@prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix this: <http://purl.org/np/RA8L5NCwfsMKqkv-1i5upvCjMBfVjiwUSjpr6beB4eG5o> .
@prefix sub: <http://purl.org/np/RA8L5NCwfsMKqkv-1i5upvCjMBfVjiwUSjpr6beB4eG5o#> .
@prefix s12: <http://purl.org/np/RAJKl51taD8oyUpPBsicyWXPXN5ocB6XBoJJt_jfzJ6mU> .
@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 "This paper could be improved by adding discussions for the different design decisions made when developing the pipeline. For instance, it remains unclear why it has been chosen to use a POS tagger, but no chunking, no dependency parsing. If such steps do not contribute to the overall performance, or if the pipeline would be to slow, that’s fine. But I would prefer to read about these trade-offs and possible impacts of other decisions." ;
    linkflows:hasImpact "2"^^xsd:positiveInteger ;
    linkflows:refersTo <http://purl.org/np/RAJKl51taD8oyUpPBsicyWXPXN5ocB6XBoJJt_jfzJ6mU#section> .
}
sub:provenance {
  sub:assertion prov:hadPrimarySource <http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SW-170269> ;
    prov:wasAttributedTo <https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2014-6619> .
}
sub:pubinfo {
  this: dc:created "2019-11-26T09:05:11+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
    pav:createdBy <https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7114-6459> .
}