Matches in Nanopublications for { ?s <https://w3id.org/linkflows/reviews/hasCommentText> ?o ?g. }
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the intersection between the "extracellular matrix" and "cancer cell" is empty. Instead, I would just mention that this class is a subclassOf "cancer cell"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The description of the class seems ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I would replace the object class of skos:related with https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q29032644." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Check again if this is a good fit, if not remove the subclass entirely." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using camel case." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using camel case." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using camel case." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using camel case." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using camel case." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class definition is good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The way the class is defined is good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe a skos:related field should be added as well, having as an object PCI (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2008344)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using "_"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using "_"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using "_"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using "_"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general convention when specifying the name of a new class in Nanobench is to separate the individual elements by a "-", instead of using "_"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general declaration of the class seems ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Maybe a skos:related term can be added in the form of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1754768 as an object." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general class declaration looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I would add a more detailed definition of the class, or just modify slightly the literal label of it and put it in the form of a sentence. Something along the lines of "A clopidrogel therapy whose use is guided by pharmacogenomics."." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I think a correct subclass would be "therapy" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q179661)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I think a correct subclass would be "treatment" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q179661)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I think a skos:related class can be added here. It can be either "pharmacogenomics " (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1152227) or "clopidogrel" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q410237)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I think a skos:related class can be added here. It can be either "pharmacogenomics " (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1152227) or "clopidogrel" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q410237)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general structures is mostly ok." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Good class definition and declaration." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The definition and declaration of the class is good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Great usage of a new nested class." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The definition and declaration of the class look good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The subclass of and related to classes should be added to this class. For instance, the subclass can be "regulatory element" (http://ncicb.nci.nih.gov/xml/owl/EVS/Thesaurus.owl#C13734) and some related classes could be "intron"(https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q207551) and "FTO" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14912501)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general structure is good, but some improvements can be made to make it more complete, like adding a class of which the current one is a subclass of and also adding related classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The class definition and declaration seems good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The capitalization of the "AND" in the class name should be removed and replaced with "and"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The "IRX3" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18046058) and "IRX5" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18035174) classes should be added as related classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general class definition and declaration looks good. If some related classes would be added, it would be even better." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the correct qualifier here would be "generally"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the correct qualifier here would be "generally"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The context class chosen here is wrong as we are not referring to humanity as a whole, but to the individuals that comprise it. As such choosing the class "human" would be correct." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The name of the class needs to be corrected. The general convention when creating a new class in Nanobench is for the individual elements (words) of the class to be separated by a "-" and use capital letters only when the elements are acronyms." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The chosen superclass here is wrong. Instead, the "obesity" class can be used in the skos:related field, which I advise." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I believe the chosen qualifier here should be "generally"." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization should be a "FormalizationActivity". There the original article and the original quote from the article need to be specified, together with the author(s) of the formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The general structure of the formalization seems to reflect very well the chosen scientific claim, except for the qualifier, which can be chosen better." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This is not a subclassof obesity (http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q12174), but a skos:relatedTo class. This should be corrected." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The name of the class was updated according to the Nanobench convention." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Obesity was added as a relatedTo class." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I couldn't find that exact quote from the original paper. It seems that this is a paraphrase whereas it should be the verbatim quote." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance should use the 'Generated by a formalization activity' template." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I feel that the context class of 'clinical entity' doesn't add anything. It's a very general class. Just leaving it empty (= universal class) might make more sense." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "You are now stating that the given deficiency is caused by the ERAD pathway, which doesn't sound right. I suppose it should be something like: it is caused by the dysfunction of the ERAD pathway. So, it would mean to mint a new class 'dysfunction of ERAD pathway' and then use this class in object position." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Very nice that all classes are defined in WikiData." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance part should use the template 'generated from a formalization activity'." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance part should use the template 'generated from a formalization activity'." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The formalization looks solid to me." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The context class 'chemical to gene association' doesn't make sense to me here. I suppose we are talking about individual patients here, so then the context class 'human' would make sense, meaning whenever a human has this condition then it is sometimes related to that other condition *of the same human*." