@prefix dc: <
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
> .
@prefix this: <
http://purl.org/np/RA67JxcqMEH4WxhIx2y1K8-BfwbMVNtgKqpUE0BfouxQY
> .
@prefix sub: <
http://purl.org/np/RA67JxcqMEH4WxhIx2y1K8-BfwbMVNtgKqpUE0BfouxQY#
> .
@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-19
a
linkflows:ActionNeededComment
,
linkflows:ContentComment
,
linkflows:NegativeComment
,
linkflows:ReviewComment
;
linkflows:hasCommentText
"I am not at all convinced about the significance of keeping track of the first answer, even less of the comparison between the first answer and the majority voting: while I understand the cost consideration, it would have been more meaningful to compare 3-worker majority voting vs. 5-worker majority voting, since 1 single worker cannot express any kind of answer \"agreement\" or \"variance\"." ;
linkflows:hasImpact
"4"^^
xsd:positiveInteger
;
linkflows:refersTo
<
http://purl.org/np/RA29zgFEvuBipvMqnrhYli8ZT6sLM6CE6lhJtDm-G6I3g#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
> .
}