@prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix this: <http://purl.org/np/RAY9qkiNvXlZJNw3vDFC625oewLNZuo7whCUpVVQYthaw> .
@prefix sub: <http://purl.org/np/RAY9qkiNvXlZJNw3vDFC625oewLNZuo7whCUpVVQYthaw#> .
@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-10 a linkflows:ContentComment , linkflows:NegativeComment , linkflows:ReviewComment , linkflows:SuggestionComment ;
    linkflows:hasCommentText "A controversial point is that the ground truth was created by experts as the results which are evaluated against this. I agree that there is no way around this, but a small discussion on how the authors believe the ground truth data is of better quality than the expert answers would help (e.g., experts did not necessarily put enough effort in the task as the ground truth creators did also by resolving conflicts and discussing difficult triples together etc.)." ;
    linkflows:hasImpact "3"^^xsd:positiveInteger ;
    linkflows:refersTo <http://purl.org/np/RA29zgFEvuBipvMqnrhYli8ZT6sLM6CE6lhJtDm-G6I3g#section> , <http://purl.org/np/RAuwh_oETxyJB59vTb1-vIZ-aYNz7qVoJgt9z_-e1-wJY#section> .
}
sub:provenance {
  sub:assertion prov:hadPrimarySource <http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/sw-160239> ;
    prov:wasAttributedTo <https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7311-3693> .
}
sub:pubinfo {
  this: dc:created "2019-11-26T09:05:11+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
    pav:createdBy <https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7114-6459> .
}