Matches in Nanopublications for { ?s ?p ?o <http://purl.org/np/RAl3eT6d9a8LC6qHVDAAC1xQZJ-b2fyKrXENg_Ii1Xois#assertion>. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- comment-9 type ReviewComment assertion.
- comment-9 type ContentComment assertion.
- comment-9 type NegativeComment assertion.
- comment-9 type ActionNeededComment assertion.
- comment-9 hasImpact "4" assertion.
- comment-9 hasCommentText "Restricting to a set of selected subjects, I think that not all triples were suitable for the intended experiments; indeed, some specific cases emerged that are not related to the intrinsic characteristics of quality assurance; while it is generally ok to let the experimenters find out problems, it is also reasonable to think that, when preparing an experiment, the obvious things that can lead to problems are avoided. Some examples: - specific datatype objects (like dates vs. numbers, which are definitely ok to be mistaken) - owl:sameAs links (which maybe were interpreted in a "purist" way by LD experts who can be careful in accepting those triples because of their logical implications) - rdf:type triples among the incorrect link issues (apparently unclear for the MTurk workers, but partially also to me: why did rdf:type triples were considered among the "links" instead of the "values"?) - DBpedia translation-specific triples (which do not make any sense in such an evaluation setting, and should have been filtered out in the first place)." assertion.
- comment-9 refersTo section assertion.