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The label of the superpattern instance should be a short human-readable sentence, not the DOI of the original paper." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "It seems to me that the object class should be something like 'excess or deficiency of vitamin A' and not just 'vitamin A'." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I am not sure about the isSameAs relation. This might be fine depending on how the other classes are filled in in the final version, but I have the impression that it should rather be something like isCausedBy." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Referring to another reviewer's comments, I think having underscores '_' instead of hythens '-' for class URIs is perfectly fine. So, I think no action is required on this." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This looks like a good formalization to me." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I think the label of the superpattern instance, in particular the 'essential regulator' part, is a bit stronger than what the superpattern is actually expressing. I suggest to revise the label a bit such that it better reflects what the formalization says." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Overall, I think this is a very good formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The quote provided in the provenance seems to be a general quote from the source rather than the specific passage on which this formalization is based." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provided label for the superpattern instance refers to 'licenses with a non-commertial clause' in general, whereas the actual formalization has the specific kind of license 'Creative Commons NonCommercial' in subject position. This should be make consistent in one way or the other." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provided label for the superpattern instance refers to 'licenses with a non-commertial clause' in general, whereas the actual formalization has the specific kind of license 'Creative Commons NonCommercial' in subject position. This should be make consistent in one way or the other." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Overall, I think this is a good formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I am a bit uncertain about the subject class. It is defined as a subclass of 'knowledge graph' but seems to be treated more like an instance. I think it would be good to better specify (in the formalization nanopub or the class definition one) what the instances of the class 'OpenBiodiv knowledge graph' really are (maybe the different versions/branches?)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance part should be using the template 'generated from a formalization activity'." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "With a protein class in the object position and a gene in the context, this raises for me the question what it means for a protein to be in the context of a gene. Maybe a class like 'presence of TAR DNA binding protein' in object position might make it clearer? But I am not sure..." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "With a protein class in the object position and a gene in the context, this raises for me the question what it means for a protein to be in the context of a gene. Maybe a class like 'presence of TAR DNA binding protein' in object position might make it clearer? But I am not sure..." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This looks like a very good formalization to me." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "This looks like a very good formalization to me." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "As humans typically belong to many different groups of different kinds, I am inclined to think that the context class should more specifically be 'social group of humans' (possibly with a quite technical and precise definition) and not just 'group of humans'." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I am wondering whether the "never causes" is a bit too strong a relation, also given the natural language sentence. "Never affects" might be more precise than "never causes". (This is also a stronger statement, more likely to be wrong, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.)" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance part should refer to the original publication by using the template 'generated from a formalization activity'." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I find the context class 'Digital Humanities' a bit confusing, as it is unclear to me what the instances of this class are. WikiData is not always very precise about this, but the superpattern is. I believe that a context class like 'Digital Humanities research' (as mentioned in the label) would make more sense." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance of this formalization is a "FormalizationActivity" where the link to the article and the actual quote from the same article from which the scientific claim was derived need to be specified together with the orcid of the formalization author. This should be changed accordingly." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The modeling of the formalization for the specific scientific claim looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Something small: I would start the scientific claim with an upper case and end it with a period." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Reference to the original article is missing" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Reference to the original article is missing" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance section does not contain a reference to the original article" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Reference to the original article is missing." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Reference to the original article is missing." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The object slot of the superpattern refers to the nanopublication that defines the class, instead of the class itself (http://purl.org/np/RAiUYY1dbEDbcsscapEmbMMHsgJmjEJ1yUoNsxZIH1r90#transcription-of-stmn2)." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Apart from the object class link, this is a very convincing formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The relation subClassOf was replaced with skos:related as it matches better the intended meaning. The new class is now related to both - the neocortex and size - classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The relation subClassOf was replaced with skos:related as it matches better the intended meaning. The new class is now related to both - the neocortex and size - classes." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for the review" assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for the review. It has been changed in the formal definition of class which is now skos:related to both - the cortex class and the size class in Wikidata." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Indeed https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q874405 (social group) matches better than https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16334295 (group of humans) and thus was replaced." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I do have to agree. However, I changed it to affects instead of causes since it is a negation and leaves the option open to find a positive correlation in the future." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The missing information have been added." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The provenance is correct, the formalization is the result of a "FormalizationActivity" and the article and exact quote from the article of the scientific claim are present." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Thank you for your comment." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I agree with this formalization." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "I agree with the style adopted for this representation." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "The content of this formalization looks good." assertion.
- comment hasCommentText "Good claim representation" assertion.