Matches in Nanopublications for { ?s <https://w3id.org/linkflows/reviews/hasCommentText> ?o ?g. }
- comment hasCommentText "Here a 'cancer cell engaged in extracellular matrix' is defined as the intersection between the classes 'cancer cell' and 'extracellular matrix', but as the latter is defined as 'structure external to cells' this intersection is empty. I think this should rather be defined as a subclass of 'cancer cell' with some (possibly informal) link to the concept of 'extracellular matrix'." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe using the "mostly" qualifier would have been better" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe using "mostly" as qualifier would be best." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance looks really good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The name of the class contains the word "with" misspelled." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe changing the "_" into a "-" for newly generated classes" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "A link to a publication might be useful to be added in the provenance" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "There is no link to the original publication" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Very good information provided" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The content is very good" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The label of the spi has a small typo or encoding error: it now appears as STX1B rather than STX1B. I suggest changing that" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance part of this SPI looks good. The content of the paper matches the content of the nanopublication." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I cannot find the original quote 'In the context of Digital Humanities research, usage of the Linked Data Scopes ontology contributes to transparency of the research.' in the given paper https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71903-6_32" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thanks for adding the class as automatic discovery is missing in Wikidata." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Since it is a legal issue, wouldn't https://w3id.org/linkflows/superpattern/latest/alwaysQualifier work better?" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I learned a lot from this formalization. In particular, about nesting object classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The subject class has a related to sub:bulk, but this is undefined in the subject class nanopublication." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class 'cancer cell engaged in extracellular matrix' is defined as an intersection between 'extracellular matrix' and 'cancer cell'. But these two things are different, and cannot be formally intersected. instead, I might suggest that the subject type is a cancer cell that has a relation of 'located in' to an 'extracellular matrix'" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Good formalization of an existing scientific paper with a wikipedia identifier. This also raises the question as to how publications should be referenced - e.g. by their DOI, pubmed, or indeed a wikipedia ID." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "looks good!" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "while this class nanopub is a subclass of size from wikipedia, it doesn't make a formal relation to the neocortex (e.g. that it specifically an attribute of the neocortex). thus, the class formalization could be improved." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This class definition looks OK." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This class definition could be made more precise and more valuable by referring to an identifier for 'regulatory element' (as superclass) and to 'intron' and 'human gene FTO' (with skos:relatedMatch)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This class definition looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The label 'expression of genes IRX3 AND IRX5' unnecessarily capitalizes 'AND', which seems wrong and could be confusing." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "It would be good to add skos:relatedMatch references to identifiers for the genes IRX3 and IRX5." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "It would be good to add a skos:relatedMatch reference to an identifier for PCI." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This formalisation paper captures excellently one of the main claims made in the original article. I have a small comment regarding the style of the formalisation paper itself. There is no quote from the original paper and instead the paraphrased claim was inserted (sub:quote triple in the Provenance section)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I agree with the way the class was defined and commend the author for linking it to a parent Wikidata class (gene expression). The only thing I would change is the uppercase 'and' within the class identifier between the two gene names." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "A provenance source is provided but it does not have the correct link. Instead of the article URL, the author should put the DOI in the form https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1502214. There is also a superfluous comma before the provenance URL." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The usage of dx.doi.org type of DOIs has been deprecated. Instead, the author should use doi.org such as https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71903-6_32 ." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The scientific claim does not seem to be atomic, as it mentions two genes, IRX3 and IRX5. I think it should be broken into two different claims, one for each of these genes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The scientific claim does not seem to be atomic, as it mentions two genes, IRX3 and IRX5. I think it should be broken into two different claims, one for each of these genes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The exact quote from the article should be specified, not the text of the scientific claim in the formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the scientific claim (if we assume the claim is rephrased in an atomic way) seems correct." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the scientific claim (if we assume the claim is rephrased in an atomic way) seems correct." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization is a specific type of provenance, namely, it is the result of a "formalization activity". This should be used in the provenance field with all the corresponding details pertaining to this "formalization activity"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The formalization in the assertion reflects very well the chosen scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "A small thing: to start the sentence containing the scientific claim with an uppercase letter." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "A small thing: to start the sentence containing the scientific claim with an uppercase letter." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The literal for the rdfs:label of the super-pattern instantiation should contain the actual (rephrased) scientific claim (ideally in an AIDA sentence), not the doi to the article. This should be changed." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The literal for the rdfs:label of the super-pattern instantiation should contain the actual (rephrased) scientific claim (ideally in an AIDA sentence), not the doi to the article. This should be changed." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization is a specific type of provenance, namely, it is the result of a "formalization activity". This should be used in the provenance field with all the corresponding details pertaining to this "formalization activity". This is the place where the DOI of the article from which the quoted scientific claim was extracted should be specified." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The subject id http://identifiers.org/omim/610805 does not seem to resolve. Maybe using https://www.omim.org/entry/610805 is better?" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the exact quote from the article of the scientific claim is "Our data show that pharmacogenomics-guided clopidogrel treatment strategy may represent a cost-effective choice compared with non-pharmacogenomics-guided strategy for patients undergoing PCI." and not the actual scientific claim stated there, which is a reformulation of this phrase from the article." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the modelling of the formalization reflects the content of the scientific claim very well." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the modelling of the formalization reflects the content of the scientific claim very well." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization is indeed a special type of activity named "FormalizationActivity". So, this is a good chouce for the provenance field." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The resulting formalization has as a provenance the "FormalizationActivity", which is correct. Moreover, all fields are correctly filled in." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization is very good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization is very good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of the nanopub is as a result of a "FormalizationActivity", as was chosen." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The original quote from the article that contains the scientific claim that is formalized should be written here, instead of the sentence with the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I was wondering if a better context class would be "Digital Humanities research", instead of just "Digital Humanities"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance, which is a "FormalizationActivity" should also include the actual quote from the article from which the scientific claim was derived. As such, the "sub:quote prov:value <quote_from_article_from_which_the_scientific_claim_was_derived>" and "prov:wasQuotedFrom <http://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3130>" should be added." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The scientific claim "mutations in STX1B are associated with epilepsy" contains an unknown or wrong character for the "STX1B" subunit. This should be corrected." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The scientific claim "mutations in STX1B are associated with epilepsy" contains an unknown or wrong character for the "STX1B" subunit. This should be corrected." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe the use of a causal relation like "contributes to" can also be used here." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Something small: starting the sentence containing the scientific claim of the super-pattern with a capital letter." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Something small: starting the sentence containing the scientific claim of the super-pattern with a capital letter." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The correct provenance here is a "FormalizationActivity", as the formalization was derived after such a specific activity. There the original article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng.3130) and the exact quote from the article that contained the scientific claim, together with the ORCID of the creator(s) should be specified." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The correct provenance here is a "FormalizationActivity", as the formalization was derived after such a specific activity. There the original article (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13535) and the exact quote from the article that contained the scientific claim, together with the ORCID of the creator(s) should be specified." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization is good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization is good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe the scientific claim should be rephrased a bit to reflect the growth effect more, instead of just using "mechanically drives"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe the scientific claim should be rephrased a bit to reflect the growth effect more, instead of just using "mechanically drives"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of the formalization needs to be a "FormalizationActivity", but at the moment the "sub:quote" field is missing. There a link to the article from which the scientific claim was taken needs to be specified ("sub:quote prov:wasQuotedFrom <https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0158>"), together with the quote from the article from which the scientific claim was derived ("sub:quote prov:value "add phrase from original article from which the scientific claim was extracted or rephrased" ")." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization seems to reflect well the content of the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization seems to reflect well the content of the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of the formalization should be a "FormalizationActivity". As such, more details can be given about the original article from which the scientific claim was derived, the original content from the article (the quote) of the phrase from which the scientific claim was derived (can be the same as the scientific claim itself if it was not rephrased) and the author of the formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization reflects very well the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization reflects very well the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the formalization reflects very well the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The content of the scientific claim that is modeled in the formalization should be something like "Adherence of a dataset to the FAIR Guiding Principles enables its automated discovery.", instead of containing the interpretation of the mentioned scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The content of the scientific claim that is modeled in the formalization should be something like "Adherence of a dataset to the FAIR Guiding Principles enables its automated discovery.", instead of containing the interpretation of the mentioned scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of the formalization is the result of a "FormalizationAcitvity", which is correctly chosen and filled in." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modeling of the formalization reflects very well the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modeling of the formalization reflects very well the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modeling of the formalization reflects very well the scientific claim." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of the formalization is a "FormalizationActivity" as was correctly chosen and filled in." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance indicates that this is a joint-authored formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The rephrasing of the scientific claim is clear and in an AIDA-form." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I have some doubts about the context class used, as I am not sure if, from a biological point of view, the interpretation of the formalization makes sense." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "If the formalization has multiple authors, then these need to be specified in this part, after choosing the "FormalizationActivity" as provenance of the formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization should be a "FormalizationActivity". As such, the source of the scientific claim (the original scientific article) can be specified, together with the quote from the article that contains the scientific claim and the orcid of the author of the formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I think the object class needs to be "autosomal-recessive-disorder-of-ERAD-pathway" instead of just the "ERAD-pathway"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the formalization structure is good, reflecting almost all the details of the scientific claim. If the missing details about the "autosomal recessive disorder" were to be included, this would make the formalization complete in my view." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class creation and also the related term in Wikidata seem correct." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modelling of the class seems ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general definition of the class seems ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I am not sure this is a correct choice. I would choose the skos:related property instead and use as an object the "neocortex" class, for example." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the skos:related object should be <http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q898356>." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe this should be removed. Instead, the Wikidata class that is in the object would go well as an object of the skos:related to property." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general definition seems ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class definition looks ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I am not sure that this is a correctly chosen Wikidata class in this case, as this is a scientific article." assertion.