
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7114-6459
> .
}