@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-8 a linkflows:ActionNeededComment, linkflows:ContentComment, linkflows:NegativeComment, linkflows:ReviewComment; linkflows:hasCommentText "I have a number of concerns on the employed triples. The experts were given the opportunity to find quality issues in triples that were (i) random, (ii) instances of some class or (iii) manually selected; while this can appear reasonable, the effects are that the workers' crowds (in both experimental workflows) were presented with information \"chosen\" by somebody else, thus possibly making the task hard or even impossible because of the triples' domain. I would have expected the authors to make a *controlled experiment*, i.e. selecting a general-purpose subset of DBpedia that - at least from the point of view of the content - was at the same \"difficulty\" level for all the involved crowds."; linkflows:hasImpact "4"^^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 . }