@prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix this: <http://purl.org/np/RA4UA5a9Cx3mEO1KyTDh_LylQ672CuWhxe929nQ8nQYpg> .
@prefix sub: <http://purl.org/np/RA4UA5a9Cx3mEO1KyTDh_LylQ672CuWhxe929nQ8nQYpg#> .
@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-20 a linkflows:ActionNeededComment , linkflows:ContentComment , linkflows:NegativeComment , linkflows:ReviewComment ;
    linkflows:hasCommentText "I found the baseline section quite weird, since the authors describe the interlinks approach that perfectly makes sense (even if it regards only one of the tested quality issues), but they also introduce the TDQA assessment which cannot be compared to the experiment results (and thus cannot be considered a baseline approach). The authors would better create a baseline (e.g. by using SPIN or ShEx-based constraint checks) to try to identify datatype/language and object values issues (w.r.t. all those cases in which such checks can be implemented, of course); that would be a reasonable baseline to compare to." ;
    linkflows:hasImpact "4"^^xsd:positiveInteger ;
    linkflows:refersTo <http://purl.org/np/RAMJgwVyZqFsg1RLIdpfG7ooMp0KyBwEHVNxX_Iw9cpAk#section> .
}
sub:provenance {
  sub:assertion prov:hadPrimarySource <http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/sw-160239> ;
    prov:wasAttributedTo <https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9962-7193> .
}
sub:pubinfo {
  this: dc:created "2019-11-26T09:05:11+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
    pav:createdBy <https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7114-6459> .
}